Originally Posted By fkurucz >>>For instance, they commissioned the Stanford Research Institute to conduct a study on the best site location. The conclusion was that current site in Anaheim was one of the best locations based on population growth, climate, and its proximity to the I-5 and central Los Angeles.<<< True, but that study just determined the best place to locate DL, not whether or not it was viable. Disney's business plan wasn't all that convincing to the investment community, in spite of Roy's best efforts. Anyway, I do find it interesting that adding new attractions to DCA hasn't helped that park, and that DL, without anything new was able to pack them in with mostly hype. The only new rides, Buzz and Pooh, are basically C or D tickets.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt ^^Which, I think, helps support the student's findings that new attractions do not result in any meaningful long term increase in attendance.
Originally Posted By berol One of those "duh" studies, pick something a little less obvious for a paper like "the sun always sets in the evening." A better paper would have been how long attendance has a meaningful increase.
Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror >>>^^Which, I think, helps support the student's findings that new attractions do not result in any meaningful long term increase in attendance<<< What, the fact that since Indy, they've mostly added lame or modest attractions? Or a major attraction with mediocre follow-through (tower) ? Yeah, anybody would naturally assume those would make a dent. Not to mention that mesmerizing Snow White spectacle in the Fantasyland Theater...
Originally Posted By berol Indy would have kept bringing people in long-term for showing a possible study flaw. Not having new rides was a perfect time to test it. "Did you read it? That's exactly what they did." I didn't read it. How long did they find it lasts?
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt berol: According to page 12: "In the years 1986 through 1998 the region had just five them parks, and Disneyland captured nearly 50% of market share. The rest of the market was plit very evenly among the remaining four companies, with Universal Studios Hollywood doing slightly better than the others. The biggest fluctuation in market share occurred in 1995, the year Disneyland opened its popular attraction Indiana Jones... Disneyland's market share had been slipping in the early 1990's, and after the debut of the Indiana Jone's attraction, its market share returned to the levels of the late 1980's." On page 39: "Although the theme parks clearly hope that big new attractions will boost attendance, the data give no evidence that they have any lasting effect. Throughout our project, only one attraction stood out as having a noticeable impact on a park: Indiana Jones... Disneyland attendance was slowly declining in the early 1990's, and the opening of the Indiana Jones attraction in 1995 caused a noticeable and lasting increase in Disneyland's attendance and market share." An accompanying graph shows that Disneyland's attendance remained fairly stong following Indy's opening through 1998.
Originally Posted By berol Oh, I don't think you followed what I was saying (or vice versa.) I said "A better paper would have been how long attendance has a meaningful increase." (as in the short-term effect: 3 days, 6 months...?) You said "That's exactly what they did." I thought cool! and asked out of laziness, "How long did they find it lasts?" The quotes didn't answer the question or show how 'that's exactly what they did.' But I'm definitely too lazy to read thru that many pages and see what's up. I have a feeling they didn't check to see if Indy was what caused that long-term attendance boost. It could be AP's, economy, discounts or whatever else.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt ^^How can you have "a feeling" about a report if you haven't read it? If you really have an interest in this subject then I suggest you read the report and then tell us if you think the findings are accurate or not and why.
Originally Posted By berol 'How can you have "a feeling" about a report if you haven't read it?' The question contains the answer.
Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror Berol, read it... You'll be smiling. If for no other reason than realizing the caliber of writing is not up to the subject matter. Good instincts, btw.
