Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt “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.†Oh come on. They obviously downgraded DL's attendance because they knowingly figured that DCA would siphon some visitors from DL. The same thing happed at TDL when DisneySea opened. In any case, I doubt if DL could sustain the 14 million visitors a year figure. Historically speaking that was a bit of an aberration. I would say DL's benchmark is more like 10-12 million. "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." I won't argue that DCA's attendance is lackluster. I've never contended that it wasn't. I'm merely stating that attendance is only one measure of the success of park and that there is reasonable evidence that suggests that the park's overall financial postition may not be a bleak as the critics claim.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "It is just too big of a risk in that market." Amen, brother (or sister). I've been saying this for years and I think Disney suspected as much back when DCA was being conceived.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt “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.†Nice cheap shot. Yep, I did mistakenly report incorrect information as the result of misquoting the exchange on the HK dollar, however once it was brought to my attention I immediately acknowledged my error publicly. I can accept being wrong, since I’m not really trying to be right. I simply want to interpret the facts and come up with a reasonable conclusion.
Originally Posted By Captain Jack Sparrow <<Can Disney afford a park that no one likes?>> <<You also mentioned tourists. They are the first people you'll expect to visit DCA, yet they don't.>> Do you ever read other posts? We get that you do not like DCA, but when you make ridiculous statements like the ones above, it just shows you have no idea what you are talking about.
Originally Posted By woody "Do you ever read other posts?" Can you be more specific on what posts you're referring to? "We get that you do not like DCA, but when you make ridiculous statements like the ones above, it just shows you have no idea what you are talking about." You keep hinting around. There's nothing you said that makes any sense to me. It isn't ridiculous to say DCA isn't doing well. With DCA hitting historic low attendance, it is reasonable to say the tourists are not liking DCA or have any reason to visit DCA.
Originally Posted By woody "Do you ever read other posts?" On the other posts, I think tangaroa and crapshoot make excellent points. I would think you don't agree with them so what your point?
Originally Posted By tangaroa >What overhead and marketing? Most of the >venues at DtD aren't Disney owned, >therefore the Disney is collecting rent >from the tenants Disney would have to offer competitive rates, with other entertainment areas such as The Block right next door. Disney also has to pay for the maintenance of the facilities, custodial security and parking for not just guests but employees as well. And the advertising for DTD was a pretty big campaign way back when - they had bus benchs, billboards, radio and even TV ads, JUST for DTD. But that's not the point - I'm sure that Disney is making money on DTD - just not a whole lot in comparison to everything else at the resort. I think it would be silly to try and say that the gains made at DTD offset the losses from DCA/DL. >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. Here's what the report actually says: >Parks & Resorts results for both the >year and fourth quarter reflected >increased attendance, spending and >growth in occupied room nights at the >Disneyland Resort; cost savings at the >Walt Disney World Resort; and higher >royalties from Tokyo Disneyland. These >increases were more than offset by >higher costs at the Disneyland Resort >and decreased theme park attendance and >lower occupied room nights at the Walt >Disney World Resort. The parks and resorts division made 7 billion dollars in 2001, up from 6.8 billion - BUT Segment Operating Income (the profits) were down 2%. So they ended up taking in more money, but their costs were too high so they made less in profit. That seems to jive with what I'm trying to say here - that the cost to earn the extra money in the expensive of DCA was too much to justify the second park. >Is Burger Joint 2 a failure? Not really, >combined they sold 150 more burgers a >year. Let's put it this way... Burger Joint 1 sells 1000 burgers at 5 bucks a pop - they make 5000 dollars. They open Burger Joint 2 next door, and because of poor attendance, decide to discount their 5 dollar burger to 3 dollars. Burger Joint 1 sells 800 burgers at 3 bucks each - they make 2400 dollars. Burger Joint 2 sells 400 burgers at 3 bucks each - they make 1200 dollars. Combined they sell 1200 burgers - 200 more than before, but they make only 3600 dollars, 1400 less than before. Because