Originally Posted By berol "As I stated previously, a business failure is defined as closure or cessation of business activity that results in a loss to its creditors. " It depends upon context. It can also mean falling short of a goal. It looks like others were using the word in a different context than the bulldozer context. The park still has a lot of places closed and the high end sponsors are still gone, direct ticket revenue doesn't seem to be what they wanted. That stuff may be gone forever. So in that context, "failure" is sensical. In the bulldozer context, it isn't which is basically what everyone has been saying if I've pieced it together right. What I gleaned from the pasting flood was that the starting point of 2nd park planning was to build one that has 7 million/year attendance. They thought the excitement of a new park would let them underbuild and still meet that mark in the first year. oops.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 As stated before, no one is saying they didn't miscalculate. But that doesn't equate to "failure," present tense. Nor are we defining "not failing" as anything short of bulldozers. What matters is if DCA is meeting its long-term goals financially and in terms of transforming the paradigm for Anaheim.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>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.<< We are not discussing whether DCA is a "creative" failure in this thread. At no time have I stated that I personally "dislike" DCA, precisely because that is not the case. As far as "enlightening" anyone on why it is a failure today, that is what this ongoing discussion is all about.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt “It can also mean falling short of a goal.†Falling short of a goal is not equal to failure in business terms. "The park still has a lot of places closed and the high end sponsors are still gone, direct ticket revenue doesn't seem to be what they wanted." That is right, however what that tells us is that those operations failed, not the entire park. Of the dozens and dozens of venues that opened at DCA in 2001, the vast majority are still operating in some form or fashion. Either there were not enough visitors to support the operations of the places that closed or visitors weren’t interested in what those places had to offer. It is no different that Light Magic or the Mickey Mouse Club Circus, both of which were failures, no question. Nevertheless, the poor performance of those two very expensive shows does not mean that DL Park failed. "What matters is if DCA is meeting its long-term goals financially and in terms of transforming the paradigm for Anaheim." Exactly.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>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.<< I am very sorry to see this rather tired argument dropped into an otherwise thoughtful thread. Suffice it to say that Disney values ALL its guests, whether they drop in once a year with a wad of cash, or drop in several times a year, spending money on dining, shops, and special events. Otherwise, it seems likely that there would not continue to be an aggressive marketing campaign to sell annual passes. Locals are likely to spend more on souvenirs alone in a single year than you do for your entire trip. But I don't imagine for a moment that this makes them the more valued guests.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>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.<< I have now heard this statement, and its variants, several times in this thread. Since those of us who are confident in the assertion that DCA is a failure have been repeatedly asked to offer "proof" (which we have provided), I now ask for proof that DCA has "consistently solid attendance" (whatever that is supposed to mean), or that the hotels are filled with guests who are there because of DCA. Anecdotal evidence need not apply. >>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.<< No, it is not. More to follow on this below. >>People who are saying it is a failure are judging it using the standards of six years ago.<< I would go back further, and say that DCA is a failure based on standards that were established some 18 years ago. >>DCA was a FREAKING FAILURE when judged against the original expectations of Disney executives. So Darkbeer and DlandDug, are you happy?<< No, I am not happy about it at all. I want nothing more than for DCA to be a great success. Its failure has had a direct and continuing negative impact on both Disneyland and the Disneyland Resort. >>"What matters is if DCA is meeting its long-term goals financially and in terms of transforming the paradigm for Anaheim." Exactly.<< Exactly. In 1990, the Walt Disney Company excitedly announced The Disney Decade. 1990-2000 were to be a period of unparalleled growth. A very significant part of this was the revitalized Disneyland Resort. I have in front of me the publicly issued "Preliminary Master Plan" for that resort. By the end of the Disney Decade (c. 2000), we were to expect: -- A revitalized Disneyland, filled with beloved classics and new adventures and attractions; -- A second Disney theme park (Westcot in 1990, by 1993 this was California Adventure); -- Future expansion for a third gate; -- The Resort Hotel District, consisting of a newly renovated Disneyland Hotel and three new themed hotels; -- Disneyland Center, a retail, dining and entertainment center located around a six acre lake; -- an amphitheater for live concerts and other performances; -- an internal circulation system of walkways, moving sidewalks, elevated people movers and an expanded monorail; and -- a transportation and parking management plan that involved three massive parking structures, linked to the Resort via the transportation system. The 90s are over. We're more than halfway through the next decade. (The Dud Decade? The Decline Decade? The D'oh-we-really-goofed-it-up Decade?) And what has Disney manage to achieve at the Disneyland Resort? -- Disneyland was allowed to rot away for several years after all resources were used to prop up DCA. Only the realization that the 50th Birthday was upon them made a new management team finagle the budget and get the original Magic Kingdom back up to snuff. No great improvements, but at least the old girl was beautiful for her closeup; -- a second theme park that is widely acknowledged to be a dud. It is the butt of mean spirited jokes and hasn't discernibly driven attendance; -- future expansion for a third gate remains mired as more and more effort is expended to make the "challenging" second gate viable. Meanwhile, the City of Anaheim, tired of waiting for promised tax revenue, just last week rezoned a portion of the Resort District. This is just another legacy of