Originally Posted By CuriouserConstance Didn't he say that Steve Jobs likes to refer to it that way? Am I the only one annoyed by Steve Jobs sticking his nerdy, apple nose in to Disney decision making?
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Am I the only one annoyed by Steve Jobs sticking his nerdy, apple nose in to Disney decision making?" Steve Jobs sits on Disney's Board of Directors, and no one is more obsessed with branding than Steve Jobs is. Constance did you know that the new Disney Stores were designed by the same team that designed the Apple Stores?
Originally Posted By mickeymorris1234 I wonder if it was Steve that was the driving force behind the new DCA since he was mentioned in an interview like that.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones Well, Iger was being more "open," so perhaps he was acting more like Android, haha.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <On another note, I think its very telling that Iger refers to DCA in terms of branding. Am I the only one annoyed by this?> That's the way all the CEOs talk now. They think it makes them sound like they know what they're talking about. And why would you NOT want Steve Jobs helping out with branding? I'd like to help me on my company. Steve? You out there?
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>...nails it in post 16.<< Yeppers. There's the current spin in all its glory...!
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I have no reason to need to spin anything. I'm offering my opinion, though I know it's awful that not everyone shares yours.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt <On another note, I think its very telling that Iger refers to DCA in terms of branding. Am I the only one annoyed by this?> "That's the way all the CEOs talk now. They think it makes them sound like they know what they're talking about." It sure seems that way. Iger has been hot on leveraging Disney brands since he took over Eisner's spot and he's been quite bold with this strategy. It's kind of creepy to me that everything he oversees is regarded as some sort of commodity or vehicle for a third party creation.
Originally Posted By cheesybaby <<Steve Jobs sits on Disney's Board of Directors, and>> Not to mention he is by FAR the largest individual shareholder of TWDC.
Originally Posted By ralphjr "[But] we would have had to put in transportation systems. It would have cost us so much money to put the monorail in. And to do other things to create one park. That didn't make sense." I don't think he meant to say that they wouldn't ever build or expand upon existing transportation systems. I think he meant that "knock it all into one" was considered to be a cheap, quick fix, but once they calculated the logistics of it all, they realized that the cost would be a lot more than they had originally thought. Plus, they would have spent a ton on infrastructure that the average guest wouldn't have appreciated and still had the same park that wasn't meeting its initial attendance expectations. Of course, I don't know exactly why they made the decision they did, but I doubt that infrastructure and transportation improvements between the two parks would have cost over $1 Billion. My guess is that once they calculated the cost, they figured they were better off putting in new things that could be promoted. "Come to the expanded Disneyland Park, where California Adventure is now included in admission" isn't as attractive as "Come see World of Color, the Little Mermaid and our all new Cars Land!"
Originally Posted By Britain Good analysis, ralphjr I'm really surprised the 'one-park' idea got as far as it did. It would be an incredibly strange paradigm shift for guests to adjust to, and without much benefit. "Oh, the south half of the park isn't as fun as the north half."
