Originally Posted By ni_teach "As I stated previously, a business failure is defined as closure or cessation of business activity that results in a loss to its creditors.†That is a very simplistic view of how to measure the success/failure of a business. Let me take a moment to dust off my old business 101 classes. (Sorry for the grammar and typos I’m writing this rather fast.) 1) Financial success Now this is not as clear cut to measure as you might thing. It’s more than just income vs. debt. The DCA is a part of a much larger organization better known as the Disneyland Resort. Not only does the DCA have to cover its costs of daily operation, but it also has to pull its weight in covering the over head the whole resort. For example let’s take an advertising campaign for the resort (TV, Newspaper…). Ideally Disneyland, DCA, DTD and the hotels would all contribute a percentage to this advertising campaign, which is a cost above and beyond the Daily Operation Costs. This is where the DCA is failing. It’s not that they are not making a profit, but they are not making a big enough profit to pull their weight in covering the resort’s overhead. 2) Attendance Success Again this is not as easy to measure as simply counting the number of people who walk thought the turnstile. The DCA does get decent numbers if that is all you count, but attendance is also measured by how long someone stays in the park and how many attractions that they go on. Unfortunately people only tend to spend a short time in the park before heading off across the plaza. 3) Customer Satisfaction Now here is where the DCA can be counted as a success. Overall people who go to the park do enjoy themselves and have a good time. 4) Extending vacations at the resort. One of the stated goals of the DCA was to get people to spend an extra day at the resort. Rather than staying just two day, the DCA was supposed to convince people to spend 3 days at the resort. The goal was based on the WDW model with having so many parks. I don’t know if this has been successful or not? The hotels are full so I’m willing to say that in has partially met this goal. Bottom-line: The DCA is successful in making people happy when they are there, but those people do not spend enough time in the park to buy large amounts of food, drinks and souvenirs. Also because of APs and Twofers (sp?) the people at who are at the DCA do not pay the full admission price, which also lowers the DCA profit margin.
Originally Posted By berol "Still? How do you know that it was ever bleeding?" I'm guessing from the massive budget slashing in the early days. If it wasn't operating in the red, it was majorly underperforming.
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?"<< <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.> Which is a fancy way of saying "what happened 6 years ago should still count against it, even if it's actually doing fairly well." <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.> Yet continued growth is happening, and not just at DCA. So there's a disconnect in your argument. <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.> Since there have arguably been more additions and "plusses" to DL itself in the 6 years since DCA than in the 6-year period between Indy opening and DCA opening, that doesn't follow. DCA didn't meet the initial expectations. We all know that. Yet it has experienced gains in attendance. And though I've never seen an official study saying this, I'm guessing it DOES cause the average out of town visitor to stay longer - many of us have said so (on this thread and others over the years). Was DCA the ideal second park? No. Given what the long-term goal of the WDC was, in terms of transforming DL into DLR, is DCA a failure? It's not fair to say that, no. But once again, it seems to come down to different definitions of "failure."
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt <<1) Financial success…. Now this is not as clear cut to measure as you might thing. >> It is very clear cut. Any major corporation will have an established rate of return at the outset of a project. Management, after all, is using your money to finance these things. Would you trust Disney with your money if you thought they were just going to spend it willy-nilly with no regard to increased earnings? No, you expect to make a sizeable return on your investment. Thus, the financial performance, or bottom line, of a project is the most important measure because it is the one that is most easily understood by investors. Generally speaking, if the predicted rate of return is less than some other potential investment (keeping it in the bank, financing a new movie, hotel, or other enterprise) then management may decide that it makes little or no sense to continue with a project. On the other hand, if the predicted yield on the investment meets the return criteria, then the company may choose to move forward. The question I am asking here is how far off did Disney miss its projected return with DCA. Furthermore, it is my opinion it was specifically this point that Iger touched on last year at an investors meeting when mentioned being "challenged" with DCA. If so, then missing the goal, in this case, does not equate to failure. <<But once again, it seems to come down to different definitions of "failure.">> See, I disagree with this because the only thing that we truly know that DCA failed at is its first year of attendance. For the most part, we all just are guessing after that point. Therefore, we can toss around all the definitions we want, but it won’t amount to a hill of beans since we don’t really know what measures management is using that would ultimately deem the place a failure.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Generally speaking, if the predicted rate of return is less than some other potential investment (keeping it in the bank, financing a new movie, hotel, or other enterprise) then management may decide that it makes little or no sense to continue with a project.<< Yes... >>...how far off did Disney miss its projected return with DCA.<< Pretty far off... >>...the only thing that we truly know that DCA failed at is its first year of attendance. For the most part, we all just are guessing after that point.<< Not at all. Based on the stated predictions, and the present outcome, it is fairly obvious what was expected of DCA, and what was the result. I find it comical that all these points have been effectively addressed here, and yet we are still pointedly told that there's no way to know whether DCA is or is not a success. Based on the investment made, and the absence of the expected return, the place is a failure.
