Am I reading this correctly? HK Disneyland to open with 12 attractions

[All Aboard]

A quick spin through the official site, and I see listed:

1) HK Disneyland Railroad
2) Space Mountain
3) Buzz Lightyear's Astro Blasters
4) Orbitron (Astro Orbiter)
5) Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh
6) Mickey's Philharmagic
7) Dumbo the Flying Elephant
8) Mad Tea Party
9) Carousel
10) Jungle Cruise
11) Tarzan's Treehouse
12) Festival of the Lion King

Is this really possible? Have I missed something? Imagine the length of the queues!

[WDSearcher]

Well ... yes and no. That's all that have been announced, and it doesn't include things like the Arcade area and the Main Street vehicles and stuff like that. There will also be a lot of atmosphere entertainment, along with a lot of shops and restaurants, not to mention the garden areas and landscape attractions that are high on the list of "must haves" for visitors from China. Plus, there won't be a Frontierland at HKDL, because there's a full-out Western frontier park just up the road, with a "runaway mine train" ride and a singing bear attraction and a shooting gallery. Been there ... done that. Remember that the audience in Hong Kong and China is different -- Ocean Park and the Western Town park in Hong Kong aren't much bigger than HKDL is planning, and they're not running anywhere near capacity.

Walt opened Disneyland with only 20 attractions:

Carrousel
Peter Pan
Mad Tea Party
Mr. Toad
Canal Boats
Snow White
Autopia
Space Station X-1
Disneyland Railroad
Circarama
Horsedrawn Streetcars
Fire Wagon
Main Street Cinema
Surreys
Jungle Cruise
Stage Coach
Mule Pack
Steamboat
Penny Arcade
Golden Horseshoe

And I think we can agree that things like the surreys, penny arcade, fire wagon, and the streetcars weren't exactly e-ticket experiences. Right now, the announced list of HK attractions is relatively small, but it's well-rounded set of top attractions.

:earsboy:

[All Aboard]

Walt opened Disneyland with only 20 attractions True, and that's a data point. And, (excluding the diversions such as the arcade) Roy opened WDW's Magic Kingdom with 25 fairly major attractions:

Walt Disney World Railroad
Haunted Mansion
20,000 Leagues Under the Sea
Circle-Vision 360
Country Bear Jamboree
Davy Crockett's Explorer Canoes
Diamond Horseshoe Revue
Dumbo the Flying Elephant
Enchanted Tiki Birds
Flight to the Moon
Frontierland Shooting Gallery
Hall of Presidents
It's A Small World
Jungle Cruise
Liberty Square Riverboat
Mad Tea Party
Mickey Mouse Revue
Mike Fink Keel Boats
Mr. Toad's Wild Ride
Peter Pan's Flight
Skyway
Snow White's Adventures
Swiss Family Treehouse
Cinderella's Carrousel
Main Street Vehicles

And, within 4 years, Space Mountain, Peoplemover, Carousel of Progress, If You Had Wings, Grand Prix Raceway, Pirates of the Caribbean, Tom Sawyer Island, the Swan Boats and the Walt Disney Story were added.

According to the OLC website, Tokyo Disneyland has 43 attractions. I have no idea how many were there at opening.

It sure seems like Hong Kong is getting a miniature sized park.

[WDSearcher]

It sure seems like Hong Kong is getting a miniature sized park. That's quite possibly due to the miniature amount of land available in Hong Kong more than anything!

:earsboy:

[SoCalKDG]

I pretty sure they decided to add an Autopia as well after some initial disappointment with the selection of attractions. By the way, HKDL has already received 10,000 room reservations in three weeks for their 1000 room hotel.

[Moobooks]

Tokyo DisneySea doesn't have more than 12 attractions (if it has that many--not counting all the kid stuff as separate items which are bundled inside Mermaid Lagoon).
Walt Disney Studios Paris has ... 8 or 9 attractions.
MGM had how many attractions when it opened ... a dozen ? A few more?
California Adventure had how many upon opening? 16 to 18 depending upon how you want to count.
Animal Kingdom had how many upon opening? I don't even know if there are a dozen now!
Hong Kong Disneyland is nothing new for the Company. It is doing exactly what it has been doing for years--opening a park without a full roster of attractions, losing tons of money because of budget cutting stupidity, and then having to play catch up and spend more later.
Anyway, here is the lesson that the Disney Company has had confirmed by watching what the Oriental Land Company did by spending 3 BILLION dollars on Tokyo DisneySea vs. 1.3 billion for all of DCA PLUS the Grand Californian Hotel and Downtown Disney: the Japanese don't care much for Tokyo DisneySea--the place is empty by mid to late afternoon during the week and while Tokyo Disneyland next door is packed with 100 minute waits on the popular rides, you can walk onto every ride at DisneySea. This has only confirmed, in the mind of the Disney Company, that they've been making the right decision in opening parks with only half the attractions actually built (and cheap ones, at that).

[laughatjimmy.com]

You are so right about Tokyo DisneySea. Having been there in the last year, let me tell you, it has a much smaller amount of attractions than other Disney parks, but because of the quality of those attractions and the scenary, it has become my favorite Disney park, and I've been to them ALL but Paris. I'll give Hong Kong a chance, especially if the old standbys they are putting in are new, original versions and not clones. Still, let them clone Tokyo Disneylands Pooh ride, because it's unbelievable perfect!

[larry_poppins]

Tokyo Disney Resort is the best Disney experience in the world! You can not even compare it to the inferior American product. I am planning another trip to Tokyo as I sit here reading these columns.
It is even cheaper than visiting WDW for a day!

Larry

[Moobooks]

larry-poppins, how is visiting Tokyo Disneyland or DisneySea cheaper than Walt Disney World for a day?
The hotels in Tokyo cost much more (if you get a room for $280 a night you're lucky). You can stay in WDW for $77 a night.
The park entrance is about the same, but you can't park hop in Tokyo until the third and fourth days of a four-day passport.
I'm not arguing with you about the Tokyo parks: they're great. Neither has the intimate feel of Disneyland in Anaheim, however.

