Easter Week Attendance Surge

[lrodk]

Tomorrow's OS reports the following information on how Orlando's parks did during the traditionally busy Easter week.


"In the strongest signs yet that tourism is recovering to pre-Sept. 11 levels, three Central Florida theme parks reported record-setting attendance, and the Magic Kingdom was so packed on Monday that it had to close parking lots to all but Disney resort guests.

Disney's Animal Kingdom had its largest attendance on Monday since opening in 1998, Disney World spokeswoman Marilyn Waters said. She would not give specific figures, but she added that over the weekend, Disney's resorts were "virtually at capacity.".

She said that Disney World is enjoying a better spring break than last year, but that overall attendance at its four theme parks hasn't reached the record levels of Easter break in 2000. SeaWorld also said business was better than last Easter, when the economy was already showing signs of weakness.

At Universal Orlando, Universal Studios and Islands of Adventure recorded their biggest crowd total on Saturday since December 2000, spokesman Jim Canfield said.

"This bodes very well for us and for Central Florida," he added.

Hoteliers also were pleased with the numbers.

Preliminary figures from Smith Travel Research show hotel occupancy actually surpassed last year's rates, if only by a little, several nights during the week ended March 23.

Orlando-area hotels were 83.2 percent full the night of March 18, up 1.8 percent from the same night a year earlier. Occupancy the next night was 82.2 percent, an increase of 2.2 percent. Occupancy spiked to 84.3 percent on March 23, a Saturday, an increase of just 0.7 percent from a year earlier.

On Monday night, the 225-unit Quality Suites Maingate East on U.S. Highway 192 in Kissimmee was sold out, general manager Duane Winjum said.

"We beat March of last year pretty substantially, and we did extremely well compared against our budget," he said.

Winjum said he originally predicted that business wouldn't return to pre-attack levels until late 2001, but, "now, we're saying we may see occupancy return by mid-summer."

Peter Yesawich, an Orlando-based tourism consultant, said the travel industry is recovering at a faster pace than originally expected, in large part because the economy is improving. "My sense is that we should have a reasonable summer," he said.

Universal's big attendance spike highlighted perhaps the Orlando tourism industry's biggest weekend since the Sept. 11 attacks prompted a travel slowdown. Although last Christmas and New Year's were good for the theme parks, none talked of setting records as Universal did on Monday.

Canfield would only confirm that Universal's 20,000 parking places weren't full on Saturday.

Universal's "comfortable" two-park capacity is about 80,000, said a former executive there who asked to remain anonymous.

Last month's relatively strong performance had a lot to do with Easter coming two weeks earlier, said Danielle Courtenay, spokeswoman for the Orlando/Orange County Convention & Visitors Bureau. Tourist traffic always picks up around the holiday, she said.

But while business will continue to improve during the next several months, "We're still not expected to return to 2000 levels until 2003."

 

[anim8or98]

Magic Kingdom closed to regular day guests for a bit today, as did DAK for about an hour. MGM Studios parking lot was closed and guests were rerouted and both water parks filled to capacity. Not a bad day for Disney! On 4/1/02 DAK extended its hours from 7:45 AM to 8 PM (changed to 8 PM at about 4 PM that day). Things are looking up!

 

[Testtrack321]

They say it didn't break records like in 2000. Then explain why you still call 100YoM more of a success than Millennium Celelbration? Twist the numbers my friend, and they will come out however you like it. It isn't who's correct, just who believes you....

 

[DC7800]

Originally posted by anim8or98
Magic Kingdom closed to regular day guests for a bit today, as did DAK for about an hour.

The part about AK apparently nearing or reaching capacity was certainly a (pleasant) surprise. Anyone have any idea what AK's (and the other parks) maximum capacity actually is? Just how many people are we talking about here?

 

[raidermatt]

When they say things are bad, they are accused of lieing. When things are good, again, they are accused of lieing. We may have a storyline here for Conspiracy Theory 2...

If I remember correctly (?), the basis for calling the 100 Years celebration more successful were surveys that indicated that more of the people who were coming to WDW at the time were coming because of the 100 Years celebrations than those who came in 2000 because of the Millineum Celebration. Or at least a higher percentage. It didn't necessarily mean there were more people in the parks.

