Originally Posted By TomSawyer DCA and DL will not have any discounts this summer after 6/19, by the way.
Originally Posted By Jim in Pasadena CA <It is true and you even said it was. Changing "Edgy" entertainment for Disneyland family style is one example, adult restaurants turned into character venues and rumors of Goofy being added to the Limo ride proves that the market would not bare a non-Disneyesque Disney park. Enough said.> I disagree. Disney ops gave this 'hip and edgy' formula about 3 days before they said 'Well, it's not working' and trotted in the Disney characters wearing California shirts and sunglasses. During the early days of the park opening, communications about Mondavi restaurant, Puck restaurant, and other more sophisticated portions of the Park were downplayed in favor of showing Mickey, Minnie, and Buzz Lightyear peering over a hedge from Disneyland and looking into the new park. Then, you had the saccharin-sweet family cavorting around the Park. Then, all the stuff for the kids 'Make me a star...' They gave entertainment like '3 Bags Full' and 'Lights, Camera Chaos' and 'Steps in Time' about 5 weeks also. 'Superstar Limo' while peculiar and kooky, has become the 2002 equivalent of 'Small World' -- the ride that everyone loves to hate. In all, they treated 'Disney's California Adventure' like a television pilot -- where, if it didn't find its' audience in two weeks, it got cancelled. In this case, they're scrambling around, trying to 'fix' it. Which is so bizarre and sad to watch -- frankly, trying to turn DCA into Disneyland 2.0 is pretty lame. And if the message here is that 'the only thing people want from a Disney theme park is another Disneyland' than no wonder Imagineers, Disney Management, and Disney Operations are tapped out. It's become very boring.
Originally Posted By dennis-in-ct <In all, they treated 'Disney's California Adventure' like a television pilot -- where, if it didn't find its' audience in two weeks, it got cancelled.> Which is why I am glad I made the trip to see it in the beginning. I got to see the "show" the way it was intended before it changed. MGM changed a lot from it's opening. In many ways, the "studio" feel of the park is missing now. It used to be, you were taken through all the back lot in a very specific order. It was tiring and you felt "trapped" but it presented the "show" the right way and made sense. Knowing this ... I made sure to see DCA, AK, and WDS from the beginning ... although re: WDS ... no comment I loved the vibe at DCA and definitely grooved on the place. I LOVED STEPS and EUREKA!
Originally Posted By jonvn There is no overstating of facts here, at least by me. There is a good deal of twisting of information by you, though... "In 2001, KBF was down less than 5% from the 2000 season." After steep discounting. Additionally, last year, destination parks did far worse than more local type parks. Disneyland itself was not alone in its lowered attendance by any stretch, but the worst hit parks were the ones people traveled to. Knott's is more a local park, with almost no one out of the area even knowing of its existence. To take these basic facts out of the equation provides for skewed thinking. As I've said many times, to take DCA and its first year performance out of context from the industry it is in and the general economy is meaningless. To throw in one small tidbit of information doesn't make it much more meaningful. "As for DCA, there hasn't occured one positive activity since it opened the gates." And that's not overstating the facts. Right. "And by that I mean that they have never supported or followed the park's original themed intent as "Hip & Edgy" adult entertainment." So that explains why they took out a Disney themed show in the theater and replaced it with Blast. It's also why they are putting in TOT, which is filled with singing robotic animals...So, I guess you're right, except in the cases where you're not. "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." Again, this is simply not true. Where this comes from, I don't know. Even if they got their 7 million, that is an average of 19,000 a day over the course of the year. Park capacity is supposed over 35,000. If they got a daily capacity crowd, it'd be a nearly 12,000,000 visitor year. They never expected that. Talk about overstating facts that can be easily proven by numbers. People think I'm condescending? Well, when you are constantly presented with this sort of laughably wrong, packed with "Oh you're so stupid and wrong about everything" as the author always seems to enjoy putting in his posts, it's hard not to be. The main problem is that these things keep being said again and again by the same people, no matter how many times they are told what they are saying can't be possibly correct. It doesn't sink in, and a couple days later, they start saying the same things all over again, as if somehow waiting a few hours makes the argument right again. Well, it doesn't. This argument was not right the first time it was stated last year, it was not right in the following months, and it's not right now. It's easily shown to be not right, but I will bet people money that after this, someone is going to come along, likely this same person, and mention that the park was supposed to be filled to capcity and beyond. It's simply not true. Now, if you meant they were supposed to have on occassion capacity days and did not get them, that's another thing. But that is not what you said, and it is not what people keep repeating. So, since