Originally Posted By WorldDisney <<Agree or disagree if you want, but at least acknowledge that we agree on one established fact: DCA hasn’t lived up to the original expectations. Other than everything else is just a conjecture. Sheesh.>> So...you're basically saying the argument is closer to our side than it is yours! NOW we're making progress ;D I LOVE these threads. Can't believe I was away for so long. Time for class, see you guys!!
Originally Posted By berol whaaaa? That's what he's been saying all along, or at least as far back as I can remember. hehe. It's more like he's closer to your side than you thought.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Will anyone who has actually read EVERY WORD of the cut and paste barfathon on this thread please identify themselves? You surely deserve a medal of some sort.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>What I am saying is that we do not know if Disney has deemed a place a failure or not since we don not know what the company’s gauge for failure is.<< But we certainly do. I find it comical that the flood of old articles here has been dismissed by the very crowd that keeps saying, "If only we knew what the Company expected, then we could gauge whether DCA is a failure or success." (#47: >>...no one here has ever presented a shred of solid evidence that clearly states what the company's measure is for the park's success or failure, or how those goals have changed since 2001.<<) The problem with this subject is that too often it gets invested with personal opinions of what is good and bad. This is very subjective. On the other hand, the failure of DCA is not a matter of good or bad. It is a simple acknowledgement based on the available facts. Interesting to me, also, how often the parameters of "failure" have been adjusted in this conversation. Those of us who feel that DCA is clearly a failure have been quite consistent in presenting supporting evidence. Now we are informed that we've had it wrong all along-- that no one ever claimed DCA wasn't a failure, just that it isn't a BIG failure. A few comments from just this thread: Post #10: >>DCA doesn't appear to be in big trouble to me.<< #11: >>What exactly does "big trouble" mean anyway? From what I can tell the park seems to be doing okay.<< #26: >>...it’s undeniable that DLR seems to be doing very well, thanks in part, to DCA.<< #28: >>It's not that DCA is a failing park. It just needs to be among the elite which it, in its present state, is not.<< #50: >>...DCA (and DtD) have increased the number of visitors to the Disneyland Resort by quite a bit. #62: >>From what I can tell, his [Iger's] remark did not assert that DCA is a failure...<< #63: >>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.<< Post #69: >>...you still keep asserting that its not performing well. I don't get it. Honestly, I don't.<< #80: >>DCA is now, finally, living up to its expectations... I can see no justifiable argument that the DCA of today is a failure on any level.<< #81: >>In my opinion, DCA is a remarkable success.<< #82: >>My impression is that DCA is doing okay...<< It is statements like these that leave some of us baffled and confounded. It has nothing to do with whether one likes the park or not. A parent has every right to adore their tone deaf child. But they shouldn't bitterly complain if music critics state the obvious.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 But there still is no agreement as to what "failure" means in this case. I'm sure it's not bringing as much to the bottom line of the WDC as they had hoped and/or predicted, but that does not equate to "failure" if it's still contributing to the bottom line, especially in its role as the one indispensible part (being the second park) of the transition from DL into DLR. If DLR is a better performer, especially long-term, for the WDC than DL alone was, then it cannot fairly be termed a "failure," if indeed (and it's a big if) this is the case. Artistic failure or other things of that nature is a separate question.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>But there still is no agreement as to what "failure" means in this case.<< Since the thread began with the thesis that the company views it as a failure, the statements and figures cited are all relevant in determing that this is the case. >>Artistic failure or other things of that nature is a separate question.<< Absolutely. The only reason I have participated in this thread is because that had been avoided.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>But there still is no agreement as to what "failure" means in this case.<< <Since the thread began with the thesis that the company views it as a failure, the statements and figures cited are all relevant in determing that this is the case.> This thread didn't really start with this thesis (which would still be a thesis rather than a fact) - it started with one guy's TAKE on what other people said at this meeting. Mixed with a lot of speculation "Analysts and sources close to the company, faced with a sudden dearth of news about DCA, have begun offering their own theories..." It really does depend on how one defines "failure."
