Originally Posted By DlandDug >>So if I was writing a thesis and hoping for a grade based on truths It would be a failure maybe more than a success maybe ? Is that what you are saying?<< No. I am saying that the thesis (not a formal paper, but a premise supported by logic, reasoning and facts) that DCA was a failure can be easily refuted if the definition of failure is reduced to its lowest degree, and nothing more.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>When I went to school, below 70% was an F(AIL)!<< Yup. anything from 30% on down was considered a failure. Some here would claim that only 0% is failure...
Originally Posted By DlandDug Heh heh. Try bringing home a final exam with 83 out of a hundred questions wrong-- an "F"-- and make the claim that it's a "mixed bag," in that 17% of the questions were 100% correct!
Originally Posted By DlandDug Wow. We're having a psychic debate! I just saw post #138 after posting through to #144. >>But "DCA failed" is not correct either.<< Sure it is. >>...any mixed record can not be truthfully called failure-full-stop.<< Sure it can. (Not being dismissive, just succinct.)
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>The irony is I don't think our views of DCA as a park, what worked and what didn't, are all that radically different.<< Totally agree. We just reached different conclusions.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <The only way to refute the argument that DCA was a failure is to recast the whole thesis without any acknowledgement of these degrees.> Just the opposite. The only way to claim DCA is a failure-full-stop is to not acknowledge degrees. Once one acknowledges degrees, the only logical conclusion is that some aspects failed and some succeeded. >>But "DCA failed" is not correct either.<< <Sure it is.> No. Nothing so complex can be reduced to such black and white terms. >>...any mixed record can not be truthfully called failure-full-stop.<< <Sure it can.> See above.
Originally Posted By DlandDug Hmmm. OK. As long as the claim is reduced to "It failed-full-stop," the argument is easily refuted. There are degrees of failure. And by a degree, DCA failed. It was a failure. >>Once one acknowledges degrees, the only logical conclusion is that some aspects failed and some succeeded.<< But the thesis is not about "aspects," but rather about DCA. Not about DCA as part of a greater whole, or parts of DCA. DCA, itself, failed, based on an interpretation of all the available information. >>Nothing so complex can be reduced to such black and white terms.<< Saying "DCA failed" is not a reduction. It's a conclusion.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Hmmm. OK. <As long as the claim is reduced to "It failed-full-stop," the argument is easily refuted. There are degrees of failure. And by a degree, DCA failed. It was a failure.> Quite apart from pronouncing an opinion as a fact (and let's not even go there), this just simply fails logic 101. >>Once one acknowledges degrees, the only logical conclusion is that some aspects failed and some succeeded.<< <But the thesis is not about "aspects," but rather about DCA.> Something with many aspects to it. You can't separate that out, much as you try. <Not about DCA as part of a greater whole, or parts of DCA. DCA, itself, failed, based on an interpretation of all the available information.> No. First of all, DCA does not exist in a vacuum. It was built for a number of reasons, including those relating to the larger whole. Again, you can't separate those out, much as you try. It flies in the face of the reality of why DCA was built to begin with. Second, even taken alone, "failed" is indeed an interpretation. That you got right. >>Nothing so complex can be reduced to such black and white terms.<<> <Saying "DCA failed" is not a reduction. It's a conclusion.> A reductive conclusion.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Quite apart from pronouncing an opinion as a fact (and let's not even go there)...<< OK.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Good. The rest is silence, (as the man said, perhaps referring to this particular horse).
Originally Posted By oc_dean >>Is it crazy to think that they wanted a second park open ASAP<< Yes, I think it is crazy. If that was the case .... Disney would not have spent practically the whole decade developing the west coast version of EPCOT (WestCOT).... and the earlier DisneySea in Long Beach idea. If it was important to have something open right away .... the more elaborate Westcot would have never hit a single drawing board .... and probably might have gotten something more on the lines of a “Disney/MGM Studios ’89 “... a few years earlier than when DCA opened. Try to remember CC ..... That a major turning point for the Disney Co. came with 3 crushing blows to Eisner – Number One – his emergency quadruple bypass. Two – the sudden death of his “balancing counter weight” Frank Wellls. Three ... the unexpected troubles with Euro Disney. Late 1994 was the turning point. Up to that point ....everything new that Eisner brought to the theme parks (and what was already deep in the pipeline) had solid backing for it. After that .... he turned his back on properly funding theme park projects. From Walt Disney Studios Paris, DCA, and Hong Kong DL. >> to make the average visit by an average vacationer at least a day longer, and rather than go at it all at once and open it as a pristine, perfect park, they opened with limited money invested. The whole while assuming that they will invest more in the future, but for at least the first 10 years or so, they have 2 parks and that means longer hotel stays, more meal money, etc, etc. Then as they gained more money in revenue, they would invest it back into the park to create a more popular park and possibly extending the stay by maybe even another day? << When the park opened .... they had absolutely no intention of adding anything to DCA for at least 3 years! The “Who wants to be a millionaire” attraction was hastily thrown together, later that opening year. FFF for the next year .. also hastily thrown together ... and finally ToT – Disneyland was suppose to get a “drop shaft” ride in Frontierland for a 2003 opening. OFF THE TABLE it went ... and hastily thrown to DCA in the form of the west coast version of ToT. They were that over confident ... they were that arrogant ... and really thought that the lite park they created, with the “Disney” name printed on it, was all that was needed .. with no need to be adding anything for quite some time. About using Disney/MGM Studios model, to compare to DCA’s ...... Chief difference, what opened on opening day Feb 8, 2001 was to be it! For quite some time. Disney MGM Studios May 1, 1989: Indiana Jones Stunt Show, and Star Tours would follow later that year. Muppet Vision, Beauty and the Beast live show, Voyage of the Little Mermaid .. would all follow within the next 2-3 years of operation. >>but it could have succeeded in making more money overall because now the DLR is seen as a resort with many things to do, not just one park. So, maybe it wasn't as popular as DL but it's still making them money in the long run. << Not with the “Feb 2001” line up of attractions they were! Or, why would they be doing the unprecedented move they are doing now?
