Theme Park attendance figures for the last decade

[raidermatt]

With 98 only showing 6% growth it would have caused them to underperform their business plan. It would look like DAK had only a marginal growth impact (the extra 1%). DAK was labeled as being a disappointment, due to cannibalization.

But in looking at the numbers across the board, I think they would have realized that even if they had thought they would get 5% growth without AK, that scenario clearly didn't play out. USF and SWF both had zero growth (quite an amazing coincidence, by the way). DL, USH, and SWSD all experienced negative growth.

So Disney would have to realize that their 5% "automatic" growth would likely not have materialized. Assuming flat attendance, AK would have been responsible for the entire 6% growth.

That said, I'm sure 6% still falls short of what they were hoping. Given AK's partial year, I would guess they probably realistically hoped for about a 10-12% bump. Admittedly though, that number came straight out of my (pick an orifice).

 

[larworth]

I initially looked at the growth rates of the other properties to see if it provided any kind of reference point. As I noted (look at my first post) there has almost been a reverse correlation between WDW and US growth. When US grows WDW is flat and vice versa. So, a flat year at US in 98 would probably not been much of a signal for them. SW seems unrelated, too.

It is all conjecture, just saying I can see how they might have come to this conclusion. I'm sure they had rheems of survey data to help understand the impact as well.

 

[raidermatt]

Sorry, I now remember reading that yesterday.

I went back and looked at the year-to-year, and I do think there is a pretty strong correlation.

1996 - WDW up 5.7%, USF up 5.0%
1997 - WDW up 12.0% (with celebration), USF up 6.0%
1998 - AK's first year
1999 - IoA's first year
2000 - WDW up 1.4%, USF up 22.6% (IoA's 1st full year*)
2001 - WDW down 7.4%, USf down 9.2%


1993, 1994, and 1995 have bigger gaps. Not sure why, but maybe it has to do with Disney's resort expansions...


*US was flat this year. So the entire 22.6% was from IoA going from 3.4 to 6.0. If IoA's "full year equivalent" increase were 1 million, instead of 2.6 (generous, by the way), you get 7.6%. Since the "annualized" increase was probably less than 1 million, the number would drop even more, making the comparision much closer.

It is all conjecture, just saying I can see how they might have come to this conclusion. I'm sure they had rheems of survey data to help understand the impact as well.

Agreed.