Originally Posted By dshyates Jon, please open your mind to the subtle intracacies of the english language. The word fail needs a quantifer, as in failed at what? Is DCA a failure? Depends on who and what you are talking about. We don't know if it is profitable, so none of us can say it is an absolute failure. We don't know. But we do know that it failed to meet its attendance and financial projections. So badly in fact that Disney has agreed to dump 1/3 more into this "challenged park" than initial construction and are tearing out large chunks of park defining elements like the "Grande Entrance" and iconic weenie. We know it failed in attendance, financial, and artistic arenas. But you are right the one thing we don't know and keeps feeding the fire is profitability.
Originally Posted By dshyates "DCA is a failure." means nothing without a quantifer. And if anyone here is leaving it at that, then it is nothing more than an opinion.
Originally Posted By Mr X Well, yates, according to your statement Jon is right. The only way to say "DCA is a failure" and leave it at that is if the park, or the entire company, collapses. Thus, "Enron was a failure" is a correct statement. "The Edsel was a failure". And so on...
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "Depends on who and what you are talking about." We are talking about a business. In business a failure is defined as nothing short of the complete cessation of day to day operations.
Originally Posted By DlandDug As I said a while back, I really don't want to get into the whole "that depends on what the meaning of 'is' is" nonsense. But rather than guess at what "failure" means, or depend on the pronouncements of others with a vested interest in a point of view rather than in understanding, let's look at what the dictionary says. OK? Websters. Failure: 1. a falling short; deficiency; cessation of supply, or total defect... 2. ommission or neglect; a not doing... 3. decay; a weakening; a dying away... 4. a becoming insolvent or bankrupt... 5. a not succeeding in doing or becoming 6. a person or thing that does not succeed... DCA is a failure, in that it fell short in achieving that for which it was intended. It was deficient. It matters not one bit whether anyone feels it's a fabulous park, or whether it sucks. The measure is not if it is slightly profitable, or a complete business failure to be written off as a loss. It did not succeed in doing or becoming what it was intended for. I believe we are in general agreement that attemdance has been lower than expected. But bodies through the gate are just the tip of the iceberg. Even with low attendance, a theme park can make money as well as create synergy. DCA has failed in both of these areas. Revenue centers were closed due to lack of demand. Both large restaurants like Hollywood and Dine and Soap Opera Bistro, as well as smaller venues like Lucky Fortune Cookery, MalibuRitas and Wine Country Bistro were shuttered. Massive amounts of souvenir merchandise was removed from the shelves, placed on deep discount, and eventually written off as a total loss. Rather than create new revenue streams, DCA actually killed them aborning. DCA was supposed to create a greater demand for more hotel rooms. Yet, six years after it opened, the SINGLE hotel built as part of the Resort expansion is finally building out to its full footprint. (And that to fulfill DVC needs.) Note that the original announcements included plans for four new hotels. The Company further expected that the popularity of DCA would drive demand for a third theme park. Indeed, Disney had a website called thirdthemepark.com. <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20001018092119/http://www.thirdthemepark.com/" target="_blank">http://web.archive.org/web/200 01018092119/http://www.thirdthemepark.com/</a> From the site (Oct. 18, 2000): >>With Disney's California Adventure about to become a reality, Walt Disney Imagineering, the creative development and design unit of The Walt Disney Company, is planning for the future - to be realized south of Katella and east of Harbor. "The sky's the limit when it comes to imagination - but it's not the only limit," said Doug Moreland, senior vice president of Walt Disney Imagineering. "Our Imagineers have to maintain Disney's superior standards. They must use the Anaheim and Disneyland Resort Specific Plans as their guide, and create a project that can be realized within the framework of both Resort Areas. And, of course, their design must capture the imagination of all ... young and old." The proposed project would complement Disneyland and Disney's California Adventure, possibly including a theme park or a water park, along with integrated retail, dining and entertainment experiences. The new park would evolve, with a first phase anticipated in 2003, and completion targeted for 2010.<< And how did that go? Well, Disney let the domain name lapse in 2005. DCA is a failure.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "As I said a while back, I really don't want to get into the whole "that depends on what the meaning of 'is' is" nonsense." It really doesn't matter what you want or what you think. "DCA is a failure, in that it fell short in achieving that for which it was intended." And what, exactly, was intended? I don't know and neither do you, so kindly stop guessing and insisting that your claims are factual.
