One Beeeeelion Dollars!

Originally Posted By Darkbeer

The Orange County Register reported this back in October of 2001.

>>Try to turn California Adventure into something more than an oft-vacant sideshow for Disneyland.....

Look at California Adventure, the signature of Pressler's reign as theme-park king. The ailing park surely suffers from a lack of amusements - an obvious result of its relatively low-budget construction, if you can say that about a $1.4 billion park.

Pressler's bet that a quirky mix of rides, eateries and retailing would make the new park a draw was a flop.

For Disney, California Adventure is not the sole Disney ailment.

Keonig(sic) said Pressler does deserve a good share of the blame for the alleged lack of creative ambition at the Disney theme parks. He said California Adventure, in which Pressler played a central role, suffers from a much deeper problem than temporary economic woes. It's a conceptual problem, he said: The mostly local people who attend Disneyland simply don't want to attend a theme park about California.<<

 

Originally Posted By Darkbeer

Here is what Roy Disney and Stanley Gold said in a SEC filing from February, 2004.


>>DISNEY'S CALIFORNIA ADVENTURE AND DISNEY STUDIOS PARIS

With a strategy put together by the schemers to transform single-park sites into multi-day destination resorts (and a price tag of well over $1 Billion) Disney's California Adventure was destined to failure before ground was broken.

Frightened by the economics of EuroDisney and misinterpreting the reasons for its failure, the "numbers guys" assigned an investment cap to DCA's construction. Rather than innovating and designing the Park from the bottom-up based upon what the consumer would expect for the price of admission, DCA was designed from the top-down based on what the spreadsheets said was required to hit a return figure that has never materialized.

The continued suppression of innovation - fixing the off the shelf rides - is likely as the schemers desperately try to avoid any financial write-offs at this time. DCA has failed and will never come close to generating the financial return the planners forecast.

Why? Consumers are not willing to pay the same admission price for a smaller and subjectively less-special park. The excessive discounting in the last twelve months clearly supports that the consumer knows what DCA is worth. If only the schemers had listened in the first place.

By contrast, Oriental Land Company financed and opened the innovative and luxurious Tokyo DisneySea during the same period. Its' marvelsquickly became a major draw even in a flat Japanese economy. Anaheim should have been so lucky.

The insistence on avoiding reality in Anaheim led to Disney Studios Paris - another "second gate" failure akin to DCA. Conceived on an even smaller creative scale and, it too, heavily relied on recycled product. In both instances, planners mistakenly assumed that Disney name alone would move the product regardless of the quality of its content.

We fear Hong Kong Disneyland will be similarly doomed to mediocrity. Although the schemers negotiated a very favorable deal from the local government, there will not be many rides at the new Park on opening day, and those that do open will be recycled attractions from Anaheim and Orlando. The "half-park" scheme remains in effect despite two enormous failures.<<

 

Originally Posted By trekkeruss

I'm much more interested in what you have to say than what someone else had to say three years ago.

 

Originally Posted By Dabob2

<Failure is not delivering what the Disney execs expected when they built the park, both in crowds, and in ticket revenue.>

That's not a very good definition. If a movie budgeted at, say, 65 million is expected to bring in 350 million, but only brings in 300 million, is it a "failure," especially if it does in fact make money? I wouldn't say so. They wanted DCA to draw 7 million (supposedly), and last year it drew 6. Same ratio.

"Did not meet expectations" and "failure" are two different things. But some people have this weird need to be "right" in retrospect.

 

Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt

“Failure is not delivering what the Disney execs expected when they built the park, both in crowds, and in ticket revenue.â€

Well yes and no. The question is what measure was Disney using in 2001 and how did that change over time? What was the deadline for the park to break even or start turning a profit? 2 years or 20? Was the expected rate of return on the initial DCA investment 10, 20, or 30%, or some other number? How far off did DCA miss the mark?

 

Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt

>>"Did not meet expectations" and "failure" are two different things.<<

Precisely.

 

Originally Posted By jonvn

"Failure is not delivering what the Disney execs expected when they built the park"

Considering that you don't actually know any of this, declaring it to be something on the basis of a nearly total lack of knowledge really is a pointless exercise.

If the place was a "failure," It'd be either opened up, or turned into a single gate, or some other such thing.

To use such terms is simply ridiculous.

 

Originally Posted By jonvn

""Did not meet expectations" and "failure" are two different things. But some people have this weird need to be "right" in retrospect."

