Originally Posted By Mr X **Yes, Iger said that. That means it's been a challenge for them. That means it's probably not been as well received as they hoped. No one is disputing that. What is being disputed are your extreme characterizations that are simply not borne out by your "facts," or more accurately, your lack of facts.** One thing I have learned from my careful studies about company shills and their penchant for glossing over the hard facts (in an effort to avoid spooking shareholders) is this... If a CEO says he smells smoke, that means the house has already been on fire for hours and the roof probably just collapsed.
Originally Posted By Mr X Conversely, a smart CEO knows enough to lowball estimates of future growth. So, giving Disney the benefit of the doubt and assuming that the management is NOT stupid, I think the original statements that look so bad now were the result of either a) the company expecting far MORE customers than 7 million a year or b) the company realizing that the park sucked and would underperform, and trying to create a false hype/frenzy by making ridiculous statements about how overcrowded the place was likely to be. I'd go with option "b" myself, it's the only logical conclusion in my mind.
Originally Posted By WorldDisney Hmm, good points Mr. X! But, I will have to go with 'a' in your assement and say the company DID expect more than 7 million people the first year JUST like I suspect they expecteed more than the 5 million for HKDL its first year and missed attendance on both of those marks. I really believed they thought, even if the park was below Disney standard, that it would be an automatic hit with their core audience and by saying 7 million when in their minds they might actually get MORE than that would've made DCA a 'runaway sucess'. I believe they thought they truly had something on their hands here and this was going to be the 'new way forward' if DCA suceeded with the last regieme was in charge. It didn't, they all quit or was fired and now 6 years later DCA is getting a budget it SHOULD have gotten from the very beginning.
Originally Posted By Mr X **But, I will have to go with 'a' in your assement and say the company DID expect more than 7 million people the first year JUST like I suspect they expecteed more than the 5 million for HKDL its first year and missed attendance on both of those marks.** I don't think Disney's upper management is that stupid. They might have SAID that stuff (to hype up the middle management and burger flippers, if nothing else), but that doesn't mean they meant it.
Originally Posted By WorldDisney Well don't mean like 5 million more people or anything, but even if it got half a million to a million more, which if DCA was a GOOD park wouldn't have been hard to do that first year, I think. Again, look at TDS . But, still I believe that that they at least thought they would get around 7 million. In that case, why even mention it? Just see what the park will do and go from there. As said before, TDS predicted 10 million its first year, instead it got 12 million. Maybe they were underballing their attendance as well, but I doubt it. I think they were really looking for around that figure just like DCA people was thinking they will get the estimated attendance they wanted. I agree with you, maybe they DID think the park sucked, but I think they had that 'so what' thinking going on that people would come out for it anyway for no other reason it still said 'Disney' on the front gate and it was a few hundred feet from DL. They gambled and they lost .
Originally Posted By jonvn I'm not sure, because I think that 7 million comment was a slip of the tongue, and was not meant to be divulged. They don't release that sort of information. My guess is that they actually thought they'd probably get 7 million in some sort of projection or another.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "As said before, TDS predicted 10 million its first year, instead it got 12 million." They probably didn't expect that park to cannibalize attendance from TDL the way that it did.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Tokyo got the attendance they expected the first full year that TDS was open... <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/01_37/b3748079.htm" target="_blank">http://www.businessweek.com/ma gazine/content/01_37/b3748079.htm</a> >>It features a choreographed parade of boats, a Pacific Island volcano, sea-salt flavor ice cream--and, of course, the world's most famous rodent. Welcome to Disney & Co.'s (DIS ) big second act in Japan. On Sept. 4, Disney and its Japanese partner, Oriental Land, threw open the gates to DisneySea, a $2.8 billion marine-themed attraction built right next door to Tokyo Disneyland, which opened in 1983. Disney and Oriental Land are betting that Mickey Mouse in an admiral's uniform will lift Disney's Tokyo fortunes. Attendance at the original park peaked in 1998 (chart), and daily spending per guest, while still the highest of any Disney park, slid 5% over the last two years, after a 13-year streak of gains. In May, Oriental Land reported that group net profit fell 52.2%, to $395 million, for the year ended in March, despite a 15% gain in sales, to $1.7 billion. "Over the past decade, Tokyo Disneyland has managed to shield itself from [Japan's ailing] economy," says Hiroshi Okubo, an analyst in the Tokyo office of UBS Warburg. "But the drop in guest spending suggests those days may be ending." Disney needs to goose receipts in Tokyo because it wants to show the Mouse franchise is alive and well even as U.S. parks struggle to attract visitors. Disney and Oriental Land expect both Japanese parks to host a combined 25 million visitors a year, up from the current 17.3 million for Tokyo Disneyland alone. Tokyo-based Mitsubishi Research Institute Inc. estimates that Tokyo DisneySea will generate $15 billion a year in economic activity, if one includes such