Basing the success of a celebration solely on attendance would ignore all other factors like 9/11 and the economy, which would have depressed attendance no matter what kind of celebration WDW kicked off.

 

[Testtrack321]

Yet again, twist the numbers, they look like a camel. Twist them again, and they look like a peacock. 6 people go to 100 YoM, and they all say they went of 100 YoM. 100,000,000,000,000 people go for Millennium, 100,000,000,000 say they went for Millennium Celebration. Simple as that.

 

[KidDurango]

Just want to point out, that just because they are not breaking the Holiday records set in 2000, does not mean that they are not doing better than in 2000. 100 YoM may be considered a greater success, because although the extreme peaks are not as high, the valley in between are not as low. I'll take a steady, more consistent flow over extreme swings any day.

 

[raidermatt]

Well, if the numbers were anything close to what you use in your example, I could see your point. But they aren't, and again, if your going to say a Celebration is or isn't a success, you have to isolate it from other factors. Attendance alone does not do that.

On top of that, don't you think it would be a horrible idea to tell the public that the Celebration you are putting on at least through the end of this year is not successful? That would sure pack them in for the rest of the year.

I also don't see why its so hard to believe that the 100 Years Celebration could be more successful than the Millineum Celebration. What did the Millineum Celebration include? If I remember correctly, everything was at Epcot. Tapestry of Dreams, Illuminations 2000, Millineum Village and the big 2000 and wand on Spaceship Earth.

100 Years includes 3 new daytime parades, the BAH, the Walt attraction at D.S., and some modifications to ToD, now called ToN.

Unless I'm missing something significant, I don't see that the Millinum Celebration had any more effort put into it than 100 Years does.

 

[Janet2k]

Do you think attendance is up because of all the great deals that Disney has been offering this year? I know that Easter doesn't have those same great deals since it is usually busy, but I am wondering about the next month or two. Will attendance be up, and if it is, will it be because of the discounted resort prices? I must admit that I thought the resort prices were getting insanely high before the economy crashed and the events of September 11th. I'm hoping that the more reasonable pricing is around for quite awhile.

 

[Peter Pirate]

Well, I've been trying to get a room for april 26 & 27 and have the choice of very little. So I'd say the spring & summer prospects look very strong.

raidermatt, I see your point with regad to evaluating a celebration. It only makes sense to count the numbers of those who say they're coming to WDW "because of the celebraton". Then Disney has the choice of using raw numbers or percentages or a specialized use of a combination. For example, if 1000 people visited WDW during the mil celebration and 250 of those surveyed said they came JUST for the celebration, Disney then has a 25% figure to start with...Now if only 500 people come to the Birthday celebration (because of 9/11 & the economy), yet 200 still respond that they came JUST for the celebration, then they have a 40% approval prcentage to start with. From this point, as said, the numbers can say pretty much what Disney wants them to say within the given perameters...They could state that the celebrations are running "neck in neck" success wise (as the actual numbers are close), they can show the Mil celebration as more succesful (because they had a higher response - total number) or they can say the Birthday celebration has been more succesful based on percentages...Statistics don't lie, but you must know what you'e looking at...

 

[JeffJewell]

On top of that, don't you think it would be a horrible idea to tell the public that the Celebration you are putting on at least through the end of this year is not successful?

...Disney's claimed results are at the very least debatable for precisely this reason.

When attendance or sales look good, you claim "success" based on those numbers. When attendance or sales is down, you simply distract everyone with a different set of numbers.

Disney's claim that 100 Years is "more successful" than Millenium is based on precisely one measure: margins. The guests who did not cancel in the wake of 9/11 were a pretty hard core batch of guests... guests unlikely to be deterred by cuts in service, either. Disney managed to close resorts and cut hours, shows, and services more than people cancelled vacations: they made more per guest by giving those most loyal of guests less for their money. This is exactly the same method they've used for a couple years to continue to be marginally profitable in the face of declining sales.

The 100 Years of Magic Celebration coincides with a reduction in guest turnout and an even larger reduction in product and service offered. That's what Disney now calls "success:" fewer customers and an empirically lesser product.

