Assuming you mean 1999, bstanley, then Newsweek has made a HUGE misrepresentation in their comparison of attendance figures from 1999 to 2001.
While it is true that Universal grew 11% and Disney dropped 6%, it doesn't point out that the mid-year opening of IOA makes Universal's increase look larger than it really is.
IoA drew 3.4 million in its partial year. In 2000, it drew 6.0, and in 2001 it drew 5.5.
And yes, a few million makes a material difference in the percentages.
If IoA had been open all of 1999, and drew 5.5 million (equal to 2001, less than 2000), the drop in percentages between Universal and Disney are virtually equal. 5.9% vs. 6.1%.
Even if IoA were only credited with 5.0 million in its first year, Universal would still have a drop of 2.3% from 1999 to 2001.
When you consider there is already a margin of error built into these numbers because they are 3rd party estimates, the Newsweek interpretation becomes irresponsible at best.
Especially when one considers that when making these same comparisons using 2000 vs. 2001, Universal's drop of 9.2% is LARGER than Disney's 7.4%.
It maybe true that Universal is recovering faster in 2002, but that doesn't excuse the bogus numbers used in their article.