Enormous hype for Star Wars: Galaxy’s Edge didn’t translate into more people coming through the gates of Disneyland in 2019, according to an annual report on theme park attendance.

The Theme Index from the Themed Entertainment Association (TEA) and economics practice at professional services company AECOM provides a yearly look at theme park attendance around the world. The 2019 report shows the impact that the 14-acre Galaxy’s Edge expansions had on Disneyland and Disney’s Hollywood Studios. 

For Disneyland, attendance was flat in 2019, remaining at 18,666,000 visitors. In Florida, Disney’s Hollywood Studios’ attendance rose by 2 percent, to 11,430,00 visitors. 

“Disney’s domestic park attendance numbers were flat overall for 2019 compared to the previous year which could be attributed to the operator emphasizing its yield strategy by prioritizing the quality of guest experience and per caps,” Kathleen LaClair, associate principal for the Americas at AECOM, wrote in the report. “This operating model has emerged over the last decade and will likely serve operators well moving forward, with respect to capacity limitations in parks and the continued need to stay competitive.”

These statistics fall well far short of the pre-opening predictions. Disney boasted in the years ahead of the debut of Galaxy’s Edge that it was expecting huge demand without much marketing. Bill Zanetti, an adjunct professor at the University of Central Florida’s Rosen College of Hospital Management, once predicted to Theme Park Tribune that 200,000 visitors would show up on the land’s opening day on the West Coast. 

Instead, the opening at Disneyland led to lower crowd levels throughout the resort. The exact reason why is a matter of debate, but industry experts have cited a variety of factors, from the decision to open the land with the lesser of its two attractions to basing the land off the newer “Star Wars” films instead of the trilogy to the hype scaring away potential guests. 

In some segments of the Disney fandom, the debate turned to conspiracy and conjecture. Some fans accused theme park media of unfair coverage. On the other side, critics promoted baseless claims about the land being quickly rethemed to “Aladdin.” 

Publicly, Disney said the land met expectations. Now-Disney CEO Bob Chapek called it a “runaway success” while his predecessor, Bob Iger, said the two versions of Galaxy’s Edge “have been far more successful than have been reported.”

Public opinion appeared to shift once the land’s marquee attraction, Star Wars: Rise of the Resistance, debuted. However, the new ride would have little impact of attendance figures; it didn’t open until December at Disney’s Hollywood Studios while Disneyland guests had to wait until January of 2020 to experience it. 

Next year’s TEA/AECOM report is unlikely to settle the debate. Instead of providing a glimpse into what a full year of Galaxy’s Edge does for Disney’s domestic parks, attendance numbers will be dramatically decreased due to the COVID-19 pandemic that shut down the parks for months. In Disneyland’s case, there’s no reopening in sight. 

“Some are predicting 30.0% to 50.0% of normal business volume for the coming months, and surveys show positive demand from the market,” wrote John Robinett, senior vice president of economics at AECOM. “However, it may take one to several years to return to pre-COVID operating levels, and the investment horizon of many owners may be altered due to cash flow loss.”

RELATED STORIES:
Legoland Florida now requires face masks to be worn indoors for guests 8 and up
Orange County Mayor may ask Disney World to “reevaluate” reopening if COVID-19 outbreaks are tied to theme parks
This Orlando theme park owner spread anti-face mask misinformation. Now his parks require masks

3 Responses

  1. JM

    Okay. You guys really need to shut up about this. Numbers are only one way to measure success. You could call these lands a failure if the numbers were negative. But they were not. They may not have been as high as speculated, but that is not the same as a failure.

    We all know pretty much why they were where they were, too. So please. Stop doing this. Continued reporting on it can and does make the problem worse by giving the public a negative perception.

    Please. If you have something to add do. This is not. Stop all this.

    Reply
    • John Gregory

      At no point did I call it a failure. These attendance figures are new, therefore they add to what we know about how the opening went. In other words, it’s newsworthy.

      Since I’m a journalist, it would be unethical for me to ignore information simply because it can be construed as a negative for Disney, as you appear to be suggesting. Thanks for reading.

      Reply
      • JM

        I am a journalist too, and unless you are bound by some guild or company policy, you can indeed ignore information, especially if you have already reported on it.

        And I argue you absolutely have a duty to the public, but not just to report information. You should be careful about your perception too.

        We live in a day when the slightest piece of reporting can tip the balances of public awareness. We as journalists must be aware of that. I find your article here a failure of that

        Bottom line here is that you have already covered Galaxy’s Edge and it’s attendance, a few time actually. There isn’t anything here that is new.

        And you don’t have to outright say it’s a failure. By stating “Galaxy’s Edge did not raise park attendance,” the idea of failure is indeed implied. You then quote Chapek and Iger as extolling its virtue in contrast to this. That can come across as painting these men as out of touch, given the claim about the attendance numbers.

        I am going to stand by what I said here. If you were simply trying to report facts, these are facts you have already reported. This is unnecessary. If you were not trying to paint this as a failure, you didn’t really succeed. It’s not a bad job. But it could have been better, much better.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.