Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "Read the company's financial reports and look under Parks and Resorts." To be specific I should have said the notes in the company's annual report. The financial statements do not give detailed breakdowns of each park's financial position.
Originally Posted By crapshoot << Thus, it probably doesn't take a ton of people passing through the gates to keep the park ticking.>> Again, it is all relative. Fewer operating facilities and a reduction in operating hours means lowered overhead expenses. Those facts do not indicate that the business is doing at all what was expected.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "Those facts do not indicate that the business is doing at all what was expected." And isn't this the very point that I've been stating since I started posted in this thread? I think it's safe to say that it isn't, however that doesn't mean that it's a failure either.
Originally Posted By tangaroa >--- DTD is mostly full, therefore >collecting rent money - would expect it >to be profitable I would expect DTD to be profitable too, but I have no idea how profitable. When you account for overhead and marketing it's possible DTD makes very little compared to the other areas of the resort. Not that it's a bad thing, since DTD brings in more revenue from guests staying longer (or so the theory goes). >--- Grand Californian, sold out most of >the time - would expect it to be >profitable Granted. >--- Disneyland, around the same >attendance as before DCA - would expect >it to be profitable Now here is where I have to question. Disneyland has the same attendance, but has been discounting heavily since DCA opened. They've also closed several food locations, reduced park hours, and left all the stores with the same generic merchandise. So what guarantees that they are making more money now than they were pre-DCA? The evidence here suggests that they've been fighting a downward trend for awhile now. So the question I have is - could Disneyland Park have spent 100 million on a new E ticket/new land and made the same amount of money or more (without discounting) than it had with DCA and lots of discounting. >--- DCA, getting over 5 million guests >per year - may or may not be profitable It may be profitable - but by how much? >Bottom Line - expect that the resort is >more profitable as a whole See here's the thing - Disneyland Park is the biggest part of the Disneyland Resort. It generates the most revenue for the unit, so even if the other segments of DLR are making money, they have to be making enough to overcome whatever losses Disneyland Park might be suffering. >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. How many of those 5 million are park hoppers from DL? How many are AP holders? Does that extra 5 million generate more revenue in shop or restaurant sales? Does a family in DCA buying a meal generate more revenue for the resort, or have they just taken away a possible meal at DL? In high attendance years, DL saw about 15 million guests. In recent years they've seen around 12 million. That means DCA, at over 1.4 billion dollars, has created a net gain of only 2 million guests per year. Is that two million worth the high price? My guess is that the money they spent on the park was directly related to their attendance projections, and how much and how quickly they could make back their initial investment. They initially projected attendance at 21 million combined for the resort, and it's *barely* getting there 5 years later.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "When you account for overhead and marketing it's possible DTD makes very little compared to the other areas of the resort." What overhead and marketing? Most of the venues at DtD aren't Disney owned, therefore the Disney is collecting rent from the tenants, which undoubtably is charged at a premium. As a landlord Disney is responsible for upkeep and so forth but how much can that be in relation to revenues collected from leases? And from what I can see marketing for DtD seems to be tied directly to the entire resort with all of the promotion incorporated into the overall DLR marketing program. "So what guarantees that they are making more money now than they were pre-DCA? The evidence here suggests that they've been fighting a downward trend for awhile now." Well there is no gurantee other than the fact that in Disney's annual report they do state that income for Parks and Resorts is up and attribute it directly to an increase in guest spending at DLR. In fact the 2001 Annual Report states that this was the case even after DCA's lackluster debut in 2001. In that year DLR's revenues were up and WDW's were down. One has to assume that this because of DLR's new expanding offerings. What else can it be? "See here's the thing - Disneyland Park is the biggest part of the Disneyland Resort. It generates the most revenue for the unit, so even if the other segments of DLR are making money, they have to be making enough to overcome whatever losses Disneyland Park might be suffering." Profit is defined as the positive gain from an investment or business operation after subtracting for all expenses. Losses are exactly the opposite. We know that DL is a successful operation, therefore we can assume that DL is not suffering any losses. Essentially this is what is referred to as the "bottom line." Thus, anything else the resort collects (from DtD, hotels, DCA, etc), minus operating expenses, is simply icing on the cake. Because DCA is a smaller park that is far less expensive to operate than DL it can therefore afford draw far less visitors than that park. "In high attendance years, DL saw about 15 million guests. In recent years they've seen around 12 million." As I recall the year the DCA opened they downgraded DL's forecast annual attendance to 12 million. I doubt if the 14-15 million annual attendance figure for DL park was sustainable long term with or without DCA.