Originally Posted By tangaroa I haven’t read the whole report, only skimmed through it, and generally I think it's a good report, if for no other reason, because it explores an area of theme park management that rarely gets any attention in the main stream media. That said I see two major flaws in the report (which mostly end up being the same problem): Issue 1: They cite 1995's opening of Indiana Jones at Disneyland as being the ONLY attraction that significantly changed the market share of Disneyland. The problem here is that they failed to mention (or possibly even research) the fact that this was also the year that Disneyland started selling cheap $99 dollar annual passes with blockout dates. Those passes were $50 cheaper than the previous pass, and heavily marketed for the first time (with ads for the passes being displayed in the park and on the maps and brochures. Those passes have been in existence ever since - so how can someone from an outside view distinguish whether the attraction of the passes created the permanent change in attendance. Issue 2: they operate under the assumption that theme park prices have risen consistently for the last two decades, and ignore the various discounts and annual pass programs in existence. When you factor things like Annual Passes, Park Hoppers, Multi-Day Tickets and So Cal discounts (like City Pass) I'd wager that the average admission per person has either stayed steady or decreased in the last ten years. Their contention is that one day park entrance fees have increased considerably, but attendance hasn't been affected by it - but the parks make sure that there is enough discounting in the market to offset the impact of those increases. That's important because it relates to something a few of us have been saying for years... The major contention here for debate was whether adding new attractions increased attendance or not, and the consensus seems to be that they do not increase overall attendance, but that their importance instead is in limiting the decline of attendance over time. That would only be true if the park's attendance has been capped out by some undetermined factor (which seems to be something the study vaguely touches on, but never really delves into. California population has only double in the last 50 years or so, but Disneyland's attendance between 1955 and 2005 has greatly increased (seven of eight times so), so with attendance outpacing population, for at least some of those 50 years, new attractions DID greatly increase overall attendance - and that's probably why the theme park managers give so much importance to that philosophy today. But after 50 years of theme parks, there isn't some untapped demographic out there who will suddenly decide to start visiting theme parks because of a single attraction. So the people that go to theme parks, are the people who consider themselves regular patrons of theme parks, who would visit regardless of whether there were new attractions or not. The only determining factor against attendance then is how often they visit - and that's directly related to price for entry... ... which was mostly ignored by the study. See the contention for some of us online for the last few years has been that the value of Disneyland has actually decreased over the last few years without the addition of new attractions, but that decrease in value in the park itself, has been very carefully countered by a discount/AP program that keeps people coming through the gates. The study suggests that Disneyland's market share in the 80s and 90s had been slipping, which correlates to an aging attraction line up, but suddenly in 1995 the market share increased, permanently, which also correlates in the introduction of a cheaper admission media which is still available today. If anyone needs any proof of the impact of the AP program, just ask anyone who was in the park with me on Monday, who got mobbed by the thousands of Annual Passholders who were finally unblocked yesterday. Had I known that, I wouldn't have ventured down there at all. It was a horrible experience and 100% attributed to the AP blockout days. ANYWAY to bring this insanely long post to an end - the point isn't that new attractions will increase the attendance at the parks, but rather that new attractions will increase the overall value of the park, and therefore the amount of money people are willing to spend to come in, which for Disneyland, is pretty low right now.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt Tang, I'm sure you'll be shocked to read this, but I pretty much agree with your assessment. Basically, the whole thing is very complex, and would require further investigation and research. I do think that there is the false assumption among the fan community that new attractions alone increase attendance long-term. What the report does is show us that there is little or no factual evidence that this is true. I agree with your assertion that there are benefits to adding new attractions: increased value, sustained traffic flow, and exended on-site visits. These all add up to the possibility of increased revenue long-term.
Originally Posted By Park Hopper Another thing to take into account is the nature of economics and sociology, neither of which is an exact science. There can be no definitive proof of any of this no matter how many numbers some UCLA students throw around. Granted it is possible to make an educated guess, which is what they have done. But it is by no means proof of anything.
Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror >>>See the contention for some of us online for the last few years has been that the value of Disneyland has actually decreased over the last few years without the addition of new attractions, but that decrease in value in the park itself, has been very carefully countered by a discount/AP program that keeps people coming through the gates.<<< A pretty astute summation. But the report overall really does smack of a couple of Seniors in High School putting together stats and framing the whole thing as a professional construct. The fact that it was published, considering its level of scholarship, is testament to its subject matter, not so much its quality or overall accuracy. Too much is left out, and too much is assumed.
Originally Posted By oc_dean What bothers me though, is such reports could be *assumed* as a reason for the bean-counters in Disney to cop-out of new E-Ticket type attractions.
Originally Posted By tangaroa >Too much is left out, and too much is >assumed. Yeah a lot is assumed, but they admit that they don't have access to all the data. Sometimes good science is just a lot of guess work. After all Einstein's theory of relativity is still just a theory. There is one fact though that we can look at though: Disney hasn't built a major new ride in Anaheim in over ten years, but they seem to be doing alright without one. There's gotta be a reason for that, whatever we all assume it to be.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros They haven't build a major new ride in over ten years...Grizzly River run...Soarin'...California Screamin'...Tower of Terror...They've built a lot, but not much in DL. I think the overall resort expansion has been a huge source of returning guests to DL itself. Also, they tried new things with TL '98 and Pooh. Those saw momentary jumps in attendance (very momentary for Pooh), so it is not entirely correct to say that they are relying entirely on huge new rides.
Originally Posted By oc_dean BIG SIGH OF RELIEF WITH AL'S EVEN NEWER COLUMN....... >>But since this was an idea hatched at the last minute and fast-tracked to satisfy the marketing team, there were some logistical details overlooked, such as the Anaheim city codes that require beauty parlors to have both fresh water and sewer lines hooked up to the dozen sinks planned for the Boutique. Since no one ever thought to run city water or sewer lines to the bleacher section of Videopolis when it was quickly built back in 1985 using the US Festival stage, the hassle and time needed to install the infrastructure for a kiddy beauty parlor in the middle of the theater means the Bibbidi Bobbidi Boutique has now been downgraded to a simple merchandise cart selling tiaras and sparkly shoes. Strike one for childhood decadence.<< Halleluia - There is a God in heaven!!
