• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

News TEA/AECOM 2018 Theme Index Released

Sirwalterraleigh

Well-Known Member
Some claimed Pandora was a mistake. That was after they claimed it couldn't get past the development phase. Fun times.
Who? And why?
The rumor is that is had a very troubled development process, no reason not to believe that.
The truth shall set us free
Considering the track record of the doomsayers there actually is.
everything is up...people are spending like drunken sailors. That’s how booms work. And they are correlated to theme park business.

And that business is tied - guaranteed - to downturns.

You do understand how themeparks are tied to economies, correct?

And you have lived through a recession? I’m beginning to wonder after your repeated attack’s on those that understand history and how humans operate.
This rumor also came from people that have very good track records. Considering that they had to work with James Cameron, it shouldn't be the least bit surprising that there were difficulties.
They built a good land. That can’t be disputed. It largely negated the concern over the IP.

A good land covered all doubt...just as a bad land doesn’t get covered by the IP

...stay tuned there.
 

danlb_2000

Premium Member
Advertisement
Disney does not report individual park attendance, therefore increases and decreases are statistically insignificant. Furthermore, guests can attend more than one park per day. There is no way to tell what a "half-day" is by these numbers. What would be more meaningful is hours spent in each park rather than a count. A random survey of 1000 guests asking how many hours they spend would be more meaningful than these per park stats.
These numbers probably provide a good high-level look at the trends in the industry and gives companies some insight into how there competitors are doing, but a company isn't going to use these number for internal decision making. Disney records every entry into each park so they would slice and dice that data in different ways when trying to analyze different things.
 

MisterPenguin

Rumormonger
Premium Member
Disney does not report individual park attendance, therefore increases and decreases are statistically insignificant. Furthermore, guests can attend more than one park per day. There is no way to tell what a "half-day" is by these numbers. What would be more meaningful is hours spent in each park rather than a count. A random survey of 1000 guests asking how many hours they spend would be more meaningful than these per park stats.
The company uses the same techniques to determine crowds year after year and the same method for all parks that don't report numbers. So, you should get figures that mostly accurately reflect changes over time, even if absolute numbers aren't exact.

Also, if they reported a decline in attendance and there really was an increase, you bet Disney (or Universal) would publicly dispute the accuracy of the report. Which they haven't.

Also, also, what exactly is the right way to 'count clicks' when resorts have multiple parks? One might say "hey, you can't count someone park hopping from DHS to Epcot twice because they went to see Illuminations!" Well, what about someone who hits Harry Potter in the morning and Illuminations at night? If both parks told you their clicks for the day, that person would be counted twice.

It's not 100% accurate, but it's good enough that everyone in the business goes by it. And you don't see them complaining about those numbers (that I know of).
 

imarc

Well-Known Member
So now after seeing the share by resort graph, why doesn't TDO get the highest budgets of all parks for new attractions and expansion? WDW should have the ultimate versions of every ride...Not the cliff notes Pirates and dumbed-down Pooh...
I think we all know that answer. Those decisions are driven by the louder nostalgic voices for Walt's park and not the finance folks who see the profit margins.
It's not that simple is it?

Orlando has/had the better Mr Toad, Tower of Terror, Splash Mountain and Jungle Cruise. It got Carousel of Progress too.

Disney dumped a ton of money opening Epcot but cheaped out on California Adventure.

None of those are indicative of one resort being favored. Each of these are independent decisions that have been made spread out over a 50 year period.
 
Last edited:

Rodan75

Well-Known Member
And do what? rebrand them as Universal parks and add lots of $$$ for proper theming, or just run them as amusement parks?
A little of both depending on the Park and the Market. Universal has a fair amount of IP and buying a regional park group would help them get more exposure to their brands. Illumination IPs alone would likely drive significant growth in the regional parks. It could be their ticket to eventually overtaking Disney in the Parks and Resorts lane.
 

CalebS

Well-Known Member
I’m hoping that the AK growth shows them that good quality expansion works and that they will continue to add lands and individual rides throughout the next few years... including the fact that AK has tons of available unused land and could really use some more stuff
 

ThatMouse

Well-Known Member
The company uses the same techniques to determine crowds year after year and the same method for all parks that don't report numbers. So, you should get figures that mostly accurately reflect changes over time, even if absolute numbers aren't exact.

Also, if they reported a decline in attendance and there really was an increase, you bet Disney (or Universal) would publicly dispute the accuracy of the report. Which they haven't.

Also, also, what exactly is the right way to 'count clicks' when resorts have multiple parks? One might say "hey, you can't count someone park hopping from DHS to Epcot twice because they went to see Illuminations!" Well, what about someone who hits Harry Potter in the morning and Illuminations at night? If both parks told you their clicks for the day, that person would be counted twice.