[larry_poppins]

Single day tickets are about the same. 4 day tickets are cheaper than 4 days at WDW. There is so much to see that I did not need to hop the first two days. Food is cheaper and higher quality than WDW.

You do need to budget more for hotels. You can stay in Tokyo for under $200.

Larry

[laughatjimmy.com]

When my buddies and I went for 2 weeks, we stayed at the New Koyo, the cheapest hotel in Tokyo. Its fairly clean, (though the communial bathrooms could get a tad iffy), and the staff is nice. It's located in Minowa, about an hour from Disney by trains, but, its only 1 transfer. The hotel sold for about $22 a night. The site is www.newkoyo.com.

[wtg2000]

Tokyo DisneySea doesn't have more than 12 attractions (if it has that many--not counting all the kid stuff as separate items which are bundled inside Mermaid Lagoon).Tokyo DisneySea had upon opening:

Transit Steamer
Venetian Gondolas
Fortress Explorations
Journey
20,000
Electric Railway
Encore
Indiana Jones
Mystic Rhythms
Sindbad
Magic Lamp Theatre
Caravan Carousel
StormRider
Aquatopia
Mermaid Lagoon (7) - including Mermaid Lagoon Theatre

That's 21, not counting shows like Sail Away and Donald's Boat Builders. And there are many more E-Tickets than HKDL. And this is a second park, not a primary park. (OLC website lists 23 attractions) And the quality of the attractions, and the entire park, is hard to beat.

>You are so right about Tokyo DisneySea. Having been there in the last year, let me tell you, it has a much smaller amount of attractions than other Disney parks...

It has more (and better) attractions than any other Disney Park except the MKs which have been around for many, many years.


This has only confirmed, in the mind of the Disney Company, that they've been making the right decision in opening parks with only half the attractions actually built.You mean they are happy with the performance of WDS and DCA? I wasn't aware of that. Everything I've read indicates that these parks have been financially disappointing.

As for attendance, combined attendance for 2004 at TDR was 25,200,000 people (it was a bit off from 2003's 20th anniversary celebration). Disneyland itself used got 13.5 million and used to get about 15 million, so Tokyo DisneySea has helped numbers increase by 10 million and fill hotel rooms. WDS only increased attendance by 1 million. DCA had 5.6 million, but I don't know how it's helped overall attendance.

From an article by Jim Douglas:

"Since opening Tokyo DisneySea, Oriental Land Company has reaped rewards. Its growth has outpaced the Dow Jones Industrial Average by nearly 15 percent in the past year; the two parks attract an average of 70,000 visitors a day; and annual attendance has grown by an astonishing 43 percent since the Sept. 2001 opening of Tokyo DisneySea."

From an article by Jeremy Howard:

"While California Adventure has struggled to bring in attendance in it’s 3-year lifespan, DisneySea consistently has had above-projected attendance levels, and has turned a profit faster."

I think HKDL is restricted more by the amount of money the Hong Kong government is willing to put up, since they are putting up the bulk of the cash. They are also expecting about half the numbers as TDS so they have spent accordingly. I just hope their business logic works.

PS: I stayed at the New Koyo as well. Quite the bargain.

[SoCalKDG]

As for attendance, combined attendance for 2004 at TDR was 25,200,000 people (it was a bit off from 2003's 20th anniversary celebration). Disneyland itself used got 13.5 million and used to get about 15 million, so Tokyo DisneySea has helped numbers increase by 10 million and fill hotel rooms. WDS only increased attendance by 1 million. DCA had 5.6 million, but I don't know how it's helped overall attendance.

I agree DisneySea is better than DCA, but it should be noted that Disney Sea eats away at Tokyos attendance, and that the actual net gain from 1998 is only 8.5 Million. Disneyland has the same attendance now as they did in 1998, while DCA has added 5.6 Million. Since DCA cost 1/3 of DS, plus had a new hotel(GC) and Downtown Disney built at the same time, I'd say investment wise, the California project was a better investment. See below for 1998 stats.


Stats for 1998

For 1998 Tokyo Disneyland was the most popular theme park in the world with 16.7 million visitors. The Magic Kingdom at Walt Disney World was first in North America with 15.6 million visitors, Disneyland in Anaheim, Calif., was No. 2 in North America with 13.7 million visitors. Rounding out the top five in North America were Epcot at Walt Disney World with 10.6 million visitors, down 10 percent; Disney-MGM Studios at Walt Disney World with 9.5 million visitors, down 10 percent; and Universal Studios Florida, with had 8.9 million visitors, about even with last year. Animal Kingdom came in at No. 6 with an estimated 6 million visitors.

[wtg2000]

I agree DisneySea is better than DCA, but it should be noted that Disney Sea eats away at Tokyos attendance, and that the actual net gain from 1998 is only 8.5 Million. Disneyland has the same attendance now as they did in 1998, while DCA has added 5.6 Million. Since DCA cost 1/3 of DS, plus had a new hotel(GC) and Downtown Disney built at the same time, I'd say investment wise, the California project was a better investment. See below for 1998 stats.Tokyo's investment also included two new hotels and the monorail system that rings the resort, plus other infrastructure. And I don't think DCA cost 1/3 of TDS. No one knows the actual numbers.

Remember that once you get two parks, individual park attendance is hard to measure. At Tokyo for example, a four day pass lets you park hop on days three and four. So how do you count that? The important number is total visitors (25 million for TDR, about 18 for DLR), per-capita spending, plus hotel occupancy. How many of those 5.6 million at DCA are paying customers? How many are AP holders popping in for a couple attractions?

You're saying that DCA was a better investment, but I don't see any proof of that. Everything I've read on the internet suggests otherwise, and even then it's mostly speculation. Look at the numbers from Disney's annual report. DLR revenue increased $278 million from 2000 to 2001 after DCA, the hotel, and DD opened. The next year revenue dropped $40m. Next year an increase of $83m, and $95m last year. Just imagine that if Tokyo's attendance is up nine million per year that's about a $360 million per year increase right there just from ticket sales (9m x $40 per ticket), not to mention all the new revenue from the hotels, plus the eating and shopping revenues.

