Originally Posted By Park Hopper Hans, I should know better but I’ve got to ask… When Iger said DCA was a challenge to the Disney Company, how did you interpret that?
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt From what I can tell, his remark did not assert that DCA is a failure, that the place is in trouble, or that the is sky falling. Had he said those things, then I'd agree with you, but since he didn't, I don't.
Originally Posted By bean "So you had a park with poor attendance the first year, and it went up a bit due to Disney having to totally change the ticket structure and Annual Passholder pricing and policies, and now it is the "Pay for Disneyland, get DCA for FREE!" 2fer tickets that bring in the highest attendance levels... I think I will listen to the Walt Disney Company CEO, he should know what is really going on... >>Disney's chief executive officer, Robert Iger went on record during the company's annual stockholder meeting on March 10th, 2006, when someone asked about a potential third park being built in Anaheim. "We're still working to assure the second gate is successful", Iger said, referring to California Adventure. "In the spirit of candor, we have been challenged."<<" as much a you want to keep using Bob Igers quote, he never said the park was a failure economically. He is very aware how DCA is doing economically. The problems with DCA are mostly image problems. In that aspect the park needs plenty of help to make it a success in peoples minds.
Originally Posted By ChurroMonster Most people I know (and I live in Los Angeles) have never set foot in DCA. They have all heard horror stories about and most have stayed away. The few I've taken with me have thoroughly enjoyed the park and wondered what all the bad publicity was about. I just shrug and say, "You're welcome." Yeah, DCA has image problems. And I think that is what Iger really meant. Yeah the park has other problems too but it's a fun place and easily worth the ParkHopper add-on. But it's going to get a lot of financial investment regardless. The Florida folks should be so lucky.
Originally Posted By berol I think it's reasonable to say that the initial plan/hype/gamble for the park was a failure. It's difficult to call the park itself a failure when there's still some life in the girl. But that's just semantics, doesn't shoot down anyone's points.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros "Maybe it had something to do with the concept of Show. That is supposed to be the guiding principle of Disney theme parks. That it's actually a "show," in which the guest is the star." Well, I seem to recall the presence of a certain attraction that stared "YOU!" and for some reason that has been heralded as even more of a failure than anything else in the park. Clearly they tried to make "YOU!" the star, but missed out on the fact that you weren't "YOU!", you were you. (That almost makes sense...)
Originally Posted By Park Hopper "From what I can tell, his remark did not assert that DCA is a failure, that the place is in trouble, or that the is sky falling." Rain is not wet. Rain is not wet. Rain is not wet. And nothing you can say will change my mind. (sticks out tounge)
Originally Posted By WorldDisney ^^^LOL!! I guess as long as Bush doesn't say the EXACT word too, then Iraq isn't doing all that bad either . Speaking of out of reality!!! Really, WHAT does it take??? Geesh!! From ALLLL that has been said on this park on the backtracking and scrambling implemented since the first year, the hundreds of millions pumped into it, the fact it has NEVER reached the 7 million goal, even during Disneyland's 50th and oh yeah, basically everyone who worked on or had a major hand in the park was fired or left the company ages ago. But nooooope, it's not a failure. Ignore ALL the evidence we have been seeing in the past or present to suggest the park is struggling. Iger NEVER said 'failure' people. It's a challenge, like the way starting your car up for the first time after it's sitting in the rain a few days, that's all. It's not the kind of challenge of when your car has been stolen, stripped of all it's parts and left sitting on crates in L.A. somewhere when you're in Nevada and you got to figure out how to get it all back together. No, no, much like the former. Just turn the ignition a few times and it will surely click eventually. No retooling or rehauling necessary in the first scenario. (Honestly, for some here, not only will Iger has to shout as loud as possible DCA sucks over the ABC airwaves, they will have to release every piece of attendance, finances and email records from their Mickey vaults on the park like it's the JFK assassination report along with key testitomy from every player who built DCA to tell them it's underperforming much lower then they ever intended when they built the travesty.......but then they will just ignore all of that and blame it on the weather anyway ;D)
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "Rain is not wet. Rain is not wet. Rain is not wet." Just goes to show you that constantly saying the same thing over and over does it make it true, does it? "But nooooope, it's not a failure. Ignore ALL the evidence we have been seeing in the past or present to suggest the park is struggling. Iger NEVER said 'failure' people. It's a challenge, like the way starting your car up for the first time after it's sitting in the rain a few days, that's all. It's not the kind of challenge of when your car has been stolen, stripped of all it's parts and left sitting on crates in L.A. somewhere when you're in Nevada and you got to figure out how to get it all back together. No, no, much like the former. Just turn the ignition a few times and it will surely click eventually. No retooling or rehauling necessary in the first scenario." All that, and you still haven't explained what measure the company is using to define the company's measures for success or failure. Yet, you still keep asserting that its not performing well. I don't get it. Honestly, I don't.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<Ignore ALL the evidence we have been seeing in the past or present to suggest the park is struggling. Iger NEVER said 'failure' people. It's a challenge, like the way starting your car up for the first time after it's sitting in the rain a few days, that's all. It's not the kind of challenge of when your car has been stolen, stripped of all it's parts and left sitting on crates in L.A. somewhere when you're in Nevada and you got to figure out how to get it all back together. No, no, much like the former. Just turn the ignition a few times and it will surely click eventually. No retooling or rehauling necessary in the first scenario.>> I have a hard time figuring out where you are being facetious and where you are being serious. You keep falling back on saying that if the park doesn't change, it will fail. And I keep saying it will undoubtedly change. So why worry about it?
