Spirited News & Observations II -- NGE/Baxter

jakeman

jakeman

Well-Known Member
GLaDOS said:
More about you being whiny about someone making a mistake. I confused Orlando numbers with industry numbers. Hang me. I'm the worst person EVER.

I'm done with this now.
Click to expand...
Whiny? I corrected your mistake with the same tone in which you perpetuated the falsity and then you got your feelings hurt.

If you are going to be brusque with posters, I would hope that you would expect brusqueness in response.

It's okay that you're done. This was starting to be a chore anyways.
 
flynnibus

flynnibus

Premium Member
The Empress Lilly said:
Nah, that's just UNI management agreeing with Tim and I that Potter phase I is all but maxed out and that they need to ignite the second stage rocket, because Potter I is not going to give them another attendance boost.
Click to expand...

How many sequential boosts do you think ANY attraction will generate?

Do you think DLR is running around trying to find DCa v3 because their Carsland boost is 'all but maxed out' because the peak of gains to attendance and revenue has been passed?

Your logic confuses growth with actual gains and overlooks that if you grew 10, 5, and then 1%... you are still well above where you started. As long as the ground gained is sustained... the attraction did it's job. What you are suggesting would actually require negative growth numbers... and that's not what has been happening.

HP v1 boosted IOA... it has sustained those gains, and even continued gaining. No attraction will keep accelerating growth.. their job is to increase and then sustain capacity and revenue. By all accounts, HP v1 has done that.

If your standard is an attraction is supposed to add 5% growth YoY for many years.. you're delusional.

The Empress Lilly said:
Just like UNI agrees that there are capacity problems at Ollivanders by the sheer fact of their tripling the capacity of it. :p
Click to expand...


If you mean 'we have so much demand.. it exceeds supply' as a negative.. I'll take that any day of the week. You paint this as a mistake. Is BOG a mistake for being booked out for so far ahead too?
 
asianway

asianway

Well-Known Member
flynnibus said:
If you mean 'we have so much demand.. it exceeds supply' as a negative.. I'll take that any day of the week. You paint this as a mistake. Is BOG a mistake for being booked out for so far ahead too?
Click to expand...

Good point - too much capacity, and you end up with Future World circa 2003.
 
The Empress Lilly

The Empress Lilly

Well-Known Member
flynnibus said:
HP v1 boosted IOA... it has sustained those gains, and even continued gaining. No attraction will keep accelerating growth.. their job is to increase and then sustain capacity and revenue. By all accounts, HP v1 has done that.
Click to expand...
And this has been exactly my sole point all along.
wink2.gif


If you mean 'we have so much demand.. it exceeds supply' as a negative.. I'll take that any day of the week. You paint this as a mistake. Is BOG a mistake for being booked out for so far ahead too?
Click to expand...
Why would I paint that as a mistake? I'm not into fanboyism, either way. I am discussing the capacity of IoA, which I think is very uneven: Potter easily reaches capacity, with Ollivander being its biggest bottleneck, while the rest of IoA has capacity to spare.
nixweiss.gif

It's a neutral remark, just as my reading of the TEA numbers. I don't interpret according to fannish wish, but according to rational conviction. (Except when disagreeing with Spirit, for which I receive park privileges from Mongello).
 
TalkingHead

TalkingHead

Well-Known Member
flynnibus said:
Your logic confuses growth with actual gains and overlooks that if you grew 10, 5, and then 1%... you are still well above where you started. As long as the ground gained is sustained... the attraction did it's job. What you are suggesting would actually require negative growth numbers... and that's not what has been happening.

HP v1 boosted IOA... it has sustained those gains, and even continued gaining. No attraction will keep accelerating growth.. their job is to increase and then sustain capacity and revenue. By all accounts, HP v1 has done that.
Click to expand...

This point is even clearer when you look at the history of IOA attendance.

2009 ... 4,267,000
2010 ... 5,949,000
2011 ... 7,674,000
2012 ... 7,981,000

HP "has sustained those [attendance] gains," as you said, is the chief point. Even at 4% growth for 2012, the total attendance is up 3.7 million from the low of 2009.

