Originally Posted By Blacksheep Uncle I wonder why the discount admissions helped DCA so much but giving away annual passes with the purchase of a cell phone (or for FREE!) didn't help USH beat DCA or $10.00 admission with an empty soda can and discount coupons available virtually the whole year didn't help Knotts beat DCA's attendance numbers either... it's funny how the only discount ever mentioned by those that dwell on the negatives at DCA is the "buy one get one free" that Disney offered, but they never mention the heavy discounts offered almost year round by the other local parks...
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <That said though, it astounds me that only 200k extra people would come through the gates. Maybe that just means the extra 1 million increase that DL saw was mostly AP clicks. Scary if true. > It doesn't surprise me at all. The lion's share of DLR visitors are the local market. Except for AP's, that means day-trippers on one-day passes. Where are they going to go when DL has all this cool new stuff for the 50th, spectacular new fireworks show, etc.? DL, of course. I'm impressed that DCA added at all given that situation, and the fact that it didn't have any major new offering of its own in 2005. What's interesting to me is that everybody can interpret these numbers any way they like (and will). Some people will say DCA saw increases because they're doing things these people wanted to see from the beginning; others will say that DCA was opening (erroneously, given the very different demographic) on the WDW model (esp. the MGM model) of staring modestly and adding later, and of course DCA is modifying itself - it's what all Disney parks do and that was obviously the plan for DCA; first get it open, then add to it. Even the villainess herself, Cynthia Harriss, said something about DCA being a "great park in 10 years" or something like that, didn't she? That would indicate that DCA was very much an "open modestly, add more later" park.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt “If you design a park, and build a park based on attracting a certain number of people, wouldn't you want to make sure that park reached that goal?†Yes, I think so, however the reality is that isn’t going to happen anytime soon. Therefore, I think it’s safe to assume that management has downgraded the attendance estimates each subsequent year since 2001. The question really should be is DCA making money. “Maybe Disney is happy with DCA being where it's at right now, and they don't really see a need for dramatic change and expansion at DCA. All those things could be true, but I seriously doubt they are.†You are stating the obvious. The changes wouldn’t be happening if they weren’t needed. “I think DCA's gains this year are 100% attributable to the 50th celebration at DL, and the fact that a few more tourists are coming out and visiting DL on parkhopper tickets.†Well of course. The PR and marketing folks at DLR (not to mention the entire theme park division) are on a roll. My, how things have changed since 2001 when DCA opened with little fanfare. The media launch of the Resort expansion was just pathetic. We are now seeing how proper marketing can bring about positive results. “DCA just can't attract people, even next door to one of the world's most popular parks.†Huh? It attracted nearly 6 million people, ranking 7th in the nation! They’ve had several years of consecutive increases since 2002. And again, how do you know that these figures don’t exceed what Disney planned the park to do this year? Whose measure of success are you using? Whatever it is it seems somewhat illogical. "it's funny how the only discount ever mentioned by those that dwell on the negatives at DCA is the "buy one get one free" that Disney offered, but they never mention the heavy discounts offered almost year round by the other local parks..." It isn't funny at all. It's hilarious.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer IMHO, there is a BIG diffeence between pricing an individual park, and riding on the park next door coat tails to drive attendance. People choose Knott's, USH, SFMM, ec. because they want to go there, but DCA's attendance is driven by folks who are given DCA at no extra charge. What would DCA's attendance be if it was a stand alone park located in Valencia, Buena Park or Hollywood, instead of next door to Disneyland? My guess, a LOT less than what they currently get....
Originally Posted By tangaroa Discounting is expected from the smaller parks like Knott's and Universal. It's how they stay competitive. It's not expected from a Disney park like DCA. It's almost like DCA has to sink down to the level of the smaller parks to draw in crowds. Without the discounting DCA's attendance could be much much lower. Knott's and Universal have used discounting to keep their attendance steady. It may not be the best decision and it's certainly not one that works for a Disney park, but that's what they have decided and that's what they do. Attendance for both parks has been pretty rock solid steady for the last five years so I guess it's working for them. Knott's and Universal are discount parks though. They charge a discount rate for admission, and tend to add discount rides and shows. You get what you pay for. You wouldn't think that DCA would be a discount park, considering the money that has been sunk into that place, but for some reason they continue to discount. That makes DCA a discount park.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss DL gives discounts occasionally... does that make it a discount park as well?