Originally Posted By berol It's fair to say that we don't know with *absolute certainty* as we don't see the books, even if we're 99.9999999999999999999999999…% certain of it. On the other hand, since this is basically a bar room discussion, we can be a bit loose with definitions and guesses. Another round for my best friends in th' wurrrrld, barkeep! *hic* Ah luv yoo guyzzzz
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt “Based on the investment made, and the absence of the expected return, the place is a failure.†In your opinion. You have no idea what the expected returns were, when they were expected to be achieved, how dramatically different the performance has been in comparison to the original goals, and if the current performance is in line with management’s revised expectations. Disney has been "challenged", but to what extent? To the point that they have to shut the park down or just close a few venues? It’s one thing to express an opinion about a subject, but asserting that a view is fact without credible substantiated evidence is just silly. When asked for documented proof we get references from Internet bloggers and media journalists who don’t know any more about the park’s balance sheet than the person operating the popcorn cart in Town Square. It may be entertaining to read, but how much substance is there? Frankly, this topic was exhausted years ago. As I said earlier, certain individuals who disliked the place (and the management in place at the time it was conceived) made up their minds way back when and in doing so effectively closed down any possibility for a reasoned, logical explanation for what has transpired since opening. The one thing that the lead article in this thread proves to me is that a certain contingency of fans have not changed their line of reasoning about DCA since 2000. Aside from its attendance shortcomings, perhaps DCA biggest failure was the division that it created among the very people were supposed to appreciate the place most.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I enjoy DCA a great deal and think it will continue to improve and evolve in the years ahead. I guess I must reluctantly agree though that in a very significant way DCA is a failure, and the reason is probably reflective of the definition DlandDug is using. I thought about other secondary Disney Parks, and took a look at WDW's Animal Kingdom. I cannot believe there is any way the additional revenue provided by AK admissions covers the expense associated with the park. That park has to be enormously expensive to maintain... it is a lot more costly paying for the care and feeding of real animals than animatronic ones. It also has the least attendance of any WDW park, so you have comparatively little revenue to offset the significant expense. But has anyone ever termed Animal Kingdom a failure? Not to my knowledge. And why is that, even though I doubt it has any type of return on investment? Because it is an artistic success and it increases the overall prestige of Walt Disney World. As much as I like DCA, I have to admit that it is not an artistic success and has not increased the overall prestige of the Disneyland Resort. But it’s still a great park.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>You have no idea what the expected returns were, when they were expected to be achieved, how dramatically different the performance has been in comparison to the original goals, and if the current performance is in line with management’s revised expectations.<< Actually, I have a very good idea. I derive it from readily available information from the company, including statements made within the last month by the CEO. >>Disney has been "challenged", but to what extent? To the point that they have to shut the park down or just close a few venues?<< To the extent that many venues have been shut down, and the overall goals for the Resort have been drastically curtailed. >>When asked for documented proof we get references from Internet bloggers and media journalists who don’t know any more about the park’s balance sheet than the person operating the popcorn cart in Town Square.<< Not from me. I have consistently cited information provided by the Company. >>...certain individuals who disliked the place (and the management in place at the time it was conceived) made up their minds way back when and in doing so effectively closed down any possibility for a reasoned, logical explanation for what has transpired since opening.<< This has nothing to do with like or dislike. If it was, I would have no interest in the conversation. One could just as easily claim that certain individuals who LIKED the place made up their minds way back when and in doing so effectively closed down any possibility for a reasoned, logical explanation for what has transpired since opening. But that's not what this is about. It's about whether or not DCA is a failure in its performance. Which it is. Then and now.
Originally Posted By DlandDug A quick amendment to one point: >>When asked for documented proof we get references from Internet bloggers and media journalists who don’t know any more about the park’s balance sheet than the person operating the popcorn cart in Town Square.<< Not from me. I have consistently cited information provided by the Company, as well as things I have personally observed over the last 18 years.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>But it’s still a great park.<< I wouldn't call it great, but for all its many failings, I enjoy DCA. I am just sorry it wasn't everything we all hoped it would be.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>On the other hand, since this is basically a bar room discussion, we can be a bit loose with definitions and guesses.<< You're so gosh darned reasonable. Why don't you spend some time in World Events???
