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.<< <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?> Cutting and pasting a dictionary entry is extraordinary effort? That aside, DCA could also fall within the continuum of the word "success" since it has succeeded in certain areas. When definitions get too broad, of course, they cease to mean anything. >>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.> Well, I'd say it was more of an attempt at a short-term money grab by some in Anaheim - hardly stop-the-presses stuff. The Disney co. is not exactly unacquainted with frivolous lawsuits.
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">> <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.> Jon, I think if you'll re-read the past 20 posts or so, you'll see I wasn't directing that at you.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Jon, I think if you'll re-read the past 20 posts or so, you'll see I wasn't directing that at you." I know! I didn't phrase that right at all. I tried to make it sound generic. Sorry. I was trying to not say something directly about someone.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>However, beyond that, what else was expected, and when were those expectations supposed to be met? The first year?<< Yes. From the very beginning. The public statements made by the principals involved, and the extraordinary lengths taken to handle crowds (design of the park, number of food venues, amount of merchandise ordered) made it abundantly clear that DCA was intended to be a gargantuan hit. But don't take my word for it. Here's Cynthia Harriss, interviewed for this site, in July of 2000: >>"First of all we think this is going to be a gargantuan success because - it’s not just that we’re excited about it, anybody who has had an opportunity to read, see or hear anything about it when we’ve done our press releases and you’ve been to several of those, just the responses come back, it’s like wow that’s even better or more or more extensive than I thought. We’re anticipating that."<< <a href="http://www.laughingplace.com/News-PID501150-501153.asp" target="_blank">http://www.laughingplace.com/N ews-PID501150-501153.asp</a> >>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.<< Which is why I have taken such great pains to NOT cite web bloggers. The media? Are you seriously suggesting that any and all reports about DCA in the media are inherently biased? Wouldn't that tend to further suggest that there's something wrong with the place? As it is, I have tried as much as possible to confine media sources to reports that are contemporaneous with DCA's opening, well before the backlash became tiresome and repetitive. That the media response was almost instantly negative cannot be laid at the feet of cranky bloggers. >>Most of what you are saying can be easily disputed, as has been the case throughout this debate for years.<< If this were true, we wouldn't be having this conversation some six years along. >>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.<< You do realize that arguments like this reveal an inherent weakness in one's position? We have gone from "support your opinion" to "support your opinion with statements from those involved" to "support your opinion with credible inside information." I suppose next it will take sworn testimony from all principals. The fact is that there is abundant information to indicate what the Company expected of DCA, and there is abundant information to indicate where that it failed in those expectations. >>"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.<< Are you seriously suggesting that the 2001 milestone was reached in 2006? Because that is simply ludicrous. DCA failed to meet attendance expectations from its first year. That is all. And that is only one measure of its failure. >>...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.<< It would be if that were true. But we do know these things, and we do know that DCA has been a failure from the beginning.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Jon, I think if you'll re-read the past 20 posts or so, you'll see I wasn't directing that at you.<< I would hope the statement was directed at everyone, and that it was recognized where it applies. The fact is that my "extraordinary" effort to show what the word "failure" actually means has resulted in the same hard headed, dogmatic interpretation.
Originally Posted By jonvn "From the very beginning. The public statements made by the principals involved, and the extraordinary lengths taken to handle crowds (design of the park, number of food venues, amount of merchandise ordered) made it abundantly clear that DCA was intended to be a gargantuan hit." So you're suggesting that they should have not built a place expecting it to be well received? "Are you seriously suggesting that any and all reports about DCA in the media are inherently biased? " Ever been quoted by the press? In any case, you've claimed to have statements by Disney management about it. Comments in the press are not statements by Disney. They are editorializing just like anyone else here is. "You do realize that arguments like this reveal an inherent weakness in one's position?" You need to support the things you've said such as "Disney has made public statements about X." Well, where are they? "Are you seriously suggesting that the 2001 milestone was reached in 2006?" How do you know it didn't? Because it didn't "look" crowded to you? "But we do know these things" Actually it simply appears that you really don't know much about any of this, and are just "gassing off" to use a phrase that was tossed at me the other day. When asked to supply the information you say you have, you don't. I'm perfectly willing to listen to this stuff, because I want to hear what you seem to think makes this all so crystal clear for you. I've no axe to grind one way or the other. I just want correct information that is not based on ranting.
