Originally Posted By arstogas >>>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.<<< Plus, there was the added advantage that DMGM's offerings overall were quite good, and distinctive enough from any other offerings they'd created at their other parks... save for Star Tours, which opened a little later. The quality in attractions, theming, and infrastucture was there in the park, in sufficient numbers, from the day it opened.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt ^^Really? I was quite unimpressed with Disney/MGM when it opened.
Originally Posted By danyoung >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.< The attractions available at DCA on opening day were far inferior to what D/MGM had to offer. DCA is failing because the Disney company has forgotten how to build a theme park. Or if the knowledge is still there, it's being choked off by the spreadsheet crowd who think you can pull magic out of an Excel file.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<DCA really should have been called Eisnerland, because it had his fingerprints all over the place.>> Nothing shoots a bigger hole in a debate than a quip about Eisner. You may as well have held your hands up and said, "I don't know what I am talking about."
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<DCA really should have been called Eisnerland, because it had his fingerprints all over the place.>> Nothing shoots a bigger hole in a debate than a quip about Eisner. You may as well have held your hands up and said, "I don't know what I am talking about."
Originally Posted By Nobody And don't forget: Posting a critical remark twice in a row actually decreases it's impact by 50% instead of doubling it. Strange but true. ;-)
Originally Posted By woody "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." The problem with this concept is rich single people don't necessarily want to share their space with screaming kids in the next table. They would rather avoid any kids. I think Las Vegas is taking away the business from wealthy singles, while Las Vegas is de-emphasizing any family entertainment. Disney has failed to take advantage of existing Disneyland customers. I would think it hurts Disney. The 3000 guest breakeven point for DCA sounds fishy because it can't possibly include the infrastructure costs and the constant additions and renovations. Also, how does APs get figured into the mix. DCA still must be staffed and have large overhead costs. I suppose this is DCA economics.
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> Therefore, there is some logical reasoning that led them down the path to the park that stands adjacent to DL today. << But you're again inferring that economic restrictions are a primary reason that DCA turned out the way it did. I'd buy that if I could verify that most people responsible for the park thought, wow, we sure are designing a piece of junk, and many of the elements in DCA sure are underwhelming, but we just don't have enough money to do a better job. >> 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. << It helps if people at least have enough sense to determine whether something is good or not. I believe people had to be half-blind and semi-comatose to scrutinize the plans for, as one example, Paradise Pier, or the clunky Sunshine Plaza, and not realize how cheesy and wrongheaded it was for a Disney park.
Originally Posted By SJHYM I think budget restrictions surely had an effect on the outcome of this park. Then throw in Barry Braverman as executive producer of the place and then you really get a mess
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> I think budget restrictions surely had an effect on the outcome of this park. << Based on an article about the Aspen conference where DCA was born, there was a kind of creative lameness or ineptitude that appeared to dominate the atmosphere of those in attendance---referring to the meeting where Eisner was described as bringing his two dogs along with him. The event sounded like it had about as much appropriate dynamics or inspiration as what would be found in a meeting of the PTA or Rotary Club. I think such aimlessness or inertia had less to do with tight budgets and far more to do with lousy decisionmaking skills and second-rate attitudes.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt “Disney has failed to take advantage of existing Disneyland customers.†Nonesense. Please provide your evidence that shows that Disney isn’t taking advantage of Disneyland customers. From what we can all see DCA is attracting 5-6 million guests a year. I think it’s safe to say that most of those people probably went to DL too. “The 3000 guest breakeven point for DCA sounds fishy because it can't possibly include the infrastructure costs and the constant additions and renovations. Also, how does APs get figured into the mix.†The infrastructure was there before DCA was built. DL had to have a parking lot, trams, a maintenance crew, security, etc, even without DCA. Unlike other So Cal parks DCA share's its infastructure with DL. Therefore, we can suppose that most of the income generated by DCA (after expenses for the park are subtracted, which would include renovations) would be icing on the cake for the entire resort. Of course this is speculation. “DCA still must be staffed and have large overhead costs.†Relatively speaking the costs have to be much lower than DL’s. How many people does it take to staff the average DCA attraction, shop, restaurant or show compared to DL? Also, DCA’s operating hours are much shorter.