the the basis for the argument is completely wrong, the conclusions aren't likely going to be all that accurate, either. "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." Those are the factors, eh? Marketing, weather, economy, none of them had anything to do with anything... "You pick it, because in some form or another each one of these is valid. " Well, no, they aren't. These are your opinions, which I think are fine for your opinion, but that does not make them valid. Here's why: 1) Disneyland is "too far" from DCA. I will assume you mean in content. Otherwise this statement is complete nonsensical. If you had ever gone to WDW, you would know that the theme parks there, which are successful, all have very little to do with Disneyland. The idea that they have to build another mini-Disneyland is not borne out by the experience in Florida. 2) DCA does not appear to be good value. Most people simply did not know the content of the park. The park was not marketed well, and after it opened, many people simply did not know it existed. You can't know whether or not something is a good value if you do not know the content. 3) Because it is a theme park, and that is its theme. The same logic given here can be applied to other things as well. Why put a Pirates of the Caribbean ride in an area near the Caribbean? Why put an American Adventure show in Epcot when they are in America? Why put a Main Street USA area when you are in the USA? Main Street doesn't look like much that is in LA, but it does look like all kinds of places all across the country. Perhaps Walt didn't understand what should or should not be in his parks, either. "No matter how you continually pontificate with need of proof," Yes, how awful of me, making people back up their statements with something other than name calling and childish antics. It is simply horrible that people who want to go about trashing something are being challenged in the half-truths and twisted information they wish to present, such as in your post. If it weren't for people trying to counter the more crazy things being said on the internet here, these stories would simply grow and grow, probably to the point where Disney is doing something like injecting everyone who visits with anthrax upon entering the gate. You don't like the place? Fine. As I said to someone else, that is your choice and your loss. But your justification of your dislike by stating that either the public is unhappy or some other employee with an axe to grind agrees with you is what gets you involved in these kinds of discussions. You don't need to justify your opinion, simply state it, and why. But if you are going to try and foist your opinion off as some larger truth, then you will run into opposition.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<Knott's is more a local park, with almost no one out of the area even knowing of its existence. To take these basic facts out of the equation provides for skewed thinking.>> Ahh yeah, that is why KBF has a dedicated marketing program specifically geared for the Japanese tourist trade. That is why Cedar Fair bought a park that no out of towners ever heard of. Just like Disneyland, Knott's enjoys 60% local and 40% out of towners. Just because you don't care for Knott's, doesn't mean that nobody ever heard of the place or understands its theming. They do. But you said it best: "To take these basic facts out of the equation provides for skewed thinking." <<"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." Again, this is simply not true. Where this comes from, I don't know.>> Your right, I guess we just never attended the same DCA planning meetings prior to park opening. Next time, I'll make sure Donna includes you on the list. That way you will have been given the same information that the rest of us had that clearly discussed DCA's goals, intent and expectations. Gosh, I guess those pesky guests should have gone as well so that they would have known what was expected of them in the first place.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 There's been all this talk about numbers going on, but here's my question - does anyone have any idea just how many people DCA needs to attract to support itself?? And I don't mean support itself and make a huge profit - I just want to know how many bodies need to pass through the gates in order for DCA to operate as is.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Ahh yeah, that is why KBF has a dedicated marketing program specifically geared for the Japanese tourist trade. " You really think KBF has a big national following? Give me a break...It's about as well known as maybe something like Hershey Park or Kennywood. It gets 3 million or so visitors a year, and it does not have the exposure of a national park. Living in LA, you might think it does, but I don't live there, and it's not a known place. "Just because you don't care for Knott's..." Where on earth did you hear this? One of the problems in having a discussion with some people is that they insist on making it personal, and making it personal in an incorrect manner. I happen to love Knott's, and have said so many many times. "Your right, I guess we just never attended the same DCA planning meetings prior to park opening." Oh, I see. Because I am able to demonstrate that your statements are false on the face of them, then you have to come up with some sort of false sense of authority to try and bolster them. The park was supposed to have 7 million people visit it the first year. That was the