the failure that is DCA; -- the Resort Hotel District is now more sensibly refered to as The Hotels of the Disneyland Resort. Stalwart Disneyland Hotel regularly gets new wallpaper and furniture, the Paradise Pier is a redecorated concrete slab (not built by Disney), and the ONE new hotel, the Grand Californian, recently announced that six years after opening, they will now build out to the full original footprint; -- Disneyland Center is now Downtown Disney. No lake, but a nice group of restaurants, clubs and shops. And room to build more, as the area still isn't fully developed; -- amphitheater? No call for THAT; -- an internal circulation system that includes exactly the same elements that have been present since 1962. No moving walkways, no people movers, no expansion of the monorail. Oh, there were double decker busses that ran briefly past the hotels and Downtown Disney; they were put away due to lack of ridership; and -- transportation and parking management is fine now, even though only one parking structure was actually built. But that's all that's needed on an average day at the Disneyland Resort, c. 2007. So for those who want to believe that a surge in attendance, or the reopening of a shuttered food outlet is proof that DCA is a success, go right ahead. In the greater scheme of things, however, DCA remains an epic failure, a failure that continues to resonate and negatively impact the entire Disneyland Resort.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>I'm going to bring up Hitler in hopes of killing this thread<< Hey, I heard that Hitler LOVES DCA...
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<I am very sorry to see this rather tired argument dropped into an otherwise thoughtful thread. Suffice it to say that Disney values ALL its guests, whether they drop in once a year with a wad of cash, or drop in several times a year, spending money on dining, shops, and special events. >> Of course Disney values all its guests... my only point is who provides more revenue... not who is a "better" guest. I can't imagine that the typical AP holder spends much on merchandise. I've found that we spend far less on typical Disney merchandise now that we have visited WDW so many times. How danged many stuffed Mickey's do you need? We do spend a significant amount on art etc. at the "Art of Disney" stores, but I doubt the typical AP'er can afford to do that. So how many times a year does the typical AP'er visit DL? Twice a month perhaps? That is 24 visits per year. They may spend $50 per visit on food, purchases, etc. That gives an annual expenditure of $600 plus the $400 for the annual pass, for as total of $1,000 per year. Disney makes far more money from the out of state guest. Why then does Disney push AP's so heavily? Why does Best Buy push maintenance contracts so heavily? They know that very few people will actually use the pass/contract to its full value.
Originally Posted By DlandDug This is hardly the forum to get into this, but... I'll bite. >>Of course Disney values all its guests... my only point is who provides more revenue... not who is a "better" guest.<< Nor did my point have anything to do with who is a "better" guest. My guess is it's the one who doesn't barge around complaining about how important they are. No, I was refering specifically to "valued" as in: Pays the Bills. >>I can't imagine that the typical AP holder spends much on merchandise.<< Then you need to stop imagining things and find out. APers are notorious suckers for Disneyland souvenirs. They fool themselves by thinking, "It didn't cost anything to get in here today... I think I'll stop by the jewelry store and see what's new. And get a churro. And see if those new Disney Crocs are in. And... OH! New aloha shirts at Disneyana! Shiny! Shiny!" I do some of my Christmas shopping at Disneyland. I regularly buy birthday gifts there. It's one of my favorite places to shop. (Except when all those pesky tourists are around!) >>I've found that we spend far less on typical Disney merchandise now that we have visited WDW so many times. How danged many stuffed Mickey's do you need?<< I would die happy if all Disneyland offered was stuffed Mickeys. (Is that all they sell at WDW? Who knew.) The merchandising team at the Disneyland Resort are a devious crew who have an uncanny knack of introducing all sorts of great merch that we just. Can't. Live. Without. (Just come over to the house of any APer some time and you will know what I mean!) >>We do spend a significant amount on art etc. at the "Art of Disney" stores, but I doubt the typical AP'er can afford to do that.<< And here I would think that the average tourist, dropping X thousands on a once-a-year trip is less likely to shell out the big bucks. But that would be so... presumptuous of me. Fact is, APers LOVE high end collectibles. Again, it's the idea that admission is "free," so why not splurge a little. Every now and then. On, you know, special occassions. Like when a new line of limited edition aloha shirts goes on sale. >>So how many times a year does the typical AP'er visit DL? Twice a month perhaps? That is 24 visits per year.<< Perhaps. Perhaps not. Modesty forbids my telling my own frequency. You can be sure that Disneyland keeps accurate records on this. >>They may spend $50 per visit on food, purchases, etc.<< (Suppressing a guffaw) Uh, sure. 50 bucks. That's MY limit. >>That gives an annual expenditure of $600...<< Math lesson. 24 X $500= $1200. But then, you forgot that the AP includes DISCOUNTS! So if we really did keep it at (giggle) $50 dollars a visit, it's really $45 or so. Making it $1080. (Just to keep things straight.) >>...plus the $400 for the annual pass, for as total of $1,000 per year. Disney makes far more money from the out of state guest.<< Wrong and wrong. Truth is, I have no idea how much the DLR makes off its APs. But it is apparently enough for them to keep pushing them. In two languages these days! >>Why then does Disney push AP's so heavily? Why does Best Buy push maintenance contracts so heavily? They know that very few people will actually use the pass/contract to its full value.<< Say what? After just admitting that, at a bare minimum APers go to Disneyland twice a month? Even at once a month one gets "full value" for the AP. No, it's a lucrative thing for the Disneyland Resort. Aside from the fact that APers spend a LOT of money, they are also quite loyal. After 9/11, when everyone else stayed home, APers continued to support Disneyland. We go to the less popular restaurants ('cause the popular ones are full of those danged tourists), buy the high end merchandise ('cause we aren't already dropping a fortune on our vacation), and go to the special events throughout the year. And everyone at Disneyland LOVES us. So there.
