Attendance Tracker | Page 42 | Inside Universal Forums

Attendance Tracker

  • Signing up for a Premium Membership is a donation to help Inside Universal maintain costs and offers an ad-free experience on the forum. Learn more about it here.
Let's be honest. The pirates not sucking is what really worked. The stadium didn't have a whole lot of fans in the seats early on before the team got better. It's not like any of the new stadiums are as big as the old toilet bowls. It's a great stadium, but I think being that small has little to do with it.

A side note. Motley fool articles often sound like they are written by a computer program.
20 losing seasons will put a damper on attendance. Makes me appreciate all the more the Braves 13 straight division titles.

And I am done quoting the Fool.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SkiBum
Let's be honest. The pirates not sucking is what really worked. The stadium didn't have a whole lot of fans in the seats early on before the team got better. It's not like any of the new stadiums are as big as the old toilet bowls. It's a great stadium, but I think being that small has little to do with it.

A side note. Motley fool articles often sound like they are written by a computer program.
The Pirates had great teams in the 70's and horrible attendance in the big Three Rivers stadium that was brand new at the time. . Actually, they are the ones that give a lot of credit to the small park (PNC Park) and tough ticket allure.
 
Last edited:
I know that universals attendance numbers for this quarter probably aren't going to be what they were hoped, but does anyone know if they are likely to show an attendance gain for this quarter? I am thinking they will, but not a big one.
 
This article is mainly about WDW causing much if its own problems by big price increases and AP changes, with Universal running the risk of making the same mistakes. Universal will likely be much smarter if it does change its AP offerings.

Big shock to me was this quote

The price for the cheapest Disney World annual pass with year-round access soared 23%


No wonder WDW AP holders are unhappy.

Is Universal Orlando Repeating Disney World's Mistake? -- The Motley Fool

They haven't even announced pricing, so like how can you come to any conclusion?
 
They haven't even announced pricing, so like how can you come to any conclusion?
I didn't make any conclusion. The article talked about the likely effect Walt Disney World passholder policies have had. They merely wondered if Universal AP changes might have a similar effect. All I said was Universal would likely be smarter than WDW about it.

I have no problem with Universal making changes it to its APs. They have been good to their passholders. All we have now is the possibility of a 4th pass and some tweaks. Hopefully no big price hikes.

Turns out the WDW all year AP has free parking, so an increase was justified.
 
I didn't make any conclusion. The article talked about the likely effect Walt Disney World passholder policies have had. They merely wondered if Universal AP changes might have a similar effect. All I said was Universal would likely be smarter than WDW about it.

I have no problem with Universal making changes it to its APs. They have been good to their passholders. All we have now is the possibility of a 4th pass and some tweaks. Hopefully no big price hikes.

Turns out the WDW all year AP has free parking, so an increase was justified.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply you were suggesting it, just the article. I think seeing a semi-finished article posted then deleted and making any projections based on that is foolish (pun intended).
 
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply you were suggesting it, just the article. I think seeing a semi-finished article posted then deleted and making any projections based on that is foolish (pun intended).
I agree. Only reason I brought up the article was because of the 23% WDW AP increase. Glad to know there was justification for such a big jump. Nuff said. :)
 
Not going to be politically correct now but what bothers me about WDW are those in ECVs. There are sooooo many people in those scooters. It's like from the movie Wall-e. If I've been waiting a while for a bus and someone in an ECV arrives, they get on right away along with their family of 12. They also take forever to board. You don't really see this in universal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mad Dog
Not going to be politically correct now but what bothers me about WDW are those in ECVs. There are sooooo many people in those scooters. It's like from the movie Wall-e. If I've been waiting a while for a bus and someone in an ECV arrives, they get on right away along with their family of 12. They also take forever to board. You don't really see this in universal.
Having worked at Hogwarts Express and having to handle putting those damn things on the train, I respectfully disagree. :)
 
Not going to be politically correct now but what bothers me about WDW are those in ECVs. There are sooooo many people in those scooters. It's like from the movie Wall-e. If I've been waiting a while for a bus and someone in an ECV arrives, they get on right away along with their family of 12. They also take forever to board. You don't really see this in universal.

The actual problem is you shouldn't have to wait a while for a bus in the first place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Miketheboss
Having worked at Hogwarts Express and having to handle putting those damn things on the train, I respectfully disagree. :)

Yeah I was going to say the only time I had an issue with lazy people on ECV was actually at Universal. I honestly must just ignore them. I don't really notice them at either place, but like I said I had one incident with this old lazy couple at Universal in a handicap section that was rude to me. The only time I really paid attention to them. But since I never ride the buses I don't have the issue that others would have.
 
I agree, it is not a quick fix. Where I say something needs to be done soon is more a change in how they think. They need to realize they need to build new rides. I don't think it has to do with the type of rides they are building, but more with quantity of rides they have built over the last 10 years. If in addition to the FL expansion they had done a new ride in Epcot, AK, and DHS we would be having a different conversation today. But WDW thought Orlando was a mature market and stopped building rides.

I think at the heart of it, MM+ is not a bad system. I think it cost way too much for what they got, but it is not a bad system. The GP loves it and they love the little things like their names showing up in odd places, being able to use one band for all things, etc. What was bad about MM+ is that they did that and ONLY that. They needed to still build rides.

So I agree cost overruns need to be under control. I think budgets for NFL, MM+, and Avatar have been blown out of the water because of cost overruns and they need to reign that back in.

