Originally Posted By crapshoot <<Its a nice complement to our visit to DLR.>> As in side dish. Too bad, it isn't a delictable entre. Instead, it's only a ham and cheese burrito.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>Too bad, it isn't a delictable entre.<< I'ld rather think of it as a nice soup or dessert >>Instead, it's only a ham and cheese burrito.<< That honorific goes to our local Six Flags park. While its not in the same league as DL, DCA is heads and shoulders above SF Elitch Gardens. I think tht its worth remembering that if MGM or AK were across the esplanade from DL, shoehorned into the space that DCA occupies, they might not look so great either. Personally, I found these two parks kind of wanting when I first visited WDW, but then I realized that I was comparing them to DL, which wasn't a fair comparison.
Originally Posted By Blacksheep Uncle IMHO...that comparison (DCA v. Disneyland) is the heart of the problem and would happen a lot less often if Disney would "get over itself" and lower DCA's regular admission price by $15.00 or so dollars... (but again in MHO I don't think Disney cares if they ever sell a non-parkhopper admission ever again, and would probably do away with them if they could make it palatable to the marketing guys...)
Originally Posted By fkurucz ^^ In that case it would make sense to merge the two parks into 1 park: Disneyland++ (Orwell would be proud)
Originally Posted By Neverland I had a 'let's merge them' thread about a year ago- maybe it's time for a new one.
Originally Posted By Clotho I agree that the ticket price for DCA needs to come DOWN. Bet they would get a lot more folks in there. Seems they are polling a lot about DCA right now. Wwe were approached several times by poll takers, and the first thing they asked was "Is this the first park you visited today." Of course, we had been to DL first, as usual, and said no, and that was all she wrote. They were seeking people who had chosen DCA FIRST for the day. And that lady had to walk around to a lot of folks around us before she found a family that had started at the park...
Originally Posted By fkurucz ^^Not suprising for many reasons: DL opens earlier DL has more attractions DL is "better" I wouldn't spend a whole day at DCA. But I will certainly split a day or two between DL and DCA: Get to DL when it opens, skip over to DCA when DL starts to get crowded, and comeback to DL when DCA closes.
Originally Posted By ElKay bean: "Obviously you don't seem to understand that wether the park is built tomorrow or ten years from now DISNEY has the right to the land some of which it owns already. If the company did bussiness by just looking at TODAY and not the future then that land could have been eventually sold to someone else and gave the reosrt less room for growth." Since you play "the mystery guest" here claiming so much insider info about TDA's operations, but won't delvuge the source of you supposed knowledge, what you say is still suspect as with the rest of us. This so sounds like that woman who was posting insider on Mouseinfo around the debut of DCA that attempted to refuted other TDA posters that was supplying more or less critical info that was more credible that that that woman's spin that tried to put a smiley face on DCA's lackluster first season. "You do realize that Disney actually owns land throughout the area that are actually developed and used as either condos, restuarants, and other bussiness." Doesn't much matter right now since they spent a heap full of $$$$$ with that fallow strawberry field. That 3k breakeven number of yours seems really dubious, because if that was true, such a low number would have caused TDA to have already built the 3rd gate by now. I think the general consensus is that DCA's lack of success is in fact sucking any spare cash out of DL additional new attractions. Pooh was built by Pressler to take advantage of potential merch. sales and Buzz was built by Rasulo inorder to burnish DL image on their 50th, so as not to look like they've didn't do anything for such a special occasion. Another observation, if what you say is the supposed success of DCA, why then is Pressler and Harriss not around to bask in the glow of their creation. With Eisner gone and Iger moving up to CEO, that leaves the WDC presidency vacant and as late as five years ago, speculation was Pressler was Eisner's golden boy set to rise in the executive suites. "You make it sound like their are a bunch of idiots running the company and have no plans for what the resorts future." Somethings are just too easy not to miss. I supposed things are looking up with Eisner's and his huge ego gone along with the aforementioned Pressler and Harriss. I just hope Iger will give Rasulo and Ouimet some