This is another one of those places where, if all you care about is Disney's stock position, you can cheer "success" right along with Disney management. If you're one of the people who thought that Disney once strove for something more than simply generating cash, this kind of "success" is just one more confirmation that the company whose products you valued is long gone; you're only wasting your time writing this same post over and over.

Jeff

 

[Testtrack321]

On top of that, don't you think it would be a horrible idea to tell the public that the Celebration you are putting on at least through the end of this year is not successful? That would sure pack them in for the rest of the year.

Yes, but atleast don't lie. What's worse than telling a lie to get you in then going around and, under pressure of some sort, say the Millennium Celebration was better. What about all those countries in Millennium Village? Are they happy thay said this?

KidDurango Just want to point out, that just because they are not breaking the Holiday records set in 2000, does not mean that they are not doing better than in 2000. 100 YoM may be considered a greater success, because although the extreme peaks are not as high, the valley in between are not as low. I'll take a steady, more consistent flow over extreme swings any day.

So would I, but I wast trying to point out that Disney had a higher attendence across the board than the pitaful attendence in October-Mid December. That isn't very steady and consistant.

Well, if the numbers were anything close to what you use in your example, I could see your point. But they aren't, and again, if your going to say a Celebration is or isn't a success, you have to isolate it from other factors. Attendance alone does not do that.

But, as you said, it was on howmany people went to Disney becasue of 100 YoM. If a lesser amount went and they all said they went for 100 YoM, it would be a "succes". If a large amount went, but less said it was because of Millennium, then it would be a success then, but now, when they need to boost attendence, it is a "failure".

The 100 Years of Magic Celebration coincides with a reduction in guest turnout and an even larger reduction in product and service offered. That's what Disney now calls "success:" fewer customers and an empirically lesser product.

Yep, you hit the nail on the head.

 

[raidermatt]

From this point, as said, the numbers can say pretty much what Disney wants them to say within the given perameters...

Agreed. But in your example, the most accurate way of judging only the celebration is the percentage. If for some reason they had a motivation to say the Celebration was a failure, they could point to overall attendance, but that is based on much faultier logic than the success scenario.

Disney's claimed results are at the very least debatable for precisely this reason.

Having the ability and motivation to lie can certainly bring things into question, but without anything to back up the accusations, it's merely a baseless conspiracy theory.

Disney's claim that 100 Years is "more successful" than Millenium is based on precisely one measure: margins. The guests who did not cancel in the wake of 9/11 were a pretty hard core batch of guests... guests unlikely to be deterred by cuts in service, either.

See, this is what I'm talking about. The guests who were deterred were International travellers, and others who had to fly into Orlando. Those who weren't were the locals and regulars. While there are exceptions, the deterred guests are the higher margin guests, the ones who purchase souveniers left and right, and splurge because this is not part of their regular routine. So while costs were cut, revenues also plummeted. Given the enormous fixed costs involved with running theme parks and resorts, it seems very reasonable that it would be very difficult to have actually increased margins, with spending and attendance so depressed.

Now, when the guests flock back and start spending again, and cuts are not 100% restored, then margins will be better than prior, and Eisner has stated this. But the "Celebration is a success" comment was made several months ago, when there was still no hint of attendance reaching prior year levels.

If you're one of the people who thought that Disney once strove for something more than simply generating cash, this kind of "success" is just one more confirmation that the company whose products you valued is long gone; you're only wasting your time writing this same post over and over.

There are instances that support your position, however, when you attempt to apply this to every piece of information the company releases, it becomes a classic case of "crying Wolf", and it brings into question any valid points you may have. Certainly, Jeff, you have written your post "over and over"... (I know, its because you are merely telling the truth, right?)

Yes, but atleast don't lie. What's worse than telling a lie to get you in then going around and, under pressure of some sort, say the Millennium Celebration was better.

Why is it a lie to say it is more successful? The ONLY basis for this accusation is lower overall attendance. Do you really think attendance would not have plummeted if the events of 9/11/01 had occured on say, 3/11/00?

Also, remember that "better" is a subjective word. Disney said "successful", which is still somewhat subjective, but does not have the implication that either is inherently better. If you feel the Millineum Celebration was better, that's fine. That's no different than somebody who thinks Disney Studios is better than MK. Its their opinion, and isn't wrong, but by most accounts, MK is more successful.