Originally Posted By jonvn "It is true and you even said it was." No. I did not say that the SoCal market would not support a non-Disneyesque Disney park in Anaheim. That is what you said, and it is not true. They have changed the entertainment and some offerings based on surveys, but to then take it to the extreme that you did is not true.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer >>"disappointingly attended even according to the companies own admission." Where exactly did they admit this?<< <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/life/travel/leisure/2001/2001-06-29-park-deals.htm" target="_blank">http://www.usatoday.com/life/t ravel/leisure/2001/2001-06-29-park-deals.htm</a> "At Disney's California Adventure, officials hope to jump-start weaker-than-expected attendance since the park opened four months ago. "It's been soft," says spokesman Tom Brocato. "We would like to get more people into the park." <a href="http://www.californiacoasternews.com/news1.php?ID=35" target="_blank">http://www.californiacoasterne ws.com/news1.php?ID=35</a> "I've watched [California Adventure] this past year like a proud father who certainly has greater expectations and aspirations for his son," Pressler said. And he isn't giving up on it" New parks tend to see an attendance dip in the second year--what industry analysts call a "sophomore slump" that usually follows the hype and curiosity of a theme park's opening year. Disney's original projections for California Adventure were for 7 million visitors a year. But the trade publication Amusement Business put the figure at 5 million for 2001, compared with more than 12 million visitors at Disneyland. Pressler dismissed suggestions that California Adventure's sophomore year will be slower, saying that when a park opens in a year like 2001, "all the rules go out the window." "We thought we'd limit Disney characters to the more traditional Disneyland experience," Pressler said. "But lo and behold, our guests said they wanted the characters everywhere. These are things we didn't anticipate, but we read them loud and clear." <a href="http://www.ocregister.com/local/features/growth/tourism/disney00503cci1.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.ocregister.com/loca l/features/growth/tourism/disney00503cci1.shtml</a> Disney officials said last year the third theme park's first phase would open in 2003, and the whole park would be finished by 2010. However, Disney has had increasing economic worries since then. Huge crowds never materialized at the new theme park, California Adventure, which opened Feb. 8. The company announced 4,000 layoffs and buyouts worldwide last month, and Chief Executive Michael Eisner recently said Disney would cut millions in expenses. Gomez on Wednesday refused to say if the project has been postponed, but added that California Adventure's attendance problems will not delay the third gate. The proposed park is "at this point completely independent with anything taking place with the existing Disneyland resort." OK, that is enough qutes..... Now, Disney's Actions... AFTER suspending the selling of Annual Passes, due to the fact that they thought that the parks would be overcrowded, they brought back the AP's, and then a few months later, REDUCED the prices on the two-park AP's, basically offfering them at the old Disneyland Only price. A SUMMER DISCOUNT, Buy a Adult Admission, get a Child's admiision free!!!!! ALL SUMMER LONG. The $49 two day SoCal offer The discounts on multi-day passports, and the children's free passports (through Walt Disney Travel) WHICH THEY ARE STILL DOING!!!! The Fast-track of WWTBAM-PI! Plus more..... I think there has been enough opinions, so I won't add any of my own.....
Originally Posted By jonvn One last note, unless someone decides to go ahead and bash some more.... Once again, a topic that is postive about DCA grinds down into a series of bashing posts by people who can not stand to see upbeat statements come out about this theme park. All it takes is for someone to write something nice, and out they come. Like some Disney theme park Langolier that has to rip and shred anything nice to pieces. It's sad for the board that a decent conversation can't be held, but it's even sadder for those people who can not tolerate, no matter what, someone saying good things about the subject, even if they know basically nothing about it and have not even visited the place. I really do think it is sick.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<That is what you said, and it is not true. They have changed the entertainment and some offerings based on surveys, but to then take it to the extreme that you did is not true.>> Ahhhh! Driving down this path one more time. DCA was designed with only a few references to Disney. Mainly the Mickey Loop in Ca Screamin' and the Animation exhibit also a short lived show in the Hyperion. And that was it. And yes based on surveys and other forms of critisisms, they have begun to change many areas into a more Disneyland type mainstream experience. But the bottom line is that the park has been poorly recieved and they are doing everything possible to entice people to come inside.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<It's sad for the board that a decent conversation can't be held, but it's even sadder for those people who can not tolerate, no matter what, someone saying good things about the subject, even if they know basically nothing about it and have not even visited the place.>> And for those of us who have visited DCA many times, didn't trash Orlandoboi's coments, don't really care for your continued condescending attitude toward anyone who criticsizes a very flawed Disney park based on our critical opinions bid you a good night.
