Originally Posted By DVC_dad Ah ... okay. Well yeah, I think you sounded like you have some inside knowledge for some reason in that last post. If anything, you know alot more about more than just movies and parks!
Originally Posted By oc_dean >>The problem with your rather bleak black and white argument OC is who gets to decide when one is being complacent or not? << I based my thought Hans on many of Walt's philosophies. Always striving for the best. And so little about the development of DCA was about striving for the best. >>Have you and disneywatcher been sanctioned by some unseen force within the Magical World of Disney to pass judgment on those who disagree with your point of view? Do you consider me complacent because I enjoy visiting DCA? Do you realize how idiotic that sounds? Where is your common sense? << As a passive reader and poster here on LP, as you are too Hans ... Just take the statement with a grain of salt. No need to be taking anything I say, or anyone else in such a touchy way. >>Why not just state your opinion based on reasoning obtained from examining the facts? Playing armchair psychiatrist and attempted to conduct some sort of character analysis based on online opinions about a theme park is just plain stupid.<< Excuse me ...... Are we all just rambling away about our favorite subject on a website for fun ......... Or are we supposed to be writing our thesis for college? Cool off Hans.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "Excuse me ...... Are we all just rambling away about our favorite subject on a website for fun...Or are we supposed to be writing our thesis for college?" I dunno, ask disneywatcher.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Let's look at waht some WDI folks have bene quoted to say... First, from a Jim Hill article... >>But – hey -- it’s not like the Walt Disney Company’s hearing problem is a recent occurrence. Senior Imagineers will tell you (off the record, of course) that they repeatedly tried to make the folks in the Team Disney building (Both the Anaheim as well as the Burbank branch) aware of their concerns about “Disney’s California Adventure.†But Mouse House execs just refused to listen to them. “I mean, think about it, Jim,†said one unnamed WDI guy to me just the other day. “Eisner & Co. wanted to change Anaheim into Orlando. A destination resort where people could come and stay & spend money for three or four days at a time.†“Which is all well & good. Except that Anaheim isn’t Orlando. The out-of-state versus locals mix down there is roughly 85% out-of-state visitors, 15 % Florida residents. Out here, the locals to out-of-state visitors ratio is more along the lines of 65% Southern California residents, 34% out-of-state tourists.†“You see what I’m saying here, Jim? The Walt Disney Company relies on regular visits from Southern California residents in order to keep attendance levels high at the Disneyland Resort. So what does Disney do when it tries to turn Anaheim into a destination resort? It builds a California-themed theme park – a place with limited appeal to SoCal residents. DCA – at least in its original incarnation – was doomed, Jim. Virtually from the moment that Disneyland opened its preview center.†“And we tried to warn them, Jim. We argued ‘til we were blue in the face. But the suits wouldn’t listen to us. They just seemed to think that giving Southern Californians the opportunity to eat Wolfgang Puck’s pizza while looking out at the lights of Paradise Pier was going to be enough to put that place over the top. That the locals would have no choice but to love DCA.†Well, we all know how THAT decision turned out, don’t we? << From a CBS Marketwatch article... >>One of them is John Cora, Disney's former vice president in charge of resort development, who was responsible for putting in many of the attractions at the new park. He left the company shortly after it opened in February 2001, and now is a theme park consultant based in Oceanside, Calif. Cora says he had an amicable parting with Disney. Cora says Disney's highest priority in developing the park was to keep costs down. "That was the bottom line," he said, adding he differed with management over how much and where to spend money on the park. California Adventure, the adjacent Grand Californian hotel and the Downtown Disney shopping district cost a total $1.4 billion. The park itself cost an estimated $650 million. By contrast, the new DisneySea park in Tokyo -- paid for by licensees -- went for roughly $3 billion. Cora says that the underlying problem is that to round out the park, California Adventure had to put in an inordinately large number of high-end restaurants, stores, and other retail outlets. Patrons balked at the prospect of spending $45 to get in, and then spend more on goods and food. That was the influence of former Disney parks chief Paul Pressler coming through, Cora says. Pressler had extensive training in the retail sector and left Disney to become chief executive of Gap Inc. in September. "Part of the problem is Paul came from retail. He thought retail and still thinks retail," Cora said. "We spent enough money overbuilding retail and food (operations) to add three or four more major attractions to the park."