Originally Posted By Manfried In business, a failure is one that fails to have a return on investment. If DCA was a total failure, or not delivering some of the goods, would Disney had left it open? Well perhaps. Maybe it wasn't a total failure, but it wasn't a total success either. And to grow the business, as Disney was trying to do, they needed to build a second park. Unfortunately it did not succeed as much as they thought it would. As far as Disneyland is concerned, how much money should the company spend there? Attendance at that park is pretty much maxed out. Not a lot of room for growth. So it is more of spending what they need to spend to keep that place's cash flow up.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "And 5 is not the only answer." Actually in this case it probably is the only real answer. About 100 years ago (at least it seems) I posted the proper definition of the word failure as it relates to a business. No one knows what criteria Disney would have used to determine whether DCA was a failure or not, so we can only guess, which is what's been going on here for what, like 11 years now? In any case, more than likely, management would be using the following very strict definition, rather than the broad definitions listed in post 137. BUSINESS FAILURE: Closure or cessation of business activity that results in a loss to its creditors. Firm that stops working due to lack of sales or profit, or retirement or death of its principal without leaving any liabilities is not classified as a failure. <a href="http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/business-failure.html#ixzz1m8unNxJl" target="_blank">http://www.businessdictionary....m8unNxJl</a> So, if indeed the expansion project, which included DCA was making enough money to turn a profit and is still operating and was deemed worthy to continue operation, then it most definitely was NOT considered a complete and total failure. The very fact that the company has decided to invest more money only serves to support that assumption.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Yes, I think it is crazy. If that was the case .... Disney would not have spent practically the whole decade developing the west coast version of EPCOT (WestCOT).... and the earlier DisneySea in Long Beach idea. If it was important to have something open right away .... the more elaborate Westcot would have never hit a single drawing board...." Westcot's design got so big and ambitious that by the time Anaheim beat out Long Beach the concept had to be scrapped because it was financially unfeasible. The time and energy spent on DisneySea's design ended up being was well worth it since most of those concepts, even one of the hotel ideas, ended up being built in Japan.
Originally Posted By dshyates Hans, I am willing to agree with you but would add that I believe that if DCA was a separate entity without the backing of a multiB$$$ corp. DCA may have gone under.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt Well, had it been a free standing gated theme park it never would have been built as it was. The whole programming mix at DCA was structured around what was already being offered at DLR when the gates opened. This is still the case, even with the huge expansion. It's been alluded that some people have had a hard time wrapping their brains around the idea that DCA was never meant to operate as a destination unto itself, and I agree. DL is the draw, and everything else is designed to be attractive enough to increase the length of stay and number of visits guests make to the property. Without DL there would be no DCA, not vice versa.
Originally Posted By crapshoot Disney upgrades, updates California Adventure Park, By Matt Krantz, USA TODAY July 13,2011 "This year (2011) marks the fourth in a five-year plan to turn Disney California Adventure into a park that can hold its own, . . ." "The reality, though, turned out much different. Disney California Adventure rivals Disneyland Paris as being one of Disney's most high-profile slips in its theme park business, says Robert Niles of ThemeParkInsider.com, a website that monitors developments at amusement parks. "Admission to California Adventure was practically given away, he says. Last year, for instance, the company offered free admission to California Adventure as part of a "2fer" deal, with purchases of Disneyland tickets. "It was the freebie park. No one really paid to go in," he says."Disney doesn't provide financial details for individual sites." "The park, though, has not lived up to Disney's standards and expectations." "California Adventure did not return what we typically would expect to return in terms of capital investment and felt that with some smart creativity and investment, we could change the fortunes of that park," CEO Robert Iger said in September 2010 at the Goldman Sachs Communacopia Conference." "Looking over a full-color map of the redesigned park, Magnum says she is sure Disney can bring California Adventure up to standards with three goals: •Appeal to a broad family audience. •Transport to another time and place. •Story-driven attractions. "The fact Disney had to redo a park is practically unheard of for the company, says Al Lutz, editor of MiceAge.com." Disney California Adventure rivals "Disneyland Paris as being one of Disney's most high-profile slips in its theme park business, says Robert Niles of ThemeParkInsider.com, . . ." "
Originally Posted By danyoung At the risk of being obstinate, there isn't a thing there that I would disagree with, crapshoot. And there also isn't a thing there that says that DCA was a complete failure. It underperformed, and needed a whole buncha help. Was it a failure? I just don't think so.
Originally Posted By crapshoot DISNEY COMEBACK FORECAST Byline: Greg Hernandez Staff Writer Jan 4, 2002 "BURBANK - Putting the best spin on what was a dismal year for The Walt Disney Company, Michael D. Eisner assured shareholders in a letter released Thursday that the media conglomerate is positioned to bounce back in 2002." "Eisner also acknowledged that the company's newest theme park, Disney's California AdventureDisney's California Adventure, has faced major attendance struggles since it launched next to Disneyland last February." ``Unfortunately, we launched it in a year of abnormal rain (for Southern California), the crowds that the expansion has attracted have not been of the magnitude we had hoped for in its inaugural year." "We now have a vastly improved asset in Anaheim, which - as the economy improves, and the lights stay on, and the Bug's Life children's land opens this fall, and The Twilight Zone Tower opens in a few years - will turn the park, like our others, into the blockbuster we all know it is."