Originally Posted By WorldDisney <<All that, and you still haven't explained what measure the company is using to define the company's measures for success or failure. Yet, you still keep asserting that its not performing well. I don't get it. Honestly, I don't.>> Hans, what are you talking about? We have!! I can give you three of them: Attendance: The first year (yeah, I know ), it was estimated that attendance was suppose to be 7 million. I think it did just a little half that. This is the #1 issue we bring up over and over again, but you just brush it off that A. We don't know if that's the REAL target, now do we?? and B. They have probably adjusted the numbers. Again, you COULD be right, but what do you need, this is the #1 barometer from OUR perspective of how sucessful something is doing JUST like we look at ratings for tv shows and B.O. for movies. I'm not saying the park is an utter failure because it didn't meet it's first years goals, but it RARELY does years later and that's the problem. But you just ignore it--go figure. HKDL did better in meeting it's first years goals and they are already talking about a possible debt bail out (NOT saying its going to happen, but the fact they are just talking about it so soon is a little scary). DCA doesn't have to worry about THAT at least since they are completely owned by Disney, but it's a certainly a sign of where DCA COULD be if it wasn't. Admission tickets: Once again, Disney was expecting to sell Millions of 1 day PASSES for this park to get them through the door and make a profit. 6 years later and only a few thousand are being sold every year which is a little scary to me. That means nearly everyone who walks through that park are using discounted tickets only. And yes, I can hear the "so is DL" cries from a mile away, but DL STILL can easily sell one day tickets and does. As a matter of fact, they keep raising the price every 4 weeks and people happily buy them. NOT so with DCA. But once again, we don't have hard financial proof sitting in front of us, so what's the point of even mentioning this, right? Also, tack on the fact that these people who were coming into this park was probably MEANT to stay all day to buy the souvineers and eat the food all day long never materalized either. When someone spends just 3 hours in one place than the normal 10 in an amusement park, they are missing out out on soda's, ice cream, a few extra souvineers and certainly one whole meal. Again, this is the issue that rarely gets bought up. It's not simply the fact that DCA was suppose to get a certain number or people, but that it's suppose to KEEP those people in the park as long as possible to spend, spend, spend just like the resort as a whole is to keep people on the property. Sure, you can argue they are spending it anyway at DL....but really they were doing that before DCA . But the fact that they only sell a few hundred 1 day passes FOR a park that was expected to sell millions 6 years ago can't be doing all that great for the bottom line if Disney factored that in their initial assesment as a reason to even build the park in the first place. But, I'm sure you will have a great reason why this isn't so important. Merchandise: Dug explained it better than I could already, but DCA was suppose to be some merchandising Mecca and was suppose to be selling this stuff left and right. Instead....most of it ended up being heavily discounted or just written off. All the merchandise they produce for this park to sell NEVER materalized. Once again, I know, its not HARD EVIDENCE (I'm starting to feel like Mulder ), but again, Disney theme parks + merchandise=$$$. I still to this day don't understand all the Disney geeks that spends $50 for a piece of medal with some Disney emblem attached to it that cost 35 cents to make in Thailand, but there you go. That's their bread and butter along with food naturally so when you have a park that was shamelessly designed to sell a lot of the park's crap, but no one is buying, well? So instead, they are just selling DL stuff. At least people are buying lol. Also, count in all the major restaurants that were shutted, the places that were suppose bring in big spenders for this park just to EAT, sponsors for the park that NEVER materalized for the San Francisco and Farm area's (which probably explains why they looked so bad at opening) and a park whose image is so bad at this point, they don't even bothering advertising the park separately anymore. Again, I'm sure alllll of that will just be discounted by you and that's fine, we're use to it . But, I don't know how you can look at where they thought the park would be in 2001 and where it is now in 2007 and be anywhere CLOSE to happy. If you can't call it a failure, fine, but I don't know how anyone with a straight face can call it a sucess either when the image is so bad for this park, they can't even sell it as a separate entity without having DL somewhere attached with it. DCA is suppose to lean on DL, sure, but it's now acting like it's artificial legs at this point and that's sad six years on.
