The Themed Entertainment Association has released its annual report (14 pages long)

http://www.themeit.com/attendance_report2007.pdf

Nice read. Looks like Kings Island finished right behind Cedar Point in 17th in overall attendance with just 70,000 less visitors than Cedar Point in the North American category. Also it looks like KI attendance was flat in 2007 with the opening of Firehawk while Cedar Point's attendance went up by 1.5 percent with there opening of Maverick.

I think Disney....I mean the TEA is biased. They need to define "Amusement park" and "Theme park" then stick each park in a category and leave them there. If they did this, I think they would accomplish what they set out to do. That is promote the industry, what they are doing now is promoting just a couple of large companies that have multiple parks. The little guy does not have a chance and is rarely mentioned in any TEA reports that I receive during the year.

Monroe – I can see and understand how you could make your comments in regards to the TEA’s report. But what I took away from the report was not just who placed where but also how the industry was doing as a whole and where. From the description of who the TEA tries to inform I can see the value in their assessments of the industry, in fact they do list how they come to their conclusions and yes the smaller parks with less than 1 million visitors are purposefully left out.

Now to expand on the Disney reference, I felt the TEA’s report backs up another report that Interpreter shared with us on this board

http://www.KICentral.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=12311

It talks about Disney going into markets where there is a major source of population in the area. So when I see Disney’s numbers listed in the TEA’s report I can see that Disney may really be onto something. While we see others in the business going to where the money is right now like in Dubai, where the competition in the area may be fierce in a few years. Disney focuses on putting down roots in well populated areas where they can keep guests and potential customers within arms reach for a variety of products/services for many years to come.

I am not disputing any of their conclusions, just how they came to their conclusions. If you want to promote an industry, then do it. Don't give a couple of companies the spot light and the info they need to grow, and leave the small man out to flop on the beach. To change this, all they would have to do is change the definitions, resubmit the info. This would give some of the smaller parks the info they need to provide a better experience at their park for less than it would to gain this info on their own. Some of the better parks that I have been to, have attendance that is under 500,000 and a ride inventory under 20. To put a new ride in, some of this info would come in handy but they have to collect it on their own adding to the cost. After going to many small parks in the US and over seas, this report tends to sound bios to me.