Disney, Storms Blamed For Universal Earnings, Attendance Decline

[CTXRover]

The only thing that Disney has done more for EE than Universal did for Mummy is build their own AA. Both created the story, designed the concept and theme, everything else was done by contractors.

I'm not going to pretend that I know the specifics of how Disney and Universal built EE and the Mummy, so I admit the following is really just guesses and assumptions, so feel free to correct me. However, from what I gathered, UC created the storyline for Mummy and several of the effects and was responsible for layering it with its themeing. However, most of the big effects, including the animatronic and pop-up Mummies and projections were developed and installed by subcontractors. As for EE, despite using subcontractors to actually place the steel, I assume that WDI was responsible for actually creating the superstructure that holds the mountain and designing how the mountain and coaster would fit together. Vekoma supplied the track, but it was definetely with WDI that they designed the layout. At the very least, it was WDI that created the look of the outside and inside of the mountain, scanned it into computers and it was Disney's own patented machines that bent steel to create the metal cages used to make the outside frame to which the concrete of the mountain was applied. In all, I'd have to guess that WDI was very much more involved in developing EE than UC was in developing Mummy.

 

[CTXRover]

\Also, Universal's drop in attendence is a no brainer since last year was a record breaking year. With adding nothing new this year, how could they improve their numbers from the year before?

Its easy to have what appears to be a record breaking year based on estimates handed out by Amusement Business magazine when the estimated attendance from previous years was "lowered" by them before releasing the 2004 numbers. While attendance at any of the parks is never officially made public, the estimated attendance for 2004 was actually lower than what AB had originally estimated its attendance to be for 2003. When you look back at USF's estimated attendance since it opened, I believe 2004 was its second lowest attended year to date, taking into account the adjusted 2003 numbers. The attendance during the last quarter must have been significantly lower than expected to publicly "blame" Disney for it and I'm sure they can't be happy that the Mummy, Shrek and Jimmy Neutron didn't keep their apparent momentum from last year going. Hopefully they've got some new stuff up their sleeve for the future. Now would certainly be the time...And simply opening up a ride in Suess Landing that should have opened when the park did will not be enough for next year, but that looks like that will be it for both the parks.

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

Who gives a monkeys, the mummy is a fine attraction.

 

[Lynx04]

I'm not going to pretend that I know the specifics of how Disney and Universal built EE and the Mummy, so I admit the following is really just guesses and assumptions, so feel free to correct me. However, from what I gathered, UC created the storyline for Mummy and several of the effects and was responsible for layering it with its themeing. However, most of the big effects, including the animatronic and pop-up Mummies and projections were developed and installed by subcontractors. As for EE, despite using subcontractors to actually place the steel, I assume that WDI was responsible for actually creating the superstructure that holds the mountain and designing how the mountain and coaster would fit together. Vekoma supplied the track, but it was definetely with WDI that they designed the layout. At the very least, it was WDI that created the look of the outside and inside of the mountain, scanned it into computers and it was Disney's own patented machines that bent steel to create the metal cages used to make the outside frame to which the concrete of the mountain was applied. In all, I'd have to guess that WDI was very much more involved in developing EE than UC was in developing Mummy.

The layout of any attraction is always done in concideration of what client wants. In other words the Mummy's layout and EE's layout had input from their respected clients when it came to coaster type and layout.

My point is to say Universal has very little input on their attraction as some claim is incorrect. Disney does have more capabilities to do more things themself, but Universal works right with these other companies to produce what they want, just as much as Disney does.

 

[Lynx04]

Its easy to have what appears to be a record breaking year based on estimates handed out by Amusement Business magazine when the estimated attendance from previous years was "lowered" by them before releasing the 2004 numbers. While attendance at any of the parks is never officially made public, the estimated attendance for 2004 was actually lower than what AB had originally estimated its attendance to be for 2003. When you look back at USF's estimated attendance since it opened, I believe 2004 was its second lowest attended year to date, taking into account the adjusted 2003 numbers. The attendance during the last quarter must have been significantly lower than expected to publicly "blame" Disney for it and I'm sure they can't be happy that the Mummy, Shrek and Jimmy Neutron didn't keep their apparent momentum from last year going. Hopefully they've got some new stuff up their sleeve for the future. Now would certainly be the time...And simply opening up a ride in Suess Landing that should have opened when the park did will not be enough for next year, but that looks like that will be it for both the parks.

Even if the averages were off, any park that opens up new attraction will see an increase in traffic and each year following that a new attraction does open will see a drop.

Disney is extremely fortunate to have 4 parks, if they play their cards right they could have a nice size attraction open in at least one of their parks ever year or two. This will give people a reason to come back to the resort to visit. Also, you notice after every celebration, they find some thing else to celebrate, it is a great marketing tool.

 

[NemoRocks78]

James... look to the area behind MiB to start being developed soon, also.

About time they start using all that space back there....

 

[Michael72688]

I really wish Universal would look to their southern most neighbors and take a few tips and maybe use them. Now I dont want Universal to become Disney because it is unique in its own way, but there are so many things that could be done differently to help improve what Universal offers. I still think its funny Islands of Adventure was built for about 9 million guests, they had just over 6 million last year and it was a good year, there is a lot of room for major improvement.

 

[CTXRover]

.

My point is to say Universal has very little input on their attraction as some claim is incorrect....Universal works right with these other companies to produce what they want, just as much as Disney does.