slack to come up with creative fixes to DCA. "Many quote the 1+billion investment as if it was a waste. This investment in DTD, DCA and other infrastructures as well as the parking structure which also was a shared construction by the city were necessary for an aging infrastructure that was falling apart." LOL, then I supposed if I bought $1,000 worth of antenna toppers and told my wife that it's an investment for our retirement fund, she'd recognized my savvy planning. NOT! What about DLP? Can you argue placing that MK just a short TGV train trip from a more established metro Paris area and over building the resort with too many hotels was another stroke of genius?? Several articles have been written in the wake of the two bailouts of EuroDisneyland and now DLP that while the MK is one of the top places tourists travel to in Europe, there isn't much desire to stay at an overpriced Disney hotel. People speculate that Disney had planned a site in the resort areas of Spain that would still draw people, but added the desire to stay in hotel, not like the Paris area. IF DLP fails, it won't be because nobody wanted to come, but because they incurred too much debt on the hotels that don't generate enough $$$. Using bean's perspective, DLP should be doing just fine, with around 3k visitors. Every additional guest is gravy to pay off the bank loans and investors. "If it was not for these additions Disneyland could have become an aging investment with little possible growth. Disneyland infrastructure needed a complete overhaul and the park is also running out of space. To keep it viable new things would have to be added. I could just see the cries of internet fans if aging attractions like Jungle cruise were removed to add new more innovative attractions. Instead they went ahead and build a new infrastructure that could continue to grow for the next 50 plus years while minor changes were done to the aging park." That's pretty much bunk. The hue and cries of Internet Chatroom jockeys would be mollified IF TDA yanked out "class of '55" attractions if replaced them with more innovative ones, instead of with pizza joints. As Uncle Walt said 50 years ago DL would never be finnished as long as there's imagination left in the world, well we had a real close call these past five years with TL98, DCA and Pooh. Maybe things are finally looking up.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "So yes, these people respond to pretty colors, precieved excitement and could care less about content as long as personal liability and costs are kept to a minimum." So basically is what you are saying is that they have the mentality of little kids but with business degrees.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "What growth at Disneyland Park can you directly attribute to the success of DTD/DCA? How can you say that Disneyland the park is in a better position now with DCA than it was without?" DLR's revenues are higher now than before. Growth is an acounting term refering to methods employed to increase revenues over an extended period of time. "Lets put it this way - if you accept that Disneyland was an aging park that had limited future growth - then how could you also believe that the answer to that problem was building a park that wasn't designed to compete with Disneyland, but instead rely on it as the primary draw?" By expanding the offerings on site to encourage people to stay longer and spend more money. From all indications this is exactly what DCA and the resort expansion are doing. Maybe not as well as was hoped (well, who knows?) but Disney has confirmed that guest spending is up substantially since 2001.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "People are saying different things here. So what everyone wants to know is does DCA suck swamp water or not?" Whether it does or not is pretty meaningless since what you are asking for is a vote on everyone's opinion. What is being discussed here are some facts and assumptions assessing the value of DCA's attendance figures against management's expected return on investment. The question is what is the impact of DCA's revenues on DLR's bottom line?
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt Elkay, sorry to say this, but what you are saying doesn't add up from a financial perspective. Bean's general assessment, with the exception of the inside statistics on DCA's breakeven numbers, seems to jive with common knowledge, and basic business and financial strategies. I encourage people here to do some research and take a look at Disney's financial statements which are readily available on line. They don't tell the entire story but they contain a lot more truthful information than the so called "consensus" found in these discussions.