Note: I noticed you picked 1998 for your example, which was TDR's 15th anniversary and thus had higher numbers than years before or after. In 2004, TDL had 13.2 and TDS 12.2. (One reason it is actually good that TDS ate into TDL is because TDL could get incredibly crowded. TDS is much bigger and holds the crowds better - at least regards to walking around.)

I think it's also important to remember that investments are made for different reasons. Pressler himself said that Tokyo's higher per-capita spending and better interest rates allowed them to invest more (TDS has lots of high-price sit down restaurants with nice profit margins). In Paris, WDSP was built because Disney had to build a second park within 10 years or lose use of the land. So it really is comparing apples to oranges.

[wtg2000]

That's quite possibly due to the miniature amount of land available in Hong Kong more than anything!I don't think that has anything to do with it. The factors pertain more to the amount of money the HK Government is willing to spend, the amount of guests they can expect to attract - all sorts of factors. There's certainly enough land there to build more attractions. How do you explain the small number of attractions at WDSP? Land? No. The factors are different and varied.

I don't think it's fair to compare the number of attractions at HKDL with the number that Walt had. He basically mortaged his house to open DL. The current company has 50 years of theme park experience. Let's hope they know what they are doing.

[SoCalKDG]

You're saying that DCA was a better investment, but I don't see any proof of that. Everything I've read on the internet suggests otherwise, and even then it's mostly speculation. Look at the numbers from Disney's annual report. DLR revenue increased $278 million from 2000 to 2001 after DCA, the hotel, and DD opened. The next year revenue dropped $40m. Next year an increase of $83m, and $95m last year. Just imagine that if Tokyo's attendance is up nine million per year that's about a $360 million per year increase right there just from ticket sales (9m x $40 per ticket), not to mention all the new revenue from the hotels, plus the eating and shopping revenues. So from 2000 to 2004 revenue increased $416 million with the addition of DCA, or approx. $80 per person(based on 5.2Mil). So Investment in DCA was less than 1 billion(lets say 1.5billion including hotel and DD), while DSea was 3 billion. Using the 9M number for DSea attendance we get 720MIL revenue increase(I know all these numbers are approx). So DSea has 24% revenue return, while DCA has 42% revenue return(28% w/ 1.5Bil number). DCA is more than holding its own.

For arguments sake, lets say they both have the same % revenue return(by bumping up DSea revenue or increasing DCA costs).

Two things come to mind.

1) DCA is bashed while DSea is cheered. I'd say financially DCA isn't the failure people make it out to be(or DSea isn't the success).

2) Would DSea being built in place of DCA have brought in twice the numbers of DCA to justify its expenditure? I don't believe so.

Pertaining to Hong Kong, Disney is only investing 20% of the money but getting 45% of profits and ownership. Great deal how ever you look at it.

[All Aboard]

2) Would DSea being built in place of DCA have brought in twice the numbers of DCA I, for one, would have long ago had my tail on a flight from MIA to LAX to experience it. In May, I'll see DCA for the first time. I'm planning to spend 1/2 day out of three there. Other than Screamin', I've already experienced all their headliners up the street from me.

[wtg2000]

So from 2000 to 2004 revenue increased $416 million with the addition of DCA, or approx. $80 per person(based on 5.2Mil). So Investment in DCA was less than 1 billion(lets say 1.5billion including hotel and DD), while DSea was 3 billion. Using the 9M number for DSea attendance we get 720MIL revenue increase(I know all these numbers are approx). So DSea has 24% revenue return, while DCA has 42% revenue return(28% w/ 1.5Bil number). DCA is more than holding its own.

The increase in revenues at DLR include DCA, price increases at DL, increases in per capita spending, revenue from the new hotels and Downtown Disney. It can't all be attributed just to DCA. So your $80 per person number is meaningless. I don't know how you get $720 for TDS. Where does this number come from? You have to include the revenue from the two hotels, which is going to be well over $100 million per year, plus admissions plus all the shooping and food. My guess is that it would be well over $1 billion per year, but who knows.

As for the investment numbers, again these are numbers thrown around the internet. Interest rates paid to secure that money and many other factors would effect the numbers. I've heard 3 billion for Tokyo and 1.8b for Disneyland.

1) DCA is bashed while DSea is cheered. I'd say financially DCA isn't the failure people make it out to be(or DSea isn't the success).I think this is an individual perception based on whether or not people have enjoyed the respective parks. People who like DCA want it to be financially successful so they automatically decide that it is. I'm sure in the long run the changes to Disneyland will be worthwhile.

2) Would DSea being built in place of DCA have brought in twice the numbers of DCA to justify its expenditure? I don't believe so.Ah, this is the really interesting question, and there's no way to answer it. However, I believe the numbers would be way up if TDS or its equivalent were in place in California. Firstly, how much more would it have cost to build an equivalent park and how much more revenue would it generate? Well, TDL and TDS attendance is fairly close. If DLR were bringing in another 5 million paying guests per year (and remember, you're assuming that those 5.6m for DCA aren't getting in on freebies, coupons, or APs) would that help Disney's bottom line? All those people spending more money, higher occupancy rates... I'm thinking it would have been well worth the expense, and may in the long run end up costing them that much. They've had to develop new shows, build Bug's Land, perhaps spend more on marketing...

Don't dismiss the revenue for hotels. 1,000 per night at $250 is 1/4 million smackers. At 80 per cent occupancy rate let's say, that's about $70 million per year. Tokyo built two hotels with a third on the way. Plus, there's shooping and food. So hotel revenue is huge and the profit margins are high. I'd guess that the Grand California has been the most profitable part of the investment.

Personally, if DisneySea had been built in Anaheim and not Tokyo, I would have gone to Anaheim in Oct 2001 and not Tokyo. As it was I had to make a choice, and based solely on the descriptions of the two parks, the choice was easy.

As for HK, it sounds like a great deal but only if there are profits. I don't believe there were in Paris, and they had to give up their royalties and fees for several years.