Originally Posted By jonvn "OK, that is enough qutes....." This is how you have a conversation. Thank you for answering intelligently, and giving me something to respond to other than personal accusations. Gads... Now, as to what you did quote, the statement "It's been soft" goes to the concept of Disney admitting that the park has been disappointing, although they do not say that exactly. The rest of it doesn't really speak to that point. Also, there are also many reasons for attendance to have been down this last year that did not have to do with what I was originally talking about. Be that as it may, they never did make the claim that the attendance was disappointing, or that they were disappointed. Only that it was soft. It did not meet projections, and everyone knows that, but they did not say it was a disappointment to them, which is taking what they actually did say and rev it up a notch or two into an area that isn't really accurate. Doesn't read that way to me, anyway. I'd also point out the exact thing I said earlier: "I'm not making the claim the park is perfect by any stretch. I would like to have a couple more big attractions, and a couple of areas where there were a few more things explored, but what was built was pretty good. Not as much as I'd personally like, but it's going to grow, and they have used some clever ideas in building the park. Did they all work? Again, maybe not. Could they have spent more? Of course. But is it sufficient for now? Yes, it is. Decidedly so." What does that mean? That means that for now, they spent enough. There is no gurantee that if they had spent more they would have had higher attendance at all. They could have spent more, but it was sufficient for the first year. It also means they have to spend more and expand into the future. What this has to do with attendance in the manner it is being addressed, I'm not entirely sure. "AFTER suspending the selling of Annual Passes, due to the fact that they thought that the parks would be overcrowded, they brought back the AP's, and then a few months later, REDUCED the prices on the two-park AP's, basically offfering them at the old Disneyland Only price." This has been brought up before many times. Yes, they stopped sales of APs. Why? Because they didn't know what the demand was going to be. They expected it to be higher than it was, and they had to take the precaution. The conversion of DL into a resort from just a simple theme park was a new thing for Anaheim. They didn't know what to expect from the crowds, and so they had to adjust the AP structure. They have also had summer discounts before, and last year many parks had to provide extremely heavy discounts. It was not a typcial year for the industry, or at least it was a very soft year for the entire industry. If these sorts of things you point out were happening in a boom year for the industry, then I'd have to agree with what is being said, that it was a disappointment and so on. But since it was bad all over, I really don't think that this sort of abstraction of DCA away from the rest of the industry holds a lot of water.
Originally Posted By Futurist This board seems to be malfunctioning. Maybe the heat of this conversation is overloading the circuts. ;-)
Originally Posted By AgentLaRue I think people should take another read at Tangaroa's post No. 53. These boards would be a better place if all would strive to avoid proving who is "right" or "wrong", because nobody is either. As for you enjoying DCA Brad, glad you had a good time. I had the same experience, having truly enjoyed my time at DCA over the course of a several day visit. But I have wondered whether I enjoyed the park more because of diminished expectations. I did not have high hopes when visiting DCA for the first time, mainly because of what I saw during construction and a previous visit to the preview center. The Pier attractions stuck out like a thumb in my mind's eye (is that really a chain swing ride?), but once inside, I realized there is much more to the park, most of which cannot be seen from the outside. Some of it is extremely well done, enough to make the park quite enjoyable. There certainly is, in my view, a good dose of "Disney Magic" at DCA. But some of the park, in my opinion, falls well short of the Disney standard. So personally, I fall in both camps on DCA. I like the park, but expect more than chain swings and a ferris wheel from Disney. And, thankfully, I could care less whether someone else agrees with me or their opinion as to whether I'm "right" or "wrong". Reading other's non-confrontational feelings on the issues, on the other hand, is always interesting.