Originally Posted By tangaroa Is DL a discount park? Yes it is. They haven't added much in the last few years. Maybe if they stopped discounting and offering cheaper APs they'd actually be able to build some new rides there.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Here is a post I wrote at MiceChat today... >>Actually, 8.7 million more folks went to Disneyland as compared to DCA, there were 930,000 more NEW guests that went to DL vs DCA. And AB/ERA uses the industry standard, which is one park entry per day, so ParkHoppers give a credit only to the first park visited that day. But, someone with a 5 day ParkHopper would count as 5 visits, so maybe 3 or 4 for DL, and 1 or 2 for DCA, depending on how it is used. AP holders work the same way, the first park they enter on a day gets a "credit", so if someone went 20 times a year, that would create 20 "guest visits" on the yearly count. One ticket works a bit differently, and that is the "Pay for Disneyland, get DCA for FREE!" tickets. ALL the marketing and rules claim it is a 2 day ticket, with one day for each park. No-one at the Ticket Booths, City Hall or Guest Relations should tell you you can use it as a ParkHopper (Official policy). But the turnstile CM's will override the system and allow you to convert it to a ParkHopper. Since the ticket is not a ParkHopper by rule, it does create two counts, since the overriding shouldn't happen, if it is used as a ParkHopper. A slightly sneaky way for Disney to help increase DCA's attendance. In fact, the first big increase for DCA was the year that Disney converted the program to force visitors to go to both parks (required a DCA visit) and made the second day free. The original SoCal 2 day ticket used to cost a few dollars more than a single day (about $10), and allowed you to use both days at Disneyland.<<
Originally Posted By tangaroa >It doesn't surprise me at all. The lion's >share of DLR visitors are the local >market. Except for AP's, that means >day-trippers on one-day passes. How many people in the local market only go once per year? I don't think it's that many. Maybe a long time ago that was the case, but I would think that most people in So Cal who go to DL, do so on an annual pass. I'd guess that less than 10% go on a one day pass. And I thought that DL was pretty much phasing out the one day - one park passes anyway. >and of course DCA is modifying itself - >it's what all Disney parks do and that >was obviously the plan for DCA Of course. It makes sense. If one theme isn't working they will change to another, or just simply downplay the current theme to save money. This placemaking project sounds like they're really trying to make the effort to change the theme of the park though. I think that's what's best for DCA. It's like taking Tomorrowland and making it more fantasy based than realistically based. All parks change the themes that don't work.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<Maybe if they stopped discounting and offering cheaper APs they'd actually be able to build some new rides there.>> Maybe, but maybe not. I would guess that they make far more by offering admissions discounts than not, otherwise they wouldn't offer the discounts in the first place. Revenue from admissions is only one part of the picture, after all.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt “What would DCA's attendance be if it was a stand alone park located in Valencia, Buena Park or Hollywood, instead of next door to Disneyland?†An utterly pointless question. As you and I both know at its opening DCA was not intended to be a stand alone park; it was designed primarily to give people already visiting Disneyland another on site attraction to encourage longer stays. It’s taken a lot of trial and error, but the strategy seems to be working. Guest spending is up and so is attendance. "Knott's and Universal have used discounting to keep their attendance steady." And it the case of Six Flags, drive themselves into financial ruin.