Originally Posted By bean "Since you play "the mystery guest" here claiming so much insider info about TDA's operations, but won't delvuge the source of you supposed knowledge, what you say is still suspect as with the rest of us." again i am not here to make anyone change their mind or belive me. That is up to you wether you want to or not. You know very well that those of us that write in these boards do it because we have somekind of feeling for Disney. There are more people here than you might think that actually have some connection with the company and non of us will ever be forced to prove anything to you or anyone else. You believe what you want to believe it does not change the fact that people will always have their opinion wether its right or wrong. thats what the boards are all about as long as people do not start being rude or directing insult at one another. when this happens there will be a similiar response. I would also have to say that if you purchased 1,000 dollars of antenna toppers as an investment for a retirement plan then you have serious problems on how to invest money and need help. How you can even come up with such a stupid example of and compare it to a multimillion dollar investment is totally ridiculous. IF DLP fails, it won't be because nobody wanted to come, but because they incurred too much debt on the hotels that don't generate enough $$$. Using bean's perspective, DLP should be doing just fine, with around 3k visitors. Every additional guest is gravy to pay off the bank loans and investors. Obviously you have no idea how diferent DLP and Anaheim resort is. the Anaheim resort hotels are doing extremely well and are not hurting the resort DLP was a costly venture and way to many hotels were built. the hotels are not doing well at all. You tell the bankers that you want to keep adding to the park when they are seeing declining profits from the rest of the resort hotels. "If it was not for these additions Disneyland could have become an aging investment with little possible growth. Disneyland infrastructure needed a complete overhaul and the park is also running out of space. To keep it viable new things would have to be added. I could just see the cries of internet fans if aging attractions like Jungle cruise were removed to add new more innovative attractions. Instead they went ahead and build a new infrastructure that could continue to grow for the next 50 plus years while minor changes were done to the aging park." That's pretty much bunk. The hue and cries of Internet Chatroom jockeys would be mollified IF TDA yanked out "class of '55" attractions if replaced them with more innovative ones, instead of with pizza joints. Yet when attraction like the abraham lincoln exhibit an an aging an at many times empty non-original attraction like country bear were almost removed or removed people in these boards start crying like crazy. i could mention pages of people writing petitions to bring back aged attractions like the peolemover, the old rocket spinner and now the DEP which is just gone for a few months. Don't even kid yourself that people wouldn't start something. People cried murder when they heard the haunted mansion was going to get a layover, people cried murder when they heard that believe might not come back for the holidays for one year. people are attached to things in Disneyland and that is exactly what makes this park special. As Uncle Walt said 50 years ago DL would never be finnished as long as there's imagination left in the world, well we had a real close call these past five years with TL98, DCA and Pooh. Maybe things are finally looking up.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<So basically is what you are saying is that they have the mentality of little kids but with business degrees.>> No, although tempting. What I am saying is that a larger percentage of middle and upper managers do not know the difference between, say, a Gothic Arch and a Roman Arch and they wouldn't know which proper setting they would be used in. Also, they generally wouldn't know the difference between Primary Colors and Tertiary Colors or even care for that matter. I doubt if the same group could list the design differences between a Chinese Garden and a Japanese Garden. AND conversely, no doubt, the creative staff couldn't operate Microsoft Project Manager or create a sales per man hour spreadsheet. That is why the Show Designers use their artistic skills to create show pieces that hopefully appeal to the analytical majority, but artistically challenged, business types that grace the halls of the Disney Company.
