Originally Posted By crapshoot "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." Exactly! And one sure fire way to get concept art approved for a project at Disney is to make sure there are plenty of happy, smiling people on the canvas having the best time of their lives. Then and only then will the "suits" realize what a great idea they have on their hands.
Originally Posted By WorldDisney <<Exactly! And one sure fire way to get concept art approved for a project at Disney is to make sure there are plenty of happy, smiling people on the canvas having the best time of their lives. Then and only then will the "suits" realize what a great idea they have on their hands.>> I guess that explains how they manage to get the Chinese government to fork over billions of dollars to build a park with only 10 attractions and a tiny area......those kids in that concept art had HUGE smiles on them though ;D.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "Then and only then will the "suits" realize what a great idea they have on their hands." You don't really believe that nonsense, do you? A new park is a capital investment. If the calculations of the estimated return on the investment don't pan out then it isn't getting off the ground no matter how pretty the concept art looks.
Originally Posted By fkurucz ^^^What you say is essentially correct. But if I learned anything in B School, its that you still make a lot of assumptions when making these calculations. There is essentially no way to know how a new and different park will be received by the public. All they can do is make projections based on how DL has drawn, and adjust them for DCA. IIRC, the business model was that the new park would attract more out of town visitors, and that they would stay longer. As for locals, I think that it would be obvious that day trippers would pick DL over DCA more often, simply because its a better value. AP's would behave much like guests with park hoppers. I don't think that park #2 could have ever competed directly with DL. It had less room to begin with. It lacked the powerful nostalgia factor. Even if they had spent twice as much, it would still be the step sister. This is not to say that mistakes were not made. The park needs more and better attractions. A different theme might have been more sucessful in attrracting the locals.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt ^^Agree totally, although I believe that the theme is far less important than content.
Originally Posted By ElKay The problem with DCA is that initially theme became more important content. It seemed that Disney just assumed that slapping a California theme on pretty generic amusement park rides would bring in droves of people, especially rich, hip and edgy couples without kids who just want to eat waaaaay overpriced wine and haute cuisine with a $43 cover charge. The rest is history.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "It seemed that Disney just assumed that slapping a California theme on pretty generic amusement park rides would bring in droves of people, especially rich, hip and edgy couples without kids who just want to eat waaaaay overpriced wine and haute cuisine with a $43 cover charge." This doesn't quite add up, although I think I get what you are trying to say. If that was the case then why put a McDonald's in the park? When planning the park the people that were assumed to visit DCA would logically have to be the very same people who visit DL. Given that simple reasoning it's pretty obvious to me that any theme chosen would therefore be mostly meaningless and that the park's attraction mix would have to appeal to the same demographic.
Originally Posted By arstogas >>>If the calculations of the estimated return on the investment don't pan out then it isn't getting off the ground no matter how pretty the concept art looks.<<< And it apparently doesn't matter whether or not the calculations are based on reality or experience. In point of fact, the calculations for DCA incorporated an entire set of assumptions that for the first time really flew in the face of what they had learned in 45 years of running theme parks.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "In point of fact, the calculations for DCA incorporated an entire set of assumptions that for the first time really flew in the face of what they had learned in 45 years of running theme parks." I agree that in some ways Disney's arrogance influenced them to believe that there was more potential for a second gate in Anaheim than has been realized. I do, however, suspect that the risk of adding another park in So Cal is what led them to build a scaled back park like DCA rather than something over the top such as DisneySea or Westcot. You don't just pull money out of a hat and build whatever you want without having an understanding of what kind of profit that investment is going to bring. Therefore, there is some logical reasoning that led them down the path to the park that stands adjacent to DL today. As much moaning and groaning that goes on around here about DCA I've yet to see any conclusive evidence that the park is actually losing money. A lot of folks here seem to think that there's some sort of formula or science to predicting how these things are going to pan out. But it's no easier than knowing what gasoline prices will be next summer. Part of the risk of taking on any new endeavor, whether it be building HKDL or Bob's Backyard Carnival, is not knowing exactly what the outcome will be.
