Originally Posted By Bob Paris 1 Add to that auspicious list summer after summer of 2fers, radically discounting DCA into a two park hopper, hastily added cheap attractions(Bugsland)and cheap and tacky entertainment like X games and washed up singers and the whole first ten years of DCA seems even sadder and more wasted. Talk about rudderless and tossed against the rocks!
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Or was all that part of a strategic success plan that mere mortals such as I cannot comprehend?> It is more than people who insist on simplistic thinking can apparently comprehend. No one ever said DCA didn't have problems. Artistically, it had terrific stuff, so-so stuff, and head-scratcher stuff. A mixed-bag artistically. Financially it didn't draw what they hoped, but it did increase overall attendance at DLR and succeeded in increasing average stays for out-of-towners, increasing room nights in the Disney-owned properties. A mixed-bag financially. This has always been a calm, rational, shades-of-gray view. But there has been this strange need among some to have even something as complex as a theme park (let alone the even more complex process of changing Anaheim from a single park into the DLR) adhere to an all-or-nothing view, and thus pronounce DCA a "failure, full stop," or even in some cases a "ghetto" or some sort of blight on humanity. It's very curious.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>...and washed up singers and the whole first ten years of DCA seems even sadder and more wasted.<< (To play devil's advocate a bit) So having old washed up guest musical acts is a sure sign that the park is a failure? In that case, that Epcot place in Florida better watch its back! They have not one, but two annual concert series (Eat to the Beat for Food and Wine, and Flower Power for Flower and Garden) featuring musical acts that have been "has beens" for several decades. Yep, that park will never last...
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<Or was all that part of a strategic success plan that mere mortals such as I cannot comprehend?>> The down low, non public info that circulated around the halls of WDI were that it was costing DLR $5 per person everytime they walked through the DCA turnstile. Furthermore, it was costing the DLR somewhere around $15 a head to watch shows like Stomp. Finally, the other piece of info floating around was that only 15% of guests going to DCA paid full price admission. 85% got in on one type of promotion or another. And if anyone needs definitive proof that DCA was in trouble at the outset go back and research Wolfgang Puck and Robert Mondavi's releases from their contractual obligations to operate fine dining establishments. Utterly unheard of.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>Finally, the other piece of info floating around was that only 15% of guests going to DCA paid full price admission. 85% got in on one type of promotion or another.<< Does that include parkhoppers and APs? If so, I really doubt that there are many more people paying for a 1-day 1-park ticket to DCA now. Even with all the recent and upcoming changes, almost everybody I know (including non-AP locals) wants to get a multi-day parkhopper, which is a way of discounting park admission. I'd like to see what the statistics are now, and also see DL's statistics for comparison; I bet DL has a few more 1-day 1-park tickets, but overall I would think it's pretty comparable.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I remember the first 3-day parkhoppers we bought. It was a LITTLE cheaper than 3 1-day tickets, but not radically so (of course, the per-day cost goes down the more days you get, but that's true at WDW as well). So you can count that as discounting if you want, but clearly DLR was TRYING to become a multi-day destination, with hoppers, a la WDW.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>...clearly DLR was TRYING to become a multi-day destination, with hoppers, a la WDW.<< That's what it was supposed to be out of the gate, with a full admission being paid for either park. They even stopped selling two-park Annual Passes, under the confident assumption that DCA would be so crowded with eager guests that the local AP holders needed to be held off. Later, of course, this thinking was, uh, revised. As far as that whole "finely nuanced," "shades of gray," "mixed bag" thing goes, it just doesn't apply to DCA. The place failed, and there is abundant evidence to prove it. There is nothing "simplistic" in a statement like, "Ron Paul lost the Florida primary." I suppose the nuanced-shades-of-gray-mixed-bag argument could be applied to results, particularly by the other candidates who also lost. In fact, it often is. It's called "spin," and it's generally deplored when the outcome is obvious for all to see. (The "mixed bag" argument certainly could be applied to the results for the overall Resort. Downtown Disney was pretty much a hit from the outset, but the hotels took a while to be declared enough of a success to spawn the additions that had been slated. We have yet to see Disney's third or fourth hotel on property, although there has been renewed talk. The investment in DtD's internal transportation system-- street construction, purchase of double decker busses and stations with signs-- was a complete loss.)
