Originally Posted By pitapan16 USO has given major dicounting for years since IOA opened. Like pay for 2 days, go for 5. That kind of thing.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I would suspect that IOA gets as few full price one day tickets as DCA does. Park hopping and multi-day and discounts are the norm at UniFla as well. And I quite enjoyed IOA too - it's a good park, if not quite "all that." But being good and being discounted are not mutually exclusive, particularly if you're positioned as the "second park."
Originally Posted By woody IOA has it's many good points that DCA doesn't hold a candle to, but IOA haven't been updated for years and it shows. It just isn't competing with Disney, who has big resources and can make lemonade out of lemons. I have said IOA is an excellent park, but even good parks cannot survive without continuing upgrading. DCA is a poor park, but it is getting better despite everything going against it like the horrible Disneyland 50 marketing effort, which doesn't even mention its name. So what is DCA competing with? No one!!! DCA is competing for overflow crowds. Apparently, that is enough.
Originally Posted By oc_dean I got the feeling the intent of this topic was to disprove the critics that DCA is "A Success" just due to the numbers. ......... But never mind that the truth behind those numbers may be due to free admissions. Or is this the mantra over at MI?: Disprove any facts because it does not represent the "MI: Rose-Colored" view of DCA.
Originally Posted By planodisney What the ----??? Is anything but the absolute worst possible scenario, or worst way to spin things considered rose colored glasses to you guys?? How bout grabbing a dose of reality for once. ocdean, DCA is improving and attendance is getting better, doesnt matter one hill of beans if you cant deal with it or not, bevause subjective opinion doesnt overcome truth. DCA has a long way to go to be a truly GREAT Disney park and a WILD success, but recent additions and small attendance gains over the last few years prove that DCA is on the rise and not the demise. Much more looks like it is to come, therefore the park sahould improve quite a bit over the next five years, and attendance gains should follow. Why so obsessed with DCA circa 2001. Live in the present and look to the future. Five years ago means nothing anymore.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "......... But never mind that the truth behind those numbers may be due to free admissions." Dean, it has been pointed out in this thread that USF/IOA have two-for-one offers since IOA opened.
Originally Posted By Nemo88 ButHans,2fers are only a bad thing when DCA does them,dont u know this by now? if nonDisney parks use discounts,it just means htose parks are doing good,if DCA does it then it means its a failing park. come on,you have been on here long enough to know that
Originally Posted By CTXRover While true that DCA benefits from the "2fer" offered for a period of time during the year, its gains over the past 2-3 years are not solely a result of discounting either. The fact that DCA could very likely surpass IOA in attendance, a park that received critical acclaim when it opened and is often used as a comparison to the critical failure that DCA was, is very telling of the troubles Universal Orlando (UO) is currently having attendance-wise and the steps in the right direction DCA is slowly making. To argue that DCA is the only park to benefit from discounts is far from the truth. For probably the last 5+ years, UO has offered specials, currently year-long, where you buy a 2 day park ticket and get 3 additional consecutive days for free. They are also now offering a free child's ticket with every 2-day park ticket that is purchased.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "To argue that DCA is the only park to benefit from discounts is far from the truth." Unfortunately truth carries very little weight in these discussions.
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> Unfortunately truth carries very little weight in these discussions. << Uh-huh, Michael Eisner and Barry Braverman, when listening to the back-and-fro about DCA well before and after 2001, probably thought the very same thing.
Originally Posted By 9oldmen So DCA and IOA are two secondary parks, both of which rely on discounts and "spill over" attendance from the primary parks. The difference I see is that IOA, besides not having the benefit of the Disney brand name, is not getting overflow, AP, etc. attendance from the SECOND MOST VISITED PARK IN THE NATION. It's true that in Orlando, you have four of the five most visited Disney parks within driving distance, but they are not 100 yards away from IOA, their APers don't get automatic IOA admission, no Magic Kingdom guests getting "2fers" to go to a non-Disney park, etc. And still, sorry to repeat myself, but for 4 of the last 5 years, IOA got more guests than DCA. You still have this unprecedented situation of non-Disney parks out performing Disney parks, something you never would have seen pre-DCA. Only by a small margin, but still, this is according to the same AB numbers used by the DCA "defenders".
Originally Posted By oc_dean Excellent points 9oldmen ... but to coin the defenders own phrase .... "but some don't want to hear the reality." While my last post was certainly going to ruffle some feathers ... I don't think I need to apologize for having an opinion on my own personal observation with the "general" vibe of another board. Where the main columnist CLEARLY has tried in the past to "bend" the public perception of a park (that is very flawed) but don't want to hear it. A News article comes out on attendance figures .. and HARK ... "Lets show it off, and prove those critics wrong" .... I've seen this over and over every year here on LP since the 2for1 was introduced a few years ago ..... And we go through this everytime ... "BUT .. AHHH ... You were ever going to EXPLAIN for us all ... how exactly the numbers are ~magically~ better?!" >>Why so obsessed with DCA circa 2001. Live in the present and look to the future. Five years ago means nothing anymore.<< Well .. incase you haven't noticed .. just about everything west of the Hollywood Backlot/Bugs Land hasn't changed a bit since it opened on Feb. 8,2001. We're talkin' just about all the pre-existing "Feb 2001" DCA. Except for a few addded shaded spots. Oh .. and I shouldn't forget the "Brother Bear" cave in the Redwood Creek. A tiny blip on the 55+ acre park. Don't get me totally wrong ... Aladdin, Monsters Inc., and several changes to the Animation pavilion are very worthy. So getting back to my point .... With all of Marcie's comments for some 5-6 years .... Nemo88 apparently dogging Darkbeer .... who does a great job of reporting very real figures .. and a few other posters who race to throw up topics to defend their beloved DCA faster than a speeding bullet ..... Well ... I'm sorry if I don't exactly have a pouring of love for Mouseinfo. Only my opinion .. only my thoughts ........ but after 6 years .. hundreds dog everyone from Al to Jim to Marcie, etc .... Well, I get one shot too.