Originally Posted By ElKay "If that was the case then why put a McDonald's in the park?" Easy question--$$$$. Disney and McD have had a reasonably long promotional relationship. Not much different that other corporate sponsorships in other Disney parks. Additionally, I suspect Disney thought it would be a cost effective way to increase food service in the park that was recognizable and inexpensive, unlike creating food service locations that might not appeal to guests. Best examples are the Hollywood and Dine food court or the Chinese restaurant in Cannery Row. Unique (for DLR at least) dining experiences, but not at all popular. They ended mostly shuttered or outright closed. A waste of money all around. "When planning the park the people that were assumed to visit DCA would logically have to be the very same people who visit DL." I disagree. Recall that the planning for DCA must have been done somewhere in the mid-90s during the "DotBomb" period where tons of venture capital was flushed down the bidet up along the Pacific Coast States and some other cities like Denver. A ton of that money was feed to young, 20-something tech geeks, who were to hip and edgy for DL and ripe for a new sort of park that was awash in alcohol, coffee and haute cusine, like Wolfgang Puck's place. These tech geeks and geekettes would have cash to burn, but had no kids --DINKS (Double Incomes No KidS). They'd stay at the Grand Cal Hotel and chow down on trendy food inside DCA. But by '01 the bubble had burst and 9/11 was seven months away after DCA's grand opening. So no jetsetting Techies and a huge tourism downturn. The thing is it is highly dubious that even if the bubble didn't burst and 9/11 didn't happen was DCA the right sort of park that would have drawn the park closing attendance that TDA was crowing about in the media just before the opening. IMO, a resounding NO. Disney doesn't do hip or even edgy. Their whole fundamental marketing strategy was terribly flawed. Disney thought that they could replicate the success of WDW by turning DL into a destination resort, but this time for DINKS too cool for clunky old DL. As a result, DCA was left with the SoCal market too used to going to DL with more themed attractions. DCA was neither fish nor fowl. It didn't have rides like POC or HM or Indy. On the other hand it didn't have rave or ska clubs. It was a park designed by 50-something corporate-types, short on creativity, but long on cost savings. DCA really should have been called Eisnerland, because it had his fingerprints all over the place.
Originally Posted By Imagineer This >>DCA really should have been called Eisnerland, because it had his fingerprints all over the place.<< That sums it all up right there.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "Easy question--$$$$. Disney and McD have had a reasonably long promotional relationship. Not much different that other corporate sponsorships in other Disney parks." We of course. But my question was how does the inclusion of McDonald's correlate with someone else's argument that DCA was trying to attract rich, hip and edgy couples without kids who just want to eat waaaaay overpriced wine and haute cuisine with a $43 cover charge?
Originally Posted By SJHYM I think that one of the places that Disney misstepped with DCA was that by the time DCA was in plaqnning and building they were using the WDW model and in particular the Disney-MGM Studios model where you build a smaller park and let it grow naturally. The problem with that model in this case was that WDW was already a sprawling destination with tons of themed hotels and the MK and EPCOT Center already open and running, the Disney Village in place and lots of options. So when MGM opened it was small and crowded because the resort was already busy and people were already staying at WDW for longer periods of time. DCA didnt have that luxury. Disney assumed that the local market would support the second park. What they didnt expect was that the second gate would be looked at more critically than the additional parks at WDW. I think people are more forgiving about the smaller parks at WDW because its just one part of a large vacation. DCA HAD to prove itself quickly locally and just didnt do that. I think the theme was part of the problem, though I think the current theme was not fleshed out very well. They wanted an adult park but then seemed to not fully understand what would keep an adult in the park all day or in the evenings. They strived for World Showcase type dining experiences but didnt surround the venues with enough things or even enough interesting options to have someone say...lets stay here all evening.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "When planning the park the people that were assumed to visit DCA would logically have to be the very same people who visit DL." >I disagree. Recall that the planning for DCA must have been done somewhere in the mid-90s during the "DotBomb" period where tons of venture capital was flushed down the bidet up along the Pacific Coast States and some other cities like Denver. A ton of that money was feed to young, 20-something tech geeks, who were to hip and edgy for DL and ripe for a new sort of park that was awash in alcohol, coffee and haute cusine, like Wolfgang Puck's place.