Comcast CEO: "Universal will compete aggressively with Disney"

[Funmeister]

This switched Star Tours from C/D attraction to a D/E attraction. Having said that, how often do "refreshes" or "replacements" ever move the needle? You're absolutely right about this. Having said that, it was very popular in Florida because it had 67% of the capacity in a park that draws 50% more guests than DHS. It was also advertised throughout California whereas Disney failed to advertise Star Tours up and down the East coast.

The park needed the Monster's Inc Coaster (or some other D ticket) a few years ago, and even with that it would still need the Star Wars expansion. It will get passed by one or both Universal parks in attendance, it's only a matter of when.

Randomized ToT at Studios increased attendance. So did Test Track and Mission:Space at Epcot. I would also consider Soarin' as a refresh since it is part of an existing pavilion. Expedition Everest was a refresh because it was added to an existing land (Asia). Those are a few that did have a positive impact.

 

[TubaGeek]

Randomized ToT at Studios increased attendance. So did Test Track and Mission:Space at Epcot. I would also consider Soarin' as a refresh since it is part of an existing pavilion. Expedition Everest was a refresh because it was added to an existing land (Asia). Those are a few that did have a positive impact.

TT, M:S, Soarin', and Everest were all MUCH bigger projects than ST 2. TT, M:S, and Soarin' replaced much smaller, and completely different, attractions, and Asia EXPANDED to allow EE. To Joe Tourist, Star Tours went from being a simulator to being a... simulator.

 

[lebeau]

TT, M:S, Soarin', and Everest were all MUCH bigger projects than ST 2. TT, M:S, and Soarin' replaced much smaller, and completely different, attractions, and Asia EXPANDED to allow EE. To Joe Tourist, Star Tours went from being a simulator to being a... simulator.

I think to Joe Tourist (and even a lot of regulars) ST went from being an embarassingly outdated simulator to a similator that will help pad out your day at DHS since there isn't much else to do.

I think a lot of people - especially here - vastly over-estimate the appeal of ST 2.0. I have heard that complaint about lack of advertising and I just don't get it. What was Disney supposed to advertise? That ST isn't a relic any more? Except it kind of still is in terms of the ride experience.

ST 2.0 was a relatively modest enhancement. Much needed and very efficent. Disney got some bang for their buck. But it's still not going to draw people to a 1/2 day park.

 

[TubaGeek]

I think to Joe Tourist (and even a lot of regulars) ST went from being an embarassingly outdated simulator to a similator that will help pad out your day at DHS since there isn't much else to do.

I think a lot of people - especially here - vastly over-estimate the appeal of ST 2.0. I have heard that complaint about lack of advertising and I just don't get it. What was Disney supposed to advertise? That ST isn't a relic any more? Except it kind of still is in terms of the ride experience.

ST 2.0 was a relatively modest enhancement. Much needed and very efficent. Disney got some bang for their buck. But it's still not going to draw people to a 1/2 day park.

I think the naming issue was tough as well. The gaming world is seeing this now as the Wii U is underselling, in no small part because people don't see it as a new experience as much as an add-on to the Wii (which it's not). Tacking on "2: The Adventure Continues" isn't really gonna help draw a crowd, but, obviously, you don't want to abandon the Star Tours name, so it was kind of a rock and a hard place.

 

[rd805]

I think the naming issue was tough as well. The gaming world is seeing this now as the Wii U is underselling, in no small part because people don't see it as a new experience as much as an add-on to the Wii (which it's not). Tacking on "2: The Adventure Continues" isn't really gonna help draw a crowd, but, obviously, you don't want to abandon the Star Tours name, so it was kind of a rock and a hard place.

With that being said...i love my wiiu. lol

 

[Funmeister]

TT, M:S, Soarin', and Everest were all MUCH bigger projects than ST 2. TT, M:S, and Soarin' replaced much smaller, and completely different, attractions, and Asia EXPANDED to allow EE. To Joe Tourist, Star Tours went from being a simulator to being a... simulator.

I agree but the post I responded to did not mention scale or size of "replacement" or "refresh." Correct?

 

[Matt_Black]

I agree but the post I responded to did not mention scale or size of "replacement" or "refresh." Correct?

 

[TubaGeek]

I agree but the post I responded to did not mention scale or size of "replacement" or "refresh." Correct?

Correct? Sorry, I can't concentrate while looking at your avatar. What in the world is that from?

 

[biggy H]

Could be worse... It could acknowledge the Star Wars Holiday Special....

I've got a rather dodgy copy of that but never watched much more than the beginning.... If the kids play up I threaten to make them watch it...