And something that hasn't been touched upon nearly enough in the discussions of TEA's numbers is the factor of guest spending.

It's my understanding that the attendance figure is a general barometer of a park's success, but the guest-spending numbers are what the management teams truly care about.

4.0% growth or 15% growth, there's still a lot of Butterbeer and magic wands being sold.
 
asianway

asianway

Well-Known Member
TalkingHead said:
This point is even clearer when you look at the history of IOA attendance.

2009 ... 4,267,000
2010 ... 5,949,000
2011 ... 7,674,000
2012 ... 7,981,000

HP "has sustained those [attendance] gains," as you said, is the chief point. Even at 4% growth for 2012, the total attendance is up 3.7 million from the low of 2009.

And something that hasn't been touched upon nearly enough in the discussions of TEA's numbers is the factor of guest spending.

It's my understanding that the attendance figure is a general barometer of a park's success, but the guest-spending numbers are what the management teams truly care about.

4.0% growth or 15% growth, there's still a lot of Butterbeer and magic wands being sold.
Click to expand...
And theres a lot of Bologna sandwiches being eaten at the MK.
 
RSoxNo1

RSoxNo1

Well-Known Member
TalkingHead said:
This point is even clearer when you look at the history of IOA attendance.

2009 ... 4,267,000
2010 ... 5,949,000
2011 ... 7,674,000
2012 ... 7,981,000

HP "has sustained those [attendance] gains," as you said, is the chief point. Even at 4% growth for 2012, the total attendance is up 3.7 million from the low of 2009.

And something that hasn't been touched upon nearly enough in the discussions of TEA's numbers is the factor of guest spending.

It's my understanding that the attendance figure is a general barometer of a park's success, but the guest-spending numbers are what the management teams truly care about.

4.0% growth or 15% growth, there's still a lot of Butterbeer and magic wands being sold.
Click to expand...
It should be noted that attendance dropped leading up to Potter, but it is still well above any pre-Potter levels.
 
The Empress Lilly

The Empress Lilly

Well-Known Member
TalkingHead said:
This point is even clearer when you look at the history of IOA attendance.

2009 ... 4,267,000
2010 ... 5,949,000
2011 ... 7,674,000
2012 ... 7,981,000

HP "has sustained those [attendance] gains," as you said, is the chief point. Even at 4% growth for 2012, the total attendance is up 3.7 million from the low of 2009.

And something that hasn't been touched upon nearly enough in the discussions of TEA's numbers is the factor of guest spending.

It's my understanding that the attendance figure is a general barometer of a park's success, but the guest-spending numbers are what the management teams truly care about.

4.0% growth or 15% growth, there's still a lot of Butterbeer and magic wands being sold.
Click to expand...
Yes, guest spending is the other number in the basic formula of 'guest spending * number of guests - expenses = profit'.

IoA increase:
2009 -11.3% (that's indeed negative)
2010 30.2% (seven months of Potter)
2011 29.0% (first full year)
2012 4%

If you'd put that in a graph, it would show the Potter levelling out of which we speak. IoA went way down in 2009 in anticipation of Potter. Shot up after Potter's opening in June 2010. Had lower growth rate in 2011 but managed to sustain a 29% growth in 2011 because it was Potter's first full year. And in 2012 it continued to level off, to just above average Orlando growth.
 
TalkingHead

TalkingHead

Well-Known Member
The Empress Lilly said:
Yes, guest spending is the other number in the basic formula of 'guest spending * number of guests - expenses = profit'.

IoA increase:
2009 -11.3% (that's indeed negative)
2010 30.2% (seven months of Potter)
2011 29.0% (first full year)
2012 4%

If you'd put that in a graph, it would show the Potter levelling out of which we speak. IoA went way down in 2009 in anticipation of Potter. Shot up after Potter's opening in June 2010. Had lower growth rate in 2011 but managed to sustain a 29% growth in 2011 because it was Potter's first full year. And in 2012 it continued to level off, to just above average Orlando growth.
Click to expand...