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt Dldug, with all due respect, your responses to my questioning is ambiguous. Thanks, but you aren't saying anything of any substance. You are telling me that you, "derive it [you're conclusions] from readily available information from the company, including statements made within the last month by the CEO". So, as I have stated over and over, your knowledge, like mine and everyone else here, is nothing more than conjecture. "It's about whether or not DCA is a failure in its performance. Which it is. Then and now." Maybe for you, but my primary questions throughout this discussion have been whether or not Disney views DCA's performance as a failure or not, and what measures Disney has or had in place reach their conclusions. I'm not particularly concerned with your opinions or wild guesses from Internet bloggers. I'm far more interested in knowing how the park's performance is viewed in Disney's eyes.
Originally Posted By oc_dean >> I'm far more interested in knowing how the park's performance is viewed in Disney's eyes.<< and with that ...... can I put 173 posts into perspective? What does it matter, in the grand scheme of things, what Disney thinks? What matters is they tried to pass off a park as top notch Disney quality. Their trick didn't work....... The rest of the world caught on to that "little fact" ......... And here are a few "I like DCA" bloggers who go on and on .. over semantics! WHO CARES?! 99 percent of the world realizes the park blows! Except for 1% hardcore bloggers who refuse to see it! Carry on with your semantics. Hasta La Vista!
Originally Posted By bean "^^^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)" then i guess we should overlook the huge capital investment that OLC has putinto TDS in only its 6 years of existence. OLC had intially projected not to invest anymore into the park for at least the first 5 to 7 years. Guess what They have and its more than DCA. Still the park has seen a steady decline in attendance. Luckily the anniversaary was the first time in three years that the park saw an increase in attendance. Unless people are aware of actual financial numbers all of you could keep arguing how much a failure DCA is and TDS is not. If you only new. Quote Al as many times as you want or other critics still its only their opinion with information they do not have access too.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "What does it matter, in the grand scheme of things, what Disney thinks?" You can't be serious.
Originally Posted By Sweeper When people who are not huge Disney fans go to DCA and then ask me, "What is it you like about this park?" That's the essence of DCA's failure. I don't care about spreadsheets. I care that many people stay away because the DCA brand is perceived as cheap and not worth the money. This fact is going to dog this park for years to come. I hope Disney has learned their lesson. Walt said he wanted to exceed expectations. That did not happen at DCA and that's its problem in my opinion. Maybe 2011 will be a new chapter?
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Dldug, with all due respect, your responses to my questioning is ambiguous.<< There's nothing at all ambuguous about my reiteration that DCA is a failure. >>You are telling me that you, "derive it [you're conclusions] from readily available information from the company, including statements made within the last month by the CEO". So, as I have stated over and over, your knowledge, like mine and everyone else here, is nothing more than conjecture.<< Uh, no. Conjecture would be guessing at what the company intended, guessing at the result, and guessing at how they feel about it. I know what they intended, I have seen with my own eyes the result, and we all know what the Company has been doing and saying. >>I'm not particularly concerned with your opinions...<< I am sorry you feel that way, since I am certainly interested enough in your opinion to have stuck around in this conversation this long. But most of what we are dealing with here is NOT opinion. Opinions would be: "Superstar Limo was a great ride that people didn't understand" or "Superstar Limo was a stupid attraction and the people who designed it are idiots." The fact is that Superstar Limo was the object of much ridicule, suffered very low attendance, and was subsequently closed and removed. A considered opinion would be that the company viewed it as a failure. Expectations for DCA were stated in no uncertain terms. It is plainly obvious these expectations have NEVER been met. The Company has taken many steps to remedy this, and a variety of statements have been made, the most recent of which is fairly transparent for anyone with an open mind. Based on that, anyone is free to draw their own conclusion, bearing in mind that it will be open to challenge, and should be defensible. Bear in mind that none of this has anything to do with whether anyone "likes" DCA. There are any number of failures out there that have their fans. (Anyone for the Cubbies?) So please don't think there's anything personal in any of this. I have seen no counter argument advanced here-- other than the odd notion that DCA is not a "big" failure-- that is at all persuasive. I reiterate that DCA is a failure, and I am content that this is a completely defensible position.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan <--- likes to check this thread once a week to see if we've agreed on the definition of failure yet. Well, see ya next week! ; )