Originally Posted By DlandDug But enough of that! I am sure we are all looking forward to the Grand Re-opening of the newly burnished DCA. (Can I use that turn-of-phrase without setting off a fresh round?) I see that Bob Iger has declared the month of opening will be June. So it's just around the corner!
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>... that Epcot place in Florida better watch its back! They have not one, but two annual concert series...<< Yes, but those are held in conjunction with already wildly popular promotions. The DCA summer series were hastily thrown together in an effort to attract crowds.
Originally Posted By ksargen DlandDug - Woot! So, I'm still hoping, with the now official date of "June something" hanging in the air, they may have a little bit of previewing going on in May. It would make my Mother's day if that happened. 8) I know, probably a pipedream on my part (being a full month before I really think they're aiming for), but still, a girl CAN dream.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>...clearly DLR was TRYING to become a multi-day destination, with hoppers, a la WDW.<< <That's what it was supposed to be out of the gate, with a full admission being paid for either park. > Yeah. Again, like WDW. You can either buy 1-day-1-park passes, or (like almost everyone who visits), multi-park passes. Which, for shorter numbers of days, don't represent much of a discount (which was my point on that sub-point). <As far as that whole "finely nuanced," "shades of gray," "mixed bag" thing goes, it just doesn't apply to DCA.> Sure it does. As it does to most things in life. Unless you insist on simplistic thinking or still grinding an axe. <The place failed, and there is abundant evidence to prove it.> Nope. Sorry. There's plenty of evidence to show that it transformed DL to DLR, increased out of town stays, increased overall attendance... it's a mixed bag. <There is nothing "simplistic" in a statement like, "Ron Paul lost the Florida primary." I suppose the nuanced-shades-of-gray-mixed-bag argument could be applied to results, particularly by the other candidates who also lost. In fact, it often is. It's called "spin," and it's generally deplored when the outcome is obvious for all to see.> Terrible analogy (and don't think you're not "spinning," or that it isn't obvious, especially when resorting to terrible analogies). A better analogy would be this: a political candidate sets out to win the nomination. Since this year's isn't over yet, let's go back to an earlier one. Bill Clinton set out to win the nomination in 1992. He set out to win Iowa. He didn't. Did he fail? I suppose you could say, in the very limited sense, he failed at THAT step. But that was never the only step. He also failed to win NH, though he did better there. Then he won other contests. And in his long-term strategy, to win the nomination and the white house, obviously he succeeded. And then in his 2 terms, he succeeded at some things and failed at others. It was a mixed bag. How that mix seems to you is largely subjective and how much you value certain things over others. But an 8 year presidential term is a complex thing. So is a theme park, let alone a complete resort. In its 11 years we've seen successes, failures, and all matter of in between. It's a mixed bag. How that bag seems to you is... well, I think you can fill in the blanks. But "failed full stop" is ridiculous.
Originally Posted By danyoung I tend to side with Dabob on this one. Of course no one will say that DCA was a raging success. But no, I don't think the park failed. Many elements within the park failed, and there could be a case made that the concept of the park itself was flawed. But there was plenty of good there, too. Now of course they're making it better, and everyone is ready for that.