Originally Posted By gadzuux Why would transportation systems be required for the 'one-park' option, when obviously it doesn't seem to be a problem for the two park option? This doesn't make any sense. It implies that additional transportation would be a requirement when the resort manages just fine today without it.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>I have no reason to need to spin anything. I'm offering my opinion, though I know it's awful that not everyone shares yours.<< Yes, your opinion is valid. And, as expressed in post #16 it is also very silly spin. (And no, I'm not really crushed that not everyone shares my opinion!) >>But yes, the "DCA was a failure. Period" meme remains overly simplistic.<< Not simplistic. Simple. As in, elegantly simple. And easily supported, as I have been required to illustrate time and again. >>...it was a mixed bag.<< But not when considering the simple (there it is again!) success/fail option. It was a failure. Period. There were any number of things that, individually were appealing on their own (I liked the big tile murals), but as a whole, it failed, and now it is being morphed into something that will hopefully be a success. I certainly hope it is-- as I hoped the DCA of 2001 would be. >>...on the arguably more important goal of changing the paradigm in Anaheim, it succeeded.<< This is Spin 1.5. There is simply no way to quantify this idea, hence it is so appealing. But it is easily refuted. The paradign here is Anaheim-as-a-multi-day-resort, right? And we are to believe that DCA made Anaheim into a multi-day resort. But look at the reality. When Disney announced the Resort, it included three new Resort hotels. As the plans were truncated, we eventually got almost one. (The Grand Californian was built to less than its full projected size.) Since the opening of DCA, there have been NO new hotel rooms added, with the exception last year of the completion of the Grand, and even that as a Disney Vacation Club property. So, even if people are staying longer, they sure aren't staying on Disney property. Because there's no new Disney property on which to stay. >>The first incarnations of MGM and DCA had much in common.<< Uh oh. >>Both could be seen as mediocre parks artistically, with some good things, and some bad (or missing) things.<< Sigh. Asked and answered (repeatedly) but... here goes. Disney-MGM was an immediate hit. The major flaw was that it was too small. Disney began adding to it as soon as possible. DCA was an immediate flop. Disney began closing things as soon as possible (one show, Lights! Camera! Chaos! closed before the official park album was released!). Disney-MGM was expanded in an effort to meet public demand. DCA is being expanded in an effort to create public demand. >>...WDW had already established the paradigm of multi-parks and week-long stays... The decision to open a similarly incomplete park as a SECOND gate in a place that had not established that paradigm was a major miscalculation...<< And here is Spin 2.0. The newest spin. So, as I understand this, guests rejected DCA because they didn't understand the concept of two theme parks, and one was awful. Is that it? Silly. Guests visiting Disneyland had been "park hopping" for at least 40 years. SoCal is rife with theme parks. When not visiting Disneyland, folks hop over to Knotts. Or Universal. Or Magic Mountain (a long hop). Or down to Sea World. There have been a lot of parks that have come and gone, as well. Lion Country Safari. Japanese Village. Busch Gardens. DCA was a failure. It's just that simple.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>DCA was a failure. It's just that simple.<< Welp, I'm glad that's settled. Time to shut down the DCA section of the boards. DCA was a failure, full stop, so there's nothing to discuss. LOL
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "It implies that additional transportation would be a requirement when the resort manages just fine today without it." The transportation system is anything but pleasant on busy days. Long waits for trams, parking two blocks away, taking a "Disney" bus to the Esplanade. Early WDW got it right with the monorail system. It was Disney quality through and through. Sadly, they have abandoned the concept. Look to the Tokyo Disney Resort for answers. A monorail connects two parks, an entrance plaza and the hotels. It costs money, but there is a charming free alternative offered including stylized buses that aren't just city buses with a new wrap. An over-reliance on annual passholders, who on average carry a lower number of guests in their vehicles when they show up to park, stresses the parking areas on busy days. This situation is not helped by Orange County and Anaheim's woeful public transportation system. In Tokyo and Paris, the parks are anchored by train stations.
