Originally Posted By crapshoot <<We have no idea what the lifespan of the expected returns on the resort expansion investment were or when they were expected to be realized.>> My baseless understanding (insider's info), is that somehow or someway, Disney did an accounting magic trick and moved the construction costs, etc. off of the "books" and into a different (show it as a failure never to be repaid) column. Can that be done? No doubt they have the smoke and mirrors to pull it off. <<The place needs one or two good classic, what I call, Disneyfied "E" tickets.>> I would agree with you on that for when the park opened or very shortly thereafter. Now, I don't see it making a huge difference until they retool major areas thereby giving the park a very different feeling so as to change public opinion enough to want to come.
Originally Posted By crapshoot P.S. And when I say "change public opinion", I simply mean add precieved value into DCA.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan And at this point, it is about changing perceptions. The only way to do that in a lasting way, in my opion, is to give the park a drastic facelift at this point. For a myriad of reasons, the DCA brand is tarnished goods. Adding one expensive attraction, or a few less expensive ones, isn't going to get the job done. If the intention is to get people paying full price for admission and in addition to getting people traveling from out of the area, the park really needs to be reborn. Changing out whole large chunks of the park and filling them with top-notch themeing and attractions. That's the only thing that will generate the word of mouth and media buzz to capture the attention needed. Brands that are getting stale and becoming has-beens can be successfully relaunched and made "new" and cool again (Mountain Dew, Sprite come to mind). But a theme park is a different matter and it'll take a bold vision and money to make it happen.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "Can that be done? No doubt they have the smoke and mirrors to pull it off." Nope, not legally as far as I know. My understanding is that expenses like that (the cost of building a new asset) are calculated through accounting over time as depreciation. Thus, there may not be a one time itemized line for "contruction costs" on the books. I have just a very basic understanding of accounting practices. I'm sure there's someone else that could explain it better than I can.
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> Therefore, DCA could be adding significantly to DLR’s bottom line. << I'v heard that DCA's attendance hasn't been better because of 9-ll, bad weather and the original marketing campaign. >> I've always maintained that the problem with DCA's roster of attractions for me isn't what they built, but rather, what they didn't build << Too bad the DisCo didn't create a larger Paradise Pier with more rides similar to the Mailboomer and Mulholland Madness.
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> But a theme park is a different matter and it'll take a bold vision and money to make it happen << If the DisCo truly has "bold vision" for DCA, they'll need to hire lots of operators of bulldozers.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>It is Disneyland Management itself, saying that TOT did nothing to improve DCA's bottomline.<< It is quite possible that without ToT, that DCA's attendance might have slumped even more.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>Millionare, the "whatchamacallit" Xmas show, the parade formerly know as the MSEP,Aladdin, not even a proven hit like TOT has made DCA a must visit park.<< FWIW, when we visit from out of town, we make sure to "not miss" DCA.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>My baseless understanding (insider's info), is that somehow or someway, Disney did an accounting magic trick and moved the construction costs, etc. off of the "books" and into a different (show it as a failure never to be repaid) column.<< So they are treating it as a "sunk" cost. Which makes sense. They can't liquidate DCA, so they have to make it better. When doing that all past expenses are often categorized as "sunk" and are not taken into account when calculating ROI's on new investments.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt >> Therefore, DCA could be adding significantly to DLR’s bottom line. << "I'v heard that DCA's attendance hasn't been better because of 9-ll, bad weather and the original marketing campaign." *Sigh* I wasn't talking about attendance, disneywatcher. I was talking about a revenue stream which adds to the resort's bottom line. Two totally different things. Attendance does not have to be stellar in order for revenues to increase. In fact DLP's revenues are up this year even though attendance is flat.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "So they are treating it as a "sunk" cost." Possibly. If so, there's certainly nothing unusual about doing it that way. Disney spent untold millions on research and development for DisneySea in Long Beach and Disney's America on outside of D.C. and most likely this is how those expenses were calculated as sunk costs as well.
Originally Posted By SJHYM "Attendance does not have to be stellar in order for revenues to increase." Yeah, its amazing what $3 cokes can do for the bottom line.