Originally Posted By jonvn "actually means has resulted in the same hard headed, dogmatic interpretation." No. It resulted in an attempt to explain word usage to you, because you are continuing to improperly use basic english in your communications. If you want to come off as some sort of knowledgeable business person in these things, then you might want to consider that by incorrect usage of very basic terms you are not doing so in the least. Quite the opposite. You were shown what the words you are using actually mean, within the context of how you are using them. That you persist in using them incorreclty does not serve your commentary well here.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>When asked to supply the information you say you have, you don't.<< Ah, but I have. And there is never a statement or comment in reaction to any of this. Just the usual dogmatic posturing of one who clearly does have an axe to grind. I don't, and I don't need to say any more on the subject. I believe my position, and support for same, is quite clear.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Ah, but I have." No. You have not. You have provided, to my recollection: 1) Comments on the Disney decade, taken from a public brochure published over ten years before DCA opened, which is filled with obsoleted information that for the most part never saw the light of day. 2) Marketing announcements about milestone visitors to Disney parks, like the 500 millionth visitor, which you took to mean they announce visitor numbers. It's not that, so no, that was nothing, too. 3) Quotes from yourself. 4) A definition from websters, which you also did not fully understand. Very little else. You claim to have hard and fast figures. You claim Disney has done various things. You speak of goals and financials. None of this is the least bit supported by anything you've said. You're simply not being honest with us, or yourself. "I don't need to say any more on the subject." If all you're going to say is "I've shown information" when what you've done is the opposite, then I guess not. If you can't even follow a simple definition out of a dictionary, I don't see how you can possibly understand anything else that is being said to you here.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <The fact is that my "extraordinary" effort to show what the word "failure" actually means has resulted in the same hard headed, dogmatic interpretation.> A dictionary definition that shows all possible meanings of a word can hardly be said to show that any particular meaning fits in any (or this) particular incidence. So it was really less than meaningful. Also almost useless are using press releases or press interviews to bolster any claims here, especially any claims to have any insight into what Disney really expected for the place. Press releases and interviews are given for very specific reasons (hype, mostly), none of which are to give the general public insight into the internal deliberations, expectations, or financials of the company in question. In fact, very often they are used to do just the opposite of that.
Originally Posted By 9oldmen >>I could write a book (and maybe I will one day) about how and why DCA went wrong ... but I could also write a book about why and how DL will be in Anaheim in 50 years (assuming the evildoers don't destroy the planet first) largely because DCA was built to begin with.<< While you're at it, why don't you write a book about how Universal Studios Hollywood, Sea World San Diego, Knott's and Magic Mountain will NOT be there in 50 years until they add second gates and become full on "resort" destinations. (and yes, I know what almost happened to Magic Mountain). Remember that all those parks are still operating, have not been bulldozed, and so, according to some people here are not "failures". Why the most succesful park in Southern Californin "needed" a second gate in order to survive is something I'm not sure of. I understand the idea of adding a second gate to persuade people to spend an additonal day with Disney, but this idea that DCA "saved" Disneyland? It managed to survive on it's own for 45 years. I think that now, it's the new management team in the company who are working hard to "save" DCA.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt ^^Yeah, and how many times have Magic Mountain, Universal Studios and Knott's or their their parent companies been sold? Disneyland is still owned by Disney and one of the reasons why is because what management has done to ensure that it has potential for financial growth.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Remember that all those parks are still operating, have not been bulldozed, and so, according to some people here are not "failures". >> And none of these parks have sufficient free cash flow to invest in any major improvements without borrowing money and increasing debt. Disneyland could continue without DCA if it wanted to be like all of the other park operators in the company and pay for every new attraction with financing instead of cash flow. That's a scheme that doesn't last indefinitely, which is why you have seen all of the consolidation in the amusement park industry.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Huh? SeaWorld's parent company has boatloads of money, and pretty sure all the enhancements since they bought it has come out of cash and regular lines of credit, no special financing was needed.
Originally Posted By jonvn Gee, so other parks are ok right now? How in any way does this mean that what's been said is not true? Do you know the financials of each of these parks? OH, and Knott's managed to get itself sold off or it would have closed. Oh, and Magic Mountain was a tiny bit away from closing as well. So, like, your point is what, again?
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << SeaWorld's parent company has boatloads of money . . . >> Which has nothing to do with whether or not the parks themselves are sustainable.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer But, Sport Goofy, you said NONE of the parks, and you were wrong, plain and simple. And Busch Entertainment makes a very good return based on the Anheuser-Busch Stockholder Reports. Cedar Fair was doing great until they bought Paramount, making a good return and wasn't much in debt. We shall see how they do with the Paramount Parks purchase, it is still too early to tell if they did bite off more than they could chew. Universal is doing well, and NBC Universal was thinking about getting rid of the parks, but now see that they bring in a good, steady cash flow, and have no plans to sell off the parks at present. As for Six Flags, all the reports showed that Magic Mountain itself was a profit maker, and was one of the carrots being hung out to try and sell some assets. In the end, it remained a Six Flags property, and they are reinvesting into the park. Mark Shapiro has made some good moves and the company is turning around. The question is, was the turn around too late. Once again, too early to tell, but at least it is treading water. And Daniel Snyder has the luxury of having enough cash to sit and wait, so long as it can break even for the next few years. But SeaWorld (aka Busch Entertainment) is doing great. I would give it an A grade based on the quarterly and yearly reports and profit margins. Cedar Fair took on a big load of debt, but in-park spending is up, and costs are down, so that is a good sign. If I was giving it a grade, I would say incomplete. Prior to the Paramount purchase, I would give it a B+. Universal is making money off its theme parks, almost all of their financial problems had to do with other divisions. I would give the Theme Park division an B, and the new NBC Universal an A- in financials (GE is at almost a 52 week higher currently).
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << And Busch Entertainment makes a very good return based on the Anheuser-Busch Stockholder Reports. >> Actually, the stockholder returns for Busch don't discuss "return." The discuss profit and revenue growth, but leave out important items like free cash flow, capital expenditures, and return on investment. That makes your statement very difficult to back up. I guess someone with only a rudimentary understanding of a company balance sheet would be wowed by a company's declaration that "pre-tax profit was up by 13%!" But what was the tax-rate, and how much was left after that? What was the cash flow generated and how much reinvestment in new attractions was required to keep the parks fresh for the next season? But, for what it's worth, the Busch parks are the healthiest among the non-Disney venues.
