Originally Posted By Doobie This topic is for discussion of the April 15 article: Report: Jim Hunt and Jay Rasulo Smith Barney Citigroup 2003 Tutorial Series Presentation at <a href="News-ID507040.asp" target="_blank">http://LaughingPlace.com/News-ID507040.asp</a>.
Originally Posted By slaakker I find it interesting that on some sites it is a huge debate regarding the use of AB numbers. I guess they are good enough for Rasulo and Barne.
Originally Posted By Westsider I listened to this web audio a few days ago, and I thought the exact same thing about the Amusement Business numbers. Jay Rasulo and his senior financial guy give a big presentation to a New York audience hosted by Smith Barney, and they reference and talk about the Amusement Business theme park estimates through the entire thing! It's interesting that some Disney fans called in to question those numbers when they showed that DCA's attendance fell for it's second year of operation while Disneyland's numbers rose. But those exact figures are apparently accurate enough for Jay Rasulo to use in a public speech to financial experts. That's amazing how that works, isn't it?
Originally Posted By arstogas >>>That's amazing how that works, isn't it?<<< Agreed, Westsider, it certainly is. Unless of course, for those who all along considered AB to have had good expertise in what they've been doing for so many years, as to be doing more than "Guessing"...
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<But those exact figures are apparently accurate enough for Jay Rasulo to use in a public speech to financial experts.>> Those numbers are an industry standard. Everyone accepts the fact that the Walt Disney Co. does not publish the actual figures. There are two reasons why they would cite AB's numbers. One, they CAN'T reveal actual numbers. And two, the numbers are more than likely inflated for the newer parks in the Disney line up. They simply do not have enough history one way or the other. Where as the older parks do have a long history of actual attendance numbers, and estimates would most likely be much more accurate.
Originally Posted By crapshoot I find these averages much more useful than worring about where the attendance figures were cited from. "Admission is the most profitable form of per capita spending; it makes up 60 percent of the per capita spending." Put this in context of the two for one park admission currently being offered. $22.50 per park admission. That is down to 30% for per cap spending. "Merchandise makes up 20 percent of the total per capita." "Food and beverage is a diversified business that also makes up about 20 percent of the total per capita spending." "Miscellaneous includes things such as parking and stroller rental." Interesting information.
Originally Posted By ifzorro i also liked the part of the report that staes that in a multi park resort the first park to get the guest inside gets the count and the otherone does not. Odd how for most of the last year DCA opened two hours later than Disneyland. So that would also mean that Disneyland got most of the counts for AP people and Multi dayguest staying on property with park hoppers. Meaning many of those Multiday guest never really entered DCA's doors first so Disneyland got most of the attendance credits. Not that it matters. I consider the resort as one meaning that it don't matter if attendance counts are lower in one than the other it still benefits the overall resort revenue.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>After spending a large amount of capital on making the resort’s multi-park destinations, now there will be a much smaller amount of capital expenditures. Jay emphasized that guests will still see new shows and attractions, but that the growth will be much more tactical. They will go park by park and focus on building projects that address specific guest needs. << Noooooooooooooo! That last sentence bothers me no end. To me, it means that those damn guest survey forms will likely chart the course for the parks more than Disney innovation and imagination. In other words, guests are more likely to ask for variations of existing attractions at other parks, rather than looking at a park's overall theme. Guests' tastes are aften a reflection of current trends. Guests say "I liked ride "A" at Disney World. I'd like this park better if it had that." In goes ride A (probably a scaled-back version at that). Check that one of the list. Bug's Land looks very cute, and I haven't seen it in person. But these are obviously kiddie rides designed to check a "problem" off a checklist of complaints. No guest would have ever asked for Pirates of the Caribbean. They didn't "need" it. But because Disney relied on storytellers with Imagination, they created an attraction that is still compelling to this day. Sorry to be so negative on this, but the idea that a great theme park can be designed primarily through "guest needs" is one I reject and find downright discouraging. It isn't up to guests to design the parks, it's up to Disney to design parks that draw guests in. Disneyland draws us in, invites us to play, to imagine, to discover. Can you imagine the hodgepodge it would be if it made knee-jerk changes based on guest surveys (it isn't hard to do -- simply look across the esplanade.) Hire talented showmen, creatives and the like, fund them sufficiently, and let their imaginations run wild. That's what guests respond to. TDA: Remember New Coke? Tested better than any product since the wheel. People said it's what they wanted. Every study said it was sure to be a success. LESSON: Don't depend too much on guest surveys. Instead, actually visit the parks as a guest on a regular basis and listen in to what people are saying when they aren't filling out a form. If theme parks aren't your "thing", explore career options elsewhere and open up jobs for people who love theme parks and art and music and entertainment. Lots of other businesses can be run via spreadsheets and focus groups. Theme parks ain't one of 'em. Sorry, rant over.