It's not 100% accurate, but it's good enough that everyone in the business goes by it. And you don't see them complaining about those numbers (that I know of).
Everyone in the business goes by it? That's what the marketing material said so it must be true. The report alludes to the methodology being something similar to this equation: Overall Disney World Park attendance divided by 4, give AK + 10% because Pandora. That's not scientific.
 

MisterPenguin

Rumormonger
Premium Member
Everyone in the business goes by it? That's what the marketing material said so it must be true. The report alludes to the methodology being something similar to this equation: Overall Disney World Park attendance divided by 4, give AK + 10% because Pandora. That's not scientific.
Could you quote from where in the report that that's what their methodology is?
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
Also, if they reported a decline in attendance and there really was an increase, you bet Disney (or Universal) would publicly dispute the accuracy of the report. Which they haven't.
While Disney and Universal have not publicly criticized the estimates, others have.

A little of both depending on the Park and the Market. Universal has a fair amount of IP and buying a regional park group would help them get more exposure to their brands. Illumination IPs alone would likely drive significant growth in the regional parks. It could be their ticket to eventually overtaking Disney in the Parks and Resorts lane.
Universal has sort of experimented with this. For a brief time, PortAventura in Spain was Universal’s PortAventura. A DreamWorks water park not owned by Universal is scheduled to open later this year.

Everyone in the business goes by it? That's what the marketing material said so it must be true. The report alludes to the methodology being something similar to this equation: Overall Disney World Park attendance divided by 4, give AK + 10% because Pandora. That's not scientific.
The report is commissioned and published by the Themed Entertainment Association. AECOM Economics does the estimates because they bought Buzz Price’s Economic Research Associates.
 

danlb_2000

Premium Member
The company uses the same techniques to determine crowds year after year and the same method for all parks that don't report numbers. So, you should get figures that mostly accurately reflect changes over time, even if absolute numbers aren't exact.

Also, if they reported a decline in attendance and there really was an increase, you bet Disney (or Universal) would publicly dispute the accuracy of the report. Which they haven't.

Also, also, what exactly is the right way to 'count clicks' when resorts have multiple parks? One might say "hey, you can't count someone park hopping from DHS to Epcot twice because they went to see Illuminations!" Well, what about someone who hits Harry Potter in the morning and Illuminations at night? If both parks told you their clicks for the day, that person would be counted twice.

It's not 100% accurate, but it's good enough that everyone in the business goes by it. And you don't see them complaining about those numbers (that I know of).
They wouldn't even need to publically dispute it, the operators all get a chance to review and provide feedback on the numbers before they are published.
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Well-Known Member
A little of both depending on the Park and the Market. Universal has a fair amount of IP and buying a regional park group would help them get more exposure to their brands. Illumination IPs alone would likely drive significant growth in the regional parks. It could be their ticket to eventually overtaking Disney in the Parks and Resorts lane.
I can’t see that move...regional parks are never much money makers...and a chain has a lot of overhead that’s hard to manage.

Plus Comcast is in a different place: their breadwinner is still cable and High speed...and those things are very vulnerable for a crash in short order based on new tech
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Well-Known Member
The TEA numbers should always be looked at as a “trend” and not a hard number or predictor of dollars.

Gate clicks are not accounting...just part of an estimation model.

People seem to think that Disney is somehow “required” to report attendance. As if gate clicks are SEC regulated and they can audit them.

Absolutely not...only the revenues and profits have to be “honest”. Attendance could be manipulated a lot if they want to...and as indicated over recent years...Disney doesn’t even bother to act like revenues are tied to attendance. Attendance goes up, revenues go up. Attendance goes down, revenues go up. Attendance is flat, revenues go up.
 

Bairstow

Well-Known Member
What’s the rule for first clicks? I bring this up because DHS is way too high and IoA is too low.
You would think they would both follow the same term trend, though, as between the IOA Potter section being the second one a guest would want to see, and DHS having a nighttime stadium show as one of its big draws, both parks would more typically be a two-park guest's second click of the day.
 

the.dreamfinder

Well-Known Member
Not to mention on Disney's public quarterly reports they often mention how park attendance is doing. If it went down and they say it went up, that can get them in serious legal trouble with public filings.
The main figure they give out to investors, and TWDC judge the parks by, is Per Guest Revenue Spending, which was one of the first things Eisner/Wells did when they came to the company.
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Well-Known Member
Not to mention on Disney's public quarterly reports they often mention how park attendance is doing. If it went down and they say it went up, that can get them in serious legal trouble with public filings.
Those are not financial statements...attendance does not have direct computation to money.

Now - I agree it would be a dumb move to do that. But they don’t “prove” what they say on attendance whether it’s good or bad.

It’s just about dead presidents
 
Top Bottom