Originally Posted By ElKay "As I recall the year the DCA opened they downgraded DL's forecast annual attendance to 12 million. I doubt if the 14-15 million annual attendance figure for DL park was sustainable long term with or without DCA." You forget that in 2001 as TDA downgraded DL's attendance they were unrealistically expecting DCA with attendance of in excess of 7 million and sending the overflow to DL. How realistic did that turn out to be? As was mentioned before, how much of DCA's early attendance figures came at the expense of DL? A good deal of DCA's attendance came with heavy discounting since its first summer. Coming full circle David Koenig reported that TDA is expecting that DCA will have "historic" lows in attendance this year because of the celebration at DL. When the unofficial numbers come out for DL and DCA it might be a rough indicator at the actual value DCA has in the eyes of the potential Disney guest market. I recall reading the debates about the attendance of DCA and how critics said it was much lower than TDA predicted and DCA supporters kept refuting those unofficial numbers at wholely innacurate. Now it seems that the supporters of DCA have shifted from the attendance numbers to how efficiently DCA covers their supposedly lower overhead compared to other Disney parks. Isn't that sort of shifting the goal posts over and over again? THEN supporters said that there were actually MORE guests than the sources indicate. NOW they say DCA needs a tiny amount of guests inorder to make back their costs.
Originally Posted By woody "Coming full circle David Koenig reported that TDA is expecting that DCA will have "historic" lows in attendance this year because of the celebration at DL." This ruins the theory that DCA will feed off of DL's success. It doesn't. The more popular DL is, the less popular DCA is. Tourists don't want to see DCA. They don't like it. Local people don't like it. NO ONE LIKES DCA. DCA sucks!!! "Isn't that sort of shifting the goal posts over and over again? THEN supporters said that there were actually MORE guests than the sources indicate. NOW they say DCA needs a tiny amount of guests inorder to make back their costs." It wouldn't be long before they will get even more efficient with DCA so it only requires 500 people to visit per day.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<I think it's safe to say that it isn't, however that doesn't mean that it's a failure either.>> Right. And we don't know if the rest of DLR has to prop up DCA in order to keep the gates open.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>Tourists don't want to see DCA.<< Everyone in my neck of the woods who has travelled to DLR has told me that they like DCA. DCA may have failed as a regional park, but tourists with hoppers definitely visit it.
Originally Posted By planodisney What is a DCA supporter? I didnt realize DCA was even running for office. Why does it drive some of you crazy that some, many, people like DCA? You guys can all debate whatever you want, but DCA aint going anywhere, PERIOD!! DCA needs more attractions and increased marketing of the DLR to long distance tourists. Bringing in more multiple night, out of town guests is the way that both parks attendance will grow in the future, not because of locals. I dont think that the local market could support another theme park, coupled with ,what seems to be a snobby local attitude that they deserve only the best Disney has to offer, whether Disney could afford it or not. Because of the lack of local support, I cant see the DLR ever getting the 3rd gate I here mentioned on here all of the time. NO Way that will happen. It is just too big of a risk in that market. I hope I am wrong, because I would love to see DLR grow, but Anaheim just seems to have too many obstacles, starting with the facts that so many locals seem to think they will somehow be betraying DL by visiting this newer, non Walt built park.
Originally Posted By arstogas >>>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.<<< You know, when they added that McDonald's inside Home Depot, I bet it made families all the more eager to shop for hammers and sheetrock together.
Originally Posted By arstogas >>>"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.<<< The last time you interpreted the financial reports for us, Hans, I believe you told us the Hong Kong Disneyland Resort pricetag was something like 15 or 16 BILLION dollars...about five times it's actual cost. Then again, I might be remembering that wrong...
