Originally Posted By oc_dean Considering the AP in 2001 was $199 for DL, only. And not increased .. not even a dollar .. to include DCA, later that year .... is very telling.
Originally Posted By crapshoot I have a difficult time understanding why Disney would have built a $600 million park so Disneyland could extract another $20 from paying guests.
Originally Posted By oc_dean DCA 1.0 is just "so misunderstood". The public didn't "get it". And it was never a "failure." And building parks on the lite, is the "corporate way to go" .... So get use to it! That seems to be the subliminal (perhaps unintentional) message in so many of these threads. I've been here so long ... It's as visible as the clear blue sky. ;-)
Originally Posted By oc_dean I know many over time have said they don't defend it, or apologetic ........ So why do some "SEEM" to defend that mediocre "DCA 1.0" to this day? You want it to happen again?
Originally Posted By oc_dean Actually ... seems to be happening again ... look at how Shanghai Disneyland is shaping up. I'm reading Tomorrowland will have only 2 attractions at opening - Tron rollercoaster, and Buzz Lightyear. Big woop-tee-doo !!
Originally Posted By danyoung >I know many over time have said they don't defend it, or apologetic ........ So why do some "SEEM" to defend that mediocre "DCA 1.0" to this day?< I don't know about others, but I've said repeatedly that they built DCA on the cheap, with a lot of flaws in their park theories, and now they're paying for it. Still doesn't make it a failure, even though it radically under-performed and needed the changes we're currently seeing.
Originally Posted By oc_dean Hey Dan, what's your hunch on a phase 2? You think we'll see it? Not right away .. of course ... but this decade?
Originally Posted By dshyates From what I have been told, DCA lost money pretty much every minute it was open until Mermaid opened when it pretty much was breaking even. And it started turning a profit when WOC opened. I don't know what you guys consider a failure, but if it wasn't for the DisCo's. huge financial reserve, DCA would have gone belly up.
Originally Posted By dshyates I should add that I have heard that one of the reasons that Disney was willIng and able to make the investments for DCA 2.0 was that while DCA as a park was losing money, it was mostly offset by revenue increases the resort saw from the resort expansion, longer stays and increased guest spending.
Originally Posted By TP2000 Eisner had a point. It rained a lot in the winter of 2001. DCA just never had a chance after all those rainy days in February and March. It's a miracle they didn't turn it back into a parking lot after that rainy winter. The weather patterns were weird that winter though. The rain stopped about 50 yards north of the DCA turnstiles. Disneyland attendance did just fine in '01 because the clouds mysteriously parted just a bit north of Soarin' Over California. Funny how that happens.
Originally Posted By ralphjr I would agree that Disney didn't build DCA just to get an extra $20 during the Resident Salute promotion and their initial ticket pricing shows that they thought they wouldn't have to discount DCA at all for a few years. If DCA had taken off the way they'd hoped, I would imagine that the Southern California Resident Salute would currently be a One Day/One Park ticket that cost $60 for either DL or DCA. However, the fact that the discounts offered on both the multi-day passports and the resident salute are not as generous as in the past shows that DCA has contributed at least something to the resort since its opening, though obviously not as much as they had initially hoped. I think they assumed that regardless of the quality of the final product, they'd attract hordes of locals eager to see the "new" Disney park and that they could keep tourists in Anaheim longer than before. Obviously, they failed to attract the hordes of locals, but they probably did increase the length of time tourists stayed on property. Since they're now spending the money that they should have probably spent initially to improve the place, I think it's safe to say that what success they did have wasn't enough to satisfy the accountants, management or more importantly the guests, but I don't think it was a total failure.
Originally Posted By danyoung >Hey Dan, what's your hunch on a phase 2?< My hunch is that the more successful this rebirth is, the less likely we'll see any more money being put in in the immediate future.
Originally Posted By danyoung > I don't know what you guys consider a failure, but if it wasn't for the DisCo's. huge financial reserve, DCA would have gone belly up.< I don't disagree at all, yates, that it financially it was a huge hole in the Disney corporate landscape. But that's not my own scale for success or failure. It was by no means a success, but it wasn't a failure either.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<It was by no means a success, but it wasn't a failure either.>> A business failure is clearly defined as a loss to the creditors. That is most likely not the case with DCA-1.0. But no doubt they wrote down the debt to show a loss on the books for a tax advantage. The definition for a successful turnaround is as follows. "A successful turnaround has two elements: 1) Your business has a positive cash flow 2) Your business is transformed to sustain a positive cash flow." And that is most likely the case for DCA-2.0.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "And that is most likely the case for DCA-2.0." But what about the $1 billion that was invested to get to this point? That doesn't just vanish into thin air. Based on your assertion that Version 1.0, which cost less than 2.0, was losing money the "new" DCA will have to dramatically outperform the first iteration of DCA in order to be a "success".
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<. . . the "new" DCA will have to dramatically outperform the first iteration of DCA in order to be a "success".>> But wouldn't they consider the two mutually exclusive at this point since they most likely wrote down the original's debt. They would have shown a massive loss on the books as Disney's California Adventure. Furthermore, wouldn't the removal of the "'s" from the Disney's constitute a name change? Thereby allowing them the opportunity to have created a new entity on the books as Disney California Adventure? I believe that is the motivation of the subtle name change.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt Not sure. I guess my question is how will DCA recoup the $1 billion expense of the expansion if the first go-round was such a "failure". Based on their own projections Disney expected to make money hand over fist with 7 million annual visitors. Using the logic of those who claimed the first version "failed" because the 7 million benchmark was never reached, the new DCA will have to have a huge surge in attendance in order to make a return on the most recent investments. What I'm getting at is that I continue to have my doubts that the original DCA performed as poorly financially as some people here insist.
Originally Posted By oc_dean >>What I'm getting at is that I continue to have my doubts that the original DCA performed as poorly financially as some people here insist.<< In the grand scheme of things ... why does it matter?
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<What I'm getting at is that I continue to have my doubts that the original DCA performed as poorly financially as some people here insist.>> WSJ - OCTOBER 17, 2007 Disney's $1 Billion Adventure - Five-Year Revamp of Its Lagging California-Themed Park By MERISSA MARR "ANAHEIM, Calif. -- Since its 2001 debut, the Walt Disney Co. theme park Disney's California Adventure has floundered in the shadow of its legendary neighbor, Disneyland." "The Disneyland resort as a whole, especially the Downtown Disney retail district and hotels, succeeded in increasing visitors' average stay from one day to two. But attendance at California Adventure languished, while Disneyland was bursting at the seams." "Last year (2006), the park drew just under six million visitors, compared with nearly 15 million at Disneyland and short of Disney's original forecast of seven million visitors a year for the new park." Given those numbers, DCA missed the attendance mark of 16%. And while there remain a corp of doubters here, the majority of guests came to DCA either on 2-fer's or other deep discounted programs. A large revenue stream was significantly reduced because of these programs.