<< Another Jim Hill article... >>And even formerly loyal lieutenants like Marty Sklar, Vice Chairman and Principal Creative Executive of Walt Disney Imagineering, have begun openly carping about how terrible it is to work at the Walt Disney Company during the waning days of the Michael Eisner era. Want proof? Take a gander at this Marty quote that an unnamed someone sent from an IAAPA seminar Sklar spoke at last month. When asked about what his thoughts were about Disney's California Adventure. Marty replied: "I think that you're nuts to build a park next to Disneyland that's half the size and charge the same amount of money."<< And while it is not quoting a Disney employee, here is Jim Hill talking aboput Braverman and Pressler.... >>The project quickly went into overdrive from there. Since Pressler and Braverman were the first to suggest a California-based theme park, Eisner put them in charge of developing it. This, as events continue to unfold, might have proven to have been a mistake. Braverman, who was just coming off his first big success with WDW's "Innoventions" project, was anxious to see his star continue to rise within the Walt Disney Company. Eisner wanted a cheap park? Fine. Braverman planned to budget Disneyland's proposed second gate so tightly that the blueprints would squeak. But Pressler was also an ambitious man. He too was already plotting his next move up the Disney corporate ladder, perhaps parlaying his Disneyland presidency into something further up the food chain. But, to do that, he'd really have to deliver the goods on the Disneyland second gate project. So Pressler took Braverman's initial budget estimates ... and slashed them by a third. Okay, so now we've got two ambitious people, each out to impress upper management by delivering a low-budgeted project on a high-speed timetable. Can you say "recipe for disaster"? Sure you can. Pressler and Braverman got the project off on the wrong foot when they announced that they didn't want "Disney's California Adventure" designed by WDI. Instead, they wanted Disneyland's second gate to be created by the same folks who designed WDW's hotels: the Disney Development Company (DDC).<< And here is what Roy Disney and Stanley Gold said in a SEC filing from February, 2004. >>DISNEY'S CALIFORNIA ADVENTURE AND DISNEY STUDIOS PARIS With a strategy put together by the schemers to transform single-park sites into multi-day destination resorts (and a price tag of well over $1 Billion) Disney's California Adventure was destined to failure before ground was broken. Frightened by the economics of EuroDisney and misinterpreting the reasons for its failure, the "numbers guys" assigned an investment cap to DCA's construction. Rather than innovating and designing the Park from the bottom-up based upon what the consumer would expect for the price of admission, DCA was designed from the top-down based on what the spreadsheets said was required to hit a return figure that has never materialized. The continued suppression of innovation - fixing the off the shelf rides - is likely as the schemers desperately try to avoid any financial write-offs at this time. DCA has failed and will never come close to generating the financial return the planners forecast. Why? Consumers are not willing to pay the same admission price for a smaller and subjectively less-special park. The excessive discounting in the last twelve months clearly supports that the consumer knows what DCA is worth. If only the schemers had listened in the first place. By contrast, Oriental Land Company financed and opened the innovative and luxurious Tokyo DisneySea during the same period. Its' marvelsquickly became a major draw even in a flat Japanese economy. Anaheim should have been so lucky. The insistence on avoiding reality in Anaheim led to Disney Studios Paris - another "second gate" failure akin to DCA. Conceived on an even smaller creative scale and, it too, heavily relied on recycled product. In both instances, planners mistakenly assumed that Disney name alone would move the product regardless of the quality of its content. We fear Hong Kong Disneyland will be similarly doomed to mediocrity. Although the schemers negotiated a very favorable deal from the local government, there will not be many rides at the new Park on opening day, and those that do open will be recycled attractions from Anaheim and Orlando. The "half-park" scheme remains in effect despite two enormous failures.<<
Originally Posted By 9oldmen >>Out here, the locals to out-of-state visitors ratio is more along the lines of 65% Southern California residents, 34% out-of-state tourists.â€<< The remaining 1% come from other planets.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss Too bad those quotes don't say anything we haven't heard a 1000 times before, nor do they answer the original question of the implications of Braverman leaving Disney.