 

[RSoxNo1]

Randomized ToT at Studios increased attendance. So did Test Track and Mission:Space at Epcot. I would also consider Soarin' as a refresh since it is part of an existing pavilion. Expedition Everest was a refresh because it was added to an existing land (Asia). Those are a few that did have a positive impact.

You're adapting the term of addition vs. "refresh". Test Track and Star Tours are new attractions in the same way that Stitch's Great Escape is a new attraction relative to Alien Encounter. In theory they are improvements, and with Star Tours, that's more or less considered true by all people that have experience both.

Soarin' and Expedition Everest were both additions. Soarin resulted in a sustained attendance increase of around 500-600K while Everest resulted in a sustained increase of around 1.2 million. The numbers aren't in on Star Tours yet from TEA, but there have been a few reports of Disney being unhappy with the results. Test Track (the first time around) resulted in a decrease in attendance at Epcot, and then two years ago the numbers have the 9/11 factor built in. The increase for Mission: SPACE was substantial (9% increase), but all other parks were 6%+ because of the post 9/11 recovery.

 

[RSoxNo1]

I think to Joe Tourist (and even a lot of regulars) ST went from being an embarassingly outdated simulator to a similator that will help pad out your day at DHS since there isn't much else to do.

I think a lot of people - especially here - vastly over-estimate the appeal of ST 2.0. I have heard that complaint about lack of advertising and I just don't get it. What was Disney supposed to advertise? That ST isn't a relic any more? Except it kind of still is in terms of the ride experience.

ST 2.0 was a relatively modest enhancement. Much needed and very efficent. Disney got some bang for their buck. But it's still not going to draw people to a 1/2 day park.

How about some of these commercials along the East Coast:

 

[Skibum1970]

How about some of these commercials along the East Coast:

I loved that commercial. Favorite part is when Vader lights up the lightsaber in the Haunted Mansion. Good stuff.

 

[Funmeister]

You're adapting the term of addition vs. "refresh". Test Track and Star Tours are new attractions in the same way that Stitch's Great Escape is a new attraction relative to Alien Encounter. In theory they are improvements, and with Star Tours, that's more or less considered true by all people that have experience both.

Soarin' and Expedition Everest were both additions. Soarin resulted in a sustained attendance increase of around 500-600K while Everest resulted in a sustained increase of around 1.2 million. The numbers aren't in on Star Tours yet from TEA, but there have been a few reports of Disney being unhappy with the results. Test Track (the first time around) resulted in a decrease in attendance at Epcot, and then two years ago the numbers have the 9/11 factor built in. The increase for Mission: SPACE was substantial (9% increase), but all other parks were 6%+ because of the post 9/11 recovery.

No. You said "how often do "refreshes" or "replacements" ever move the needle?" Those are your words. You are the one that brought up "replacement" correct? Technically Soarin "replaced" Food Rocks. By the way an "addition" can also be a "replacement." I guess it is impossible that a "refreshed" or "replaced" attraction contributed to the post 9/11 recovery?

I think you may have been confused when you said "refresh" and "replacement."

 

[RSoxNo1]

No. You said "how often do "refreshes" or "replacements" ever move the needle?" Those are your words. You are the one that brought up "replacement" correct? Technically Soarin "replaced" Food Rocks. By the way an "addition" can also be a "replacement." I guess it is impossible that a "refreshed" or "replaced" attraction contributed to the post 9/11 recovery?

I think you may have been confused when you said "refresh" and "replacement."

I wasn't confused, you're changing how I'm defining the word. By your definition anything short of a brand new land added to the park is a refresh. Something like Expedition Everest was very clearly an expansion to Asia but under your definition it is a "refresh" because Asia already existed. We're arguing semantics at this point, so that part of the discussion is done from my end.

Looking at new attractions (regardless of the classification of refresh/refurbishment/expansion), the most successful addition in recent years has been Expedition Everest. It came during an aggressive build cycle during the Happiest Celebration on Earth. It saw Soarin', Lights Motors Action and Everest all built within 7 months of one another.
May 5, 2005: Soarin'/Lights Motors Action
Jan 6, 2006/April 7, 2006: Everest

From 2004-2007 The parks grew in attendance at the following rates:
MK: 12.24%
Epcot: 16.28%
DHS: 14.58%
DAK: 21.67%

Something like Mission: SPACE helped Epcot, but not to the same extent. It opened on August 15, 2003. From 2002-2004 attendance increased signifcantly across the parks:
MK: 8.26% (14,040,000 to 15,200,000)
EPCOT: 13.53% (8,280,000 to 9,400,000)
DHS: 3.36 % (8,030,000 to 8,300,000)
DAK: 6.85% (7,300,000 to 7,800,000)
However, when you look at this in the context of 9/11 it took until 2004 or later for each park to match or exceed their 2000 attendance numbers.
MK: 15,200,000 in 2000, Didn't match that until 2004
Epcot: 10,300,000 in 2000, Exceeded that for the first time in 2006 (10,460,000)
DHS: 8,800,000 in 2000, Exceeded that for the first time in 2006 (9,100,000)
DAK: 8,200,000 in 2000, Matched that in 2005

 

[JustinSt]

Thanks to Potter and Prime, attendance and spending are still climbing at Univerasl Orlando


Facebook



Twitter



Jason Garcia

7:36 am, January 28, 2014
Powered by Harry Potter and Optimus Prime, Universal Orlando and the rest of NBCUniversal’s theme parks threw off more than $1 billion in cash for their owners in 2013, the first time they have ever eclipsed the mark.