Originally Posted By jonvn "DCA was designed with only a few references to Disney. Mainly the Mickey Loop in Ca Screamin' and the Animation exhibit also a short lived show in the Hyperion. And that was it." And the characters roaming the park, and the King Triton Carousel, and other things like Tough to be a Bug. Disneyland itself is filled with numerous non-Disney references, particularly when it opened. The only area that really referenced heavily Disney itself was Fantasyland. But, go ahead, tell me exactly what Pirates and New Orleans Square has to do with anything Disney other than as theme park attractions? I guess the people who put that area in just didn't understand the magic, either. How dare they put something in a Disney theme park that was not Disney related! And you might want to make note of the fact that this is how AK works as well. Try to understand: Not every park they build has to be like Disneyland. This one isn't. "And for those of us who have visited DCA many times..." "But the bottom line is that the park has been poorly recieved" And you base this on what? You've read the customer surveys? Or are you just going by attendance figures? You make a claim, back it up. If you're going by attendance alone, it's easily countered in several ways, and has been done ad infinitum every time someone brings up, yet again, these same tired comments. "don't really care for your continued condescending attitude toward anyone who criticsizes a very flawed Disney park based on our critical opinions bid you a good night." When you can produce commentary that is not either ridiculous, untrue, based on complete falsehood, or is hysteria based on outlandish internet rumor, I will give these comments the respect they deserve. Until then, if people are going to make statements that are the above, laced with insults towards me, and devoid of any sort of factual backup, then no, they're not going to get a lot of respect. Somehow the idea that a park is flawed is unique to DCA has gotten hold as if it's some holy grail of truth. ALL parks are flawed. No one says DCA is perfect. The additions that are being made now to the park are not going to make it perfect either. They may make it better, but it will not make it perfect, nor will it ever be perfect. It is simply incomprehensible to me that people go out of their way to rip apart a theme park like this, some who have never stepped foot into it, and anyone who does not repeat lock step the same things they want to hear said about it. It does not speak well of them.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I think people should take another read at Tangaroa's post No. 53." And he was right in that post. Unfortunately, he followed up with everything else he decided to say...
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan DCA opened in an unusual year to sat the least. Some seem to forget the factors that contributed to less-than-stellar turnout at themeparks across the country. So let's step into the Wayback Machine for a moment to recap. Sherman, please set a course for February 2001: The U.S. economy was in a deepening recession, with large-scale layoffs being announced daily, especially in the tech sector. The national mood was generally not good after an unprecidented Presidential election that had dragged on for months. And then, of course, came Sept. 11, changing everything yet again. I know that DCA is not a perfect park, and I've never said it was. But the repeated use of selected attendance numbers and coaster enthusiast polls and comparisons to shopping centers result in a kind of 3+7=2 logic that I can't follow. If 2001 had been a banner year of record breaking attendance all over the country, and only DCA didn't meet it's projections, then the idea that the public hates DCA would hold more ground. If you're going to complain that DCA is offering deep discounts, then you must also think that any other theme park that offers deep discounts is being rejected by the public. Paramount's Great America is offering a buy one day, get the whole season free deal similar to USH. If your opinion is that DCA sucks, you are correct. Because that's your experience, and for you, it stinks. Why is it necessary to "prove" it sucks? Or to prove it doesn't, for that matter? Say why you like it or hate it, but please remember that your opinion may not reflect the rest of the known universe, and may not be the ultimate "truth". I think OrlandoBoi's original post pointed out that if you relax and smile, you can have fun at DCA. I think it's great that he was able to approach the park with a fresh outlook after initially disliking it. That's hard to do, and it's even harder to admit publicly that your opinion has changed. Even if it turned out he still hated DCA after his latest visit, I appreciate the fact that he approached his visit with an open mind.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Gee, I am still hoping I can get Doobie an edit/spell check function for Christmas....And you can QUOTE me on that As for AP's....this is from the April 25th Disney's Second Quarter Investor Press Release.. "At the Disneyland Resort, increased attendance was driven by the addition of Disney's California Adventure and Disney's Grand Californian Hotel during the middle of the second quarter of the prior year, as well as strong local attendance reflecting primarily the success of the Annual Passport program. The prior-year pre-opening costs at Disneyland were for the opening of Disney's California Adventure. Lower spending at both Walt Disney World and Disneyland was due primarily to ticket and other promotional programs." So, this is the main reason that Disney is claiming that attendance is holding at DLR, what would have happened without the changes to the AP program???? Jonvn, you said...... >>Be that as it may, they never did make the claim that the attendance was disappointing, or that they were disappointed. Only that it was soft. It did not meet projections, and everyone knows that, but they did not say it was a disappointment to them, which is taking what they actually did say and rev it up a notch or two into an area that isn't really accurate.