Originally Posted By berol "Falling short of a goal is not equal to failure in business terms." All people have to do is see that different definitions are being used by different people (even if misuses) and adjust their brains to it and we'll pretty much all agree except for how much of a drain/asset DCA is to the resort at the moment. DCA budgets might be slashed so much that a profit is automatic or maybe it's still bleeding red. beats me.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>All people have to do is see that different definitions are being used by different people (even if misuses) and adjust their brains to it...<< This is far, far too reasonable a request.
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> 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. << Huh?! You mean DCA was so wonderful -- or was good enough -- that DisCo executives didn't realize just how jaded and apathetic many Southern Californians and others would be towards it? Therefore, I guess it was wise of them to not have spent more money on it. If DCA really isn't a "poor park," meaning it has enough flair, creativity and excellence to be associated with the name "Disney" -- and if that can be verified with hard, inside data from the DisCo (referring in particular to profit-and-loss statistics_ -- then I'd certainly understand why executives would drag their feet in changing and altering the park.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "DCA budgets might be slashed so much that a profit is automatic or maybe it's still bleeding red." Still? How do you know that it was ever bleeding?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<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.<< I am very sorry to see this rather tired argument dropped into an otherwise thoughtful thread.>> Ah yes... my tendency to sometimes get a little sarcastic and overstate my position gets me in trouble once again. I guess part of it is in reaction to the thoughts of SOME AP'ers that since they go there all the time they know what is best for Disneyland. I think the out of state visitor staying a week at the Disneyland resort is looking for a substantially different experience than the 'day visitor'. I think BOTH need to be taken into account. As for spending habits of AP'ers I'll admit to being off the mark on that one. I know that people like you (DlandDug) probably spend more money in one month at Disneyland than I will spend in the next 10 years. My thinking was that teens would be a large percentage of the AP'ers (they seem to be at our local Valley Fair park) and that they don't have a huge amount of money to spend. You know Disneyland and if you say it is otherwise I certainly take your word for it.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Huh?! You mean DCA was so wonderful -- or was good enough -- that DisCo executives didn't realize just how jaded and apathetic many Southern Californians and others would be towards it? Therefore, I guess it was wise of them to not have spent more money on it.>> No. What I meant (and believe I said) was that NO PARK would be able to do what Disney Execs were predicting. The thought that you would have a secondary park that would draw crowds AWAY from Disneyland Park is just absurd. Even with a fantastic second park like Epcot, the Magic Kingdom at WDW draws far more people than any of the other WDW parks. Now does that meant the DCA can't be a better park? Yes it can, and I think today it is a significantly better park than it was at opening (except for the loss of restaurants). My claim is that NO PARK could have met the projections they were making for DCA, so the fact that those projections were not made does not necessarily mean that DCA is a poor park.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 #147 is all very nice and all... but it's still just a reiteration of "things didn't go the way they planned," and not "is DCA contributing positively to the DLR today?"
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>#147 is all very nice and all... but it's still just a reiteration of "things didn't go the way they planned," and not "is DCA contributing positively to the DLR today?"<< To the contrary, the whole point is not just that DCA didn't live up to expectations. The point is that DCA is a failure in terms of how those unmet expectations have resonated to this day. DCA's failure isn't simply that it fails to contribute in the way it was intended. It's failure is twofold: it did not create the atmosphere for continued growth; it uses resources that could be expended in that growth. There was only one place and one time to build a second theme park for the Disneyland Resort. It set the bar for all that would follow. DCA is that park, and the lack of sustained growth and development at the DLR is another proof that DCA is a failure.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "What I meant (and believe I said) was that NO PARK would be able to do what Disney Execs were predicting." This a very good point. It seems to me that there was an over-estimation of what a second park in Anahiem could do. In addition, I suspect that Disney was suspicious from the outset since they admitted that the return on investment in Anahiem did not justify extravagant spending and scaled back the plans accordingly.
