Originally Posted By EighthDwarf I totally agree with ChurroMonster. DCA may not sell a lot of standalone admission tickets but, because the park is there, people stay at the resort a lot longer. People rarely go there for just one day anymore because there is not enough time to do everything. Therefore, the surrounding hotels benefit (look at the occupancy rates for crying out loud!) as well as the food and merchandise vendors of the surrounding areas -- not to mention the Disney hotels, restaurants and shops. DCA has greatly enhanced the Disneyland product offering and the Disneyland Resort is more popular ond profitable than ever. In my opinion, DCA is a remarkable success. And, with the infusion of improvement capital, it will only become more so -- paving the way for even more reasons for guests to extend their stays and pay more money. (another theme park? more Disney hotels?) If standalone ticket sales are so important, why does Disney sell Annual Passes?? They do so because they know that getting people into the parks, because of all the money that is spent on food, lodging and merchandise, is very profitable. And DCA accomplishes the same thing.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt “Attendance is head and shoulders above all others in measuring a theme park's success or failure.†Attendance is not always the primary indicator of theme park performance. For example, Universal Studios Florida had a 2% drop in attendance last year, yet managed to squeeze a 19% increase in profit. How we you know that this same phenomenon isn’t happening at DCA? By definition, a business failure is the closure or cessation of business activity that results in a loss to its creditors. Is DCA losing money? Is it on the verge of closing? Are the challenges management faces in dealing with the place so dire that they are running out of options to turn it around? “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 This is logical conclusion based on the facts that merchandise was withdrawn, food outlets were closed, entertainment was hastily changed, and a signature attraction was ripped out and eventually replaced.†That is true. However, that was then and this is now. I wonder how the revamped operating hours and closures are helping DCA’s bottom line today. A lot of time has passed since those changes were implemented. “DCA, according to the CEO of the Walt Disney Company, is not a success, and that lack of success remains a challenge.†Dldug, I appreciate your thoughtful posts. Unfortunately, Iger’s comments were non-specific and extremely broad, with no indication of what the company’s goals or benchmarks for DCA’s success are. So, all we can do is speculate. None of what he said indicated that the park is an abject failure, in trouble, or is faced with some other dire consequence. Iger made these remarks to shareholders when asked about a third park in Anaheim. Considering his audience (investors) and the question, his response seems more about DCA’s ROI and its potential impact on investments on further investments in Anaheim than a flat out statement that the company views DCA as a failure. When asked about DisneySea in comparison to DCA, Paul Pressler clearly stated the financial challenges faced at DLR that ultimately led to the decision build such a spectacular park in Tokyo. He claimed that the much lower projected rate of return on investment (cost of capital) at the Anaheim property dictated a smaller less lavish park (investment) there. Therefore, my take on the situation is that Iger’s remarks were in reference to the project’s return, or profit yield, in comparison to the initial investment. My impression is that DCA is doing okay, yet its earning power is below the measure set forth by the company that justified the capital expenditure to build it. In the end, if DCA’s returns are less than the goals set forth by the company it might have been wiser to invest the capital elsewhere.
