Originally Posted By mrichmondj I think there is a big difference between what I describe as a "market researcher" and you describe as a "marketing professional." Your assessment of marketing professional, aka salesman, is spot on. That they ignored the prevailing market research based on facts and went ahead with a 2nd gate is a management blunder.
Originally Posted By woody >>With DCA the marketing professionals were god. They promised success with Disneyland’s 2nd gate and once again they were wrong.<< >>I don’t understand why so many people still cling to what these guys say. Their record, as far as Disney Parks in So Cal) is pretty bad.<< They are probably correct in the sense that Disney theme parks are very successful, but they are not experienced with analyzing creative endeavors. How do you put a number on a creative product? There's no easy way except for precedence. Whatever worked in the past may work in the future. Marketing as currently practiced is not about creativity. It is about selling rather than creating a saleable product. WDI is bad in the opposite way. They are the ones who are supposed to know what the customer likes. They really don't.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "That they ignored the prevailing market research based on facts and went ahead with a 2nd gate is a management blunder." While I agree that there was a high amount of risk building a second gate in Anaheim given the saturated theme park market down there, I really do believe that the company was left with few options for long-term financial growth at DL other than building a second gate. My belief is that DCA and the entire resort expansion was built modestly to offset financial risk and to build a foundation for future growth. While the project has failed to generate the acclaim that we expect (the fans) from Disney, there are unknown business elements that most of us fail to consider when discussing this topic.
Originally Posted By TP2000 "We're still working to assure the second gate is successful", Iger said, referring to California Adventure. "In the spirit of candor, we have been challenged." -Bob Iger, Shareholders Meeting, March 10th, 2006 It sounds like some of those unknown business elements are still as disapointing as the overall design of DCA was.
Originally Posted By Park Hopper Okay, Hans, I know I'm going to regret this but I have to ask. Where is it written that the theme park market in Southern California is saturated?
Originally Posted By Brick-N-Mortar I have to wonder what the genesis of DCA was. Did someone stand up in a brain storming meeting and say, "lets build a theme park with a California theme." Maybe, but nothing happens fast at any large corporation. I imagine it might have gone something like this: Top brass at the Walt Disney Co. went to the strategy group and asked them to come up with ways to increase capacity and profitability at the Disneyland Resort. Their report suggested a second gate along with other suggestions that may or may not have been utilized. This went to the planning team that had to come up with a business model, financial planning and concepts that made responsible business sense. Once a plan was approved by management, I have to believe the plan was presented to the Board of Directors and the primary share holders. So now there have been multiple tiers of scrutiny to the plan to build a new park. I am sure there were formulas used to come up with what an acceptable initial capital outlay could be and how long it would take to recoup those funds and start turning a profit as well as what sort of attendance could be realized (ticket sales) and how many dollars per capita would be spent by park patrons. Then there is the execution of the plan. Was the park as it was when it opened the best the budget would buy at the time? Was there adequate brand (DCA) marketing prior to the park opening? I am not a Disney employee or even a share holder. I do not have an MBA or any insider information as to how DCA came to be. My comments are my own thoughts and opinions based on some limited knowledge of how large companies function from doing business with them.
Originally Posted By speedygenie for brick...the quick version the Port Disney long beach (Disneysea)fell through, they decided to focus on anaheim. Came up with the 3 billion $Westcot, that unfortunately fell through. Eisner/Pressler bigwigs do an aspen retreat to brainstorm what to do in Socal. Since plans for Disney's America fell through in Virgina and they all really wanted to do it, they did the same thing but themed it to California. Cheep budget, off the shelf filler, bad marketing. that sums up 5 years of back and forth goob yapfests. PS, I like DCA
Originally Posted By oc_dean 'Speedy' .. that was perfect! Really summed up the ineptitude of Pressler & Braverman - And Eisner's ~love~ of Coney Island type boardwalks & factory tours. All of which has been hashed out quite well here at LP between 2002 & 2004. With the top three people responsible for signing off on DCA gone from the company for good - says a lot in of itself.