I have hope with TSL and SWL along with all the rumors floating around. But they need to think long term. I do disagree about placement. They need to loo0k at some of these lands that don't make sense for the world of today and just redo them. I would rather get some good new rides vs, them spending the next 15 years how they can make something more tomorrow looking or future looking. Just get new stuff so these parks aren't so lame.

Excellent points. My only thinking on placement is that, by adding rides to DHS first and then either EPCOT or AK, they could alleviate some of the pressure on Magic Kingdom. However, theme does need to be consistent. For Tomorrowland/Future World, they can use clean lines and build what we hope things look like (fountains, trees, etc). For this thread though, I feel like the attendance decline has been a direct result of bad investments in the parks (meet-n-greets instead of rides). Once concern I have with the announced DHS fixes is that they won't continue but will instead stop. That seems to be more the WDW process, which is to not carry through on plans.

Someone mentioned dependence on foreign tourists as an issue which I agree with as well. The overseas (ie. Europe, Asia) tourists are more likely to be from first-world countries with more stable economies although there are no guarantees. A country like Brazil (whose tourists get blamed by some for being bad guests) is not quite as stable. I don't know. It's kind of a mess. However, it reflects a continued stream of decisions that, on the surface, appeared to be bad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mad Dog
Excellent points. My only thinking on placement is that, by adding rides to DHS first and then either EPCOT or AK, they could alleviate some of the pressure on Magic Kingdom. However, theme does need to be consistent. For Tomorrowland/Future World, they can use clean lines and build what we hope things look like (fountains, trees, etc). For this thread though, I feel like the attendance decline has been a direct result of bad investments in the parks (meet-n-greets instead of rides). Once concern I have with the announced DHS fixes is that they won't continue but will instead stop. That seems to be more the WDW process, which is to not carry through on plans.

Someone mentioned dependence on foreign tourists as an issue which I agree with as well. The overseas (ie. Europe, Asia) tourists are more likely to be from first-world countries with more stable economies although there are no guarantees. A country like Brazil (whose tourists get blamed by some for being bad guests) is not quite as stable. I don't know. It's kind of a mess. However, it reflects a continued stream of decisions that, on the surface, appeared to be bad.

Agreed, new rides in other parks may help out MK. But no one is going to do a trip to Disney and skip MK. Let's say if they do 3 days, they will skip Epcot, DK, or DHS. If DHS and AK has new stuff, Epcot will be skipped. It helps more with people who stay a week. Maybe instead of spending 3 days in MK they only spend 2 days. I also think park hopping becomes less important so people are not park hopping to MK every night if AK, DHS, and Epcot become full day parks. But all of those types of changes take time. Which is why I don't think NFL was a bad thing, I just think it shouldn't have been the ONLY thing they did. They needed to also add stuff to the other 3 parks.

I still am in the camp that future type lands need to go away. Technology is advancing too quickly to sustain entire lands. A couple rides sure, but an entire land is just too much. No park should have to update entire lands every 10 years which is pretty much what you would need for those types of lands.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SkiBum
Agreed, new rides in other parks may help out MK. But no one is going to do a trip to Disney and skip MK. Let's say if they do 3 days, they will skip Epcot, DK, or DHS. If DHS and AK has new stuff, Epcot will be skipped. It helps more with people who stay a week. Maybe instead of spending 3 days in MK they only spend 2 days. I also think park hopping becomes less important so people are not park hopping to MK every night if AK, DHS, and Epcot become full day parks. But all of those types of changes take time. Which is why I don't think NFL was a bad thing, I just think it shouldn't have been the ONLY thing they did. They needed to also add stuff to the other 3 parks.

I still am in the camp that future type lands need to go away. Technology is advancing too quickly to sustain entire lands. A couple rides sure, but an entire land is just too much. No park should have to update entire lands every 10 years which is pretty much what you would need for those types of lands.
Technology was actually progressing faster in the '80s than it is now.

The concept of a Future/Tomorrow World/Land is a great one. And the reason I say so is your (and many others) point of view. It is soooo limited. You think they will show us the next gen iPhone. What they need to show us is how we will communicate in 50 years. What they showed us in 1982 is the tech we are using now. They showed us "The Internet" before the Internet. There will be the next big breakthrough. Disney showed us prior to the last big breakthrough what it would be. The Imagineers could do it again. But that would take intellectual depth and vision. Not Americas strong suit these days.
 
Technology was actually progressing faster in the '80s than it is now.

The concept of a Future/Tomorrow World/Land is a great one. And the reason I say so is your (and many others) point of view. It is soooo limited. You think they will show us the next gen iPhone. What they need to show us is how we will communicate in 50 years. What they showed us in 1982 is the tech we are using now. They showed us "The Internet" before the Internet. There will be the next big breakthrough. Disney showed us prior to the last big breakthrough what it would be. The Imagineers could do it again. But that would take intellectual depth and vision. Not Americas strong suit these days.
Teleportation. Beam me up Scottie. It'll make park hopping easy. And, the big plus, no more late on time, packed, smelly buses. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Disneyhead
Technology was actually progressing faster in the '80s than it is now.
I have no idea what the subject is at the moment, nor need to know, but this line caught my eye. :agree: SO TRUE! every time I challenge the lack of inventions, many people opt to defend it by saying "Look what I can now do with my phone now". Just another 80's invention that got better. I mean you can say TVs were better in the 80s than back in the 50s, but that does not mean the 80s gets the credit for the invention of TVs.