Originally Posted By berol Failure also means things like "decline" or "not achieving goals", but they aren't the most common definitions. That worked for the short term with DCA, especially 2001, but the gavel hasn't banged on long term yet. I could have called Disneyland a failure around 3 years ago in the sense of not hitting goals.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>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.<< I do not believe anyone ever asserted that DCA should "stand on its own." The problem is that it has been unable to achieve success, regardless of its location. >>DCA is now, finally, living up to its expectations.<< What expectations are those? If this refers to the stated expectations of the Company in the months before its opening, this is still not the case. >>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)...<< This, however, is purely speculation. I have heard no announcements of upcoming hotel construction (did I miss something?), and while it has always been a given that additions will be made, there is nothing other than the present construction at Paradise Pier to which to point. >>...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.<< But I thought the thesis here was that DCA should have never been expected to stand on its own...? Further, I find it perplexing that one cannot find a single justifiable argument that DCA is a failure on ANY level in this thread. Such a statement reveals nothing less than personal bias.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Attendance is not always the primary indicator of theme park performance.<< But it must be acknowledged that it is the best indicator of success or failure. That is why there is such lively interest in attendance figures, and why the numbers are so closely guarded. (Except, of course, when the numbers are up!) >>For example, Universal Studios Florida had a 2% drop in attendance last year, yet managed to squeeze a 19% increase in profit. How we you know that this same phenomenon isn’t happening at DCA?<< We certainly cannot know exactly what is happening at DCA. But it is a fairly sure bet that if the Park were making a healthy profit, the Company would make sure people knew about it. At the very least, the CEO would not refer to enhancing its success as a "challenge." >>By definition, a business failure is the closure or cessation of business activity that results in a loss to its creditors.<< That is certainly one definition. In this case, it may be applied to the experience of Robert Mondavi and Wolfgang Puck. Or the no-doubt major losses sustained by the Walt Disney Company caused by the closure of Soap Opera Bistro and Hollywood and Dine. Or the loss of investment caused by the premature closure of entertainment offerings (shows and parades), as well as the expense of mounting new productions, as well as the major costs in closing a signature attraction (Superstar Limo) and the attendant costs of replacing it with a new attraction (Monsters, Inc.). But closures and cessations are not the sole measure of business failure. >>...Iger’s comments were non-specific and extremely broad, with no indication of what the company’s goals or benchmarks for DCA’s success are.<< Respectfully, I disagree. It is a very specific comment, no matter how one chooses to read it: "We're still working to assure the second gate [DCA] is successful. In the spirit of candor, we have been challenged." That it does not address "goals" or "benchmarks" is neither here nor there. It is enough that the CEO of the Company, without hedging or qualifications, stated that the second gate is not successful, and that the Company has been challenged in that lack of success. >>...My impression is that DCA is doing okay, yet its earning power is below the measure set forth by the company that justified the capital expenditure to build it. In the end, if DCA’s returns are less than the goals set forth by the company it might have been wiser to invest the capital elsewhere.<< Which, to some of us, is simply another way of describing a failure. But, of course, is it not all speculation in the end? Do bear in mind, though, that there are many of us who are not content to simply shout "DCA sucks!" and go our way. Nor are we willing to accept the notion that DCA is really some sort of success, if only we could be made to understand.
Originally Posted By berol Until there is an agreement on a definition of failure or understandings on the various definitions being used, this discussion is gonna go in circles.
Originally Posted By WorldDisney >>Attendance is not always the primary indicator of theme park performance.<< <<But it must be acknowledged that it is the best indicator of success or failure. That is why there is such lively interest in attendance figures, and why the numbers are so closely guarded. (Except, of course, when the numbers are up!)>> Exactly! Attendance will always be the No. 1 indicator. It's the most obvious. Again, no one is saying that lack of attendence=failure and no one HAS said that. Like that manifesto I gave on the other page, there are many other indicators like admission prices, food, merchandise, closures, etc, but guess what, most of that stuff is mostly determined by the number of people who enter the park per day, right? Maybe if there was a way for people to enjoy Wolfgang Puck without paying for the admission (like say, oh, DTD!!!) then maybe he would be there today. But a lack of guests in the park= lack of potential paying customers for his restaurant and why he was out of there in less than a year. Seriously, it's not that hard. And also, we are ONLY going by what Disney told us of the goals they were setting for themselves. They said 7 million, so that's the goal we look at too. If they would've said 3 million for their goal, we would've set it there too. It's not like we are saying Disney has to do MORE than what they are saying, only the figures they gave themselves. I even suspect that 7 million was the LOW end of what they thought they could do that first year. I have a feeling that was probably the minimum of what they thought attendance could be and simply stated that as the goal....but could be 100% wrong on that.