Originally Posted By tangaroa >You are stating the obvious. The changes >wouldn’t be happening if they weren’t >needed. Exactly. And why are they needed? >Well of course. The PR and marketing >folks at DLR (not to mention the entire >theme park division) are on a roll. My, >how things have changed since 2001 when >DCA opened with little fanfare. The >media launch of the Resort expansion was >just pathetic. We are now seeing how >proper marketing can bring about >positive results. The 50th marketing campaign works because its focus is Disneyland. The campaigns of 2001 were focused on DCA and failed mostly because people didn't really care all that much about it. That and of course, they've spent a lot more money marketing the 50th. If DCA's attendance is attributable to the 50th marketing, then it seems safe to assume that after the 50th, DCA's attendance will probably decrease dramatically. >Huh? It attracted nearly 6 million >people, ranking 7th in the nation! >They’ve had several years of consecutive >increases since 2002. But the real question is why it didn't attract more. 200,000 people is not a whole lot considering the situation. With 1 million more people at the resort, DCA wasn't able to attract an equal share of the growth. >And again, how do you know that these >figures don’t exceed what Disney planned >the park to do this year? Whose measure >of success are you using? Whatever it >is it seems somewhat illogical. My measure for success is the one Disney originally set for this park. If they've lowered their standards to conform to what they're actually getting on DCA, that's their decision - it doesn't change the original goal. I'm sure that Disney still wants DCA to attract at least 7 million - or if not 7 million than at least 50% of DL's attendance (both goals which have to date not been reached) and will continue to make whatever changes are necessary to reach that goal.
Originally Posted By tangaroa >I would guess that they make far more by >offering admissions discounts than not That assertion wouldn't make sense at face value, since you can obviously make more money charging 50 dollars a head, than 25 dollars a head. The reason it DOES make sense, is because Disneyland has obviously lost some of it's appeal. You make money on discounting by attracting people who wouldn't otherwise come at the full retail price. Disneyland has lost it's value in recent years (due to lack of attractions and maintenance), and that's why many are not willing to pay the full retail price.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer >>And it the case of Six Flags, drive themselves into financial ruin.<< FYI, Six Flags has made a profit, even after paying off the current cost for the debt, for each of the first three quarters of the year. And one of the primary plans the new CEO and staff have is to reduce the debt. Another Disney employee has joined Six Flags, it was announced today... <a href="http://www.amusementbusiness.com/amusementbusiness/industrynews/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001738102" target="_blank">http://www.amusementbusiness.c om/amusementbusiness/industrynews/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001738102</a> >>Mark Quenzel, a veteran of the ESPN unit where Six Flags' new CEO Mark Shapiro also worked, on Tuesday was named executive vp park strategy and management for the theme park operator. In a statement, Quenzel, 49, said that his mission is “to make every day at Six Flags so enjoyable that each member of the family will want to come back as soon as possible. To make this happen, we will richly enhance each park's environment -- expanding guest options while deepening their sense of security and satisfaction. We want each of our parks to be an island of fun."<< Looks like things are turning around at Six Flags, should be fun to watch them make the changes....
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <How many people in the local market only go once per year? I don't think it's that many. Maybe a long time ago that was the case, but I would think that most people in So Cal who go to DL, do so on an annual pass. I'd guess that less than 10% go on a one day pass. And I thought that DL was pretty much phasing out the one day - one park passes anyway.> I can't believee it's as low as 10%. The highest estimate I've ever seen for AP holders was 600,000, and I think that was considered high. With over 14 million visitors, those AP's would have to visit an awful lot of times each, even if it was as high as that. I think we here on LP probably overestimate how many AP's there are relative to daytrippers because there are so many AP's on LP. But we're the Disney fanatics. Most people aren't as fanatic as we are, and they visit once a year, or (gasp!) once every two or three years. >>and of course DCA is modifying itself - >it's what all Disney parks do and that >was obviously the plan for DCA>> <Of course. It makes sense. If one theme isn't working they will change to another, or just simply downplay the current theme to save money. This placemaking project sounds like they're really trying to make the effort to change the theme of the park though. I think that's what's best for DCA.> I don't know if they're changing the theme so much as trying to improve the execution of the theme they have (California). The placemaking I've heard about involves making the studio more "leafy" and appealing (but it's still themed to a Hollywood studio); making the entrance corridor more Spanish-themed (which is certainly California); and extending the GRR Sierra theme to encompass Condor Flats, which is also within the California theme. <It's like taking Tomorrowland and making it more fantasy based than realistically based. All parks change the themes that don't work.> Agreed. (Except that the original TL theme didn't work - I think it worked much better than fantasy, though it was harder to keep current). But again, I don't see the placemaking (that which I've heard about anyway) as changing the theme so much as improving the execution of the current theme.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<>I would guess that they make far more by >offering admissions discounts than not That assertion wouldn't make sense at face value, since you can obviously make more money charging 50 dollars a head, than 25 dollars a head.>> Which is why I said that admissions revenue is merely one part of the pverall picture. They may be discounting admissions, but gaining in profits due to hotel stays, food, and souvenir sales. <<The reason it DOES make sense, is because Disneyland has obviously lost some of it's appeal. You make money on discounting by attracting people who wouldn't otherwise come at the full retail price.>> Just because Disney is discounting, it doesn't prove that the park has lost its appeal.
