asianway
Well-Known Member
I wonder if 3 is a good number - some people travel solo, so it may be 2 point something. Also, does the 78% include DLR? Wasnt Spirit saying WDW has been in the 60s many days now that Animation is open?I’m a numbers person and there’s something that’s been bugging me about WDW’s numbers.
Between theme parks and water parks alone, WDW attendance is about 51M annually. Many park hop. Taking that into account, I’ll guess maybe 35M people actually visit WDW per year.
WDW has about 30,000 rooms. Between families of 3 or 4 and couples, I’ll guess the average number of people in a room is 3. In 2012, the occupancy rate was 78%. So, a rough estimate means that approximately 25.6M (30000 X 3 X 0.78 X 365) people stayed in WDW rooms last year.
Using these numbers alone (35M vs 25.6M) this suggests the overwhelming number of people visiting WDW should be onsite guests.
I’ve always been under the impression that most WDW visitors are offsite guests but have no idea if this is true. If this is correct, then a lot of people are staying at WDW hotels but not visiting the theme parks. If this is the case, then TDO has to be really frustrated. These people are staying in WDW hotels and TDO is offering cheap tickets (incrementally, WDW ticket prices increase by only $10-$14 after 3 days), yet they still can’t get them to into the theme parks.
Based on this, I think one of the goals of NextGen is to get onsite guests back into the theme parks by offering onsite guests first crack at FP+. The idea behind this is that if guests have “good” FP+ for (for example) Peter Pan on Monday, Soarin’ on Tuesday, TSM on Wednesday, Space Mountain on Thursday, etc. won’t they want to use them? If onsite guests are at WDW using them, then they are not heading up I-4 to see “The Boy Who Won’t Be Named”. In turn, this means they are spending money at WDW on food and merchandise.
If you have feedback, I’d be really interested in reading it. Does this make sense? Are there mistakes in my estimates or assumptions?
Good analysis though, never looked at it that way.