Originally Posted By berol I thought the attendance goal? prediction? was more of a maximum considering that the entrance would be closed on a semi-regular basis. It ought to be able to survive on less, whatever combination of income/expenses that would make it.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "But it must be acknowledged that it is the best indicator of success or failure." So, in that case, if DCA did indeed get 7 million last year as at least on insider here has claimed, would you then say that the park is a success? Of course not. The park could be, in fact, losing money (assuming that is the measure for success) even if the attendance goals had been reached. This argument doesn’t take into account ticket price increases, guest spending patterns, operating expenses, and so forth and so on. The example I presented of USF shows that the success/failure of a business is not as simple as just saying X number of people showed up, (or didn't) therefore, the place must be a success (or failure). The arguments that I have read here, while thoughtful, are stated with such conviction as to be correct, yet they lack compelling, substantial, or legitimate proof. In my opinion, they are nothing more than guesses. “Which, to some of us, is simply another way of describing a failure.†I seriously doubt that the average Laughingplace poster is concerned about DCA’s performance in relation to return on capital investment. I could be wrong, but that is not what I think WD is talking about when he says that DCA is in trouble. "Until there is an agreement on a definition of failure or understandings on the various definitions being used, this discussion is gonna go in circles." Yep. The lines were drawn on this topic back in 2001 and virtually nothing new has been added to the discussion since then. Proof positive that people are going to believe whatever they want.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Lets go back and look at some old news articles where the 7 million came from, and some other articles, for the newer folks here at LP... Here is the CLASSIC Los Angeles Times archive article from January 14th, 2001, and what it said about DCA It was titled... The Most Jam-Packed Theme Park on Earth? And was sub-titled... 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." >>The most innovative attraction at Walt Disney Co.'s new California Adventure may be the simulated hang-glider ride over the natural and man-made wonders of the Golden State. Soarin' Over California is estimated to handle 1,250 riders an hour--but on busy days that means as many as half of the park's visitors won't be able to get on. It's just one example of what is looming as a major issue for the new park: overcrowding. California Adventure park, set to open Feb. 8, will allow only about 30,000 people within its gates at one time--almost half the number at adjacent Disneyland. One complication is the popular Fastpass program, which allows patrons to avoid lines at major rides by reserving ride times. The problem, park managers and employees say, is that all those people no longer standing in line for hours make parks seem even more crowded on busy days--a factor that contributed to Disneyland's shutting down its turnstiles at midday several times during the holidays. Senior Disney officials acknowledge that there will be days when California Adventure will have to turn patrons away, particularly in the first weeks after the park opens, during spring break and again in the summer. Disney hopes those denied entry will stay at the resort and visit Disneyland and the new Downtown Disney's shops and restaurants. The risks are that people may flee the resort and those who do get inside California Adventure on crowded days will feel cheated out of experiencing a full range of attractions. When that happens at Disneyland, "complaints go way up at City Hall," said a ride supervisor at the park. "People want their money back. And spending goes down on Main Street at the end of the day because people are walking out unhappy and not buying souvenirs." Ride capacity is an issue because Disney succeeds so well in packing its parks. Disneyland patrons can experience 12 or 13 attractions on slow weekdays, and even on a day when 50,000 people crowd the park, they can fit in as many as nine rides, a number considered acceptable by park officials. But California Adventure, part of a $1.4-billion Disney expansion in Anaheim, has 23 attractions, counting minor exhibits such as farming and tortilla-making--just a third as many as Disneyland. "Come early in the day or come later, after the park clears out again," said George Kalogridis, senior vice president of Disney operations in Anaheim. "Hopefully, with Disneyland right across the esplanade and Downtown Disney right there, we won't have to turn people away from the resort." Indeed, elaborate stage shows, "edgy" street entertainment, fancy dining and wine bars are designed to take up the slack while Disney positions the new park as an alternative to the Magic Kingdom in hopes of extending visitor stays beyond one day. 