[raidermatt]

DCA has abandoned its theme, been forced to shutter unsuccessful rides and restaurants, completely revamped its ticketing structure (including offering FREE admission at times), fallen short of daily attendance projections by the thousands, and the plans for the third gate were unceremoniously dumped.

The fact that it makes some money isn't exactly the end-all standard.


Then there's DSParis, which has been mentioned. Yes, it opened with rather pathetic list of attractions, and the resort has subsequently plunged back to the brink of bankruptcy.

AK scrapped an entire land and slashed hours, and is only now making significant additions, 7 years later.


And we want to DEFEND this strategy as being the best for the Walt Disney Co?


And on attendance...

Disneyland has the same attendance now as they did in 1998, while DCA has added 5.6 Million.
DL is actually 300k below, but that's close enough. But as has been pointed out, DCA's attendance has been the result of huge changes to ticketing strategy. Multi-park APs and hoppers were not even offerred initially because Disney didn't think they needed them. Local discounting has been significant since the early months, and at one point even offered FREE admission to anyone who purchased a ticket to DL.

This is not a success.

And if you want to look at how the strategy worked with WDW... 1997 (the last year with no AK) attendance was 39.2 million. 2004 was 40.6. A whopping increase of 1.4 million total guests.


That's not to say AK is not a worthwhile park, but the overall strategy is not working. People used to believe that when a Disney park opened, they would get a certain value. MGM began to change all of that. Now, new Disney parks are viewed with skepticism by the public. That's why DCA bombed from the beginning. The public now understands Disney's new "strategy" and they no longer give the benefit of the doubt.


The point has been made that the HK park might rise above this because of the relative regional competition and expectations.

That may very well be the case.

But what does that say about the future? The only place that Disney can succeed in opening parks is in places where the public's low expectations match the low valued offering?

Its not that they can't make any money using this strategy. Its the opportunity cost of not maintaining the standards they themselves set and profited from for so many years.

[wtg2000]

Raidermatt - excellent post.

[YoHo]

Agreed MAtt, Excellent.

And don't forget, DL was DLR was forced to hold off on AP price increases trying to encourage people to buy them and use DCA. A policy that this year they retracted and bumped prices up, because it just wasn't working. Also, those numbers don't account for length of time in the park. Anyone that bothers to watch will note that most people hope from Dl over to DCA for a short time in order to catch the MSEP and maybe soarin and then jump back to DL. Those are counted as entries even though they hardly represent a truely robust theme park.





Oh and Greg, PM me here and maybe we can get together in Anaheim in May.

[Plus4206]

"that most people hope from Dl over to DCA for a short time in order to catch the MSEP and maybe soarin and then jump back to DL. Those are counted as entries even though they hardly represent a truely robust theme park."

I thought Disney only counted the first turnstill in its park tallies. Any hops during the day are ignored for annual count purpose.

[All Aboard]

Plus, I think you are correct. I've always used that argument when discussing AK attendance. It has the advantage of getting turnstile clicks from the many who arrive at 9am, ride the safari, ride dinosaur, see the first show of Lion King and hop, not spending a nickel on food or souvies.

And, since DCA opens an hour or two later than DL most days, I bet it is less frequently the "first-click"

Maybe Disney uses different rules out west.

[SoCalKDG]

The increase in revenues at DLR include DCA, price increases at DL, increases in per capita spending, revenue from the new hotels and Downtown Disney. It can't all be attributed just to DCA. So your $80 per person number is meaningless. I don't know how you get $720 for TDS.9 mil people * $80 per person. Your right, that $80 per person could be $70-$90. Since I applied the same number to both parks(each have numerous variables) and I don't have access to an exact number, its what I worked with.

As for the investment numbers, again these are numbers thrown around the internet. Interest rates paid to secure that money and many other factors would effect the numbers. I've heard 3 billion for Tokyo and 1.8b for Disneyland. For this discussion I included investment of Tokyo being twice that of DCA.


Ah, this is the really interesting question, and there's no way to answer it. However, I believe the numbers would be way up if TDS or its equivalent were in place in California. Firstly, how much more would it have cost to build an equivalent park and how much more revenue would it generate? Well, TDL and TDS attendance is fairly close. If DLR were bringing in another 5 million paying guests per year (and remember, you're assuming that those 5.6m for DCA aren't getting in on freebies, coupons, or APs) would that help Disney's bottom line? All those people spending more money, higher occupancy rates... I'm thinking it would have been well worth the expense, and may in the long run end up costing them that much. They've had to develop new shows, build Bug's Land, perhaps spend more on marketing...Since people like to point out AP holders are a huge part of DLR attendance(approx. 600-650K AP holders) this would affect TDS as well. With DCA and GC added, the hotels run at a very high occupancy rate. TDS couldn't really improve this number. Thus we would be left with the need for 10 Mil visitors to go to DSea, with almost all of that 5 mil increase over DCA coming from the local population.

[raidermatt]

If you want to look at this from purely an income statement persepective, then you have to also realize that if "TDS Anaheim" increased the demand for the Disney hotels, rates would have gone up at said hotels, as well as rents at DTD. Increasing capacity would also come into play.

That, coupled with the greater number of admissions, as well as the higher average ticket price (due to less discounting), would have significantly changed the income side of the equation.

Then there's the issue of future revenues, even if DCA is beefed up, since guests now EXPECT ticket discounts.

Never mind that the value gained from the public's perception that Disney didn't open "less than complete" parks wouldn't even show up in the short term. But it would impact the next opening, wherever that might be.

And then there's the whole issue of the third gate not being shelved...

[SoCalKDG]

And on attendance...

And if you want to look at how the strategy worked with WDW... 1997 (the last year with no AK) attendance was 39.2 million. 2004 was 40.6. A whopping increase of 1.4 million total guests.Then again 9/11 happened. If you look at 2000, attendance was up to 43.2 million. 2002 saw attendance drop to 37.5 Mil. Now its back to 40.6 and climbing once again. Without that drop of 5.7 Mil, we might see WDW around 46 Mil(based on modest growth of 2% per year from 2000).