Originally Posted By dennis-in-ct <<Hire talented showmen, creatives and the like, fund them sufficiently, and let their imaginations run wild. That's what guests respond to.>>> Amen to THAT
Originally Posted By arstogas Yes, but before getting too concerned that this indicates retrenchment, remember who Jay was talking to. I don't think anyone, in this climate, would want to go before a group like this, knowing where they would be quoted and the fallout in the stock market, and say "we plan to spend oodles of money on every park to boost the attraction count". I like that he used the term "tactical" and just because they're talking about evaluating guest needs, doesn't mean that they're going to specifically mold their decision making to guest surveys. Sure, they've been pretty reliant on them of late for data, but they also ignore a lot of information they collect as well. So I wouldn't jump too nervously at any of these statements. Two years should be a good honeymoon to see the proof of the pudding, or at least the start of it.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I know what you're saying, arstogas. We'll see how it all works out, but for the most part, all I see are clones and rehabs/redos. If there were a hint of some bold new innavative attractions for DLR on the horizon, it would be easier for me to be more optimistic. I've been a pretty staunch defender over the last two years (some would say apologist), but comments like "tactical" and "meeting guest needs" worry me a bit.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer I know it sounds worrying, K2M, but let's see what Rasulo actually does. "Meeting guest needs" as interpreted by him could be much different than it would be interpreted by Pressler. And Disney has made a lot of strategic changes in the past 10 years but their tactics have been wanting. The strategy of having a second gate in Anaheim is sound, but the tactical decisions made while building and operating the park have not been very effective. I know what you're worried about, but these could be good things.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "I've been a pretty staunch defender over the last two years (some would say apologist), but comments like "tactical" and "meeting guest needs" worry me a bit." I think that for the time being Disney is trying to leverage their theme park brand globally and may not be all that concerned with trying to create bold new attractions specifically for each resort. The cost of developing a spectacular new "E" ticket and not cloning elsewhere means that this kind of expansion is unlikely to happen. "Disney is now using the same marketing message for all of their resorts. This saves money in messaging and also creates a stronger message that can be applied to all of the destinations. Disney calls this portfolio marketing because it markets the portfolio of parks and resorts around the world." The article goes on to say, "Jay said that there is no cannibalization effect that the international parks could have on Walt Disney World attendance. European guests that visit Disneyland Paris are more likely to visit Walt Disney World. A similar situation exists with the Tokyo Disney Resort." Apparently cloning has little or no affect on visitor's desire to visit other Disney destinations. As long as that is the case we can safely assume that cloning, rehabs and redos will continue.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>As long as that is the case we can safely assume that cloning, rehabs and redos will continue.<< You made me spill my pudding.
Originally Posted By tangaroa >You made me spill my pudding. That's ok. We were going to replace the carpet in here with that plastic stuff from Space Mountain. I mean it WAS just siting there in the dumpster and it's brand NEW too.
Originally Posted By bossysheryl You know, tactically doesn't have to mean that they're going to clone everything in the world. Real tactical thinking is what Walt did. He thought in terms of being out front, and while he knew he had to make a profit, he never let profit DRIVE his thinking. That's what real tactical thinking comes to. It's what it's going to take to put Disneyland (and to a lesser extent, WDW) back together after the last 10 years of ignoring it and "mall-ifying" it. It's going to take serious tactical considerations to figure out how to completely refurbish Tomorrowland. I lot of people are all--"oh, bring back this!" but that's not thinking tactically. Tactical thinking is "These people want this. What can we do that's even BETTER?" 'Bring back this' thinking got us the dreaded Innoventions pavillion, because everyone loved the Carousel of Progress. It's not about throwing 30 gajillion dollars at a parking lot to turn it into a "new park" just because....it's about thinking "what's NEXT?!" The real question is whether Rasulo really thinks TACTICALLY, or whether he thinks like Eisner does.