Originally Posted By karlg Re: 153 by Hans Reinhardt >>>>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. <<<< You mean like loosing more money than DCA cost on GO.COM? Hey but they made up for GO.COM by overpaying by the cost of several DCA's (the overpayment has been estimated to be more than $2B) for The Family Channel. It looks to me that they did a lot of things on a whim of Michael Eisner, including the theme of DCA and the strange mix of a cheezy Paradise Pier with high end restaurants.
Originally Posted By ElKay "The infrastructure was there before DCA was built. DL had to have a parking lot, trams, a maintenance crew, security, etc, even without DCA. Unlike other So Cal parks DCA share's its infastructure with DL. I don't think you are correct on this assumption. You talk as if DCA was built on a preexisting 2n floor over DL. Sure the land that DCA occupies was essentially already paid for, but everything else costs DLR for operating an essentially seperate business unit. Take the Mickey & Friends parking lot, the construction costs of that mamoth structure probably costs more than the shell of the Grand Cal Hotel and since DL lost it's already paid for parking lot, it has to deduct former profits into liabilities to pay off the costs. On top of that the utilities and maintenance must to several times the cost of maintaining the old lot. You forget that included in the building of DCA and Downtown Disney, TDA also took out a 99 year lease on the Fujishige strawberry farm, that a portion of it is being used for off site employee parking. If memory serves, that lease is some astronimical figure the family held out for because of the hardball negociating tactics that Disney conducted that caused one of the landowners to commit suicide over. So Disney has to be paying out that lease on a property they have no realistic plans to build the third park for the near future. Thus adding expenses on fallow land. I'm sure that the utilities and labor costs for both DCA and DTD equals that of DL. It appears that DTD may be making a profit just as any major retail development would be expected, however, it is doubtful that DCA is making much over costs since TDA has been desperatly trying anything to attract paying guests. Outside of ToT, all of the recent additions very much appear to be rushed projects trying to rejigger the mix of shows and attractions to find something that will hook with the public, so far without much success. That 3k attendance breakeven figure sounds pretty unrealistic. If that was the case, the 8k to 12K daily attendance would appear to be a "boffo" box office for DCA and would preclude any of the many fizzling additions they'd made to the place. I'll bet that DCA yearly attendance is going to be waaaay down both because of DL's 50th celebration and the bad publicity of Screamin's summer closure on top of the lack of interest in DCA in general.
Originally Posted By Imagineer This If DCA was a undeniable success, compared to Disneyland, is there any doubt that Eisner would be taking the sole credit for it right about now? ;-)
Originally Posted By SJHYM I agree about the 3k break even point. I am aware of those points for the 4 WDW parks and they are substantially higher. Even if you factor in a smaller workforce at DCA, 3000 guests just doesnt seem possible.
Originally Posted By Neverland 3000 a day probably is the break even point- for a certain definition of break even point. If you are talking merely about the Marginal revenue needed to cover the marginal expense, aren't amortizing any overhead costs and assuming that DL is covering all the 'shared' cost items on the assumption that DL would need to pay them anyway, well, it's probably true. In essence, the question you are answering here is this: 'how many people need to walk through the gate before just closing for the day is the better option'? The answer is, 3000.
Originally Posted By Neverland I just keep coming back to the concept that one gate would be better than two. The spearate parks concept really works in FL but the dynamic doesn't seem to work in CA the same way.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt “You mean like loosing more money than DCA cost on GO.COM? †Go.com was an internet portal akin to Google or Yahoo! Living in San Francisco when someone says dot-com I tend to think of internet business that sold goods to compete with traditional ground based stores, such as Pets.com, not businesses that offer services or the transfer of information online. Creating an online portal made a lot of sense. The problem with go.com was that Disney was never able to gain significant market share. “Hey but they made up for GO.COM by overpaying by the cost of several DCA's (the overpayment has been estimated to be more than $2B) for The Family Channel.†As I said before, you can conduct tremendous financial research and even plan your venture on assumptions based on previous experience (as was the case with DLP), however there is always risk associated with every investment. What would be your perception of DCA today if it had been built to the specifications of the LP internet posters but ended up bleeding tons of cash? “It looks to me that they did a lot of things on a whim of Michael Eisner, including the theme of DCA and the strange mix of a cheezy Paradise Pier with high end restaurants.†I think Paradise Pier was green lighted because the attractions within are universally popular and are inexpensive to operate in comparison to rides like Pirates and Jungle Cruise. You’re probably right, though, about the theme being influenced by the various tastes of company management; however some people would likely view Paradise Pier to be no less cheesy than Disneyland Park itself. Cheese is in the eye of the beholder.