I agree. I hope I didn't give the impression that I thought UC didn't contribute a lot to the creation of an attraction. I was simply trying to clear up the idea that WDI subcontracted EE out the way UC did with the Mummy. Both use subcontractors, both design the attraction, but I'm under the assumption that WDI was much more integral into the actual design and construction of EE than UC was with the Mummy. Either way, UC has proven that you don't need a full-time staff of creative and construction members to create great attractions. As long as you have a core group of creative folks to develop the ideas, that goes a long way.

 

[CTXRover]

Even if the averages were off, any park that opens up new attraction will see an increase in traffic and each year following that a new attraction does open will see a drop.

Not necessarily. While a new ride will certainly cause an uptick in attendance for that given year, at the very least the hope is a new ride will continue to serve the needs of a park for more than just one year. Universal does seem to have its ups and downs more similar to a park that serves a local market more than it does a tourist market. That's not a bad thing by any means, but an observation. A new attraction should at the very least maintain enough momentum to keep a park from falling back to pre-new ride numbers one year later as tourists nationwide continue to come and experience it. Otherwise, what's the point of opening a multi-million dollar themed ride if it can't sustain and maintain attendance increases past 6-12 months? Universal needs to take a more aggressive marketing strategy to keep attendance up. With Disney's new techniques to keep patrons on property and keep them longer, Universal is probably discovering the hard truth that it does depend on Disney to an extent to keep their parks busy. Otherwise, how do we explain the apparent increases down the road and the decreases at UO?

 

[sillyspook13]

Corrus is right. $500 isn't worth it for Universal. I paid almost that for my Premium AP (before discounts), and I don't need to go to Uni.

I would take the $500 if I was allowed to go in, ride The Mummy, then leave. But not to spend a day at both parks....:animwink:

And, after working in foods for a year and a half, I don't eat at Universal parks.....:hurl:

 

[Tim G]

Based on the attractions Universal has, it isn't as if they really suffered. There are attractions at Universal that are far superior to Disneys. The average person doesn't look as deep into the parks as much as us die hard fans do. Some times you have to step back and try to look at things objectively, not subjectively.

The only thing that Disney has done more for EE than Universal did for Mummy is build their own AA. Both created the story, designed the concept and theme, everything else was done by contractors.

Except for the Vekoma people, the rest working on the site is genuine WDC...

And... FYI... I wasn't the one who said that Universal sucks...


EOD...


Have a Magical Day!

 

[JT3000]

I have only been to Universal twice, once in 1986 and again in March 2005. Both times the park was dirty, looked liked it need lots of work done and pretty much just sucked. When I went in march we arrived at 10am and had gone on every single ride/show besides the mummy (it was broken that day) by 2:30pm. So 4 1/2 hours to do almost everything.... talk about needing to add some stuff...

Yeah, I know what you mean. The park was REALLY dirty and needed A LOT of work done in 1986. Thankfully, they got most of that work done by the time the park debuted in 1990. Trees and squirrels really do suck. :hurl:

I'd wager that a good majority of the people throwing unfounded insults at Universal (and even it's guests) have either not been there since it's mediocre early years or simply haven't been there at all (especially IOA). I love all the blind hatred though. Makes the lines I have to wait in for my favorite attractions a lot shorter. What I don't love is the vile, almost rabid way many Disney fanatics choose to go about spewing their venom in every direction online, specifically in (what could have been constructive) discussions pertaining to Disney's competitors. It's really frightening, quite frankly. It's the reason I usually avoid most Disney boards, including this one, even though I enjoy WDW almost equally with UO. I'm probably done for a couple more months. :lookaroun

Oh, and I didn't see it mentioned already, which I find kinda strange considering the topic, so I thought I'd just throw this little tidbit out there:

It's a known fact that WDW is struggling tremendously this year in attendance. Probably due to many of the same reasons as Universal. But it's quite obvious that WDW's tough marketing is a non-issue, since Disney themselves have gained nothing from it. It's sad that they felt the need to spread DL's "special" celebration around to every single park they own, and are not seeing results anywhere but DL itself. Maybe they should rethink their celebration happy ways?

 

[mousermerf]

Umm.. attendance is up 10% at WDW....

 

[NemoRocks78]

Umm.. attendance is up 10% at WDW....

Didn't the 3rd Quarter report state that attendance was down?

 

[Michael72688]

I know theme parks around the nation, not only Universal are having a difficult year attendance wise. I'm guessing gas prices and of course all the hurricanes, Cedar point is lowering their prices for next season to entice more people

 

[mousermerf]

Didn't the 3rd Quarter report state that attendance was down?

No.. if anything, it might have said DL was flat - but WDW is up.

Edit:

Reviewed the earnings releases...

3rd Quarter - WDW, higher occupancy, attendance not mentioned, but DL up, WDW spending up

4th Quarter - WDW high occ, attendance up (slightly lower spending), DL spend and attendance up

And from Orlando Sentinel:

"While the company does not break out numbers for each park, Walt Disney World saw attendance increase 10 percent during the fourth quarter ended Oct. 1, Chief Financial Officer Tom Staggs said during the conference call. Hotel occupancy rose to 77 percent."

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/custom/tourism/orl-disney1805nov18,0,3485231.story?track=rss

 

[Timmay]

Yes, this is a Disney board...but isn't this a Universal section within the board? Maybe the thought was that this could be a place where people that enjoyed Universal as well as Disney could come and talk about Universal without all the one-sided opinions rearing their ugly heads.

:veryconfu