Originally Posted By Mr X **Both large restaurants like Hollywood and Dine and Soap Opera Bistro, as well as smaller venues like Lucky Fortune Cookery, MalibuRitas and Wine Country Bistro were shuttered.** Interestingly, not a single venue at DisneySea that was around since opening day has been closed (to my knowledge). This fact alone should be something for Hans to ponder, but instead he reverts to rudeness and semantics.
Originally Posted By Mr X **And what, exactly, was intended?** It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that "the intention" was to have lots of customers who spent lots of money. The fact that so many venues were closed, altered, or redesigned certainly points to some real trouble achieving what was intended. Would you disagree, Hans?
Originally Posted By DlandDug It is too bad that some here cannot disagree without being disagreeable. >>And what, exactly, was intended? I don't know and neither do you, so kindly stop guessing and insisting that your claims are factual.<< If you would read, you would know. There is abundant material from the Company out there explaining just what they expected. There's no need to guess (which I don't), or go to bloggers (which I don't). But... it does require having an open mind and the ability to put two and two together.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 It's ironic that some of those who decry "semantics" are going out of their way to parse "failure" to mean only what they want it to mean, and nothing more. <DCA is a failure, in that it fell short in achieving that for which it was intended.> Even that's not true. DCA was intended to do several things. It was intended to transform DL into DLR, a completely new paradigm for Anaheim. It did that. Even some who don't like the place at all are saying it "saved" Anaheim. It was intended to increase visitor stays. It did that - not just at the new GCH, but at all those nearby hotels, as people who used to stay 2 or 3 days now stay 3 or 4, etc. It was intended to expand attendance at Anaheim as a whole. It did that. It was also intended to draw 7 million people. It did not do that, at least not yet. It was obviously intended also to be profitable. That one's way up in the air and basically unknowable to mere fanboys and girls like us. Like some of us insist on saying, it's been a mixed bag. Not a failure nor a rousing success. A mixed bag.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Ooops.. Please DEFINE "Mixed" and "bag".... <--- runs for the edit feature....
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <--- runs for the hills....> Don't think those hills are going to hide, you, 2oony!
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that "the intention" was to have lots of customers who spent lots of money." Moreover, that has happened. However, beyond that, what else was expected, and when were those expectations supposed to be met? The first year? Within the first five years or ten? The problem is we do not know. I am not sure why some people have such a hard time grasping this and continue to act as if they have the answers when they do not. "If you would read, you would know. There is abundant material from the Company out there explaining just what they expected." I do read, and most of what I have seen is nothing more than biased conjecture on the part of the media, web bloggers, and folks like you. What I am asking you to do is present inside information from reliable company sources to back up your statements. Most of what you are saying can be easily disputed, as has been the case throughout this debate for years. Without credible inside information, you are simply expressing an opinion based on weak evidence, and that is fine, but stop making pronouncements as if you have irrefutable facts that support your arguments when you do not. "It was also intended to draw 7 million people. It did not do that, at least not yet." Maybe, maybe not. Some are saying that it reached that milestone last year. Point is, we do not know, so it seems rather silly to continue to push the point of view that the place is a failure when little to nothing is known in this circle about how the park's performance is measured, how it has changed since 2001, and when the established goals were expected to be achieved.