Disneyland is the big 400 pound gorilla at the DLR, the only way the expanded resort could expand their profits, was ensuring that DL could continue to bring in the same undiscounted attendance they were pulling in before DCA. Otherwise any success DCA made would be negated by the declines at DL. Well that's not how it worked out. Disney let Disneyland languish with no new expansion and poor quality refurbishments while they started construction on DCA. They expanded the AP program, they offered more discounts, they closed food locations and restructured merchandise. It's my belief that DL alone could have made far more money without DCA than it is now with DCA. That gives DCA the responsibility of making up the gap in what DL could be making, as well as making it's own. DCA just isn't up to that task.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "I think it would be silly to try and say that the gains made at DTD offset the losses from DCA/DL." Why are you assuming that there are losses? Where does this come from? Other than the dubious attendance statistics there is no particular reason to believe that either park is actually losing money. "The parks and resorts division made 7 billion dollars in 2001, up from 6.8 billion - BUT Segment Operating Income (the profits) were down 2%. So they ended up taking in more money, but their costs were too high so they made less in profit." Right, but nevertheless they still turned a profit, which is the whole point. DLR is not a money losing enterprise. You say that the costs were too high, however what they are saying is that costs increased over the previous year, not that they were higher than anticipated. Those costs could be anything including new marketing campaigns, increased insurance costs, payouts for lawsuits, or the new Pooh ride. Bear in mind that the comparisons they are making are from year to year, not from before DCA was built. Also, operating income is not the same as profit. Profit is income minus expenses. "That seems to jive with what I'm trying to say here - that the cost to earn the extra money in the expensive of DCA was too much to justify the second park." I'm not following your logic. Can you elaborate? I think the only way to really figure it out would be to compare income to operating expenses today vs. BEFORE the resort expansion began. This can be done (well, sort of) by researching the old financial reports from around 1995 and comparing them to 2004's.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "They expanded the AP program, they offered more discounts, they closed food locations and restructured merchandise." Those were short-term fixes in reaction to an economic downturn and the previous management's efforts to cut down on operating expenses. The resort expansion was a long term investment. What counts is not in the relatively short period of time since 2001 but DLR's profit potential into the future.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Yep, I did mistakenly report incorrect information as the result of misquoting the exchange on the HK dollar, however once it was brought to my attention I immediately acknowledged my error publicly. I can accept being wrong, since I’m not really trying to be right. I simply want to interpret the facts and come up with a reasonable conclusion. >>> I think the issue here is not that you made a mistake, but that the numbers you quoted for HKDL's cost were so obviously wrong on the face of themselves that it brings up other issues. For example, even if I saw from an otherwise reliable source that HKDL cost US$16 billion to build, I would tend to disbelieve the figure and at the very least look very carefully for confirmation. I'm not privy to detailed internal financials, but I know enough in a very rough manner about how much things cost to know that such a number was probably incorrect, and would not be lulled into believing it to be true just because it supported whatever argument I was trying to make at the time.
Originally Posted By arstogas >>>Nice cheap shot. Yep, I did mistakenly report incorrect information as the result of misquoting the exchange on the HK dollar, however once it was brought to my attention I immediately acknowledged my error publicly.<<< Not a cheap shot at all... and you're exagerrating how quickly you acknowledged your error. It was pointed out to you several times, by several people, that your figure was way wrong... and you insisted the financials presented it that way. A few days later, someone pointed out to you at least one place that was irrefutable in the costs of HKDL being around $3 Billion, and at THAT point, you conceded. Cheap shot indeed. Appropos is more like it.
Originally Posted By arstogas As to the burger analogy... Who wants another burger joint next door? There was a great steak joint, with adequate seating space and lovely ornamentation, and they built a corndog shack next door.