Originally Posted By oc_dean side note: I love to look at the history of discussing DCA here at LP like this .. Since I've been paying attention to these "chats" since day one ... 2000 - Reaction to a lackluster plan, red admins. 2001 - The war heats up, red admins lighting up the LP boards like a Christmas tree 2002 - "Getting to the bottom" stories from high level people leaking out ("If it's good enough for 6-flags", and MORE. Admins continue to fly off left and right. 2003 - Defenders continue with "it's the weather, it was Sept.11th, yada, yada, and more yada". Admins begin tapering off. 2004 - Will ToT be the "silver bullet". Admins down to a minimum. 2005 - Pro & Con sides still at it. Admins pretty quiet. 2006 - the rhetoric has developed a life of it's own. Admins almost non existant. :~
Originally Posted By Darkbeer And the new folks in charge aren't afraid to admit that the park has problems, and want to address them, and make improvements!
Originally Posted By Elderp DLs Execs have been a lot loser in what they let the common folks know. I remember back in 2000 when it was hard to hear anything about DCA.
Originally Posted By oc_dean I'd love it if Doobie could pull up the 2000 archive of posts on DCA. It would be a fun trip down memory lane. ;~)
Originally Posted By oc_dean When I started May 2000 I jumped right in!! It's been a fun ride! ~ It's been a real "E TICKET"~~~ :O)~~~~
Originally Posted By Brisal73 The Eisner era was never about originality when creating Disney's new theme parks or attractions. First came Living Seas at Epcot to compete with Sea World MGM Studios was made to compete with the soon to be opened Universal Orlando. They even rushed MGM to get it out a year ahead. Unfortuntely even with a less than modest attraction lineup MGM was a hit. This got Disney thinking that we can continue to open new parks and people will still come because of the Disney name Animal Kingdom to compete with Bush Gardens and the recent Islands of Adventure. DCA to comepete with Six Flags, Knotts, and Universal Studios. Disney's America and later DCA... was going to be the first in many small operated parks with the Disney name. If Disney succeeded with DCA they would have created similiar parks all over the country. Example...Disney's Pennsylvania Adventure, or Disney's Hawaiian Adventure. They wanted to compete with regional parks such as Sixflags. Luckily that plan didn't work and now they have only DCA and AK to fix
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<Disney's America and later DCA... was going to be the first in many small operated parks with the Disney name. If Disney succeeded with DCA they would have created similiar parks all over the country. Example...Disney's Pennsylvania Adventure, or Disney's Hawaiian Adventure. They wanted to compete with regional parks such as Sixflags.>. Source please?
Originally Posted By mickey42397 One question, how does AK compete with Islands of Adventure ? I am just curious about that since both parks are COMPLETELY different. I know that AK wasn't done as planned, having left out Beastly Kingdom, but the only thing one could compare between those two parks would be the dueling coasters they were supposed to build in Beastly Kingdom. Other than that, there is no comparison. Islands of Adventure is just a themed thrill ride park. No animals, no water, nothing African or Asian, or even Dinosaur. No shows to speak of either. Oh yeah, they have a rapids like AK, but they also have two other water flume rides. None of that at AK.
Originally Posted By gadzuux I think DCA and AK are 'an apples and oranges' comparison. For one thing, a park like AK could only happen in orlando. While similar to DCA in the sense that it couldn't exist as a stand-alone park, it requires enormous amounts of space, and is labor-intensive relative to DCA. And while AK was (and still is)definitely light on attractions, the structure of the park is well suited to growth. DCA on the other hand is now requiring some serious re-imagining, from infrastructure and layout all the way up to the actual theme itself. AK is ready for growth and development, while DCA is in need of remedial placemaking and basic structural engineering. The two parks are hardly equivalent.
Originally Posted By speedygenie by the way, I'm calling total BS on the numerous "disney adventure parks" around the country. I think they were hoping the locals would show a little state pride and really make it home. And at the same time be a massive welcome center for out of towners. There's really no other place like it, so I don't hate the theme. If they spent the cash they needed, we would be yappin about how cool it is, not all of it's short comings. new peeps in charge, new things to come. It aint over yet.
Originally Posted By 9oldmen >>Other than that, there is no comparison. Islands of Adventure is just a themed thrill ride park. No animals, no water, nothing African or Asian, or even Dinosaur.<< Technically, IOA has a "Jurrasic Park" area, which could be seen as an equivelent of DAKs Dinoland, but the similarities end just about there.
Originally Posted By 9oldmen >>The Eisner era was never about originality when creating Disney's new theme parks or attractions. First came Living Seas at Epcot to compete with Sea World<< Living Seas was in the works long before Eisner came along. There is a chapter on the Living Seas in the hardcover EPCOT book which was released in conjunction with the park's opening in October of '82. Eisner did'nt come along until late '84.