Originally Posted By DlandDug Hans, let me first say that post #184 was not directed at you personally. In fact, I posted it without having seen your comment. It was intended to address the general trend this conversation was taking, one we've all trod before. >>It's ironic that some of those who decry "semantics" are going out of their way to parse "failure" to mean only what they want it to mean, and nothing more.<< Yes, it is, which is why I made the extraordinary effort to present the actual meaning of the word, in all its nuanced splendor. Failure can range from warm kool-ade at the birthday party to an ocean liner capsizing in the open sea. DCA's failure would fall somewhere within that continuum, would it not? >>Even some who don't like the place [DCA] at all are saying it "saved" Anaheim.<< And people are certainly entitled to that opinion. The city fathers of Anaheim and its community leaders, however, feel differently about the performance of the Disneyland Resort since DCA opened its doors. They are busily suing the Walt Disney Company, claiming that the Company failed to deliver on the promises they made when the Resort District was created. They want to remove portions of the Resort District and hand them over to outside developers. This is hardly a ringing endorsement from the community. It is yet another part of the legacy of the DCA's failure.
Originally Posted By jonvn "please open your mind to the subtle intracacies of the english language" I understand the language quite well. You're not using it right. "Depends on who and what you are talking about" No. "Dca is a failure" has a specific meaning. "We know it failed in attendance, financial, and artistic arenas" We actually don't really know this, either. ""DCA is a failure." means nothing without a quantifer" No. It has a very specific meaning. "let's look at what the dictionary says. OK?" Yes. When you use the word in the manner of "DCA is a failure, you are using this version of the word: "4. a becoming insolvent or bankrupt." The definition of a word depends upon the context it is used in. The context you are using it in specifies that definition. "DCA is a failure, in that it fell short in achieving that for which it was intended" No. What you say is it failed to achieve certain goals, of which you know none of, and are only assuming. "It is too bad that some here cannot disagree without being disagreeable." It's not being disagreeable. You are insisting on using the wrong words that mean something other than they intended to support an extreme version of events that did not happen. You wanted to look at definitions. Here: <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:BUSINESS+FAILURE&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title" target="_blank">http://www.google.com/search?h l=en&defl=en&q=define:BUSINESS+FAILURE&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title</a> That is what saying a business has failed means. OK?
Originally Posted By jonvn "I believe we are in general agreement that attemdance has been lower than expected. " Perhaps in the first year, I have no real idea, nor do I claim to. I don't see how anyone else who does not actually know the numbers can claim otherwise. I have said perhaps that is true, and assuming it is true. But there is no way I can agree to something with no knowledge as to whether it is true or not. "Even with low attendance, a theme park can make money as well as create synergy. DCA has failed in both of these areas." And how do you know this? "Rather than create new revenue streams, DCA actually killed them aborning." Because restaurants in the park closed, the place shut down revenue streams? Do you realize that overall visits to the resort are supposedly up like 50% since the place opened? That hotels are booked, that DTD does a good business, and so on? Your statement is utterly without any support whatsoever.
Originally Posted By jonvn "The fact that so many venues were closed, altered, or redesigned certainly points to some real trouble achieving what was intended." Or that they just didn't plan right. Who knows. I mean, it's so stupid to be arguing about things we don't know. It's even dumber to make hard headed proclamations about these things with the barest of information. "It's ironic that some of those who decry "semantics" are going out of their way to parse "failure" to mean only what they want it to mean" It means what it means. I will try not to be insulting, but when someone does not use very basic and commonly used phrases correctly you just don't sound all that business savvy. Really.
Originally Posted By jonvn "which is why I made the extraordinary effort to present the actual meaning of the word, in all its nuanced splendor" Yes. What you did in that is show us that you can use a dictionary. Now you need to step up and understand that words belong in context, and that gives them their meaning. You don't just randomly pick and choose the definition of the word you are using in your sentence. The meaning of the words you use are based on how they are used, that is why there are multiple definitions for words. I can't believe I have to explain this. This is really stupid stuff.