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. Thousands more visitors each week are expected to stop by Downtown Disney, which has no admission fee. Separate admission is needed for Disneyland and California Adventure; each one charges $43 for general admission and $33 for children 3 to 9. Although Disney prides itself on anticipating and satisfying customers' wishes, executives acknowledge that no one will really know how many people the new park can handle until operations begin. Some insiders worry the company may have overestimated the capacity of the new park's rides. Certainly, no California Adventure attraction can handle as many visitors as Disneyland favorite Pirates of the Caribbean, a workhorse that on smooth-running days can handle nearly 2,800 riders an hour--more than 40,000 a day. In designing California Adventure, Disney Imagineers worked backward from the projected attendance level of 7 million a year, said Barry Braverman, Disney's chief creative supervisor on the project. Disney designers used industrial engineering models to determine how many rides, shows, restaurants, parades and restrooms would be needed to accommodate the expected crowds. But because the park has fewer attractions than Disneyland, there's a smaller margin of error. If a couple of major rides malfunction on a busy day, Braverman said, "We'll just have to count on the [live] entertainment being good." Kalogridis and others who went on Soarin' Over California during staff previews last week said it sometimes took as long as 12 minutes to unload one set of riders and load the next group. The target time is 2 1/2 minutes. If pessimistic predictions are correct, about 16,000 people a day can experience Soarin' Over California if it operates without a hitch from 8 a.m. to midnight. If the official forecast is correct, it still means just 20,000 maximum. Kalogridis said the hang-glider ride turned out better than expected. Had Disney realized how popular it could be, it could have increased its capacity, he said. Improvements are being made to software that indicates when seat belts are properly fastened, which should bring Soarin' Over California's loading cycle close to the target 2 1/2 minutes, he said. Another projection that has raised eyebrows is that the Sun Wheel, a scary Ferris wheel with moving cabins, will accommodate 900 riders an hour. That can be achieved only if every cabin is completely filled with six riders. So workers have been told to aggressively combine parties--a policy that often draws objections from patrons. "If you're in a party of four, you'll be hearing: 'Party of four, meet your new friends, party of two,' whether you like it or not," an employee predicted. Executives say the preview days allow them to work out bugs on many attractions, such as a stalled train on the California Screamin' roller coaster last week that forced closure of the high- capacity attraction for the day. A separate capacity issue has to do with parking. California Adventure and Downtown Disney occupy what once was Disneyland's main parking lot. Even with the addition of a $100-million parking structure that holds more than 10,000 cars--said to be the nation's largest--the net gain in spaces is just 4,500 cars. Kalogridis said that will be enough to handle the expected new throngs, even if 30,000 more park-goers show up on a busy day. Noting that the departure of an army of construction workers will free up thousands of parking spaces, he said the company believes its original parking projections will prove adequate. Then there is Fastpass, the system that lets patrons avoid lines by reserving ride times on major attractions. California Adventure, which has six rides with Fastpass, may feel more crowded on busy days because of the system--and some say Disney staff may have to close the gates even before 30,000 people are in the park. Park employees, who have been given "countdown" watches showing the days to California Adventure's opening, are bracing for big crowds, at least until initial curiosity over California Adventure is satisfied. "History has taught us that attendance the first year will be heavy," said Kalogridis, a veteran of Walt Disney World in Florida, where Disney has four parks. "Certainly, there will be huge interest in Southern California, where it's been 45 years since a new Disney park opened." (BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC) Too Popular? Disney's California Adventure should bring in the crowds. But that will create a challenge for the new park, because on busy days some attractions won't be able to handle the demand. Estimates of the number of patrons who can be served per hour on some Disneyland and California Adventure rides: Disneyland Rides______________________ Capacity (riders/hour) Pirates of the Caribbean____________________ 2,775 Big Thunder Mtn Railroad____________________ 2,250 Haunted Mansion______________________________2,150 Indiana Jones________________________________1,850 California Adventure Rides______________________Capacity (riders/hour)* California Screamin'________________________ 2,200 Grizzly River Run____________________________2,100 Soarin' Over California______________________1,250 Sun Wheel______________________________________900 * * Estimated Source: Walt Disney Co.<<