Originally Posted By Blacksheep Uncle ^^^ and those quotes are more than likely 'cherry picked' from the article to reinforce a particular agenda...as is usually the case...
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Let's see, in the first Jim Hill article, I posted the pargraphs quoting the WDI guy, since the point was to address some prior posts about what WDI folks thought about the project. The Marketwatch article is the few paragraphs that featured John Cora and his comments, none were edited or left out. The second Jim Hill article, just the few paragraphs that featured Marty Sklar. The third Jim Hill article didn't quote anyone from WDI, but did discuss both Paul Pressler and Barry Braverman, who is the original subject of the thread (though the discussion has morphed). The last quote was from the SEC filing, and was the entire segment that discussed DCA. If anything was "cherry picked", it was to just get the comments from the WDI employees.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA While the information may be sound from Jim Hill's site, along with the incessant 'why for?' I can't take all those quotes with 'Jim' in them. <“I mean, think about it, Jim,†said one unnamed WDI guy> <“You see what I’m saying here, Jim?> <a place with limited appeal to SoCal residents. DCA – at least in its original incarnation – was doomed, Jim.> <“And we tried to warn them, Jim. > It's like all his interviews are with Dr. McCoy from Star Trek. 'Dammut Jim.'
Originally Posted By Blacksheep Uncle my point was that there has been more than one occasion when someone has taken a positive article, found the only negative paragraph in it and 'cherry picked' that paragraph to post here...
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "I just love Darkbeer's quotes. They tell the real story." Well, maybe, but what they don't do is tell the complete story. They say nothing about DLR's ratio of tourists to locals AFTER the resort transformation. Nor do they address the impact of the changes in management and alterations at the park since it opened in 2001.
Originally Posted By Socrates Re #144: I agree with all the points that post made. So why do I still have fun when I go to DCA? Socrates "The unexamined life is not worth living."
Originally Posted By oc_dean >>Well, maybe, but what they don't do is tell the complete story. They say nothing about DLR's ratio of tourists to locals AFTER the resort transformation. << What I appreciate from those quotes is they confirm the main big piece of the puzzle. It's not too difficult to picture the rest. For 5 years here on LP I've heard it all. All the second guessing ... That Disney knew what they were doing, It was to be hip and edgy ... People don't get it, the weather, the economy, Sept 11,2001 ... I've heard it all. Those quotes from ACTUAL employees .. TOP EXECS to be precise ......... that tell me all I need to know. Now all that matters is to redevelop the park into something that is worth the $59 price tag.