That's not to say AK is not a worthwhile park, but the overall strategy is not working. People used to believe that when a Disney park opened, they would get a certain value. MGM began to change all of that. Now, new Disney parks are viewed with skepticism by the public. That's why DCA bombed from the beginning. The public now understands Disney's new "strategy" and they no longer give the benefit of the doubt.I didn't get to see AK when it first opened. Just as I didn't see DL open. I spent about 5 hours at AK last Sept, and found it well worth the money, and easily the nicest themed park at WDW. That 5 hours still left me missing the Tarzan show, both exhibit trails, the parade, bird show, etc. Throw in the addition of EE and AK is right up there with Epcot and MK.

Funny how close to 5 million people for DCA is a bomb when it out draws Sea World and Universal, both of which have the most creative ticket pricing(buy 1 day, come free the whole year) in the world. Whats worse than a bomb so I can lable every other park in So. Cal. based on your criteria?

[SoCalKDG]

I, for one, would have long ago had my tail on a flight from MIA to LAX to experience it. In May, I'll see DCA for the first time. I'm planning to spend 1/2 day out of three there. Other than Screamin', I've already experienced all their headliners up the street from me.I go to the DLR 20 times a year, and once a year to WDW(less than two weeks for my next trip). I don't skip any of the attractions at WDW, even the very weak POTC at the MK.

[SoCalKDG]

If you want to look at this from purely an income statement persepective, then you have to also realize that if "TDS Anaheim" increased the demand for the Disney hotels, rates would have gone up at said hotels, as well as rents at DTD. Increasing capacity would also come into play.

That, coupled with the greater number of admissions, as well as the higher average ticket price (due to less discounting), would have significantly changed the income side of the equation.

Then there's the issue of future revenues, even if DCA is beefed up, since guests now EXPECT ticket discounts.

Never mind that the value gained from the public's perception that Disney didn't open "less than complete" parks wouldn't even show up in the short term. But it would impact the next opening, wherever that might be.

And then there's the whole issue of the third gate not being shelved...TDS Anaheim would have needed to bring in double the revenue. Yes it would have brought in more than DCA, but not double.

Since AP pricing has increased, DTD is expanding, room prices have went up, and GC looks to add additional rooms, discounts have been lessened, everything you mentioned is occuring without twice the initial investment.

Oh, news reporters and internet posts don't make up public perception. Money spent at resorts is the best indicater of the publics perception.

[raidermatt]

Its not my criteria.

Its Disney's.

THEY cut projections. THEY slashed ticket prices. THEY shelved the third gate. THEY ditched the theme.


Every other park in Southern California doesn't have Disneyland sitting right next to it, or its own self contained resort with three hotels, shopping, dining, and the world's largest parking structure.

Put DCA on its own over in Buena Park or in Hollywood, and it wouldn't even sniff 5 million.

Even so, now you're using other theme/amusement parks as the standard for Disney, which is a huge mistake.

Again, its not that DCA is nothing. Its that Disney has suffered a tremendous opportunity cost by not sticking to the strategy that set it apart from all competition. And worst of all, its not that they lacked the ability or resources to make it happen, they simply chose not to.


Without that drop of 5.7 Mil, we might see WDW around 46 Mil(based on modest growth of 2% per year from 2000).


You can't just say "without that drop". It did drop, and it was going to drop anyway due to the recession. Beyond that, even in 2000, 2 years after AK opened, with the benefit of being near the peak of an upward economic cycle and prior to 9/11, attendance was only up 4 million.

That's not what Disney expected or was shooting for, hence the cancellation of an entire land in AK, and radically reduced operating hours, even in that peak year of 2000.

I didn't get to see AK when it first opened. Just as I didn't see DL open. I spent about 5 hours at AK last Sept, and found it well worth the money, and easily the nicest themed park at WDW. That 5 hours still left me missing the Tarzan show, both exhibit trails, the parade, bird show, etc. Throw in the addition of EE and AK is right up there with Epcot and MK.

That's all well and good for you. Doesn't quite prove anything in the big picture, though, does it?

Incidentally, on a personal level, I like AK as well. Doesn't change the response it received from the public overall, or the fact that they simply chose not to make a full effort.

[raidermatt]

Oh, news reporters and internet posts don't make up public perception. Money spent at resorts is the best indicater of the publics perception.


Where did I site sources such as news reporters and internet posts?

And yes, money spent is a pretty good indicator and it was far less than Disney projected.

Since AP pricing has increased, DTD is expanding, room prices have went up, and GC looks to add additional rooms, discounts have been lessened, everything you mentioned is occuring without twice the initial investment.

Its occuring later and to a lesser degree.


A continuing irony is that if Disney had always followed the strategy you and some others support, we wouldn't even be discussing them in this manner today. If they had the same strategy as most everybody else from the beginning, they'd just be another entertainment company today.

They chose to take advantage of, instead of build on, the reputation they had built up over the years.

We can only hope that to at least some degree, that will change now with the change at the top.

[jazstar87]

I heard once somewhere, that tokyo disney dosen't have ride too extreme because when they go to the park they dress up nice to go to the parks. Maybe disney just seeing how the chinese go to a theme park and seeing the list of not too extreme like tokyo disney. Maybe there just testing of what they like and which way they should expand. Just look at other disney parks and which way they expand. Epcot is a good example , people didn't like it being an "educational" park so they expand with thrill rides and other things. I think it a good move so they don't have to many, soft rides you can call it yet and they have space mountian.

[YoHo]

I can't believe there is someone justifying the numbers on DCA here. (to be a smartA**, I guess I'm not surprised it's happening "here")

Disney themselves have indicated the place tanked. DisneyWar mentions the poor performance. DCA is a total waste of a perfectly good parkinglot.

[SoCalKDG]

Even so, now you're using other theme/amusement parks as the standard for Disney, which is a huge mistake. The other amusement parks set a bar, Disney excedes that bar. Of course they use other parks. Of course the look at their competition. This has always been the case.