But what do those numbers have to do with guest spending? Aren't you just repeating yourself at this point?

The point Flynn was making is that 2012 may be "only" 4% growth, but the park's attendance is still much higher than pre-HP 2008/9. It's sustained the jump it made three years ago.

I'm not even sure what your point is -- arguing for the sake of arguing?
 
The Empress Lilly

The Empress Lilly

Well-Known Member
TalkingHead said:
But what do those numbers have to do with guest spending? Aren't you just repeating yourself at this point?

The point Flynn was making is that 2012 may be "only" 4% growth, but the park's attendance is still much higher than pre-HP 2008/9. It's sustained the jump it made three years ago.

I'm not even sure what your point is -- arguing for the sake of arguing?
Click to expand...
The point is having a pleasant discussion with you about the interpretation of IoA's numbers since Potter.
 
flynnibus

flynnibus

Premium Member
RSoxNo1 said:
It should be noted that attendance dropped leading up to Potter, but it is still well above any pre-Potter levels.
Click to expand...


Even a stronger indicator of HP's success.. this talk of HP was already topped out and Uni was desperate to shore up the numbers is complete BS by Tim and SirOinks.

The new rounds of investment show that comcast isn't content with stabilizing the product.. but leveraging it.
 
Goofyernmost

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
The Empress Lilly said:
IoA increase:
2009 -11.3% (that's indeed negative)
2010 30.2% (seven months of Potter)
2011 29.0% (first full year)
2012 4%
Click to expand...

If I did the math right (always a question) this is what I see based on the numbers listed. For simplicity we will use small numbers. Let's assume that the number of customers for 2008 was 1000.
2009 -11.3% = 870
2010 +30.2% = 1133
2011 +29% = 1459
2012 +4% = 1517
Even though the numbers started to be more in line with everyone else the initial improvement between 2009 and 2012 was a whopping 74%. It cannot be expected to maintain the initial degree of growth no matter how good it was, but it did substantially increase the overall attendance and then was able to maintain that even after the hubbub subsided. That tells me that it is still working at drawing people in at a very good rate and not only holding it there but improving it. Any business would like to see those numbers. Someone else can use the same model and see what Disney did for growth during those same years. I'm betting that it wasn't anywhere near IOA numbers. I'm also pretty sure that it didn't send a shot of panic in the Universal management group. But they did see a good thing and expanded or are expanding on it to insure future growth. As they win people over they will take business away from Disney, the people come from somewhere don't they? Uni goes up a lot and Disney remains stagnant. Which would you rather be owner off?
 
The Empress Lilly

The Empress Lilly

Well-Known Member
Goofyernmost said:
If I did the math right (always a question) this is what I see based on the numbers listed. For simplicity we will use small numbers. Let's assume that the number of customers for 2008 was 1000.
2009 -11.3% = 870
2010 +30.2% = 1133
2011 +29% = 1459
2012 +4% = 1517
Even though the numbers started to be more in line with everyone else the initial improvement between 2009 and 2012 was a whopping 74%.
Click to expand...
That's some spirited statistics!

Thanks for working out those numbers.
It cannot be expected to maintain the initial degree of growth no matter how good it was, but it did substantially increase the overall attendance and then was able to maintain that even after the hubbub subsided. That tells me that it is still working at drawing people in at a very good rate and not only holding it there but improving it. Any business would like to see those numbers. Someone else can use the same model and see what Disney did for growth during those same years. I'm betting that it wasn't anywhere near IOA numbers. I'm also pretty sure that it didn't send a shot of panic in the Universal management group. But they did see a good thing and expanded or are expanding on it to insure future growth. As they win people over they will take business away from Disney, the people come from somewhere don't they? Uni goes up a lot and Disney remains stagnant. Which would you rather be owner off?
Click to expand...
Personally, I'd rather be the owner of Disney. But other than that I think you are spot on!
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom