Originally Posted By GoofBall ^^^ UGH! So close! idle - I see what you are saying about free stuff being replaced by play-to- pay and that would be a sad trend. But I'm not sure that I'm ready to make that leap yet that this will be the new trend. Snow White was already on the choping block. Meanwhile the Princess Faire at WDW is a massive success. Who knows how long DL has been looking to bring it over and wondering where to put it? I dont think its a simple as just replacing any old free attraction with any old pay one. FL theater is actually the perfect place for the Princess Faire but I do think if its popular it will eventually get moved. As for the NOS entertainment cuts - haven't those been replaced by Pirate acts? (free)
Originally Posted By berol It won't be pay-to-play replacing free unless the princess thing is still in the theater next June, jumping the gun with this.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<You're missing my point entirely.>> That happens a lot around here ... <<If Disney has the development and operational dollars to put on this Boutique, then it has the development and operational dollars to put on another show. >> Exactly. The only point that really needs to be made here, Princess ;-) (he says ducking!) <<Disney deliberately chose to transform the theatre into a FOR PROFIT center, instead of continuing with its traditional use as a FREE entertainment offering.>> Seems straight forward to me. <<And while some may argue that Disney is being SMART by using the theatre as a FOR PROFIT center, instead of letting it sit empty, chew on this thought: what FREE offering in the park will be next on the hit list by TDA?>> I got one ... how about pay toilets? Followed by a charge for that pixie-dust laced air? <<I see this makeover boutique as part of an overall trend to reduce the number of FREE offerings inside the berm, such as the NOS entertainment that's now disappearing, in favor of little or no FREE entertainment, or worse, FOR PROFIT entertainment which will only be available at an additional price. Admission into the park will probably follow WDW's recent price hike soon, while food/merch prices continue to increase. Nickel-and-diming the Disney guest continues to worsen, and I'm sick of it.>> You aren't the only one. (but you know that)
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 >>If Disney has the development and operational dollars to put on this Boutique, then it has the development and operational dollars to put on another show.<< <<Ah, but what's teh incremental ROI on the show. Don't get me wrong, I'ld prefer a show any day, but how do you justify a show that does not directly generate any revenue to the sharp pencil types in the TDA building? You would have to convince them that a new show would generate increased attendance, and you might hard pressed to convince them of that.>> And do you know, seriously, what helps sell folks at TDA ... or in Burbank, Orlando etc ... that they can make moves like this? When they read fan sites and see people able to justify their decisions based on strictly numbers (which are the only thing most of them care about). If the diehard geek fans on a site like this can justify turning a theater into a 'Make your daughter into a Jon-Benet Ramsey parlor' or putting up high-rise timeshare towers at the Contemporary Resort or anything else ... well, they figure they can do anything. I wonder if they've got it right.
Originally Posted By fkurucz ^^^All I'm saying is this: you tell some bigwig in TDA that its better to put on a show than a makeover area. The makeover crowd have spreadsheets, NPV calculations, etc., with profit projections. Now the stone faced VP turns to you an asks "how much money is this show going to make us?". What do you tell him? How do you back this up?
Originally Posted By fkurucz ^^I'm not saying that it can't be done, but its a lot harder than making a case for a profit center (a show is fundamentally a cost center), and requires more assumptions than the princess makeover area.
Originally Posted By GoofBall You can view something as nickel-and-diming or even gouging, but I view it as paying extra for an enhanced experience. Character meals are expensive, but I do it because my kids get to see some characters without chasing them around the park and waiting in line. Fantasmic Balcony is incredibly expensive but we do that too because we dont like fighting crowds. The Princess Faire is most definitely an enhanced experience at a price for those willing to pay it. A little girls dream, seeing the real princesses and playing dress-up with them, her two favorite things perhaps. And if she is really lucky she will get to take home some pretty new princess merch - they are already selling it in the shops anyway, its nothing new there. Okay, so maybe they could tone it down and make this a free attraction and absorb the cost of it then everyone is paying for an attraction that a small demographic will participate in. I disagree thatits just the 'geeks on this board' who are justifying the cost of things and get TDA all inspired. I know alot of families that come every year or two or three and they expect to come and spend a great deal of money. They aren't scoffing at the food and merch prices because they aren't coming as often as the regulars who want a bite to eat and to catch a couple of rides. <<<food/merch prices continue to increase. Nickel-and-diming the Disney guest continues to worsen, and I'm sick of it.>>> Of course, food and merch prices have gone up, should Disney absorb inflation as well? Been shopping lately? As far as the FL Theater goes, I agree that a show the whole family can enjoy would be better and I'm sure one day there will be again. I just dont see them spending money on a new show right away when they are not expecting high attendance this winter/spring, the crowds are already fading this summer. Give it some time. Was there ever a show there that was run year 'round there anyway, maybe before Aladdin went in across the street. I dont see 2 shows running during off season. <<<'Make your daughter into a Jon-Benet Ramsey parlor' >>> Leave that innocent murdered child out of this. What is the relation between a girl who lived a lifestyle of competitions and pagents to a girl on a family vacation who wants to pretend she is a princess for the day. Thats a big stretch there.
Originally Posted By Moderation The irony here is that I spent about 60 bucks on my 8 year old specifically because she doesn't want to be a princess. She seems to have realized at an early age that with 8000 princesses wondering around the park pricess ain't cool, it's conformist, and committed to an authentic Alice in Wonderland outfit, complete with petticoats and a pinafore. Some days I have hope for the future....
Originally Posted By dresswhites my biggest problem with this is that this area should be used for stage shows.
Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror >>>Its warm and fuzzy to think of Walt's days back when the park had "class" but wasn't he drowning in debt?<<< Umm, nope. Not after the park had been open a couple of years.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Its warm and fuzzy to think of Walt's days back when the park had "class" but wasn't he drowning in debt?<< No. After a short rough patch at the beginning, Disneyland was a financial success, and was, in fact, the only truly successfull sector of WDP for many years. >>...how do you justify a show that does not directly generate any revenue to the sharp pencil types in the TDA building? You would have to convince them that a new show would generate increased attendance, and you might hard pressed to convince them of that.<< This is the problem with putting accountants in charge of an entertainment venue. The attitude that attractions and shows cost money while shops and restaurants make money is inherently flawed. It is precisely the attitude that lead to the creation of DCA. And we all know what a roaring financial success that has been. >>my biggest problem with this is that this area should be used for stage shows.<< Exactly. The problem for many here is that the largest theater venue in Disneyland is being turned into a large, and largely redundant, merchandising location.
Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror >>>This is the problem with putting accountants in charge of an entertainment venue. <<< What WOULD be a fun attraction at DCA's carny section, is a whole line of sadistic sideshow booths, featuring accountants... Accountants that can be dunked. Accountants that get electrocuted. Accountants whose heads you can inflate with water (first one to blow up wins all the money stuffed inside). Accountants who turn into freakish ape-accountants before your very eyes (featuring the Pepper's Ghost trick, the difference being that at the end of this one, you actually SHOOT the accountant). Truly no end of satisfying attractions if there were simply a "suit-land" section of DCA. And you could theme the whole area to look like one little corner of Wall Street. (sure, it's not very "california" but not so much of DCA is, either)
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>This is the problem with putting accountants in charge of an entertainment venue. The attitude that attractions and shows cost money while shops and restaurants make money is inherently flawed. It is precisely the attitude that lead to the creation of DCA. And we all know what a roaring financial success that has been.<< No argument here. But in the end it is the sharp pencils that approve or dissaprove projects. Tyey are not visionaries (lucky for Walt he had Rot, otherwise DL would have never happened). And this is the status quo in virtually all industries. For all the talk of risk taking, B School teaches you to play it safe. If you can't create a business plan that shows profits, then it won't get approved. No doubt DCA's plan was flawed, but that is the way publicly held companies are these days.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>This is the problem with putting accountants in charge of an entertainment venue.<< Actually, the sharp pencil types are Finance, not Accounting. Accountants figure out how much money was made. Finance projects how much will be made.
Originally Posted By fkurucz And to be fair to the folks in Finance (at any company), they do weed out their share of projects that would fail. In the end, executives use many sources of information to make their decisions (Finance, Marketing, etc.). And they know that most of the data is flawed. But if the financial models aren't good, it will be difficult to get financing for a project.
Originally Posted By believe Everyone knows that you can manipulate financial numbers to look good. ie, didn't the Eddie Murphy movie "Coming to America" "lose" money even after grossing more than $150 million? The creative attractions people need to get together with the finance people to show that rides and attractions DO make money.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>The creative attractions people need to get together with the finance people to show that rides and attractions DO make money.<< Oh, but they do. Thats' why Disney still builds $100M Etickets like Expedition Everest. Of course WDW is getting the lion's share of the new stuff because there is potentional to make more money in WDW.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt I do not believe that new attractions make money for Disneyland. In fact, they are an expense, and therefore cut into the park’s bottom line. From a financial standpoint they serve as one of several options to keep the turnstiles clicking. Rarely do theme parks see significant long-term attendance gains by opening a new attraction. Thus, these businesses tend to rely on the most economical and practical way to keep the crowds flowing - ie: promotional events such as the 50th, revamped Pirates, and princess makeovers in the Fantasyland Theater. The real moneymakers are the gate receipts, hotel rooms, restaurants, and shops.
Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger >>lucky for Walt he had Rot<< That doesn't sound very lucky to me. I don't think I want to know the medical details.