Originally Posted By tangaroa >What I am sure of is that Disneyland >would have survived with or without >DCA,DTD. But, you have to admit >Disneyland has become more of a resort >destination because of DCA and DTD. Disneyland's survival without DCA is one of those sticking points that really strikes at the heart of the matter. For those in charge, it was obvious to them that Disneyland had already reached its maximum capacity and could no longer expand - in which case without building a second park, the place would eventually die out. But with that being said, those same people who seemed convinced Disneyland was on it's way to the great sub graveyard in the sky, decided to build a park that was no where near capable of taking the place of Disneyland as the primary draw. That just doesn't make much sense to me. If you subscribe to the idea that Disneyland can not expand anymore, that the roster of attractions there today is basically what will continue to be there for the next thirty or so years, then you should also believe that the drawing power of Disneyland will decline over time, and a park with an equal or bigger draw than Disneyland would be needed to keep revenues growing. That's not that they did. Disneyland still remains the primary draw at the DLR, but despite that fact they haven't invested all that much in new attractions at Disneyland. That's left the resort with one park that is getting old and stale and another park that is only a half day experience. Not exactly a dynamite combination. >It creates a bigger experience and >Disney does not care where the customers >spend their money as long as it is on >Disney property. Of course they care where they spend their money. Disney has probably spent a good 3 billion on the resort since DCA opened, but the question could be asked: could they have made the same amount by simply expanding DL and adding DTD? Could they have drawn the same amount by spending 300 million to expand Disneyland, and relying on fewer discount programs? It's all about the return on the investment - so even if Disney is making money on DCA, it might not be anywhere near what they were expecting to make - hence the reason they have no desire to go through with a third park. A third park would be far more expensive to operate than DCA, considering it's distance to the resort and the fact that it couldn't share the same resources DL/DCA share. So perhaps the thinking now is "why waste the money when we could probably make just as much expanding DL and DCA". >DLR's revenues are higher now than before. >Growth is an acounting term refering to >methods employed to increase revenues over >an extended period of time. How do you know that Disneyland's revenues are greater now? Disney only posts their revenues as a lump sum for all the parks, resorts, and cruise line. Truth is we don't know if Disneyland is making more or less money now than when DCA opened.
Originally Posted By kmovies We don't know if the resort is making more money, but we do know this --- DTD is mostly full, therefore collecting rent money - would expect it to be profitable --- Grand Californian, sold out most of the time - would expect it to be profitable --- Disneyland, around the same attendance as before DCA - would expect it to be profitable --- DCA, getting over 5 million guests per year - may or may not be profitable Bottom Line - expect that the resort is more profitable as a whole Yes, adding a couple of rides to DL may have increased attendance at DL; however, I would not expect it to have increased attendance 5 mil per year like DCA has. I would not expect it to have added a reason to stay an extra day like DCA has - so less impact on the hotels. While DL is the main reason to go to the resort, the resort as a whole with DCA is more of a reason than just DL in itself.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<Bottom Line - expect that the resort is more profitable as a whole.>> "More" profitable vs expected returns are two different animals. DTD is tricky and impossible to gauge solely by how crowded it is. First and foremost, DTD is a pass through corridoor. The strongest business comes from Bars and Restaurants, then Retail and ending up with Entertainment. There are many days where the merch carts out sell their permanent locations. What DTD needs, and is in the works, will be major expansion to the north. Hotels are stable, although the orig hotel complex is aging and will be replaced when business warrants it. Disneyland can no longer expand its borders, but has plenty of opportunity for retooling. But then there is DCA. Attendance can't support much of the retail and restaurant inventory. Entertainment is a shadow of the original plan. Annual Pass holders make up a huge percentage of the park's attendance. No matter the spin, hype or amount of wishful thinking, there is just no way to justify profitability with this asset that limps along from year to year. The only apparant beneficiary of DCA's existance is probobly the hotels. The other assets pretty much hold their own whether DCA exists or not.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "How do you know that Disneyland's revenues are greater now?" That's easy. Read the company's financial reports and look under Parks and Resorts. There is mention that increased revenues in this division are directly related to increased revenues at DLR. Interestingly, per capita guest spending at DLR is actually higher than WDW.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "No matter the spin, hype or amount of wishful thinking, there is just no way to justify profitability with this asset that limps along from year to year." This isn't "wishful" thinking. I think what is great about this discussion is that (at last!) people are actually trying to extrapolate the facts rather than doing what you suggest, which is to second guess based on a biased and emotional reaction to the place. Sure, there's a great deal of information missing, and you could be right, but the fatalist picture you are trying to paint doesn't take into account that the obvious fact that costs associated with operating DCA are relatively low compared to DL - or even other So Cal parks. Thus, it probably doesn't take a ton of people passing through the gates to keep the park ticking.