Originally Posted By WorldDisney <<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.>> But Hans, you're arguing like this is a good thing!! Just because this park is making a bare profit, that should tell them that they don't need to do anything with the place? Of course not and I'm not saying that's what you're saying, but it sounds like the argument is your basic corporate mentality, ie, we're making (some) money so who cares how strong the quality really is. Again though, Disney has done EVERYTHING in their power from year one to improve this park which shows they know this place is a joke and nothing close to what they intended it would do. I understand people want to make excues and say it's a lower maintenance kind of park so it doesn't need high end attendance to suceed, but MAN, that is some of the most pessimistic thinking I ever heard of. DCA should be like any other Disney park out there, something that sparks people's imagination and bring in the crowds regardless. It simply isn't doing that and if Disney is 'satisfied' that it's basically bringing in just a little over a third of what it's sister park brings in every year, then Disney is hitting at the bottom of the barrel with this place and its sad. But, again, I HIGHLY doubt they are 'satisfied' or they wouldn't have added all these quick fixes and bending over backwards to slowly turn it into Pixarland.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Why does it drive some of you crazy that some, many, people like DCA? >>> For me, it doesn't bother me at all that some or perhaps many people like DCA. What bothers me is the years-long efforts of some to act as if there aren't any creative problems, aren't any attendance problems, and aren't any financial problems, when it seems beyond question that there are all of these things. And when financial/attendance problems are tacitly acknowledged, the laundry list of reasons other than DCA itself is brought out to explain them. To the people that enjoy the park, even to a greater extent than DL as reported by at least one person, I'm glad that they enjoy it. They get the added benefit of not having to face crowds during most visits .
Originally Posted By danyoung >...Disney has done EVERYTHING in their power from year one to improve this park...< I just don't see this. I see Disney making SOME moves to make things better. But everything in their power? If that was true, Heimlich's Choo Choo Train and the other sad rides in that area would be more than they are, and many of the crap attractions in Paradise Pier would have been torn down and replaced with true Disney adventures.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "It was pointed out to you several times, by several people, that your figure was way wrong... and you insisted the financials presented it that way." BS pure and simple.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "But Hans, you're arguing like this is a good thing!!" Well of course it's a good thing - if that was the plan from the start then what's wrong with it? Wouldn't you like to open a business that didn't required a ton of people passing through your doors to turn a profit?
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "I think the issue here is not that you made a mistake, but that the numbers you quoted for HKDL's cost were so obviously wrong on the face of themselves that it brings up other issues." As I said, the information is there. Go look it up for yourself if you don't believe me. Feel free to debate it here as that is what discussion boards are for. If I'm wrong I'm adult enough to own up to it. What's the big deal? I've stated my reasoning and anyone who knows me from these boards should know by now that as much as I enjoy the debate I couldn't possibly care less about being right or wrong. I simply want to have a better understanding of how these things work. It's clear that there are people here who, rather than get a clearer view of the FACTS, would rather discredit ME instead. I've tried to keep this discussion from getting personal but it looks like it's starting to head in that direction. Therefore, I will take this time to exit.
Originally Posted By WorldDisney >...Disney has done EVERYTHING in their power from year one to improve this park...< <<I just don't see this. I see Disney making SOME moves to make things better. But everything in their power? If that was true, Heimlich's Choo Choo Train and the other sad rides in that area would be more than they are, and many of the crap attractions in Paradise Pier would have been torn down and replaced with true Disney adventures.>> You know, after I sent in the post and saw "EVERYTHING" in its beautiful big caps letters, I knew I made a mistake . No, I certainly shouldn't have said everything as it is very obvious they haven't and my complaint about the place isn't so much what was there on day 1, but all the quick fix junk they added from day 30 and onward. I think I should have said they have tried everything within a certain budget in a small amount of time to get the park off the ground, but like the park itself, they have started with a bare minimum of $$$ to make all these quick fixes possible. It just furthers prove the point though that they are not happy with whatever money the park is making or why else approve all these little small projects that NONE of them were even concevied of in the first place? Also, everything from bringing back MSEP, addidng TOT 2 years EARLY and now Pixaring the place to death and now "project sparkle" only shows that this park is nowhere close to making the profit they wanted or this stuff would've been a 'go' a long time ago.