Originally Posted By leemac 9oldmen what you fail to appreciate is that regardless what DLR says it is not predominantly a vacation destination in itself. Orlando is and therefore when USF/IOA are failing that is a huge issue. They have a massive captive market of tourists that come for one big reason: the theme parks. If they are snubbing them that is a big problem. MK is also the most visited park in the world but WDW's second park only gets about 60% of the visitors that MK does. Does that make it a failure? No.
Originally Posted By leemac Also USF boasts some significant AP numbers too. However they are virtually a give-away in comparison to the cost of WDW passes.
Originally Posted By DlandDug Until reading this thread, I was unaware that DCA had finally pulled ahead of IOA. I will assume these figures are what we are discussing (from Amusement Business magazine): 1. Magic Kingdom at Walt Disney World in Orlando, 16.1 million, +6.5 percent 2. Disneyland in Anaheim, Calif. 14.5 million, +8.5 percent 3. Epcot at Walt Disney World in Orlando, 9.9 million, +5.5 percent 4. Disney-MGM Studios at Walt Disney World in Orlando, 8.6 million, +5 percent 5. Disney's Animal Kingdom at Walt Disney World in Orlando, 8.2 million, +5 percent 6. Universal Studios Florida at Universal Orlando, 6.1 million, -8.5 percent 7. Disney's California Adventure in Anaheim, Calif., 5.8 million, +3.6 percent 8. Universal's Islands of Adventure at Universal Orlando, 5.76 million, -8.5 percent 9. SeaWorld Orlando, 5.6 million, +0.2 percent 10. Universal Studios Hollywood, 4.7 million, -6 percent 11. Adventuredome at Circus Circus in Las Vegas, 4.5 million, +2.3 percent 12. Busch Gardens Tampa Bay, 4.3 million, +5.1 percent 13. SeaWorld San Diego, 4.1 million, +2.5 percent 14. Paramount Canada's Wonderland in Maple, Ontario, 3.6 million, +7 percent 15. Knott's Berry Farm in Buena Park, Calif., 3.47 million, -3 percent 16. Paramount's Kings Island in Kings Island, Ohio, 3.3 million, -5.1 percent 17. Morey's Piers in Wildwood, N.J., 3.1 million, +1 percent 18. Cedar Point in Sandusky, Ohio, 3.1 million, -2 percent 19. Santa Cruz Beach Boardwalk in Santa Cruz, Calif., 3 million, flat 20. Six Flags Great Adventure in Jackson, N.J., 2.9 million, +6 percent 21. Six Flags Great America in Gurnee, Ill., 2.8 million, +24 percent 22. Six Flags Magic Mountain in Valencia, Calif., 2.8 million, +5 percent 23. Hersheypark in Hershey, Pa., 2.7 million, flat 24. Busch Gardens Williamsburg, 2.6 million, +8.3 percent 25. Dollywood in Pigeon Forge, Tenn., 2.3 million, +7.3 percent What interests me is that DCA is apparently closing in on USF. I have long contended that DCA was cynically conceived and poorly executed. IOA is a well planned and built park that deserves any and all support from its fans. The real difference is that IOA has basically been in stasis since it opened. Indeed, I believe there are LESS attractions there than when it opened. (I may be wrong on this.) DCA, on the other hand, has been steadily adding attractions. Regardless of how anyone (including me) feels about theming, execution, or the personalities of the designers and supporters, the bottom line in entertainment is the SHOW. And DCA has been expanding the show.
Originally Posted By kmovies To prove the point about US/IOA, they do a heck of a lot better than US-Hollywood. Let's see why: --- Orlando vacation spot --- Closeness to WDW --- Resort w/ 2 parks, 3 hotels --- Marketing for Orlando much greater than Hollywood I bet if you attached IOA to US-Hollywood, it would do lower attendance as well. US-Hollywood is going to start a free shuttle from Disneyland (free when you buy the full price ticket). Why - the Universal Parks feed off of Disney, especially the ones in Orlando. You take Disney World away and you probably take 1/2 of Universal Orlando's business away too.
Originally Posted By kmovies Unfortuantly the Anahiem market is day visitors and because of this, DCA will always get just a fraction of Disneyland's attendance. If Orlando was only single day visits, you would find that Epcot, MGM and Animal Kingdom would be very, very small attendance. When given a choice, Disneyland will always win and Magic Kingdom will always win. The other Orlando parks can do better than DCA simply because the average visits are multiple days rather than one day visits. Maybe a 3rd park, more hotels, a water park and more would increase visits - but I venture to say that even then, the Anahiem resort will always be less than WDW.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "You still have this unprecedented situation of non-Disney parks out performing Disney parks, something you never would have seen pre-DCA." Why is it that the DCA whiners have to be reminded over and over that DCA's initial annual attendance estimate was 7 million visitors? It was understood from the very begining that other non-Disney parks would out perform DCA attendance-wise. "Until reading this thread, I was unaware that DCA had finally pulled ahead of IOA." Yes, and please note that both IOA and USO had significant decreases in attendance last year, even with all the discounting.