Originally Posted By Darkbeer I have NO Idea how the LP current photo and other LP stuff got into my post, lets try this again, starting witht he paragraph before the photo, and leaving out the fact box. >>Disney designers used industrial engineering models to determine how many rides, shows, restaurants, parades and restrooms would be needed to accommodate the expected crowds. But because the park has fewer attractions than Disneyland, there's a smaller margin of error. If a couple of major rides malfunction on a busy day, Braverman said, "We'll just have to count on the [live] entertainment being good." Kalogridis and others who went on Soarin' Over California during staff previews last week said it sometimes took as long as 12 minutes to unload one set of riders and load the next group. The target time is 2 1/2 minutes. If pessimistic predictions are correct, about 16,000 people a day can experience Soarin' Over California if it operates without a hitch from 8 a.m. to midnight. If the official forecast is correct, it still means just 20,000 maximum. Kalogridis said the hang-glider ride turned out better than expected. Had Disney realized how popular it could be, it could have increased its capacity, he said. Improvements are being made to software that indicates when seat belts are properly fastened, which should bring Soarin' Over California's loading cycle close to the target 2 1/2 minutes, he said. Another projection that has raised eyebrows is that the Sun Wheel, a scary Ferris wheel with moving cabins, will accommodate 900 riders an hour. That can be achieved only if every cabin is completely filled with six riders. So workers have been told to aggressively combine parties--a policy that often draws objections from patrons. "If you're in a party of four, you'll be hearing: 'Party of four, meet your new friends, party of two,' whether you like it or not," an employee predicted. Executives say the preview days allow them to work out bugs on many attractions, such as a stalled train on the California Screamin' roller coaster last week that forced closure of the high- capacity attraction for the day. A separate capacity issue has to do with parking. California Adventure and Downtown Disney occupy what once was Disneyland's main parking lot. Even with the addition of a $100-million parking structure that holds more than 10,000 cars--said to be the nation's largest--the net gain in spaces is just 4,500 cars. Kalogridis said that will be enough to handle the expected new throngs, even if 30,000 more park-goers show up on a busy day. Noting that the departure of an army of construction workers will free up thousands of parking spaces, he said the company believes its original parking projections will prove adequate. Then there is Fastpass, the system that lets patrons avoid lines by reserving ride times on major attractions. California Adventure, which has six rides with Fastpass, may feel more crowded on busy days because of the system--and some say Disney staff may have to close the gates even before 30,000 people are in the park. Park employees, who have been given "countdown" watches showing the days to California Adventure's opening, are bracing for big crowds, at least until initial curiosity over California Adventure is satisfied. "History has taught us that attendance the first year will be heavy," said Kalogridis, a veteran of Walt Disney World in Florida, where Disney has four parks. "Certainly, there will be huge interest in Southern California, where it's been 45 years since a new Disney park opened."<<
Originally Posted By Darkbeer One more time, this is WEIRD... (I think I figured it out, the article had the word "live" inside the [... >>Disney designers used industrial engineering models to determine how many rides, shows, restaurants, parades and restrooms would be needed to accommodate the expected crowds. But because the park has fewer attractions than Disneyland, there's a smaller margin of error. If a couple of major rides malfunction on a busy day, Braverman said, "We'll just have to count on the {live} entertainment being good." Kalogridis and others who went on Soarin' Over California during staff previews last week said it sometimes took as long as 12 minutes to unload one set of riders and load the next group. The target time is 2 1/2 minutes. If pessimistic predictions are correct, about 16,000 people a day can experience Soarin' Over California if it operates without a hitch from 8 a.m. to midnight. If the official forecast is correct, it still means just 20,000 maximum. Kalogridis said the hang-glider ride turned out better than expected. Had Disney realized how popular it could be, it could have increased its capacity, he said. Improvements are being made to software that indicates when seat belts are properly fastened, which should bring Soarin' Over California's loading cycle close to the target 2 1/2 minutes, he said. Another projection that has raised eyebrows is that the Sun Wheel, a scary Ferris wheel with moving cabins, will accommodate 900 riders an hour. That can be achieved only if every cabin is completely filled with six riders. So workers have been told to aggressively combine parties--a policy that often draws objections from patrons. "If you're in a party of four, you'll be hearing: 'Party of four, meet