Originally Posted By kmovies Burger Joint 1 sells 1000 burgers a day. They build Burger Joint 2 next door. Now Burger Joint 1 sells 700 burgers a day and Burger Joint 2 sells 450 burgers a day. Is Burger Joint 2 a failure? Not really, combined they sold 150 more burgers a year. DL I would say was maxed out ... and not a lot more potential to grow. Adding DCA, never meant to equal DL, and would cut some attendance, as a whole was meant to increase overall Resort attendance. And it has done that (could of it did more, yes). And if DCA is at historical lows when DL is having a party, that wouldn't be shocking. If ABC shows the Superbowl, don't CBS and NBC hit rock bottom? Don't they go back up when the party is over. When the party is over at DL, DL's attendance will drop some and DCA would likely rebound some. However, going to DCA this summer didn't seem to be any slower than normal. Yes, they took a hit on May 5 and July 17 but that was totally expected (unless DL sold out on July 17 which it didn't). I guess you could say that DL was a failure since many expected it to sell out on July 17 and it didn't. Anyone that thinks that DL could pull in more on its own that DL and DCA doesn't have a good sense of reality. It gives you 1 one reason to visit DL - and especially, one more reason to visit DLR. Visit WDW with four parks - most people DL with two parks - now better than 1 park - and twice the reason to visit DL with one park - wasn't as big of a choice for travelers DL years: Visits to DL: 1 Visits to WDW: 8 DL/DCA years: Visits to DL/DCA: 11 Visits to WDW: 3 Reasons: Much easier to get around, no bus rides to each park and DL which does cut down on the vacation time
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<Burger Joint 1 sells 1000 burgers a day. They build Burger Joint 2 next door. Now Burger Joint 1 sells 700 burgers a day and Burger Joint 2 sells 450 burgers a day. Is Burger Joint 2 a failure? Not really, combined they sold 150 more burgers a year.>> Fuzzy accounting methods, ya gotta' love 'em. Yes, burger joint 2 is a failure because they had to give away 2 for 1 coupons in order to maintain foot traffic. Further, BJ1 and BJ2 are competing business entities. Thereby, your Business Model example is flawed let alone full of cholesterol.
Originally Posted By woody "Now Burger Joint 1 sells 700 burgers a day and Burger Joint 2 sells 450 burgers a day." No, it's more like BJ2 sells 175 burgers a day (1/4th of 700), in which a majority is frequent goers and a very small percentage are new burger buyers. "I dont think that the local market could support another theme park, coupled with ,what seems to be a snobby local attitude that they deserve only the best Disney has to offer, whether Disney could afford it or not." Can Disney afford a park that no one likes? How about the other side of the coin? DCA doesn't even come close to "the best." It is a joke of a theme park that doesn't deserve the Disney name.
Originally Posted By woody "And if DCA is at historical lows when DL is having a party, that wouldn't be shocking." Yes it would be shocking because DCA was supposed to feed off of DL's success. Are you saying if DL's attendance is moderately busy rather than extremely busy, DCA's attendance should be better? This wouldn't work either because the whole resort would be lightly attended. I do think Disney failed in its marketing. DCA is not mentioned anywhere. The public doesn't know anything about DCA. That's a shame. Yet, they aren't enamored with DCA when they visit the resort. DCA isn't sold at the resort as another interesting attraction to visit. What happened to captive audience marketing?
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>What happened to captive audience marketing?<< DLR doesn't have this to the degree that WDW does. Harbor Blvd is closer to DL's gate than the MK's gate is to its own parking lot. While DL does get its share of tourists and (especially) AP's, the bulk of people who visit DL are local day trippers. The day trippers are not likley to park hop and will chose DL over DCA. So if anyone is captive, it is the day trippers. It is unlikely that the second gate will ever rival DL. It will be enhanced over the years, but will always be second fiddle. Its smaller for one thing. It will never have the nostalgia factor that DL has. But it does enhance the resort. We are having a family reunion at DLR in 8 days. If there was no second gate, we would have opted for WDW instead. Because of the second gate we chose DLR. The overall lower price tag also helped (staying off property at WDW was not considered as an option).
Originally Posted By woody "While DL does get its share of tourists and (especially) AP's, the bulk of people who visit DL are local day trippers. The day trippers are not likley to park hop and will chose DL over DCA. So if anyone is captive, it is the day trippers." The day tripper, also defined as those who buy the one day admissions, shouldn't be presumed to not go to DCA. This is a marketing moment. You also mentioned tourists. They are the first people you'll expect to visit DCA, yet they don't. The whole scheme is messed up because APs are the only people keeping the park busy.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>You also mentioned tourists. They are the first people you'll expect to visit DCA, yet they don't.<< Rubbish
Originally Posted By woody With DL at record attendance and DCA at historic low attendance, who's going? Probably APs.