Originally Posted By ksargen Speaking of "Things Done Right," I still miss the original Avalon Cove Restaurant. When I was in DCA in January, they'd even taken down the sign for "The Cove." Now you'll only sort out how to get to the bar, or that it's there (if you didn't already), if you ask the CM inside the lobby! *LOL* At least they kept the decor in the restaurant when they went to character dining. I wonder how many people realize just how much work went into the place, and how upscale it is for Dining with Princesses? *LOL*
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<But "failed full stop" is ridiculous.>> DCA has operated in the RED for a full decade. It was the DLR that made the decision to keep it open despite its continual failure to earn its keep. DCA drained money out of the coffers of Disneyland and other Disney business units. So it has been at a great cost to keep the front gates of DCA open. In other words, Disney has had to pay for DCA 1.0 & DCA 2.0. Sure they would be able to write off the debt of 1.0, but right on its heels is paying for 2.0. All signs point to financial failure for 1.0. Sorry to be so blunt.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >> ...still grinding an axe.<< Axes grind both ways, my friend. >>...and don't think you're not "spinning,"...<< Of course I am spinning. Difference: I know I am, and I have far better factual and anecdotal information to back it up. If any of us had the straight dope, the spinning would end, and the world would stop in its tracks. >>A better analogy would be this: a political candidate sets out to win... let's go back to an earlier one... He set out to win... He didn't... he failed at THAT step... He also failed to win... though he did better... Then he won... in his long-term strategy... obviously he succeeded... then in his 2 terms, he succeeded at some things and failed at others. It ... is a complex thing.<< Spin, spin, spin, zzzzzzzzzzzzz. >>So is a theme park, let alone a complete resort.<< And there's ... more spin. The discussion is DCA, not the whole Resort. But since the idea that DCA is anything more than a failure is pretty hard to sustain, it must be placed in an entirely irrelevent context for the discussion at hand. The topic is DCA, not the Disneyland Resort. And that topic is, itself, subject to revisionist thinking. The original Resort Plan, you will recall, included more hotels, an internal transportation system, and a third theme park. None of these have come to pass a decade later. Indeed, the third theme park is completely off the table now. And, I would attribute that directly to the failure of DCA. Fortunately, that is being addressed in a spectacular (dare I say... unprecedented) manner as we speak! >>But "failed full stop" is ridiculous.<< When applied to DCA, it is a well supported opinion. But don't take just my word for it. See post #54, and a host of others. (But do avoid, as I do, those simplistic "DCA sucks" threads!)
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <All signs point to financial failure for 1.0. Sorry to be so blunt.> Show me the actual numbers please. Otherwise you're only assuming. Sorry to be so blunt.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >> ...still grinding an axe.<< <Axes grind both ways, my friend.> Sure, but "this place was a failure!!" is a lot sharper axe than "this place had good points and bad points." >>...and don't think you're not "spinning,"...<< <Of course I am spinning. Difference: I know I am, and I have far better factual and anecdotal information to back it up. > No, you don't. By any objective criteria, "this place has good points and bad points and a mixed record" will be more factual than "this place failed, full stop." >>A better analogy would be this: a political candidate sets out to win... let's go back to an earlier one... He set out to win... He didn't... he failed at THAT step... He also failed to win... though he did better... Then he won... in his long-term strategy... obviously he succeeded... then in his 2 terms, he succeeded at some things and failed at others. It ... is a complex thing.<< <Spin, spin, spin, zzzzzzzzzzzzz.> I think you just know I'm right here. A theme park (like a campaign) is not one moment, but a process. Sorry I thought of a stronger metaphor than you did. >>So is a theme park, let alone a complete resort.<< <And there's ... more spin. The discussion is DCA, not the whole Resort.> This is a common mistake. DCA was not built in a vacuum. It was built for specific reasons in the context of the whole. <But since the idea that DCA is anything more than a failure is pretty hard to sustain, it must be placed in an entirely irrelevent context for the discussion at hand. The topic is DCA, not the Disneyland Resort.> Exactly backwards. <And that topic is, itself, subject to revisionist thinking. The original Resort Plan, you will recall, included more hotels, an internal transportation system, and a third theme park. None of these have come to pass a decade later. Indeed, the third theme park is completely off the table now. And, I would attribute that directly to the failure of DCA.> DL didn't fail because they didn't build International Street or Edison Square. They would have been nice. But they built other things instead, and revived them in different forms later. Did DCA bring in as much money as they wanted? No. But that doesn't equal "failure" except to a black-and-white thinker. <Fortunately, that is being addressed in a spectacular (dare I say... unprecedented) manner as we speak!. Not unprecedented, but it's great to see, yes. >>But "failed full stop" is ridiculous.<< <When applied to DCA, it is a well supported opinion. But don't take just my word for it. See post #54, and a host of others. (But do avoid, as I do, those simplistic "DCA sucks" threads!)> No, it just isn't well supported at all.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I tend to side with Dabob on this one. Of course no one will say that DCA was a raging success. But no, I don't think the park failed. Many elements within the park failed, and there could be a case made that the concept of the park itself was flawed. But there was plenty of good there, too. Now of course they're making it better, and everyone is ready for that. > Exactly. But be prepared to be called an "apologist" or someone who can't support his opinion, Dan.