Originally Posted By berol "Since the thread began with the thesis that the company views it as a failure, the statements and figures cited are all relevant in determing that this is the case." In order to do that, you have to give "failure" a specific definition, the critical part of a thesis. Then others could at least say, "I don't agree with your definition, but I'd label it a failure if I did." I can't tell if all the points line up to how you/Disney define failure cuz I don't know what your/its definition is. Is it bulldozers are inevitable? not meeting original goals? current goals? always will be a drain on the resort? is a drain? was a drain? conceptual failure? Then there's the kettle of fish where thinking Disney's definition of failure is bad. If it were draining $100 gazillion annually, what if they deem that as doing extremely poorly instead of failure. If it only raised $1 million a year in resort revenue, what if they deem that as failure instead of barely getting by.
Originally Posted By berol The sad thing is I started typing that before dabob's last post. 25 minutes!
Originally Posted By DlandDug Actually, this discussion rather quickly morphed beyond speculation about whether or not the original link was or was not an accurate statement. It became (inevitably) yet another discussion of whether or not DCA is a failure. Unlike the many other discussions on this fascinating subject (which I have tended to avoid), this one stayed fairly well focussed on an examination of whether DCA has fulfilled the expectations of the Walt Disney Company. I believe that everyone has done fairly well in representing their point of view, with the exception of a few who persist in claiming DCA is just swell, as well as a few who insist that failure may only be acknowledged in cataclysmic terms. I certainly do not expect DCA to be closed down or completely overhauled in the near future. This is hardly a ringing endorsement. But to some, this is some sort of admission that DCA is far from the failure that it so evidently is.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan My problem with the original excerpt was the idea that improving the park is somehow a "PR headache." I still don't get that. But no one addressed it. And of course, he was wrong as could be about Rosie O'Donnell and ABC, so his powers of forcasting aren't perfect. ; )
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>I still don't get that. But no one addressed it.<< I think this was rather quickly dispatched inasmuch as it was based on nothing other than the ramblings of a blogger. The fascinating discussion that followed, however... now THAT is good, good stuff. Very significant.
Originally Posted By berol "A few who insist that failure may only be acknowledged in cataclysmic terms." Some are using that definition. I'm certainly not insisting that it's the only definition. I don't think Hans is, either. Others didn't say what they meant by failure, which made it a rather empty conversation and we went 'round in circles.
Originally Posted By Sweeper I remember reading all of those reports over the last five years. Do I get a prize for that? DCA was not a hit from the start. I'm sure Disney didn't want the empty park they had to discount. There is no way Disney thought that was good. It is a challenge.
Originally Posted By ChurroMonster I repeat my original argument: Nobody is saying that the DCA that opened in 2001 wasn't a failure. All these old articles and dredging up company expectations from the time before the park opened is pointless. Those are points nobody is trying to refute here. I, and a few others here, are trying to say that DCA today has problems that need addressing (and almost certainly will be addressed soon) but the park now has consistently solid attendance and has significantly increased hotel occupancy since it opened. It may have come six years later than Disney was hoping for but DCA, as it stands today, is doing the job it was meant to do. How anyone can define DCA, as it exists today, as a failure has a lot of explaining to do. Just because you "personally" dislike the place doesn't mean it is a creative failure. Please enlighten me and tell me how the place is failing today.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip ^^^ I agree. People who are saying it is a failure are judging it using the standards of six years ago. DCA did NOT meet the attendance projections that Disney had when it opened. Whether that was more the fault of faulty projections or a faulty park is open to question. Personally, I think their projections were way off the mark. The reason for that is NOT that DCA was a poor park, but that Disney executives involved with the project totally misread the likely response to the park. You would think they would have learned something from 30 years of running multiple theme parks in Orlando but they didn't. You would think they would have known that multi-day passes would be just as essential at Disneyland as there