Originally Posted By Park Hopper "All that, and you still haven't explained what measure the company is using to define the company's measures for success or failure." How about a successful park is not a challenge?
Originally Posted By WorldDisney <<I have a hard time figuring out where you are being facetious and where you are being serious.>> LOL, I'll make it easy for you, I'm rarely serious ;D.<---See <<You keep falling back on saying that if the park doesn't change, it will fail. And I keep saying it will undoubtedly change. So why worry about it?>> Well, there's about a few reasons why that is flawed. Just because something changes doesn't necessarily mean better for one . I was one of those few people that LIKED DCA (for WHAT it was anyway) the way it was on day one and then they added all the silly quick fixes and obnoxious character stuff (LOOK WE HAVE MICKEY AND DONALD NOW!!!! SEE!!! COME PLEASE COME!!!!) So, instead of the yes, admittely dull theme of the execution, at least it made sense. Then, they decided to Pixar it up and it lost its ENTIRE message of what the park is suppose to be about, so changes don't necessarily equal better, especially in DCA's case. Two, changes also don't mean people are going to all of a sudden embrace DCA. Once again, they been changing DCA for six years now, added new attractions, shows, change the tone of the p(ix)ark along with special events like concerts and holidays and etc and yet, six years on, attendance is still nowhere from where they originally wanted it and the image hasn't changed much, if at all frankly. Most of my family still think it sucks (but my mother LOVES Monster's Inc though ). Which is the question how MUCH do they have to change to get people to fully look and accept it as a *Disney* park? How much are they willing to change? For how much? How long? When will it come 10 years on, they made all these changes, but still can't get people in the park to justify all the changes? I have no clue lol, but the rumored hundreds of millions that they have plan for it better start soon although I'm assuming the Toy Story ride in PP is a part of that (or as I like to call it....the surge ;D). Lastly, there is the idea of too little too late. Sure, they can change it, make it great and etc, but don't take a decade to do it. Heard the term 'too little too late'. This can happen to theme parks too lol. Listen, we all know Disney won't LET it fail, but if they wait it out too long just HOPING one day people are going to show up in droves and buy tickets for this thing, they should've gave up hope after the opening of TOT shot that idea down. DCA can be at a serious crossroads if in 5 years the only thing that is sustaining it are park hoppers and 2fers and no one is spending more than a few hours in there. My point: Don't wait to long to begin serious changes or DCA will never lose the image it has now. With all that said though, I DO like the changes (lately) so far and believe it or not I LIKE DCA, and think it only CAN get better, but I'm just being real, I'm from Compton, we're always real...when we're not being fecetious . You are talking to a Disney fan, Disney will always have my money in some form . I will always give Disney parks a shot, and most of US here would....it's the rest of the country I'm not so sure on and DCA hasn't proven SO far most are willing outside of discount passes. But, hopefully Disney will get their *stuff* together and we shall see in time.
Originally Posted By WorldDisney Maaaan, I can rant. I think I am missing these boards lol. But, I think when this thread is finally dead, I will limp back into semi-retirement from the DCA boards again . Just a few more posts from me Hans and I will scurvy back to the hole soon, promise. GOOD NIGHT PEOPLE!!!
Originally Posted By WorldDisney <<dull theme of the execution>> Suppose to read, "dull execution of a theme". Note to self: Stay off the boards when drunk.
Originally Posted By Nobody "Note to self: Stay off the boards when drunk." That should really be more of a guideline, rather than a strict rule.