Originally Posted By mickeymorris1234 "But not when considering the simple (there it is again!) success/fail option. It was a failure. Period." Was DCA loosing money? No, it was just not living up to it's hype so to call it a failure is incorrect. There are parts of it that worked any many parts that didn't, however over time DCA has grown into a great park one that more and more people are having to spend the whole day in thanks to WoC. In the beginning DCA was just below standards and failed in that regard only.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <>>I have no reason to need to spin anything. I'm offering my opinion, though I know it's awful that not everyone shares yours.<< <Yes, your opinion is valid. And, as expressed in post #16 it is also very silly spin.> So it's "valid," yet "silly spin?" Geez - passive-aggressive much? By calling it "spin" as though I were employed by Disney or Eisner's long-lost nephew or something you subtly (but not as subtly as you think) attempt to dismiss the opinion rather than simply disagree with it. I have no need to spin anything; I come across the opinion honestly. It is neither silly nor spin. <(And no, I'm not really crushed that not everyone shares my opinion!)> You seem less crushed than annoyed. Note "DCA was a failure. Period." The "period" in effect says "end of discussion. I have spoken. And those who disagree are merely silly or spinners or silly spinners." Well, no. Sorry. >>But yes, the "DCA was a failure. Period" meme remains overly simplistic.<< <Not simplistic. Simple. As in, elegantly simple.> Nope. Still simplistic. < And easily supported, as I have been required to illustrate time and again.> As you've attempted to do. Just not very well. >>...it was a mixed bag.<< <But not when considering the simple (there it is again!) success/fail option. It was a failure. Period.> Well there's the crux of the problem. Aside from the "I have spoken" thing again, what you lay out there is literally insisting on seeing things in black and white. Success or failure. No gray areas. Why on earth would you insist on that? Life is full of gray areas. It's simplistic to deny them, or to see any deeper than complete success or complete failure, pick one, must be one or the other, no substitutions please. Life doesn't work that way. Anything as complex as a theme park certainly doesn't. <There were any number of things that, individually were appealing on their own (I liked the big tile murals), but as a whole, it failed, and now it is being morphed into something that will hopefully be a success. I certainly hope it is-- as I hoped the DCA of 2001 would be.> But it didn't fail. If one insists on using the simplistic method, you'd have to say that if it failed, it would have closed. It didn't close, therefore it must have succeeded. Now that's just as simplistic, and that's NOT my argument. Because I insist on the gray areas and the nuance. But if we're sticking to black and white, a failed business closes. A failed Broadway show closes. A failed service closes. Now, if you're going to argue it was an artistic failure, that's a whole other thing. Even there, there were things that worked and things that didn't (as you've said), so there we are in that pesky gray area again. But to insist "it failed, period" is horribly - and here we are again - simplistic. Almost willfully so. >>...on the arguably more important goal of changing the paradigm in Anaheim, it succeeded.<< <This is Spin 1.5. There is simply no way to quantify this idea, hence it is so appealing. But it is easily refuted.> Oh, but there are ways to quantify. That can't be refuted. <The paradign here is Anaheim-as-a-multi-day-resort, right? And we are to believe that DCA made Anaheim into a multi-day resort. But look at the reality.> I'm trying to. < When Disney announced the Resort, it included three new Resort hotels. As the plans were truncated, we eventually got almost one. (The Grand Californian was built to less than its full projected size.) Since the opening of DCA, there have been NO new hotel rooms added, with the exception last year of the completion of the Grand, and even that as a Disney Vacation Club property. So, even if people are staying longer, they sure aren't staying on Disney property. Because there's no new Disney property on which to stay.> Talk about a silly argument. No one denies DCA didn't draw the numbers they'd hoped. But did it still change the paradigm? Yep. First of all, the GCH wouldn't have been built without DCA. Nor would the PPH have been bought up. (They didn't build it, but buying a high-rise overlooking the new park and charging Disney prices for it was actually a pretty good compromise.) Out-of-towners ARE staying longer in Anaheim than they used to. This is quantifiable, and has been quantified by Disney. And these three expensive properties, only one of which was previously owned by Disney prior to the expansion, have enviably high occupancy rates. And even those who don't stay on property still spend cash in the parks (tickets, food, merch) as they stay longer than they used to. I know personally I never stayed longer than 2 days prior to 2001. Since then it's been 3 or 4. Many people here have said the same thing. And in fact the average length of stay for an out-of-towner has increased. >>The first incarnations of MGM and DCA had much in common. Both could be seen as mediocre parks artistically, with some good things, and some bad (or missing) things.