Again, its not that DCA is nothing. Its that Disney has suffered a tremendous opportunity cost by not sticking to the strategy that set it apart from all competition. And worst of all, its not that they lacked the ability or resources to make it happen, they simply chose not to. The strategy has always been start small(yes, even DL), add additional things later. I believe when they didn't do this(DLP) they had problems.

You can't just say "without that drop". It did drop, and it was going to drop anyway due to the recession. Beyond that, even in 2000, 2 years after AK opened, with the benefit of being near the peak of an upward economic cycle and prior to 9/11, attendance was only up 4 million.
So besides a recession we had 9/11 and AK and DCA did the business they did, even more impressive. Thanks for the supporting info.

That's all well and good for you. Doesn't quite prove anything in the big picture, though, does it?

Incidentally, on a personal level, I like AK as well. Doesn't change the response it received from the public overall, or the fact that they simply chose not to make a full effort.You liked to mention public perception, thats what I gave you. My perception. I'm part of the public in case you wondered. Your public too and you like the park. :)

[SoCalKDG]

Where did I site sources such as news reporters and internet posts?

And yes, money spent is a pretty good indicator and it was far less than Disney projected.

Its occuring later and to a lesser degree.Actually you don't list any sources. You keep saying "people say" or the "public said". I just figured that you didn't talk to 100,000 people to come up with your views. Looking at the mighty dollar, taking into account 9/11 and the recession you mentioned, neither DCA or AK were bombs, as you put it.


A continuing irony is that if Disney had always followed the strategy you and some others support, we wouldn't even be discussing them in this manner today. If they had the same strategy as most everybody else from the beginning, they'd just be another entertainment company today.

They chose to take advantage of, instead of build on, the reputation they had built up over the years.

We can only hope that to at least some degree, that will change now with the change at the top. I don't see the dramatic strategy change that you keep talking about. It seems to me they open a park, then add on here and there. Did DL open with 50 rides and attractions? To think I thought they opened with a small amount of rides and attractions, added on, removed some things, etc. What am I missing? :teacher:

[SoCalKDG]

Disney themselves have indicated the place tanked. DisneyWar mentions the poor performance. DCA is a total waste of a perfectly good parkinglot.I'd be interested in seeing the quote where Disney said DCA tanked? I've seen some quotes where they stated that they didn't meet expected attendance, but then again I see that every year with Fortune 500 companies not meeting expectations. Its the nature of business.

So you get more enjoyment from a parking lot than DCA, don't know what to say about that one. :confused3

[wtg2000]

I heard once somewhere, that tokyo disney dosen't have ride too extreme because when they go to the park they dress up nice to go to the parks.Tokyo has pretty much the same thrill rides as U.S. parks, including Space, Splash, BTMR, Indy Jones. They also have Journey/Center Earth, Stormrider (where you get wet) and are getting TZTOT and Raging Spirits coaster. It's true that some men wear suits - maybe they just don't raise their arms on the coasters!

[crusader]

And we want to DEFEND this strategy as being the best for the Walt Disney Co?

The best for disney isn't TDS either. You can't convince me that they don't commingle the consolidated numbers in Japan; and nowhere have I been able to ascertain whether they double count a guest in their numbers. You can't even back into it by simple division because they carefully group their segments together for financial reporting.

How come, in all the arguments about the discounting and the guest looking for free admission and the failures in DCA and AK etc.......etc...........etc..... everyone failed to mention what TDL and TDS reported last year? Not only a drop in attendance - blamed on the typhoon season and the prior year anniversary campaign - but a drop in hotel occupancy and overall park revenues for which they had to launch an aggressive solicitation campaign to avert an even larger hit than they experienced.

Read for yourselves.http://www.olc.co.jp/en/ir/ir.html click on the financial link within this page to view their report.

[wtg2000]

The best for disney isn't TDS either. You can't convince me that they don't commingle the consolidated numbers in Japan; and nowhere have I been able to ascertain whether they double count a guest in their numbers. You can't even back into it by simple division because they carefully group their segments together for financial reporting.I had a four-day pass, visiting TDS on days one and two and parking hopping on days three and four. I assume I was counted as four admission units, not six because I visited two parks on one day. But I don't know how they count their numbers. If you wish to believe that TDS is a failure as others are trying to convince themselves, fine - who cares really unless you have stock in the company. I'm not sure what "commingle" means, but I haven't seen anybody who knows for sure how admissions are counted in Tokyo or the U.S. parks.

How come, in all the arguments about the discounting and the guest looking for free admission and the failures in DCA and AK etc.......etc...........etc..... everyone failed to mention what TDL and TDS reported last year? Not only a drop in attendance - blamed on the typhoon season and the prior year anniversary campaign - but a drop in hotel occupancy and overall park revenues for which they had to launch an aggressive solicitation campaign to avert an even larger hit than they experienced.I guess because it's not really relevant. It's typical for parks to take a hit the year after a big anniversary. It's happened in Florida. You could easily point to the "increase" at Tokyo from 2002 to 2003 rather than the drop from 2003 to 2004. We've been talking about general and long-term patterns and Tokyo appears to be doing very well. Also, it's smart to launch an aggressive marketing plan the following year so people don't forget about you. That's what OLC did. Despite the success of TDS, they are building TZTOT and Raging Spirits because they realize, like Cedar Point does, that you have to keep moving forward to keep guests happy. I haven't been aware of campaigns by OLC to give away free tickets, or coupons to boost attendance. My understanding was that (for a while anyway) they didn't have APs or allow TDL APs holders into TDS because the park was crowded enough. Perhaps this has changed. Does anyone know?

[YoHo]

From SaveDisney.com

With a strategy put together by the schemers to transform single-park sites into multi-day destination resorts (and a price tag of well over $1 Billion) Disney's California Adventure was destined to failure before ground was broken.

Frightened by the economics of EuroDisney and misinterpreting the reasons for its failure, the "numbers guys" assigned an investment cap to DCA's construction. Rather than innovating and designing the Park from the bottom-up based upon what the consumer would expect for the price of admission, DCA was designed from the top-down based on what the spreadsheets said was required to hit a return figure that has never materialized.

