Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Lets stop fighting kids!" I can't believe YOU of all people posted that here. LOL. Who's fighting?
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< DCA has financial problems? Where did you get that information from? >>> I can only assume that even you are pulling my leg on this one.
Originally Posted By WorldDisney Hey Hans I havent cussed anyone out here in weeks!!! I've attended anger management classes (twice), going through counseling and I've found religion. So I'm okay AND GET OFF MY BACK PUNK BEFORE I GO TO THE BAY AREA, FIND YOUR HOUSE AND BURN IT DOWN!!!! (Classes are ongoing)
Originally Posted By WorldDisney Hey SD, will send you PM soon!! But looking forward to another weekend of craziness!
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt WD, seriously, it's nice to have you drop in! You always kept me on my toes.
Originally Posted By CuriouserConstance Tasha, I think we've been a bad influence on Hans, he has been a sassy thing lately!
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>DCA has financial problems?<< Had, certainly, and may still have. The current CEO refered to DCA as "a challenge." The facts that are available all point to a major loss of revenue, and a pretty significant loss of investment. -- Major cutbacks in restaurants and shops. -- Deep discounting of entry media. -- Deep discounts on souvenirs, followed by the liquidation of a vast amount of inventory. -- Hasty creation of new entertainment venues (following the shuttering of many shows, and loss of investment into them). -- Resort-wide impact, as seen in closure of inter-transporatation system (for which infrastructure was created and special vehicles were created and then unused), loss of potential revenue from unbuilt hotels, unknown impact on perceived value of a stay at the Disneyland Resort. This (aside from the "perceived value" item) is what we DO know. How much has been hidden from investors and the public via Hollywood's creative accoun ting will never be known. But DCA has been a financial drain for Disney for many years. I hope the investment they are now making will turn it around.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 DCA did not make the numbers they hoped for, certainly. (Hey kids! Remember when corporations - not just Disney - thought they could return 20% in year A... then 20% more in year B... then 20% more in year C? Good times...) But DCA was never meant to be a stand-alone park and cannot be adequately understood except in terms of DLR as a whole. Average stays ARE up, which was a biggie for Disney. The GCH is full and very expensive, and wouldn't have gotten built without the expansion. Attendance at DLR as a whole is up nicely from the pre-DCA days. All this must be added to the other side of the ledger. And "perceived value of a stay" at DLR? It's only gone up. As at WDW, nearly all out of towners buy hoppers, and even if they don't like everything at DCA, they certainly like the fact that there are two parks now, and if the second is not at the level of the first, there are nonetheless highly enjoyable things to do there. What guest A considers highly enjoyable will vary from guest to guest, but whatever they are they didn't exist prior to DCA. Some guests (hello, Mrs. davewasbaloo) actually prefer DCA to DL, and those of us who think it a mixed bag still have things we love there that didn't used to exist, so the value of our stays at DLR has only gone up. Especially when one adds DTD, the GCH, the sprucing up on the Disney hotels, the sprucing up of the surrounding neighborhood... none of which would have happened without DCA. Viewed in isolation - yeah, there's plenty I'd have done differently, and others no doubt would have too. But you can't view it in isolation. It didn't do what they wanted it to, but as a part of the DLR as a whole, it is once again... a mixed bag.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>...you can't view it in isolation...<< Nor should it be viewed anecdotally as some sort of good news/bad news proposition. In the matter of financial success or failure, DCA is no mixed bag. >>It didn't do what they wanted it to...<< Nope.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>...you can't view it in isolation...<< <Nor should it be viewed anecdotally as some sort of good news/bad news proposition. In the matter of financial success or failure, DCA is no mixed bag.> Actually, that's a guess, and based on only one side of the ledger you presented. That's not "anecdotal," it's within context. Disney certainly doesn't look at it in isolation, but in context. Your view is simplistic, I'm afraid. >>It didn't do what they wanted it to...<< < Nope.> But because it didn't do gangbusters, doesn't mean it didn't do enough. In fact, obviously it did well enough for them to increase their investment there. It succeeded in its largest goal, in fact: to turn DL from a primarily one-day day trip into a multi-day destination. You can't magically erase that value from the equation.
Originally Posted By DlandDug It was a very specific question: DCA has financial problems? It was answered with some very specific facts, along with the admission that we cannot know the whole picture. If you wwant to offer a lot of anecdotal observations that are, basically, aside from the specific question at hand, then go right ahead. But this really has nothing to do with a fairly straightforward answer to a specific question.
Originally Posted By WorldDisney Eh probably most people think DCA still blows but hopefully the more less it suck in time, the more it will be able to stand up better financially. But yeah if DCA stayed the way it was back in 2001, I'm guessing HEAVY discounting would have to be in order for a long time to come. If they decided to sell seperate APs for this thing, I would imagine a MASSIVE drop off to be honest. But with the new stuff and them slowly marketing it as a different park it will stand on its own in time. But the DCA 1.0 probably never wouldve and why they knew it needed to change. But I have hope the 2.0 version will draw in the crowds the first one failed at.