That's right. And we really don't know what the expectations specifically were, in what areas, and by how much they missed or exceeded company goals.

Talk like this is pointless.

 

Originally Posted By Darkbeer

When two members of the Board of Directors of the Walt Disney Company says things like...

"DCA has failed and will never come close to generating the financial return the planners forecast."

They should know the numbers and the results.

 

Originally Posted By Sport Goofy

<<"DCA has failed and will never come close to generating the financial return the planners forecast." >>

I wonder if the planners forecast the precipitous drop-off in international tourists to the U.S. after 9/11?

 

Originally Posted By Darkbeer

DCA failed prior to 9/11.

And in 2002, Disneyland got an increase in attendance, while DCA attendance decreased, even with all the AP holders getting the park for "Free" with the change to just a 2 park AP instead of a DL only version.

 

Originally Posted By jonvn

"When two members of the Board of Directors"

Which two, the ones who were agitating to get back on board and oust the then current management? Sorry, but that's also ridiculous.

 

Originally Posted By jonvn

"DCA failed prior to 9/11."

Nonsense. It's really just nonsense.

It shows a lack of any business understanding at all to say this, so it's not even worth arguing over.

 

Originally Posted By Sport Goofy

Disneyland attendance was estimated to be up 2% between 2001 and 2002. That's after it dropped an estimated 11% from 2000 to 2001. Year-to-year attendance estimates don't really mean a whole lot when you are talking about a protracted change in the travel habits of huge block of international tourists.

You also might add that Disneyland gave away free admission to the entire S. California population of active duty military members and their families in 2002 as part of a salute to the military to prop up attendance. What impact did all those free tickets have on clicks at the Disneyland and WDW turnstyles?

 

Originally Posted By WorldDisney

<<I wonder if the planners forecast the precipitous drop-off in international tourists to the U.S. after 9/11?>>

Its funny to me, people always think its ridiculous for people like Darkbeer to cite the 'F' word (I'm going to keep using that ;D), but its JUST as ridiculous to claim DCA had problems because of 9/11, the weather, economy and, say it with me people, the 'marketing' and etc when A. the place was having problems 7 months PRIOR to September 11th and B. the tourist downturn situation never hurt DL the same way it hurt DCA.

Most of these are/were just excuses for a public that just never truly had a big reason to the park. The fact that the place is getting so much money tells people its what INSIDE that they feel needs to be improved to get people interested and they aren't using that billion just for a better marketing campaign.

 

Originally Posted By Darkbeer

Of course, the business section of the Orange County Register back in the fall of 2001 said this...

>>Pressler's bet that a quirky mix of rides, eateries and retailing would make the new park a draw was a flop.

For Disney, California Adventure is not the sole Disney ailment.<<

Bob Iger has admitted that DCA has problems at a Stockholders meeting, and the board just approved the over $1 billion budget just to address the problems at DCA.

To try and claim that DCA is not a failure is ridiculous.

 

Originally Posted By Sport Goofy

<< the place was having problems 7 months PRIOR to September 11th and B. the tourist downturn situation never hurt DL the same way it hurt DCA. >>

And yet DL attendance, as cited above, was off 11% in 2001 from the previous year. Yet the external factors didn't apply there, right?

 

Originally Posted By Darkbeer

The Active Duty Military offer was good for both Disneyland and DCA...

http://www.mouseplanet.com/more/mm011228.htm

>>Offer Details: DISNEYLAND Resort:

-- The complimentary and special offer tickets can be obtained only at DISNEYLAND Resort theme park ticket windows. Active military personnel (or their spouses, if they are not present) must present proper military identification. Activated members of the National Guard or Reservists (or their spouses, if they are not present) will also need to show active duty orders.

-- Tickets are good for admission to DISNEYLAND park and DISNEY'S CALIFORNIA ADVENTURE.

The tickets must be used between January 1, 2002 and April 30, 2002.<<

So that isn't the reason that Disneyland increased and DCA decreased....

 

Originally Posted By Sport Goofy

So why did DL attendance drop 11% in 2001?

 

Originally Posted By Sport Goofy

<< The Active Duty Military offer was good for both Disneyland and DCA... >>

If you had cut and paste the correct information, you would also see that the offer was only good for a single admission . . . i.e. one park or the other. If you wanted to go to both, you had to buy a ticket for the other park to go along with your free pass. If I had a free pass, I'd probably pick to go to DL, too.