goal. Maybe I should have Donna make sure that in the future she gets people to attend meetings who pay attention to what's going on in the company. I guess that meeting you went to right, and all the published information regarding park expectations are wrong. OK... Maybe you were at a meeting. Who knows. But Disney did not say they expected capacity crowds every day, and their attendance goal is nowhere near that. So, pardon me if I take what they actually did say as opposed to someone who wants to prove a point with, at best nebulous information. "Gosh, I guess those pesky guests should have gone as well so that they would have known what was expected of them in the first place." Maybe if they had, they would have known the place was even being built. "There's been all this talk about numbers going on, but here's my question - does anyone have any idea just how many people DCA needs to attract to support itself??" Probably not, no. So most of these arguments are pretty much based on total ignorance of the facts. That's why they are pretty ridiculous in the first place. Mostly, they consist of individuals saying that the park is a failure or some other such thing without any sort of knowledge. My take on this is that if you don't like the park, fine. State your reasons and move on. But to try and elaborate on it past that is really pretty shaky territory, because the real information is not known.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<"There's been all this talk about numbers going on, but here's my question - does anyone have any idea just how many people DCA needs to attract to support itself??" Probably not, no.>> Actually, evidence continues to show conclusively that they have not met their operating budgets time and time again. How is this so? Simply, that they downsized salary and hourly staffing at DCA dramaticly, some restaurants and attractions have limited hours or are closed for days at a time or indeffintely, park hours were significantly cut both for opening and closing and management has resorted to deep, deep discounts as enticements. None of which indicates that they have met operating costs.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<"Just because you don't care for Knott's..." Where on earth did you hear this? One of the problems in having a discussion with some people is that they insist on making it personal, and making it personal in an incorrect manner. I happen to love Knott's, and have said so many many times.>> Actually you have stated many times your distaste for KBF on these boards in the past. Recall, that we have argued this subject throughout the past year. <<Oh, I see. Because I am able to demonstrate that your statements are false on the face of them, then you have to come up with some sort of false sense of authority to try and bolster them.>> No quite the contrary, but unless you yourself are privy to the information, then your conclusion is that it is false. And when specific information is cited and provide links to the information you can't take it for face value, you have to put your own spin on things to justify your beliefs. <<The park was supposed to have 7 million people visit it the first year. That was the goal.>> Wrong again, that is the adjusted goal after a month of operation. And that is the adjusted goal that started the staff reductions at DCA and changes in operations to reduce operating costs.
Originally Posted By crapshoot And that 7 million turned out to be another pipe dream for the executers of DCA.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Actually, evidence continues to show conclusively that they have not met their operating budgets time and time again. How is this so?" I will go over this for you: 1) The individual asked "does anyone have any idea just how many people DCA needs to attract to support itself?" 2) I answered, "Probably not." The reason I said this is that he was asking for a specific number type of answer, i.e., how many people does the park need to have to support itself. 3) Your response to that was "evidence continues to show conclusively that they have not met their operating budgets time and time again." This does not begin to answer his question, and even if insulated on its own, is fallacious. What you are referring to is "did the park have enough customers to support these various venues and staffing." That is not the same as meeting operating costs for the entire park, which as I said earlier, it is unknown as to what that is. By saying that the park did not meet operating costs, you are saying that the park lost money during the course of the year. You don't know that, so as I said, the statements you make flatly stating it are based on no information.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Actually you have stated many times your distaste for KBF on these boards in the past." OK, point one out. "unless you yourself are privy to the information, then your conclusion is that it is false." The information I am privy to is the published expected attendance that the management of the company stated was their goal, as stated by them and their employees, multiple times. It's not "my spin." It's what they said they expected. "Wrong again, that is the adjusted goal after a month of operation." That was the goal stated prior to the opening of the park. There are news articles talking about Disney's attendance goals for first year operation that were published in January of 2001 (if I recall the date properly). So, no, it's not what you said it was.
