Originally Posted By plpeters70 "Here is the most successful, popular and groundbreaking theme park in the world! Let's build something completely different next door." This wouldn't be such a bad thing if these same people thought that they had built a place that could support itself on it's own merits and not just because it is next door to one of the world's most popular theme parks.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I'm not sure I would classify much of DCA as some of the "finer things in life"" While it's still a theme park, it did offer some high quality food, different entertainment, wine tasting, and so on. That's a cut above what is typically found in these sorts of places. Higher quality offerings are what sets Disney apart from other theme park companies, and always has. I don't know what is or is not in Eisner's head, or what he likes. I do like the idea of a higher quality and more adult appealing theme park, though. "while I enjoy shopping and dining, I won't pay $45 to sit at a bar and spend more money, and I think the majority of guests at Disney's parks would agree with me" Well, you see, you aren't just spending $45 to do just that. You spend that money to go to a theme park for a day that has a certain set of offerings--any of which you may or may not wish to partake of. Everyone has their own tastes, and if you don't like the idea of the Cove Bar, or wine tasting, that's ok. There are things in every theme park I have gone to that I like or dislike. And if it turns out you dislike more things than you do like, then you have to weigh whether or not you like any of the park at all. Again, matter of taste. "I feel that when designing a theme park attractions should always be top priority, with dining and shopping designed to complement the attractions. I just don't feel this was done with the Disneyland expansion." I don't think that's how Disney does their parks. They come up with a theme or motif of some sort and then fit things in after it. For example, Frontierland. That's the framework, what can be placed within it that fits. There are attractions in every single amusement park. One of the things that sets Disney off from them is the theming, its detail and its involvement of the customers. Because that is a primary consideration, if not the most important consideration, it's important that this is done correctly. In DCA, they did do that. But as you say, once this was done, there was not a lot of oomph left in the attractions for many people, at least those who complain about it. Too many films and some areas that are all theme and no attractions are the result. ""Here is the most successful, popular and groundbreaking theme park in the world! Let's build something completely different next door." Well, it's not completely different, you know. It's a Disney theme park. But there are some pretty valid reasons for making something complementary to what was already there. By creating something that would appeal to a different group of people, you enlarge your demographic and have a potentially larger customer pool. Also, if you just make something else that is the same, it's, well, more of the same. It's better to have choice and alternatives. The main thing here is that it's not an extension to the old park, but a whole new and different thing. It HAD to be different in order to establish an identity for itself--otherwise it'd make no sense as a separate park at all. "if these same people thought that they had built a place that could support itself on it's own merits and not just because it is next door to one of the world's most popular theme parks." I think they intentionally did not want to do that. They had a bigger picture in mind in building the new park, and the shopping area, and the hotels. It was to turn the place into an overall resort, with the primary draw still being the original park, and while you are there, extra activities to keep you on property. That is what they said they wanted. They didn't want to build something that would compete. Now, whether that's a good strategy or not, I don't know. I think it's good as long as you look at the big picture. But if you look at it as if it were only a single abstrat theme park, then it's not. But the reality is that it IS part of an entire resort complex, and as such it fufills its intended role.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 "That is what they said they wanted. They didn't want to build something that would compete." That would be fine except for the fact that a 1-day ticket to DCA costs the same price as a 1-day ticket to Disneyland. If they truly only want the new park to be a small extension that will keep you there an extra day, then the price should be set accordingly. Granted, they do have park hoppers, but those don't help the average day-guest, which still makes up the largest part of customers at the Disneyland resort. I'll grant you they've done all this before here in Flordia at WDW with MGM and AK, but even then I've always thought this was a horribly sneaky strategy - a way to get you there longer without giving you as much. It just doesn't seem right to me, and really doesn't speak highly of the people behind such strategies. So, I fully understand what they were trying to accomplish here, but I just don't think they've priced accordingly. They figured "it worked in Florida, so it will work here", and ignored that the mix of locals to tourists in California is much, much different than here in Florida.
Originally Posted By Davko58 I'm not sure you do understand what they were trying to accomplish. Are you claiming that the target audience is "the average day guest"? The target audience is the vactioner who used to stay a day or two and now stays 2 or 3 days. The idea was to offer something to get people to stay an extra day and spend more on hotel rooms, food, and cutesie Disney junk. That's whay they built Downtown Disney and the Grand Californian. For the target audience, right now it costs $90 for 2 parks for 3 days. That's cheaper than a 3 day ticket used to be for Disneyland. Again, a tremendous bargain; an entire park for free. This is who they are targeting, vacationers, and the pricing structure proves it beyond any doubt whatsoever.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 I understand all that Davko58, but that still doesn't dismiss the fact that DCA is still the same price as Disneyland for 1-day guests. Just what are they supposed to do - not go to DCA?? I highly doubt that Disney ONLY wants to attract vacationers to DCA - I'm sure they would rather have a healthy mix of both. "For the target audience, right now it costs $90 for 2 parks for 3 days. That's cheaper than a 3 day ticket used to be for Disneyland. Again, a tremendous bargain; an entire park for free." I think that we can all agree that if the park was doing what it was supposed to do in the first place that we would be seeing quite a different pricing structure in effect. I'm sure that these low cost tickets are a direct result of low attendance, and if the park was doing better, the price would be much higher.
Originally Posted By jonvn "That would be fine except for the fact that a 1-day ticket to DCA costs the same price as a 1-day ticket to Disneyland." That is how Disney prices their parks. What they are charging you for is a day at a Disney theme park. It doesn't really matter that there are 10 things to do, or 50. What matters more is if you are able to spend the day at the park enjoying yourself. If you can do that, then the park is priced right. IF not, then you have to consider if it is worth the money for you to spend on it. I am able to spend an entire day there. So, for me, it's worth the money, if $45 is a good price for a theme park. For someone else who goes in, does 2 things and leaves, maybe not. As far as Disneyland goes, you can only really do about 10 to 15 things anyway. There just isn't time. So it's all kind of a wash.
Originally Posted By JeffG In fact, that is how >everyone< prices their theme parks. If full-priced tickets to DCA were significantly lower than those for Disneyland, they would also be significantly lower than the full-priced admission tickets for Knotts Berry Farm, Magic Mountain, Universal Studios Hollywood, Legoland, and Sea World. Disney's theme parks are still part of the overall theme park and have to be priced comparably to the competition. The standard in this industry is to price all theme parks comparably and then adjust the pricing to a competitive level through discounting and special packages. There was no way that Disney was >ever< going to consider setting the full-price for DCA to lower than the $40-$45 range. In that industry, that would be the equivalent to taking out a press release announcing that your park is inferior to all the competition. -Jeff