<< Let me QUOTE by Oxford Dictionary... Disappoint ( v. = verb) fail to do what was desired or expected / Disappointment (n. = noun) They expected 7 Million, and got 5 million, is that NOT an disappointment, or a park that failed to live to what was desired by the Company???? As for the "Buy an Adult, get a Child's Free Admission", the original promotion, which Universal offered was to expire at the beginning of summer....but then picked up by DCA as a SUMMER promotion... what is the competition going to do.... DCA decided FIRST that they needed the "discount promotion" plus the addition of a classic Disney Parade...., then, the other parks decided that they needed to address the aggressive Disney Marketing to bring in people to DCA. I doubt that SFMM, Universal and Knott's would have offered the level of SUMMER discounting, if DCA did not offer the summer long basically half-price offer. Has Knott's, SFMM and Universal offered Discounts... I can think of the ongoing SFMM promotion with Sprite, where you get a few dollars off any day, but $12 dollars off on Wednesday (a typical, SLOW, summer day, unlike the weekends....) Plus other "few dollars off"... but never "BUY ONE, GET ONE FREE" in the SUMMER. DCA was the first with this LARGE off a SUMMER promotion! So, Disney offered 2 for 1 admission, brought back a parade that supposely was retired, and had made a big deal out of its retirement! To close, let me repeat what the Oxford Dictionary says, and then try to tell me that Disney didn't think the park attendance was a..... Disappoint ( v. = verb) fail to do what was desired or expected / Disappointment (n. = noun)
Originally Posted By jonvn "Gee, I am still hoping I can get Doobie an edit/spell check function for Christmas...." No argument there...I think every time I post and read it back, there is something I want or need to change. "So, this is the main reason that Disney is claiming that attendance is holding at DLR, what would have happened without the changes to the AP program????" It's not just holding, it was up about 50% over the previous year. But what would have happened without the changes? The numbers would probably not have been as good. "Oxford Dictionary..." Yes, I know what the word means. But while it did not reach its intended goals, based on the circumstances they very well may have been satisfied by what they did get. Since they really didn't come out and say they were disappointed by it, and since we don't really know what the target window for attendance was--given all that went on last year--I would have to say that disappointment is not the proper word: It is too strong, and not necessarily indicative of what they actually felt. "They expected 7 Million, and got 5 million, is that NOT an disappointment" Not neccessarily, no. Would they have wanted more? Probably. Are they satisfied with what they got? Maybe. Don't know. Unless they specifically state they were disappointed in the results, I'm not going to sit here and say that they were. As Kar2oonMan points out, there were quite a lot of extenuating circumstances last year. So can you be disappointed and satisfied at the same time? Look that up in the dictionary and report back. "I doubt that SFMM, Universal and Knott's would have offered the level of SUMMER discounting, if DCA did not offer the summer long basically half-price offer." I'm not so sure about that. Even with the discounts, these places all had very bad years. Additionally, Sea World was also offering a promotion that was very generous as well. Parks all across the country did badly. Knott's had a summer promotion in place as they usually do but then made it even cheaper to get into the park. If it were true that DCA was having problems on its own, these other places would not have had their own issues. But they did. Even with the steep pricing discounts. For the attendance thing to be a real indicator, the following would have had to have happened: 1) Economy in good shape 2) Tourism in good shape 3) No 9/11 4) Competitors doing as well or better than before. None of these things were true for that year. So, attendance projections and so on were just not on the mark, and considering it was the first year, it would have been very easy to get things wrong. With all these different variables coming into play, it is simply too nebulous to really pin anything down. We don't have half the story, so it's really not a discussion that is going to go anywhere, and it really never has.
Originally Posted By tangaroa >And he was right in that post. >Unfortunately, he followed up with >everything else he decided to say. You said you agreed with me, only to turn around and state something that wasn't true just to justify your point. It accomplishes nothing but to enrage the kind of argument you keep denouncing. And to what end? The argument has gone on for so long, and everything that is to be said has been said. You're not going to convince crapshoot and darkbeer that you're right, just because you disagree with their definition of the word disapointing. So if you're not trying to convine them, who ARE you trying to convince? There are lots of people who love the park and don't have to debunk every misconception about the place to prove it. And for the record: I have not seen one negative comment posted about Brad's trip report.