Originally Posted By tangaroa >Which is why I said that admissions >revenue is merely one part of the pverall >picture. They may be discounting >admissions, but gaining in profits due to >hotel stays, food, and souvenir sales. People who pay for discounted admission aren't necessarily the ones who spend big on other things. >Just because Disney is discounting, it >doesn't prove that the park has lost its >appeal. Disney wouldn't be discounting otherwise. If people were willing to pay full price, than Disney would charge nothing but the full price. They're a business in it to make money - they wouldn't just discount out of the kindness of their hearts. From their own financial, it would seem that discounting has cost them dearly.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer >>“What would DCA's attendance be if it was a stand alone park located in Valencia, Buena Park or Hollywood, instead of next door to Disneyland?†An utterly pointless question. As you and I both know at its opening DCA was not intended to be a stand alone park; it was designed primarily to give people already visiting Disneyland another on site attraction to encourage longer stays. It’s taken a lot of trial and error, but the strategy seems to be working. Guest spending is up and so is attendance.<< Oh come on, do I have to bring back the history of DCA and all the Disney execs saying that DCA would be full, and folks would have to go to DIsneyland as their second choice. The original tickets were not park-hoppers, AP's sales were discontinued. It was only when the park was doing poorly that Disney had to make major changes to the original plans, including offering ParkHoppers, reducing the price of 2-park AP's, etc. Has Disney made some changes, yes, has it helped, yes... but the park was planned to be it's own profit maker, and not have to beg for Disneyland's leftovers.... And comparing DCA to Knott's, USH, SFMM, etc., it does make a difference in how the tickets are sold. DCA relies on being packaged onto folks visiting to Disneyland, the other parks have to get their own attendance, and don't for the most part rely on multi-park attendance. The minor exception would be the CityPass and similar programs.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<People who pay for discounted admission aren't necessarily the ones who spend big on other things.>> A customer doesn't need to spend 'big' in order for them to make more of a profit than if they didn't offer the discount at all. Plus, as you said, if some people weren't willing to come without a discount, it's still in the plus column... it's better to get then in at a discount than not at all. <<If people were willing to pay full price, than Disney would charge nothing but the full price. They're a business in it to make money - they wouldn't just discount out of the kindness of their hearts.>> But we aren't talking about a static figure. Some people are willing to pay full price, while others are not. Discounting is not something they do constantly, it's offered for limited amounts of time. <<From their own financial, it would seem that discounting has cost them dearly.>> Not being a shareholder, I have no idea what is on their finacials. But to say that discounting alone has cost them revenue is probably a gross inaccuracy.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "I'm sure that Disney still wants DCA to attract at least 7 million - or if not 7 million than at least 50% of DL's attendance (both goals which have to date not been reached) and will continue to make whatever changes are necessary to reach that goal." And I'm sure that in a perfect world Disney would want annual attendance at DCA to exceed 10 million and for DL to hit 20 million, or more. But that isn't going to happen, is it? "FYI, Six Flags has made a profit, even after paying off the current cost for the debt, for each of the first three quarters of the year." Meaning that Six Flags' income from operations was positive as opposed to negative in 2004. Nevertheless, the company is still saddled with debt due to poor management, which means that the money the company is meaningless. Six Flags' owes nearly four times its stock market value. Now that is scary.