< Management stated from the outset that the whole purpose of adding another gate in Anaheim was to encourage out of town visitors to DL to stay another day. It’s been proven that spending increases dramatically when visitors stay on site for multiple days. Your assessment seems rather presumptuous and superficial. I think it is reasonable to believe that management may have wanted to expand the demographic a bit (hence the upscale hotel and DtD), but by and large experience dictates that families with children are the core Disneyland audience, and this is the group that DCA was to draw from according to Disney management. Yes, DCA allowed Disney to do some things that traditionally would be inappropriate at DL, but I see these new offerings as being no different that the kind of food, attractions and entertainment at the various parks outside of WDW’s MK park. How is wine at a winery themed venue at DCA different from wine in French themed restaurant on a Parisian themed street? The fact is that Disney had these kinds of offerings in place at its other resorts long before DCA opened. Furthermore, any long term investment like DCA would have to take into account any potential future earnings at least for five to ten years. Disney is a huge multi-national corporation. Businesses like that don’t invest $600 million - $1 billion based on an aberration like the dot-com craze.
Originally Posted By bean Don't want to get in the debate but just to clear one thing up. DCA only needs 10% of its estimated 30,000 capacity of paid admissions to break even dailey. Anything over that plus food and merchandise sales are profit. So even if the pak does not pack the crowds in, its not in financial problems. Is the yearly attednace what TDA or Burbank wanted NO but that will eventually be corrected
Originally Posted By SJHYM 3000 paid admissions seems like a low break even point to me. I would have expected 9000-12000.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "I think that one of the places that Disney misstepped with DCA was that by the time DCA was in plaqnning and building they were using the WDW model and in particular the Disney-MGM Studios model where you build a smaller park and let it grow naturally." I sort of agree, however I think we are still hung up on the attendance and public perception thing. What I want to know is (which is unlikely, I realize this) how much has DCA added (or taken away) from DLR's bottom line. Yes, they did not quite build the park as they should have, however I'm more interested in knowing how the returns are matching up to what they envisioned. At the end of the day this is really all management is concerned about.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt bean, where did you get that info? It sounds reasonable given the assumption that DCA has relatively low operating costs.
Originally Posted By bean Hans i rather not get into where the number came from, but you are correct DCA operating cost is much lower than Disneyland. Sometimes people do not factor these things in when they talk about the park being cheap. Although the park is not as elaborate as TDS or Disneyland paris, new parks like HKDL, DCA and WDSP operating cost are much lower when the park opens. That give the park a good foothold to be able to grow and add to it to keep a steady flow of patrons while t the same time not straining the resorts budgets. This was one hard learned lesson when it came to Disneyland paris. Its large budget from elaborate costs and its overly built hotels have kept that resort stagnant for several years. Some may question why WDSP was built instead of just investing that money into the other park. Reasons for that are contractual obligations. Disney had to build a second gate a few years after Disneyland Paris opened to be able to keep cotrol of the land designated for a future 2nd gate. The 2nd gate and the 2nd phase of disneyland Paris was put on hold for as log as it could be. Luckily with the new restructuring and banks cooperations the foundation for the 2nd gate has been put in place and expansion for the next 3 years is under way. HKDL property is also under contract to be expanded with a second gate just like Tokyos was. The beauty of this is that those properties get most of its building budget from private corporations or the government. HKDL is already in the process of reclaiming more land for a second gate that will be located opposite the entrance of the new park. At the same time there are more additions that will be added to the first park. A few smaller "c" "d" tickets and a "e" so that be the time the second gate opens around 2012 the first ark has been established well enough. DCA's infrustructure has been laid and since it is able to hold its own the park is in a position to expand and those were always the plans.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "Hans i rather not get into where the number came from..." Fair enough. Everything else you state adds up based on the financial information I've seen on HKDL and DLP. Thanks.