Originally Posted By Westsider Yes, it's been fascinating to watch the commentary on DCA change over the last few years. I also remember well all of the excuses that came rolling out of so many peoples mouths, some of whom still post here, about why DCA wasn't turning people away like some predicted in 2000. First it was the rainy weather in February and March of 2001, although somehow that weather didn't apply to the Disneyland turnstiles located 100 yards north of DCA. Then it was "the economy" and "the energy crisis" that bubbled on everyone lips by the summer of 2001. Although again, those socio-economic issues were strangely absent just 100 yards to the north. Then it was 9/11, which certainly didn't bode well for the entire travel industry. And as a CM I remember well the eerily quiet weeks that followed the 9/11 attacks as everyone was a bit scared to venture out to big American cultural icons for awhile. But by the Christmas season of '01 Disneyland had the new Haunted Mansion Holiday and the return of the Holiday Believe fireworks, and we had one of our busiest Christmas seasons ever. But DCA was still very, very slow just to the south of a busy Disneyland in late '01. And then in February '02 they announced Flik's Fun Faire and Tower of Terror would be built, and then the mantra became "Wait until Tower opens!". And it opened, and the only people who showed up were AP's. And all the while the die-hards kept insisting it wasn't DCA that was flawed, it was all of these outside forces and issues that were keeping the Park from reaching it's goals. But in the last year those arguments have faded away, as it's no longer possible to cling to those arguments with a straight face. And with some top level executives going on record with their criticism of the DCA design and birthing process, while Pressler and Harriss fled for the relative safety of the mall (although their Gap jobs are in serious jeopardy now), some of those same DCA cheerleaders now try and claim those types of insider executive criticism don't really mean much, that it doesn't really prove anything. It just makes me laugh to see how people try to bluster their way out of having to admit they were wrong back in 2001.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad Westsider , Your comments above are very accurate IMHO. However I would like to point out something else. The bottom line is, there is not now, nor will there ever be a DCA that draws people from all over the country. WDW draws SOOOO many people from SOOOO many places. Why? I don't know. Maybe its because its in Florida and the idea of going to Florida for vacation is more appealing than crossing the Rockies. HERE IS MY POINT THOUGH... I (living in Atlanta only a 6+ hour drive to WDW) was one of the few who packed up his family in October 2001, (just a few weeks after 9/11) and came out to the west coast to see DL and DCA. Personally, the park reminded me of the first year or two of MGM Studios. A new park, lots of things that are good and a few things that stink. But its early yet and it takes a new park a few years to get the kinks ironed out. The only problem I see is, eventhough DCA was new, it sort of never really continued to change, morph, grow, or tweek itself into what people want. In spite of the fact that I loved DCA and so did my family way way back in 2001, I have to say that I think of myself as a prime target market of the Disney Company in whole. I mean my reasons weren't really to come see what is NEW in DCA, no... my reasons were more like: "Hey lets go out there, see the original, feel the nostalgia, and walk where Walt walked, see what he created out there. And, if we see a new park (DCA) in the process, that's fine too. In short, I don't think there is ANY fix that will ever make DL/DCA more like WDW. I don't see people flocking out there from all over New England, East Coast and Midwest the way they come to WDW. IT'S NOT BECAUSE WDW IS BETTER OR HAS MORE TO OFFER! I think it's just easier to travel to, cheaper, and already established in the minds of the guests as the place to go. Finally, my point... I agree with you, I don't think for whatever reason(s) there is a fix for DCA, if you defind "fix" as making more people come, and more people extend their stay in Anneheim. I sure do love it though!!!
Originally Posted By danyoung >While the information may be sound from Jim Hill's site, along with the incessant 'why for?' I can't take all those quotes with 'Jim' in them.< It's amazing, isn't it, how all of Jim's quoted sources talk in exactly the same speech patterns as Jim does? Absolutely ZERO credibility for JHM. I think this thread should have stopped with DlandDug's excellent post 88 - nothing more needs to be said.
Originally Posted By idleHands "I think this thread should have stopped with DlandDug's excellent post 88 - nothing more needs to be said." Then why are you still reading it?
Originally Posted By tangaroa >The only problem I see is, eventhough DCA >was new, it sort of never really continued >to change, morph, grow, or tweek itself >into what people want. I think the park is changing. I can already see a drastic change in the offerings added after the park open, compared to what was there on opening day. There has been a dramatic shift away from the California "here and now" theme of DCA. They've added more things for kids and families to do, and they've radically changed the entertainment offering's of the park. They're changing things pretty quick. In fact I'd say the only thing stopping them is probably their budget. But after you spend all this money for one thing, you don't want to spend more just to start over. See that's one of the good traits of Pressler and Harris. They're business people, and once they saw DCA failing miserably, they had no qualms at all about ditching the theme and going with what the numbers were telling them. By the summer of 2001, only a few months after the park opened, they saw the numbers and they knew the only people coming to the park were disney fans and families - and they knew they had to appeal to those demographics to keep their numbers up. And that's exactly what they've done. The majority of those going to Disneyland don't want hip and edgy, they don't want here and now, they don't want California and they certainly didn't want DCA. And the park has changed to reflect that.
