United Parks & Resortsreason 01 of 4it can hold its price and keep the customerderived 2026-09-08accession 0001193125-26-340383
In-park per capita spending increased by 5.1% to $39.51 in Q2 2026 compared to $37.61 in Q2 2025
In park per capita spending increased primarily due to higher penetration and the impact of pricing initiatives
Costs of food, merchandise and other revenues increased only 2.4% while related revenue increased 2.0% despite attendance declining 2.9%
no findingread · nothing bore on it
It held on this filing. No finding was written because nothing in it bore on the reason — the sentences it was read against are below.
the evidence · every sentence checkedfive sentences · whole, uncut
the claims it rests on
“In-park per capita spending increased by 5.1% to $39.51 in Q2 2026 compared to $37.61 in Q2 2025”
“In park per capita spending increased primarily due to higher penetration and the impact of pricing initiatives”
“Costs of food, merchandise and other revenues increased only 2.4% while related revenue increased 2.0% despite attendance declining 2.9%”
what it was checked against
in-park per capita definition
“We calculate in-park per capita spending as total food, merchandise and other revenue divided by total attendance.”
pricing and penetration drivers
“In-park per capita spending is primarily driven by pricing, product offerings, the mix of guests (as domestic and international guests typically generate higher in-park per capita spending than local guests or pass holders), guest penetration levels (percentage of guests purchasing) and the mix of in-park spending, among other factors.”