related businesses as area malls, gas stations, and support services. For its part, Disney, which put up a paltry $20 million for basic pre-construction design work, gets about 10% of the gate, 5% of food and merchandise sales, and 10% of corporate sponsorships. While advance tickets for the grand opening sold out in hours, some wonder if DisneySea will live up to all the hype. One fear is that it will cannibalize visitors from the original park. Disney's record of adjacent attractions is not reassuring. For example, the company's surf-and-sand-themed California Adventure park is right next door to the original Disneyland in Anaheim, Calif. It has failed to generate the anticipated traffic. Not a problem in Tokyo, asserts Oriental Land. It says Tokyo DisneySea will act as a catalyst, increasing the number of visitors to both parks and how much they spend on mouse-ear caps and gourmet popcorn. "We're confident that guest spending levels have bottomed out and will pick up from here on out," says company spokesman George Yasuoka.<<
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>My guess is that they actually thought they'd probably get 7 million in some sort of projection or another.<< I would certainly agree with that. Bear in mind that the context of the statement was the design of the park. Braverman asserted that the design was based on an attendance of 7 million. So this was not a public statement, subject to the pr spin. It was an actual number that they were expecting to attract.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <That DCA is a failure is a simple matter of looking at what the stated expectations were, as compared to the results.> But that's not a good way of defining "failure." It's a fine way of defining "didn't meet expectations," but not "failure," unless one has an extremely broad (and imprecise) definition of that word. If I expect my company to sell 500 widgets this month, and it sells 400, that means I didn't meet expectations, not that I failed. Failure might be 250 or 300 widgets, over a long period of time. 400 means I take a look at my widgets, and let's say sales climb steadily if not stupendously - if the widgets seem to be finding a niche, even if not to the extent I initially expected, I might even invest more in them, in expectation of recouping that investment and then some. I don't imagine DCA met Disney's expectations either, although except for the 7 million number, we really don't know what they were (i.e. in dollar amounts) or how close it came to meeting them. But to call it a "failure" is to misuse that term.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Failure might be 250 or 300 widgets" Failure would mean that you have to close your business. That is what a failure is.
Originally Posted By dshyates You can say it failed to meet expectations, therefore it technically "Failed". But that doesn't the park is not profitable. Just not as profitable as they had hoped. And I feel that it could be. I know I want it to be an over the top, make me say wow place, and I know Disney can do it. But the first attempt was less "WOW", and more "WTF?".
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Yes - I was assuming 250 widgets for a long period of time meant business failure.
Originally Posted By jonvn "therefore it technically "Failed"." No. That's not what the word means. Please use the english language, and not one you care to invent on the fly. "But that doesn't the park is not profitable. " Failing means it is not profitable. That is what it means.
Originally Posted By dshyates If you can say "It failed to meet expectations." It=Pronoun meaning DCA failed= verb meaning failed. Then it failed (to meet expectation). Thats exactally what it means. Like I failed to maintain a 4.0 grade average. Doesn't mean I got all Fs. None the less I failed at getting a 4.0. Or like Star Wars Ep. 1. I think most people agree it failed miserably on an artistic level, and yet I'm pretty sure it was profitable.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 But people are saying DCA is (as a whole) a "failure" - that is not using the word properly when talking about it as a whole. Sure, you can parse - you can say Bill Clinton failed to get 50% of the votes cast in 1992. In a three-way race, he did. But obviously he was successful in his race that year.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Then it failed (to meet expectation). Thats exactally what it means." No. When you say "DCA failed" it means the whole thing is a business failure. Please. You're forcing a stupid issue on something that you are not using correctly. "Like I failed to maintain a 4.0 grade average." But if you said you went to college and failed, it means you flunked out. This is what the words mean and how we use them. Raise yourself up to use them correctly.
Originally Posted By mstaft All this semantic stuff is frustrating. The heart of the matter for alot of the folks on these boards is this: Yes, DCA probably saved the resort (this we will never know because we cannot unbuild DCA and see what happens) but the execution of the park is average at best considering it was designed by a company that had excelled in themed entertainment for generations. Stretching the truth to its illogical conclusion is still a lie, regardless of how you say it.
Originally Posted By WorldDisney LOL, I love how we get bogged down in semantics and the weekly question, What the definition of 'failure' means . They are redisigning 3/4ths of a park that has been opened less than a decade and throwing twice the amount of money it took to build it in less than a decade. I don't know guys, it seems pretty simple to me lol. But I know, until you see spreadsheets and Iger coming out pronouncing DCA is in the toilet, nothing will satisfy the question we been discussing for 6 years now. Frankly when the bulldozers get here, it will tell me what I already known for years .