The continued suppression of innovation - fixing the off-the-shelf rides - is likely as the schemers desperately try to avoid any financial write-offs at this time. DCA has failed and will never come close to generating the financial return the planners forecast.

Why? Consumers are not willing to pay the same admission price for a smaller and subjectively less-special park. The excessive discounting in the last twelve months clearly supports that the consumer knows what DCA is worth. If only the schemers had listened in the first place.



Not the "proof" I was looking for, but since Roy and Stanely were in the boardroom and YOU were not, I'm going to assume they may know a bit more about this then any of you do.


Also, I'll reiterate, Move Soarin over to Disneyland and bring back the parkinglot, because Soarin is the only worthwhile thing in that offense to a Walt Disney Themepark.

[Plus4206]

Hey, if you're putting a parking lot back in, send Grizzly Rapids over to AK to replaced the pitifull Kali Trickle.

[YoHo]

Now now, it's not that much better.

How bout a compromise, Akli's theme with Grizzley ride mech. :crazy:

[SoCalKDG]

Not the "proof" I was looking for, but since Roy and Stanely were in the boardroom and YOU were not, I'm going to assume they may know a bit more about this then any of you do.

Also, I'll reiterate, Move Soarin over to Disneyland and bring back the parkinglot, because Soarin is the only worthwhile thing in that offense to a Walt Disney Themepark.Thats funny... :rotfl: Your using as your proof two gentleman and a website that have everything to gain by being negative about any Disney decision made in the last 10 years. In all these discussions I haven't once used anything Eisner or Disney public relations has said. Each side sees things through colored glasses. No thanks.



DCA highlites:

Soaring
TOT
Muppets
ITTBAB(yes the last three are clones, but then so are 1/3 of the rides at M.K. Very few people are fortunate to be able to visit both DLR and WDW on a consistant basis)

Grizzly(great ride, easily surpasses Kali)
Animation building
Alladin(second best show behind Lion King)
Screamin(one of the few roller coasters my FIL and MIL can ride while still entertaining teenagers).

For my daughter(3 years old) Bugs Land beats ToonTown hands down.
Playhouse Disney & Redwood Creek Challenge Trail are also her favorites. Monster Inc. will join her list as well.


Throw in the Winery for eating, eating icecream while watching the Electric Light Parade, and a couple off the shelf rides that are still enjoyable, makes for a great day.

While I'm there, I'm sure you can find some parking lot to stand in all day since thats more enjoyable for you.

[crusader]

If you wish to believe that TDS is a failure as others are trying to convince themselves, fine - who cares really unless you have stock in the company. I'm not sure what "commingle" means, but I haven't seen anybody who knows for sure how admissions are counted in Tokyo or the U.S. parks.

No, I don't see TDS as a failure. I see it as a themepark built in Japan which looks pretty darned attractive from the U.S. (glad you're here to clue us in) As for the commingle issue - it has to do with the way OLC consolidates its' subsidiaries. They have different reporting standards in Japan vs U.S. which makes it very difficult to assess an accurate financial picture.


I guess because it's not really relevant. It's typical for parks to take a hit the year after a big anniversary. It's happened in Florida. You could easily point to the "increase" at Tokyo from 2002 to 2003 rather than the drop from 2003 to 2004. We've been talking about general and long-term patterns and Tokyo appears to be doing very well. Also, it's smart to launch an aggressive marketing plan the following year so people don't forget about you. That's what OLC did. Despite the success of TDS, they are building TZTOT and Raging Spirits because they realize, like Cedar Point does, that you have to keep moving forward to keep guests happy. I haven't been aware of campaigns by OLC to give away free tickets, or coupons to boost attendance. My understanding was that (for a while anyway) they didn't have APs or allow TDL APs holders into TDS because the park was crowded enough. Perhaps this has changed. Does anyone know?

I disagree about the relevance issue, but I pretty much agree with everything else you're stating. DCA has been highly critized for the buy one park get the second park free campaign DL promotes to So Cal residents. (Matt mentioned it again on this thread) The argument being that the park is so bad the company has to give the local residents a free ticket to get them to attend. I view it as simply a promo - no better or worse than the FL resident discounts being offered at various themeparks throughout the year - or in this case the OLC campaigns to generate patrons.

OLC did mention in their financials that they had launched a campaign which encompassed the parks and the resorts. I don't know the details but I'm guessing there were some lucrative deals.

The guest count remains an issue I'm very curious about.

[wtg2000]

I see it as a themepark built in Japan which looks pretty darned attractive from the U.S. (glad you're here to clue us in)Clue you in on what? But you're welcome anyway.

What I'm most curious about is why this and other similar discussions rage on. Why are some people so seemingly desperate to delve into the minutiae to, I guess, justify DCA's exsistence? I've never been, but I take with a grain of salt everything I read about it because the lines were drawn before the place even opened. Is it possible to get an impartial view? I loved TDS but didn't care at all for WDSP. Since I hold stock in neither company or have any interest at all I feel my judgements were based solely on my experiences. Some people, not you, in their efforts to justify DCA turn to denigrating Tokyo by questioning everything about it and saying that the Japanese don't like it and that it's empty - statements right of the Twilight Zone.

Personally, I hope for the parks all to be successful and for everyone who visits to have an enjoyable experience. But trying to cling to some numbers, or mention that Tokyo's attendance dropped after an anniversary year as somehow justification for Disney's decision to build DCA (which is exactly what it is) is just strange to me.

Not to mention that the original topic of this thread is a distant memory! Will the Chinese be blown away given the opening day roster of HKDL? I have a hard time convincing myself that they will, but I hope it is received positively. (I wonder if the Jungle Cruise will be given in Cantonese or Mandarin?)

[All Aboard]

(I wonder if the Jungle Cruise will be given in Cantonese or Mandarin?) There are several HK CMs working WDW's Jungle Cruise right now. In speaking with a friend who is a skipper there, she told me that they have to master a solid English, Mandarin and Cantonese spiel. Though, she had no idea if the spiels would rotate or just how they'd be used in HK.