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> Yet, you still keep asserting that its not performing well. I don't get it. Honestly, I don't. << Hans, of course, you wouldn't. But that's okay. For all I know, on your own, as a truly independent person who has no influence on others -- and who, in turn, isn't influenced by others -- you very well could be the type who nurtures exceptionally skilled and laudable outcomes in the workplace. However, given the reality of most on-the-job situations, the odds of that happening suggest otherwise. Just ask the nimrods who worked with and under Eisner, Pressler and Braverman. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abilene_paradox" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A bilene_paradox</a>
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Dldug, your examples are good ones, however, in my opinion they address the single issue that we can all agree on, and that is that attendance has not met the original expectations.<< Attendance is head and shoulders above all others in measuring a theme park's success or failure. Acknowledging that attendance did not meet expectations is a start in understanding why, for many, there is a universal sense that DCA is a failure. >>However, one cannot conclude from this evidence that the park is an absolute failure or that these examples are the same measures that Disney uses to determine park’s overall performance.<< But the examples address not just attendance. They also illustrate that while crowds were smaller than anticipated (the easiest measure of failure), those who did attend did not buy the merchandise, did not support the food outlets, rejected the entertainment offerings, and actively disliked a signature attraction. This is not speculation. This is logical conclusion based on the facts that merchandise was withdrawn, food outlets were closed, entertainment was hastily changed, and a signature attraction was ripped out and eventually replaced. >>Arguing that DCA must be doing poorly because Disney is revamping areas and adding attractions is illogical. The company has poured millions of dollars into all its parks from day one, including Disneyland. Does that mean it is a failure too?<< Asked and answered. Other Disney theme parks have consistently added attractions in order to fulfill public demand. Additions to DCA have been made in an effort to create demand. So far, there is scant empirical evidence that this strategy has succeeded. >>From what I can tell, his [Iger's] remark did not assert that DCA is a failure, that the place is in trouble, or that the is sky falling. Had he said those things, then I'd agree with you, but since he didn't, I don't.<< And with all due respect, if the standard of acknowledgement is a statement that DCA is a failure, in trouble, and the sky is falling, then there will NEVER be an acknowledgement that will satisfy. Is it not enough to have the CEO state, "We're still working to assure the second gate is successful. In the spirit of candor, we have been challenged." The second gate (DCA) is NOT successful; in the spirit of candor (ie: frankness and sincerity), this is a challenge. Note that the two statements are related; the challenge is not one of perception, it is one of success. DCA, according to the CEO of the Walt Disney Company, is not a success, and that lack of success remains a challenge.
Originally Posted By ChurroMonster I don't think anyone here believes that DCA, in the beginning, was not an absolute failure. It did not not meet company expectations in terms of attendance. It was never crowded and almost never even remotely busy. High profile sponsors (like Mondavi and Wolfgang Puck) pulled out very quickly. It was obvious from day one that the pricing structure for the park (same price as Disneyland, no park hoppers, no AP's) was deeply flawed. A park like DCA built as a second gate to a world class theme park should have never been expected to stand on its own. Could any of the WDW parks stand on their own without the Magic Kingdom? Some would argue Epcot would. I would say not even Epcot. DisCo wanted another WDW but refused to play by WDW's rules and they paid dearly for it. A lot of money has been invested in DCA over the last six years and many nice improvements have been made. The introduction of park-hoppers and AP's helped immensely as did the seasonal 2fer promotions. Attendance has surged and the park has healthy crowds most of the time now. Are DCA's guests really paying the same amount for admission that Disneyland's guests are? Of course not. Why should they? DCA is an add-on park and the current pricing structure admits that. Some think this means the park is a failure. I'm not one of them. I think that Disney found a way to get people into the park for a fair price without changing the official admission price for it. It's good business and it's the kind of smart decision making that was absent in the years leading up to DCA's opening. Now we have a park that is busy but not packed with a few nice attractions but not enough "Wow!" attractions. The hotels are filling up because guests are staying longer now. DCA is now, finally, living up to its expectations. More hotels will be built soon to fill the need that a two-park resort requires. While DCA has some areas that need some serious improvement (and will almost certainly be getting it soon) I can see no justifiable argument that the DCA of today is a failure on any level. DCA, in its first year: failure. DCA of today: solid addition to the resort and soon to be the caliber of a park that could possibly stand on its own. I think a few posters here will always call DCA a failure no matter how good it may become. No matter how crowded it is. No matter how much money it makes. To those I would say, "Please stay away. The lines are getting bad enough without you."