your new friends, party of two,' whether you like it or not," an employee predicted. Executives say the preview days allow them to work out bugs on many attractions, such as a stalled train on the California Screamin' roller coaster last week that forced closure of the high- capacity attraction for the day. A separate capacity issue has to do with parking. California Adventure and Downtown Disney occupy what once was Disneyland's main parking lot. Even with the addition of a $100-million parking structure that holds more than 10,000 cars--said to be the nation's largest--the net gain in spaces is just 4,500 cars. Kalogridis said that will be enough to handle the expected new throngs, even if 30,000 more park-goers show up on a busy day. Noting that the departure of an army of construction workers will free up thousands of parking spaces, he said the company believes its original parking projections will prove adequate. Then there is Fastpass, the system that lets patrons avoid lines by reserving ride times on major attractions. California Adventure, which has six rides with Fastpass, may feel more crowded on busy days because of the system--and some say Disney staff may have to close the gates even before 30,000 people are in the park. Park employees, who have been given "countdown" watches showing the days to California Adventure's opening, are bracing for big crowds, at least until initial curiosity over California Adventure is satisfied. "History has taught us that attendance the first year will be heavy," said Kalogridis, a veteran of Walt Disney World in Florida, where Disney has four parks. "Certainly, there will be huge interest in Southern California, where it's been 45 years since a new Disney park opened."<<
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Here is something I wrote and posted here in mid-2004 >>Why is Disney's California Adventure a failure? We can talk about the original attractions, the attractions that were added or removed..... But really, if you talk to Disney Managment, why do they feel that it is a failure, and not just for DCA, but also for Disneyland Park..... And the answer is tickets sold, but not the number of tickets sold...... Let's go back to December 2000, when DCA was still under construction, and Disneyland tickets cost $43 (adults)... they were $41 in early 2000, but were raised in November... Also in November 2000, they started to sell the new 2-park Annual Passes, mainly to those who already had a Disneyland Annual Pass, allowing the upgrading.... a Premium 2 park AP was $100 more than a Disneyland Park only AP... But in January 2001 they stopped selling Annual Passes to anyone, due to the expected crowds that would should up at DCA's door. The ONLY people who could parkhop were guests staying at one of the 3 owned Disney hotels. Almost everybody was expected to buy a Full Price ticket, or a slightly discounted multi-day ticket, but you would have to decide prior to use which park you would visit that day... The Execs talking about how they would have to send the DCA overflow over to Disneyland. Go back and find the January 14th, 2001 Los Angeles Times article titled "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 article states that senior Disney officials that there will be days that DCA will have to turn patrons away. George Kalogridis, then senior vice president of Disney operations in Anaheim is quoted in the article as saying ""Come early in the day or come later, after the park clears out again, hopefully, with Disneyland right across the esplanade and Downtown Disney right there, we won't have to turn people away from the resort." This is also the news article that talked about company projections showing that DCA would get about 7 million visitors a year. Barry Braverman stated that "Disney Imagineers worked backward from the projected attendance level of 7 million a year" DCA was supposed to draw full price admission, and get up to 30,000, if not a bit more than that daily in the summer and weekends.... While not the capacity of Disneyland, it was still supposed to bring in a lot of admission dollars.... What happened, first they started to sell ParkHoppers to the Good Neighbor Hotels, then to anyone, brought back the AP's.... offered a MAJOR discount just 4 months after opening (One Adult and One Kid for just $33, instead of the $76 they wanted when the park opened, that was less than 1/2 the price...) Then in the fall, they dropped the price of the 2 park AP's to the DL only price, and eliminated the DL only AP, basically giving DCA for free to AP holders..... Yesterday, a 2-park Premium was still cheaper than what it cost when they went on sell in November of 2000 ($279 vs $299), now with the price increase the Premium AP is $329, or just a $30 increase in about 4 years. Then we had all the 2 for one promotions, heck for a 16 month period from January 2003 thru April of 2004, 13 months offered the "Pay for Disneyland, get DCA for free" to Southern California and Baja California residents... Now we have the 5 days for the price of 3 (plus 6 for 4, etc.) ParkHoppers on sale for the last 2 years straight (plus previous times).... While a few more folks have come to the DLR, and some have bought an additional day or two in a hotel (one of 3 Disney owned, or at a Good Neighbor location...) BUT... If you look at the statistic of... "Amount paid per person, per day to enter the park", that dollar amount has gone DOWN, which has hurt BOTH parks..... And that is probably the biggest failure of DCA in the eyes of TDA....<<