Originally Posted By crapshoot Puck, Mondavi trim ties to Disney park Los Angeles Times los angeles times October 2, 2001 04:00 AM Copyright los angeles times. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Tuesday, October 2, 2001 . Read more: <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2001/10/02/BU221128.DTL#ixzz1lpO9uFw2" target="_blank">http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/...lpO9uFw2</a> Reflecting continued troubles at Walt Disney Co.'s California Adventure, two premier businesses operating in the park -- Wolfgang Puck and Robert Mondavi -- have sharply reduced their investments. Disney spokesman Ray Gomez confirmed that Wolfgang Puck Food Co.'s upscale seafood restaurant, Avalon Cove, was closing yesterday because it did not meet the expectations of either Disney or Puck. Also as of yesterday, Robert Mondavi Corp. said it no longer was operating the park's Golden Vine Winery attraction and high-end restaurant, instead limiting its role to that of a sponsor. "We want to eliminate further financial exposure," said Nancy Light, a spokeswoman at Mondavi. The Oakville winery said it will record a charge of $12 million to $13 million related to its investment in the Anaheim theme park. Mondavi and Puck represented Disney's bid to attract affluent tourists to the Disneyland Resort. California Adventure opened in February next to Disneyland, but the new park has struggled with sluggish attendance from the start. And the Sept. 11 terrorist attack has made matters worse, thinning attendance even more at the $1.4 billion park and retail district known as Downtown Disney. Gomez said he was unaware of any other tenants in California Adventure seeking to withdraw or revise their contractual agreements with Disney. Other outside businesses operating attractions and selling food in the park include the sourdough bread factory Andre-Boudin Bakeries. The bakery said yesterday it was doing fine in the park. California Adventure was expected to attract about 7 million visitors annually, or 19,000 a day. But in the week before the terrorist attack, the park had been drawing an average of about 4,500 per day, according to a Disney official who asked not to be identified. This article appeared on page C - 5 of the San Francisco Chronicle Read more: <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2001/10/02/BU221128.DTL#ixzz1lpNw8EX6" target="_blank">http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/...lpNw8EX6</a>
Originally Posted By crapshoot Disney California Adventure marks 10 years February 5th, 2011, 3:00 am · · posted by Sarah Tully "Opening attendance Disney had high expectations – 7 million visitors the first year. Instead, 5 million showed up, according to AECOM Economics, a research firm for an industry association. Immediately, visitors asked for more children’s rides – and a Disney feel. “While they enjoyed the individual experiences, what was missing for them was the deep, emotional connection that they like to have with Disney parks,” said Mary Niven, vice president of Disney California Adventure. Some changes came within the first year or two: Restaurant operators like Robert Mondavi and Wolfgang Puck pulled out. Attractions were altered or closed. In 2002, Disney erected A Bug’s Land with children’s rides. The tweaks weren’t enough. As of 2009, the last year that an attendance figure is available, the park had yet to reach its initial annual attendance goal of 7 million." <a href="http://ocresort.ocregister.com/2011/02/05/disney-california-adventure-marks-10-years-2/68998/" target="_blank">http://ocresort.ocregister.com...2/68998/</a>