Originally Posted By jonvn "You said you agreed with me" That I did, and then you turned around and said "And YOU are the worst one!" "state something that wasn't true just to justify your point." Not really, but when you did mention it before, I modified my statement. But do go on about it... "The argument has gone on for so long, and everything that is to be said has been said." Then why did you decide to chime in, make personal comments, and pick a fight? Why don't you just drop it? Do you think you're going to win some fabulous existential prize here? I'm trying to have a discussion here about the park and certain things involving it. You don't seem to want to allow that. You have some sort of bizarre issue with me that I don't understand, nor care about. No one is holding a gun to your head forcing you to talk to me. Quite the opposite. If you can't come up with something worthwhile to say to me, I would prefer not hearing from you. But if you do have something to say, I'm all ears. I really don't care beyond that. "You're not going to convince crapshoot and darkbeer that you're right, just because you disagree with their definition of the word disapointing." Perhaps you don't understand what this is. It's a discussion board. It is here to hold discussions. If people want to discuss things, that is what this place on the internet is for and it is why we are here. If you don't want to discuss them, then don't. I could live a very happy life without people such as yourself constantly calling me names. It's annoying. So don't let me keep you, if you want to not continue. But if you do want to continue, don't let me keep you away. It's up to you. I'll respond the way I am going to respond regardless. If you say something I think is wrong, I'll reply to that. If you say something nasty to me, I'll respond to that, too. Hopefully in a less snarky way than what you've consistently done in this direction. "So if you're not trying to convine them, who ARE you trying to convince?" I can very easily turn this around and say "Crapshoot and you are not going to convince me that they are right, so who are YOU trying to convince?" This argument of yours, is completely one sided and illogical. "There are lots of people who love the park and don't have to debunk every misconception about the place to prove it." Jolly good for them. I like to debunk lies and half-truths and discuss things to see what's right or not. When someone says something, I want to know why. If you don't, I have no quarrel with that, that's up to you. But if you want to talk to me about these things, I have a good sized knowledge base and I think I'm a fairly logical thinker and you need to appeal to that or get your words discounted. So if Darkbeer wants to put up quotes and make me work for what I'm saying, all the better for him and for me. It is what is interesting and what is worthwhile, whether I agree or disagree with him. "And for the record: I have not seen one negative comment posted about Brad's trip report." That's nice. There were for mine. And for me, of course. There's always the personal comments about me.
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> ...don't really care for your continued condescending attitude... << This makes me think of the way I was trying to gauge the likely credibility (or lack of such) of the DisCo. insider here at LP.com and the one at Mouseinfo.com. Although the written word can be misconstrued (and come off harder than it's meant to) or seen incorrectly as a reflection of its author's credibility and personality, it does, on the other hand, allow the reader at least a glimpse of some of the core aspects of a person, and his or her idiosyncrases (including innate friendliness or reasonableness, or lack of such). I recall one LP.com message board regular, whose viewpoints I tended to agree with, expressing himself on one occasion in an overly defensive, even peevish, manner. I thought, hmmm, that person may be on the side of the debate I can relate to, but...{{{cringe}}}....and the phrase "with friends like that, who needs enemies?" came to mind. I'll just say that at least in the case of Galaxie500 and her writing style and tone (including the words she's assembled in her most recent posting) and the writing style and tone of the DisCo. insider at that other Disney site (who sniffed that only someone like herself could have the real inside scoop on attendance figures, and that her counterpart at LP.com couldn't be anything more than an "hourly" employee), I don't feel I have to re-assess or re-adjust my sentiments because someone I want to have faith in, or who shares a position I can relate to, is making me {{{cringe}}}.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<"I doubt that SFMM, Universal and Knott's would have offered the level of SUMMER discounting, if DCA did not offer the summer long basically half-price offer." I'm not so sure about that. Even with the discounts, these places all had very bad years.>> Well there you go overstating facts that can indeed be proved by actual numbers. In 2001, KBF was down less than 5% from the 2000 season. They only missed the mark by a hundred and some thousand guests. As for DCA, there hasn't occured one positive activity since it opened the gates. And by that I mean that they have never supported or followed the park's original themed intent as "Hip & Edgy" adult entertainment. That got watered down from day one, starting with the WDI preview party and continually spirals away. Also, they began deep discounts very soon after that have continued in one form or another since. While it has been stated by the Disney Co. and other industry sources that DCA hovered around 2 million less than adjusted for for 2001, we also know that it was expected to be filled to capacity and beyond. Nothing could have been further from the turth. So what are the causes? First off the guests came to DLR, but they went to Disneyland not DCA. This is proved by many days having 15K in DL and 2.5K in DCA. What would cause this anomoly? Factors would include: DCA is too far from DL or DCA is not DL or DCA doesn't appear to be a good value or Why should anyone care about a themepark based on Califronia inside California. You pick it, because in some form or another each one of these is valid. No matter how you continually pontificate with need of proof, and then question any provided, the bottom line strongly indicates that the park's original intent was not what guests were looking for. And as I previously stated, that just isn't the guests fault.