Originally Posted By jonvn In just reading over these posts, I have to say it's a bit hard to accept the word of someone as to what happened at a meeting, be they an attendee or not, when they get so much else wrong, while absolutely insisting they are right, such as my statements on Knott's, and this 7 million attendance figure coming after a month of operation. It doesn't speak to the veracity of the poster, and gives me pause in considering just what may or may not have been said at any supposed meeting.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<That was the goal stated prior to the opening of the park. There are news articles talking about Disney's attendance goals for first year operation that were published in January of 2001 (if I recall the date properly).>> Prove it! <<1) The individual asked "does anyone have any idea just how many people DCA needs to attract to support itself?">> That is correct, there are no specific numbers available, not for you, me or anyone else not in the DL accounting office. And that is why I stated "Evidence" continues to show or indicate or bear out or ............ Those indicators that I stated are real, have been and are occuring. And those would not occur if indeed, they were meeting their operating costs for DCA at a minimum. It is a given that no one will provide us with actual financial statements. However you can never see beyond exacts, great, no one really cares. But at the same time instead of supplying a yes or no answer to a question that can't be answered presicely either way on these boards, then the next best thing is to look at examples of evidence and extrapolate a conclusion from that data. A better answer from you would have been: No we don't have any idea of operating costs are for DCA, but we do know that operations have been reduced for some reason.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<It doesn't speak to the veracity of the poster, and gives me pause in considering just what may or may not have been said at any supposed meeting.>> Now I am being called a liar. Good move, keep the personal attacks coming, your so good at it.
Originally Posted By JeffG On January 14, 2001, the Los Angeles Times published an article entitled "The Most Jam-Packed Theme Park on Earth?; Attracting visitors won't be a problem for Disney's soon-to-open California Adventure. But coping with the expected hordes may be another matter." written by E. Scott Reckard. The full text of the article is only available online via an extra-charge search, but there is a free abstract available on the L.A. Times site that includes the following quote: "Company projections show Magic Kingdom attendance falling by 500,000 per year, to about 13.3 million, and California Adventure visits rising to 7 million." The direct link to the abstract is way too huge to repost here, but I was able to easily find this by going to their archives at: <a href="http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/" target="_blank">http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/la times/</a> I just did a search on "California Adventure 7 million", limiting the dates to between 1/1/01 and 2/8/01. That article popped right up... -Jeff
Originally Posted By jonvn Thank you Jeff. I did recall the date of the article correctly. I'm surprised I got it that close. "That is correct, there are no specific numbers available, not for you, me or anyone else not in the DL accounting office." Then may I suggest that you stop trying to prove whatever point you may happen to be trying to prove by referencing numbers that don't exist for us? "Those indicators that I stated are real, have been and are occuring. " Indicators of what? They are indicators that the park does not have enough attendance to support those individual things that had to be curtailed. It does not speak to whether the park is overall profitable or not. It is not that I "can never see beyond the exacts," but that what you are saying is irrelevant to what the person asked. Now, if the person asked "Did DCA do as well as originally planned for," then your answer would be appropriate. However, that's not what was asked, and the things you point out are unrelated. "the next best thing is to look at examples of evidence and extrapolate a conclusion from that data." That's a good plan, however, the conclusion has to somehow be associated with the data. Cutting back on things is not an indicator of profit or loss. Maybe they wanted a certain level of profit or loss, and those cutbacks moved the numbers in the proper direction. Without firm numbers, making absolute statements either way is impossible to do with any accuracy. "No we don't have any idea of operating costs are for DCA, but we do know that operations have been reduced for some reason." That would be a good answer, and closer to what I originally said as well as closer to an answer to his question. However, he did not ask what the operating costs were, either. He asked about the number of people "Now I am being called a liar." If you are intentionally saying things you know to be false, then that's lying. Only you know whether that is true or not. Otherwise, you are simply stating things that are not factual and are in error. However, due to the amount of error provided in your statements, intentional or otherwise, makes it hard for me to accept much of what you say as correct.