Originally Posted By WorldDisney <<Resort-wide impact, as seen in closure of inter-transporatation system (for which infrastructure was created and special vehicles were created and then unused)>> You lost me here Dug? What are you referring to?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <It was a very specific question: DCA has financial problems? It was answered with some very specific facts, along with the admission that we cannot know the whole picture.> It was answered with facts from one half of the ledger, and even then we have no idea if it was making or losing money. Obviously, Disney thought if it drew the 7 million attendance figure that was often bandied about, they'd be in good shape. It didn't, so what happens when you don't get the revenue you anticipate? You cut expenses, which they did by closing some facilities and some hours, which saves on labor. Having done that, was DCA a money-loser, or did the cut in expenses offset the lower than expected revenue? We don't know. Now, the very fact that they cut back on expenses could be used to say the park had financial problems in an of itself, but that would be simplistic. That would say DCA 2001 had them because it didn't draw what they wanted, which is true. But it doesn't mean that the post-changes DCA (i.e. most of its existence) had them. <If you wwant to offer a lot of anecdotal observations that are, basically, aside from the specific question at hand, then go right ahead. But this really has nothing to do with a fairly straightforward answer to a specific question.> I'm sorry, but it was you who was doing the above. Nothing you said was false, but they were essentially anecdoctal in that they were illustrative of one side of the question while leaving out the other side. An anecdote, by definition, aims to illustrate a larger point, and all your examples were just that. But they also by definition offer an incomplete look at a more complex question, and they were that, too.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>It was answered with facts from one half of the ledger...<< It was answered with what we know from the ledger. If you have any facts that indicate the place was actually turning a profit, by all means introduce them. >>Now, the very fact that they cut back on expenses could be used to say the park had financial problems in an of itself, but that would be simplistic.<< Uh huh. And factual, too. >>An anecdote, by definition, aims to illustrate a larger point, and all your examples were just that.<< I purposely avoided anacdotal examples (ie: "It sucks!"). Go back and please let me know what (other than the cited query about perceived value) is anecdotal. It IS anecdotal to say that so-and-so really likes the place, or that it's just good enough or, well, any number of other "facts" that are raised whenever the sad facts about DCA's failure are raised.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>You lost me here Dug? What are you referring to?<< An inter-resort transportation system ran for a couple of months before it was quiety shuttered. Essentially, there was a dedicated traffic lane that ran from Mickey and Friends to the Paradise Pier Hotel, with a stop at Downtown Disney and the Disneyland Hotel. The expense was creating the right-of-way, with specific stops (which were of poured concrete) and signage. (All the large signs indicated this system.) There were also two large double-decker buses that were designed, ordered, constructed and delivered. These buses had to be custom designed. In order to park them in Mickey and Friends, the upper roof had to telescope down for storage. So the Resort had to eat the following costs: -- The dedicated street (sections of which still exist, and are basically used for scooting golf carts between the hotels); -- Signage, which either had to be changed or destroyed; -- Two big buses, which can still be seen in storage on the ground floor of Mickey and Friends, and which are used from time to time at the Resort to move large groups on stage. This is just a small example of the many financial losses that are the sad legacy of DCA 1.0. The buses: <a href="http://www.laughingplace.com/ShowPic.asp?Filename=/files/DLUpdate39/big/P24-3.jpg&Caption=The+double+decker+busses+that+transport+guests+between+the+Pinocchio+parking+lot,+Downtown+Disney+and+the+Paradise+Pier+Hotel&ID=502250" target="_blank">http://www.laughingplace.com/S...D=502250</a>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>It was answered with facts from one half of the ledger...<< <It was answered with what we know from the ledger.> From half the ledger. You can't ignore the other half. We also know that DLR attendance overall picked up greatly after 2001. We also know that average guest stay increased. These are also facts. <If you have any facts that indicate the place was actually turning a profit, by all means introduce them.> And if you have any facts (i.e. NUMBERS) that indicate the place was losing money, by all means introduce them. The things you introduced do not show it was losing money. Only that it was not making as much as desired. Those are two different things. >>Now, the very fact that they cut back on expenses could be used to say the park had financial problems in an of itself, but that would be simplistic.<< <Uh huh. And factual, too.> Yes. Factual and simplistic are not mutually exclusive. Yours are both. >>An anecdote, by definition, aims to illustrate a larger point, and all your examples were just that.<< <I purposely avoided anacdotal examples (ie: "It sucks!"). Go back and please let me know what (other than the cited query about perceived value) is anecdotal.> I will. <It IS anecdotal to say that so-and-so really likes the place, or that it's just good enough or, well, any number of other "facts" that are raised whenever the sad facts about DCA's failure are raised.> You're confusing anecdote with opinion. "DCA sucks" or "I like DCA" are opinions. An anecdote is a story, usually based on fact, meant to illustrate a larger point. But which often leaves out other facts that don't jibe with the point it's trying to make. Ronald Reagan's famous "welfare queen picking up her welfare check in a cadillac" is an anecdote. Were there people who abused the system? Undoubtedly. Did one or two of them actually drive to the welfare office in a cadillac? Possibly. But does that leave out the millions of other people who used the system as it was intended? You bet. And that's what your examples did. It's not that they're false, it's that they tell half the story.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "The things you introduced do not show it was losing money. Only that it was not making as much as desired. Those are two different things." This very simple fact has been stated at least 100 times since the Great DCA Sucks & Is Losing Money debate began years ago, and yet, it just keeps going over people's heads.