<<< <Sigh.> Picturing Al Gore here, and not in a good way... <Asked and answered (repeatedly) but... here goes.> Yes, always answered the same way which misses the point. And here goes... <Disney-MGM was an immediate hit. The major flaw was that it was too small. Disney began adding to it as soon as possible. DCA was an immediate flop. Disney began closing things as soon as possible (one show, Lights! Camera! Chaos! closed before the official park album was released!). Disney-MGM was expanded in an effort to meet public demand. DCA is being expanded in an effort to create public demand.> And you missed the point of WHY MGM it was an immediate hit. But let's read on. >>...WDW had already established the paradigm of multi-parks and week-long stays... The decision to open a similarly incomplete park as a SECOND gate in a place that had not established that paradigm was a major miscalculation...<< <And here is Spin 2.0. The newest spin.> Again with the "spin" crap? Really? < So, as I understand this, guests rejected DCA because they didn't understand the concept of two theme parks, and one was awful. Is that it?> Nope, that's not it. <Silly.> Perhaps if that was either what I said or what I meant you'd have a point. But it wasn't - so you don't. Here's the point. By 1989: 1). The average WDW visitor was an out-of-towner, not a local, there on a vacation. Not a day-tripper, as had been the dominant DL paradigm. 2). The average length of stay was around a week by then. Most people stayed a week and bought 5-7 day park hoppers. It wasn't just that they could hop between parks, it's that THEY WERE NOT FROM THE AREA AND THIS WAS THEIR VACATION AND THEY HAD TO USE THEIR HOPPERS AT DISNEY PARKS. Clear enough with the all caps? So a visitor at WDW for a week with a 5-7 day hopper is sort of "captive," and of course he's going to check out the new park and see what's there. Why not, after all - he's paid for the hopper. And maybe he only stays half a day, but that's okay - he has 2 fully fleshed out parks to hop back to. So it's no surprise that a). WDW visitors went to MGM; b). they all said "you need more to do in this park." <Guests visiting Disneyland had been "park hopping" for at least 40 years. SoCal is rife with theme parks. When not visiting Disneyland, folks hop over to Knotts. Or Universal. Or Magic Mountain (a long hop). Or down to Sea World. There have been a lot of parks that have come and gone, as well. Lion Country Safari. Japanese Village. Busch Gardens.> See above. The average DL visitor was 40 years was a local (and still is). Sure, they could go to Knott's or wherever, but they'd do that some other weekend. It's NOT the same as a vacationer staying for a week at WDW. And the visitor to DL could go to the other parks, but they were a minority of the DL demographic, plus with the minor exception of some package deals, they were not included with Disney tickets. The paradigm Disney wanted to change was to extend the out of town visitors' average stay. And they did so. What is silly is to a). pretend this wasn't a major goal; b). pretend it wasn't achieved; c). pretend that MGM and DCA's demographics weren't wildly different. DCA succeeded in some areas, artistically and commercially. It failed in others, artistically and commercially. The insistence that this somehow must be seen in all or nothing, black or white terms is puzzling. Really puzzling. <DCA was a failure. It's just that simple.> No, it's just that simplistic if you insist on seeing it that simplistically. I do not.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Living in NorCal, we'd drive down on a Friday night. Go to Disneyland on Saturday, open to close, head back home Sunday. If we stayed a few days in Anaheim, we'd do a couple days at Disneyland, then perhaps a day at Knott's or Universal. DCA changed things a bit. Now 2 days at Disneyland and one at DCA is the norm, plus spending some time in Downtown Disney as well. Haven't been to Knott's in several years, not Universal. So for us, the paradigm certainly shifted. Maybe my family is the exception to the rule, but I kind of doubt it.
Originally Posted By Ohana <<<The first incarnations of MGM drew even more than projected, because WDW had already established the paradigm of multi-parks and week-long stays, so even though it wasn't a great park, everyone already staying a week went to check it out anyway. Ultimately it did change the paradigm. It's now impossible to think of Anaheim without it, and that will only become increasingly true.>>> Excellent Points Bob!