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Now, let's look at some news stories that came out in the first year or so... First, from an Orange County Register article from October, 2002 >>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.<< Next is an article from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer >>Disney's California Adventure park in Anaheim got off to a slow start when its attempt to appeal to adults with gourmet restaurants and nostalgic carnival attractions failed to catch on. The park has been retooling by adding more rides for younger children and returning to more tried and true Disney themes.<< And from a great Marketwatch.com article (back then it was CBS Marketwatch.com). >>California Adventure, completed for $1.4 billion in early 2001, never quite caught on, as low attendance has forced Disney to constantly revamp the park. The price tag is considered low for a theme park, since new parks in eastern Asia are costing $4 billion to $5 billion but are financed and designed by other companies that take out licenses with Disney. California Adventure -- developed solely by Disney -- was seen as being long on retail outlets, such as a Wolfgang Puck restaurant, a sourdough bread bakery, a winery and a series of restaurants and shops made to look like a Hollywood studio. And half the $1.4 billion spent went toward construction of the Grand Californian Hotel. Conversely, it was considered short on attractions, especially for young children. California Adventure is revamping a sizable portion of the park and putting in a new attraction called A Bug's Land, based on the movie "A Bug's Life." It's due to open early next month. Al Lutz, a longtime Disney parks observer and creator of the Web site MousePlanet.com, regularly monitors park activity to gauge attendance and park improvements. He says Disneyland continues to draw the same numbers of crowds it always has, in the 25,000 range, but California Adventure lags at 4,000 on weekdays and 10,000 to 15,000 on weekends. Lutz said it showed that the decisions made on California Adventure, primarily under Pressler's purview, were not the most sound. "I think he approached them as retail operations and didn't look at them for what they are," Lutz said. Each theme park needs strong elements of showmanship to interest attendees, he added.<< And from a September 27th, 2002 article in the Orlando Sentinel... >>Harriss' tenure at Disneyland has included that attraction's coolly received second theme park, California Adventure. That attraction, which opened last year, has resorted to discounting tickets to attract tourists.<<
Originally Posted By Darkbeer And a great Jim Hill Media article, where he interviewed an WDI CM... >>But – hey -- it’s not like the Walt Disney Company’s hearing problem is a recent occurrence. Senior Imagineers will tell you (off the record, of course) that they repeatedly tried to make the folks in the Team Disney building (Both the Anaheim as well as the Burbank branch) aware of their concerns about “Disney’s California Adventure.†But Mouse House execs just refused to listen to them. “I mean, think about it, Jim,†said one unnamed WDI guy to me just the other day. “Eisner & Co. wanted to change Anaheim into Orlando. A destination resort where people could come and stay & spend money for three or four days at a time.†“Which is all well & good. Except that Anaheim isn’t Orlando. The out-of-state versus locals mix down there is roughly 85% out-of-state visitors, 15 % Florida residents. Out here, the locals to out-of-state visitors ratio is more along the lines of 65% Southern California residents, 34% out-of-state tourists.†“You see what I’m saying here, Jim? The Walt Disney Company relies on regular visits from Southern California residents in order to keep attendance levels high at the Disneyland Resort. So what does Disney do when it tries to turn Anaheim into a destination resort? It builds a California-themed theme park – a place with limited appeal to SoCal residents. DCA – at least in its original incarnation – was doomed, Jim. Virtually from the moment that Disneyland opened its preview center.†“And we tried to warn them, Jim. We argued ‘til we were blue in the face. But the suits wouldn’t listen to us. They just seemed to think that giving Southern Californians the opportunity to eat Wolfgang Puck’s pizza while looking out at the lights of Paradise Pier was going to be enough to put that place over the top. That the locals would have no choice but to love DCA.†Well, we all know how THAT decision turned out, don’t we? <<
