Why is attendance up at Universal and Down at Disney?

[raidermatt]

PKS, I'm not trying to say Disney got all they wanted out of AK. Its pretty clear they didn't. Universal probably got closer to their goal with IoA, however, they still spent as much as Disney spent on DCA (before inflation), and they drew 5.5 million last year, while DCA drew 5 million in a partial year. Yes, DCA is a dud, and success is relative. However, before touting Universal's assencion in the Resort business, the facts have to be kept in perspective.

It has to be pointed out that you can't equally compare the impact of a 4th park to a 2nd park, especially when talking about percentages. If every park drew the same number of people, the 2nd park would raise attendance 100%, while a 4th park that draws the same number of guests wold raise attendance only 33%.

To directly answer your question, WDW attendance rose by 2.5 million in AK's first year. Universal attendance rose 2.6 million in IoA's first year.

In the second year, WDW was up another 900k, Universal 2.6 million.

Of course, if you take it to a third year, WDW was up another 600k, while Universal was down 1.3 million. I COULD say this proves IoA is not having the long term affect AK is, but that would be a misuse of the numbers, similar to what Newsweek did.

 

[PKS44]

matt-

I think the way you are using those numbers is more misleading than Newsweek's...you are not comparing similar timeframes, correct? I mean AK opened before IOA, so the 3 years after it opened are not the same 3 years after IOA opened...but Newsweek showed that during the SAME time frame, one resort saw an increase (probably partially by adding an interesting second gate) while the other saw a decrease (probably partially by not adding much of anything) How or why those changes took place are the question...is it a change in the market (more teens, fewer 10 year olds?) is it Disney fatigue, the novelty of IOA? is it a slip in the product being offerred? Numbers don't prove any of this but they show that one resort has done something to improve its attendance while the other has slipping attendance--it all may be a blip and even out -but the numbers are worth looking at if you work for and/or care about WDW.

 

[raidermatt]

Yes, it was misleading, and I meant to convey that in my last sentence. (isn't the first time my communication skills came up as inadequate.)

If Newsweek had used the numbers to try to prove IoA was a bigger lift than AK, that wouldn't be so bad.

But that was not the point of their article. Their point was that Universal's complex is doing better attendance-wise than WDW. Using the numbers as they did for that purpose was very misleading. Using IoA's partial year as a base distorts the numbers to prove their point. Its apples to oranges.

Also, what do the '00 to '01 numbers say about their premise? Universal experienced a bigger drop than WDW did last year. This despite heavier discounting. Wouldn't that be pretty important to the discussion? Maybe IoA did provide an initial boost, but perhaps that momentum has faded? That's what the numbers would indicate anyway.

Again, though, that's not to say WDW is doing things right and Universal is doomed. We've heard early indications that this year might be much worse for WDW than it is for Universal. If that is the case, and the difference is larger than the impact from lower toursim, it may bear out the point of the Newsweek article after all. Its just that the numbers used by Newsweek do not yet prove that point, even though they presented them that way.