were at WDW. You would think they would have realized that the Southern California market was a helluva lot harder to please than WDW's market. So run it up the flagpole. DCA was a FREAKING FAILURE when judged against the original expectations of Disney executives. So Darkbeer and DlandDug, are you happy? But let's assume for the moment that the primary fault with DCA was the unrealistic expectations of the Disney executives involved. Let's forget how it was damned stupid for them to think that a park developed on the cheap that was not nearly the size of Disneyland could COMPETE with Disneyland. Let's forget how incredibly stupid it was for Disney executives to say garbage like how DCA would have to close due to crowds while the best Disney Park in the world was just there to suck up the overflow. Could ANY Disney park have succeeded on those terms? I doubt it. So let's throw those original projections out the window. How has DCA done since then? Obviously even die-hard Disney uber-fans would know that first-year attendance typically is considerably greater than attendance in the next 1-3 following years. That was certainly what happened with all the WDW parks including Epcot. So Disney projected 7 million visitors the first year. So what do you think they projected for the SECOND year? If anyone thinks they projected 7 million or above they've been snorting more coke than the Disney guys were. They undoubtedly projected fewer than 7 million visitors. We will probably never know what their second year projections were, but I bet the actual performance was not off by that much. DCA a failure? DCA attracts more visitors than almost any Non-Disney Theme park on Earth. DCA has INCREASED attendance every year since opening (except for the year following 9/11 when EVERY U.S. Disney Park took a major attendance hit. DCA had turned the Disneyland Resort into a destination resort. I would have never considered visiting Disneyland when it had just one park. Why would I? I can get to WDW for the same price as Disneyland and not only experience a DL clone at the MK but also experience three other parks that are among the most popular in the world. DCA has attracted many thousands of visitors like me who would have never considered a Disneyland trip without the second park. What's more, how many of us WDW guys stay at the freaking Candy Cane Inn? Damned few, I'd be willing to bet. We are used to paying $300 plus per night for an average hotel room. You ain't filling the Grand Californian with Southern California folks... you are filling it with folks like ME!! So as many others in this thread have said (and many others have dismissed); the entire success of DLR as a destination resort is due in large part to the existence of DCA. Would Disney prefer a guy like me who drops 3K or so during my 5 day visit or a guy like you who buys an annual pass for $359? (The amount for the most expensive annual pass -- 365 days per year with no blackouts). Crap. I spend more than $359 on my trip in TIPS!! You guys like to think that you are ALL THAT, but you really aren't. You are a bunch of cheap-crap pikers who think Disney owes you everything for your crummy $400 per year. DlandDug can be forgiven for thinking like this because he is the most knowledgeable DL person in the whole world and because I met him the last time were at DL. But the rest of you?? M'eh...
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I certainly do not expect DCA to be closed down or completely overhauled in the near future. This is hardly a ringing endorsement. But to some, this is some sort of admission that DCA is far from the failure that it so evidently is.> But that's overstating both the case, and what other people are saying. ChurroMonster's common-sense #137 says it well. The real question for "failure," as I see it (setting aside artistic considerations, of course), is if DCA is or is not a positive contributor to the bottom line in Anaheim, now and for the future. Will DCA, far from being closed or completely overhauled, simply follow the usual pattern of Disney parks, and slowly add and improve over the years? I think so. And will this transformation of DL into the DLR be good for the bottom line of the Anaheim property? I think so; it probably already has been (as RoadTrip pointed out), and certainly should be so in the future. And if this is so, then "failure" is a misnomer.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "Others didn't say what they meant by failure, which made it a rather empty conversation and we went 'round in circles." True. I suppose, though, that it doesn't really matter how each individual poster defines failure. What is important is how it is defined within the context of the business community. As I stated previously, a business failure is defined as closure or cessation of business activity that results in a loss to its creditors. Thus, without firm facts and data, I find it hard to support the argument that the place is truly failing.