Originally Posted By arstogas >>>1.) DCA was scaled back from the beginning and NEVER was given enough money to create Disney quality in many of it's areas. Some areas are very good and some are very weak.<<< More to the point, it was a scaled back concept from the outset, and then was repeatedly scaled back AFTER that point. DCA suffers, perhaps even more than from a lack of sufficient innovative, marquee attractions, from a sense of PLACE. For a park ostensibly based on a real place, the park offers little in the way of immersive atmosphere. The "wide open vistas" that Barry Braverman touted with so much brazen chutzpah, were an embarrassing means of rationalizing the consequences of repeated cutbacks in theming the environs. Disneyland excels in repeat visits because moreso than any other manmade destination, it manages to foster warm, rich memories for the visitor... usually memories of time spent laughing and sharing one-of-a-kind experiences with others held close to the visitor. The more sweeping and comforting the environment that fosters that time spent together, the richer the memory - easily spoiled by too much sun, callous customer service, confusing or competing visual components. DCA, unlike any of its predecessors save for perhaps DMGM, manages such a cobbled-together presentation that one comes away with no sense of cohesion, no unifying vision, nothing to collectively "hold" the memories made together. At Disneyland, even the Future and the Western Frontier resides in an overall tangent domain of fantasy, of idealism. There IS idealism in DCA, but it's tainted with a cynicism previously verboten in Disney parks... almost an admission that "we've been there, done that, so no use trying to fool you again." It's this entire half-hearted approach to the whole place that leaves one underwhelmed, and no mere integration of big attractions is ever going to save it. Kar2oonman said it well... this place needs a drastic image overhaul.
Originally Posted By mstaft Arstogas, do you know of some of the original concepts that were later scaled back or totally abandoned? I'm sure many of us would be curious.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<do you know of some of the original concepts that were later scaled back or totally abandoned? I'm sure many of us would be curious.>> If I may .... Check out the main lobby at the Paradise Hotel. There is some DCA concept art hanging in there. What strikes me is how dynamic and energetic Paradise Pier looks in the artwork. There must be at least three more layers of stuff that was edited out by the time the park opened. The lake alone had much more going on in it than what was built. To me it is a night/day difference.
Originally Posted By arstogas What I'm talking about is more infrastructure and general theming/landscaping/fountains. The place would have been simply much prettier and "contained" as far as creating an on-stage environment.
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> I was talking about a revenue stream which adds to the resort's bottom line. << I guess I therefore should have quipped, I understand that DCA has become such an economic success story for the DisCo that executives wish they had built a version of it instead of Disneyland in Hong Kong! Or: I've heard that the DisCo is so impressed by the way DCA has boosted their bottom line that they're seriously considering making Disney World's 5th park an East-Coast-based version of Anaheim's newest park!
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> The "wide open vistas" that Barry Braverman touted with so much brazen chutzpah, were an embarrassing means of rationalizing the consequences of repeated cutbacks << One would have to get into the minds of people like Barry Braverman to determine how much was "rationalizing" and how much really was a case of their having poor discernment and perception. I still think Braverman, partly because he was too close to the project (and therefore lost some of his objectivity), actually believed the work he and others were doing on DCA was quite good. I say that because descriptions of what took place at the Aspen conference suggest far too many people greeted outright bad or second-rate ideas and concepts as though they were perfectly fine, even great.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Check out the main lobby at the Paradise Hotel. There is some DCA concept art hanging in there. What strikes me is how dynamic and energetic Paradise Pier looks in the artwork. There must be at least three more layers of stuff that was edited out by the time the park opened.<< I've mentioned before that the concept art that I saw prior to opening had a lot of etherial "stuff" going on -- dynamic lighting, lots of people, ballons, abstract "confetti" and lens-flare elements that suggested life and motion and kinetic energy. And that was just the painting of the Boudin Bakery! The actual buildings look much like they did in the concept art -- except for all that abstract, implied motion and energy. If you look at artists' conceptions of new home developments or a new shopping center, many of those same sorts of devices are used -- lush trees, dynamic, dramatic cloud formations, etc.