Originally Posted By Darkbeer And from a November 2002 Marketwatch.com article (selected paragraphs only) >>Walt Disney Co. is betting small insects and a big building will help its troubled California Adventure theme park find a following nearly two years after it opened at a cost of $650 million. California Adventure, the adjacent Grand Californian hotel and the Downtown Disney shopping district cost a total $1.4 billion. The park itself cost an estimated $650 million. By contrast, the new DisneySea park in Tokyo -- paid for by licensees -- went for roughly $3 billion. To get California Adventure numbers up, Disney will have to acknowledge the theme needs to be reworked. Much of its business is local, and there are few park visitors who want an education on their own state, analysts say. "In order to turn this around, they have to turn their back on the concept," said Jim Hill, a longtime Disney observer who operates a Web site devoted to company news. He says there are a number of proposals under consideration to add new attractions at the park, all of which will result in the California theme getting shunted aside. "Everything that's on the table is stuff that's fun to ride. It has nothing to do with the California theme," Hill said. To be sure, California Adventure has gone through the growing pains associated with many of Disney's parks. But some observers say it's worse this time. One of them is John Cora, Disney's former vice president in charge of resort development, who was responsible for putting in many of the attractions at the new park. He left the company shortly after it opened in February 2001, and now is a theme park consultant based in Oceanside, Calif. Cora says he had an amicable parting with Disney. Cora says Disney's highest priority in developing the park was to keep costs down. "That was the bottom line," he said, adding he differed with management over how much and where to spend money on the park. California Adventure, the adjacent Grand Californian hotel and the Downtown Disney shopping district cost a total $1.4 billion. The park itself cost an estimated $650 million. By contrast, the new DisneySea park in Tokyo -- paid for by licensees -- went for roughly $3 billion. Cora says that the underlying problem is that to round out the park, California Adventure had to put in an inordinately large number of high-end restaurants, stores, and other retail outlets. Patrons balked at the prospect of spending $45 to get in, and then spend more on goods and food. That was the influence of former Disney parks chief Paul Pressler coming through, Cora says. Pressler had extensive training in the retail sector and left Disney to become chief executive of Gap Inc. in September. "Part of the problem is Paul came from retail. He thought retail and still thinks retail," Cora said. "We spent enough money overbuilding retail and food (operations) to add three or four more major attractions to the park." Some of those facilities are closed or have been replaced. Along with the Soap Opera Bistro and Mondavi winery, Wolfgang Puck operated a restaurant in the heart of the park for a time but eventually left. Disney is operating another restaurant there now.<<
Originally Posted By Darkbeer And from a LaughingPlace interview with Cynthia Harriss >>LP: I’m sure it’s going to be a big success. How important is that success of DCA and Downtown Disney and all the rest to the future of this park here? CH: First of all we think this is going to be a gargantuan success because - it’s not just that we’re excited about it, anybody who has had an opportunity to read, see or hear anything about it when we’ve done our press releases and you’ve been to several of those, just the responses come back, it’s like wow that’s even better or more or more extensive than I thought. We’re anticipating that. I think it speaks to anything else that the bigger the success it is that's really going to inspire us to do more and more things within Disneyland and within the Resort at large. We’re in the business to serve our guests. When they respond positively it reinforces to us - "let’s do more of that."<<
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Let's look at what Marty Sklar said at the IAPPA in November of 2003, as reported on Jim Hill Media ... >>EISNER UPDATE: I am just amazed to see how the support for Michael Eisner within the entertainment community has begun to erode. It seems like -- these days -- nobody has a kind word to say about the guy. Take -- for example -- this quote from Harvey Weinstein, the co-chairman of Miramax Pictures. When asked to describe what it's like to work with the Walt Disney Company in general (and Michael Eisner in particular) these days, Harvey had this to say: "All the great executives have been driven from the company. I think there is no camaraderie anymore, no great esprit de corps that I found earlier. I think there was more risk-taking, a more fun company. I don't know why, and it's sad that it is." And even formerly loyal lieutenants like Marty Sklar, Vice Chairman and Principal Creative Executive of Walt Disney Imagineering, have begun openly carping about how terrible it is to work at the Walt Disney Company during the waning days of the Michael Eisner era. Want proof? Take a gander at this Marty quote that an unnamed someone sent from an IAAPA seminar Sklar spoke at last month. When asked about what his thoughts were about Disney's California Adventure. Marty replied: "I think that you're nuts to build a park next to Disneyland that's half the size and charge the same amount of money."<<