Executives at parent company Comcast Corp., which reported fourth-quarter earnings Tuesday, called it a “very exciting milestone” for their theme-park business and predicted results will swell even further this year on the strength of a second Potter-themed land in Orlando: The Wizarding World of Harry Potter – Diagon Alley, which will open by this summer in Universal Studios Florida.

“We remain excited and optimistic about the next phase of Harry Potter and expect this to generate strong returns by increasing profitability and attendance and continuing the transformation of our parks into must-visit destinations,” Comcast Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer Michael Angelakis said on a conference call with analysts.

The confident forecast followed a fourth quarter in which Universal Parks & Resorts’ operating cash flow — a measure of profitability — rose 4.6 percent, climbing to $257 million from $245 million a year ago. Total revenue jumped 8.8 percent to $566 million.

Though it did not disclose precise figures, Comcast said attendance and visitor spending rose during the quarter at both of its domestic resorts: the two-park Universal Orlando and Universal Studios Hollywood in Southern California. Executives credited the continued strength of the original — and now nearly four-year-old — Wizarding World of Harry Potter in Universal’s Islands of Adventure theme park, as well as Transformers-themed thrill rides that have been built on both coasts.

For the full year, operating cash flow at the theme parks rose 5.3 percent to $1 billion on sales that leapt 7.2 percent to $2.2 billion. The division also earns licensing fees from overseas theme parks.

Comcast said cash flow at the theme parks has more than doubled from $400 million in 2009, the year it struck a deal to acquire NBCUniversal from General Electric Co. Combined attendance in Florida and California has soared more than 40 percent over the same period.

The Philadelphia-based cable giant is now aggressively expanding those parks. NBCUniversal’s total capital spending increased by nearly $400 million in 2013 — to $1.2 billion total — amid construction of everything from a Transformers ride and a Simpsons-themed retail area, both of which opened in Universal Studios Florida last year, to Diagon Alley and Cabana Bay Beach Resort, which will become the company’s fourth-on-site hotel in Orlando when it opens in the coming weeks.

Comcast said NBCUniversal’s capital spending will remain at around $1.2 billion this year, primarily because of Diagon Alley and a copy of the original Wizarding World being built in California.

“We think that cash flow in the theme parks can increase significantly with investments like Harry Potter 2, hotels and other investments in the future,” NBCUniversal Chief Executive Officer Steve Burke told analysts.


All u.s. Universal parks have increases for 2013. Expect this to go even further for 2014, and 2015. During these two years, ioa will see new addition in Jurassic park, and USF will also see some entertainment additions.

 

[lebeau]

How about some of these commercials along the East Coast:

I would see that as a waste of advertising money. If it enticed anyone to take a trip to Orlando just to see ST, they would likely be horribly disappointed by what is essentially Disney catching up on decades of neglect. It was a good upgrade. But not a reason to plan a vacation.

Marketing it to the DL locals makes more sense to me.

 

[Matt_Black]

I would see that as a waste of advertising money. If it enticed anyone to take a trip to Orlando just to see ST, they would likely be horribly disappointed by what is essentially Disney catching up on decades of neglect. It was a good upgrade. But not a reason to plan a vacation.

Marketing it to the DL locals makes more sense to me.

Actually, they just re-edited the commercial they used for the Star Tours refurb in Disneyland, so they saved money.

 

[lebeau]

Actually, they just re-edited the commercial they used for the Star Tours refurb in Disneyland, so they saved money.

I wasn't referring to the costs of producing the ads. I was talking about paying to run them.

 

[George]

I would see that as a waste of advertising money. If it enticed anyone to take a trip to Orlando just to see ST, they would likely be horribly disappointed by what is essentially Disney catching up on decades of neglect. It was a good upgrade. But not a reason to plan a vacation.

Marketing it to the DL locals makes more sense to me.

They actually tried a "Making up for Decades of Neglect" advertising campaign last year, but realized that in order to follow through they'd have to do some work and maybe even consider having some kind of maintenance team around. So, they went with "Limited Time Magic" since the phrase itself has the probability of failure built into it.