[SoCalKDG]

What I'm most curious about is why this and other similar discussions rage on. Why are some people so seemingly desperate to delve into the minutiae to, I guess, justify DCA's exsistence? I've never been, but I take with a grain of salt everything I read about it because the lines were drawn before the place even opened. Is it possible to get an impartial view? I loved TDS but didn't care at all for WDSP. Since I hold stock in neither company or have any interest at all I feel my judgements were based solely on my experiences. Some people, not you, in their efforts to justify DCA turn to denigrating Tokyo by questioning everything about it and saying that the Japanese don't like it and that it's empty - statements right of the Twilight Zone. I enjoy DCA alot. Would I prefer to have DSea there instead, you betcha. I havn't noticed it from you, but for some people to say it tanked or to say its worse than a parking lot, thats as extreme as blasting DSea, wouldn't you agree.

For most people DCA is a second park that is walking distance from DL and is about equal to AK or MGM, IMHP. Unfortunately experiences are sometimes tainted by expectations. If I go to AK right after the MK and expect a similar experience, of course you will be disappointed. By the way, WDSP? Disney Studios Paris? How does it compare to Disney Studios at WDW?

The same thing will occur at Hong Kong. Like Japan it will a have a captive audience with very little competition and a large population to draw from. Our expectations if we visit that park will be different than the local population, very possibly leading to our disappointment while at the same time making them feel its a great park.

[All Aboard]

By the way, WDSP? Disney Studios Paris? How does it compare to Disney Studios at WDW?

Start with Disney-MGM Studios, then...

Subtract:
The Great Movie Ride
Tower of Terror
Beauty and the Beast
Muppetvision 3D
Star Tours
Who Wants to be a Millionaire
Fantasmic

Replace:
Voyage of the Little Mermaid with Animagique
Indiana Jones Spectacular with Armegeddon
Sounds Dangerous with Cinemagique (ok, that's a stretch - but Martin Short did once appear in that theater at MGM :) )

Add:
The Magic Carpets of Aladdin

That's pretty much describes it.

[wtg2000]

I wonder how common it is for people to speak both Cantonese and Mandarin? I know the reading is the same. I thought they were spoken in different parts of the country. Imagine, you have to be trilingual just to get a job as a Jungle Cruise skipper! JC in Tokyo was fun because even though I couldn't understand the skipper, the guests laughed in all the same places as in Florida so I knew what jokes were being told. I understood that the reason there is on JC in Paris is because of all the various European languages. Perhaps HK will have different language lineups. I wonder how Albert Schweitzer translates.

[wtg2000]

I havn't noticed it from you, but for some people to say it tanked or to say its worse than a parking lot, thats as extreme as blasting DSea, wouldn't you agree.Yes, these opinions are pretty extreme as well. I guess they are born partially from the frustration that WESTCOT or DisneySea was not built. Like I said, I haven't been but it doesn't seem that bad from pictures and descriptions. But remember, people with moderate views generally don't bother to post.
By the way, WDSP? Disney Studios Paris? How does it compare to Disney Studios at WDW?Unfortunately, it doesn't. The attraction lineup was very sparse (8 in total), but more importantly there is no "park." It's really just a few soundstage buildings strewn about. Some posters want the parking lot back instead of DCA. The trouble with WDSP is that it still looks like a parking lot! There are no backstreets, no mainstreets, no nooks or crannies, no places to sit or hang out. The show times are staggered but while you're waiting, there's nothing to do, nowhere to go, no place to walk around. The soundstages look like outlet malls - I'm not kidding.

A couple of the attractions are quite nice. I enjoyed Cinemagique, the car stunt show and the animation. Animagique and the Backlot Tour not so much - the latter because there is no backlot.

I understand that they had to build a second park within ten years or lose the land and that they were financially strapped. Also, they let us visit DLP on the same day, which made it bearable. It's not as though it was a monumental effort that failed. It was a modest effort that produces modest results - at best. I mean, they obviously weren't trying to make something great - so how do you measure it? Do you say, it's okay for what they were trying to do, or do you compare it with TDS, EPCOT, and the MKs and say that it fails? I don't see myself going back. I guess that's the final answer.

[YoHo]

You compare it to what thier predecessors DID do.

I'm not down on DCA because I wanted Westcot or Disney Seas, I'm down on DCA, because it is beneath substandard for a Disney Park as Walt envisioned them and just because some people think it's "OK" doesn't make it a Disney Quality product.

Disney used to stand for something Darnit And powerpoint presentations illustrating how a park that's just good enough to keep a few million isn't it.

If Knox had opened DCA, I wouldn't be complaining.....I wouldn't be going either, but I wouldn't be complaining.

DCA represents sluming it and that offends me and is contradictory to everything I've ever read about the hows and whys of Disney themeparks.

[SoCalKDG]

I don't see myself going back. I guess that's the final answer.Thats as good an answer as there can be. Someday I'd like to go to DP, but most likely not in the next 5-7 years. Hopefully DSP will be improved by then. Thanks for the info.

[SoCalKDG]

You compare it to what thier predecessors DID do.

I'm not down on DCA because I wanted Westcot or Disney Seas, I'm down on DCA, because it is beneath substandard for a Disney Park as Walt envisioned them and just because some people think it's "OK" doesn't make it a Disney Quality product.

Disney used to stand for something Darnit And powerpoint presentations illustrating how a park that's just good enough to keep a few million isn't it.

If Knox had opened DCA, I wouldn't be complaining.....I wouldn't be going either, but I wouldn't be complaining.

DCA represents sluming it and that offends me and is contradictory to everything I've ever read about the hows and whys of Disney themeparks.For reference what is your opinion on AK and DMGM? Are they substandard? I don't think they are, and I view DCA as falling in between those two parks.

Based off my experiences, this is the order of preference of the 6 parks I've been to.

DL
MK
Epcot
AK
DCA
DMGM

This is based off of 1 visit to WDW, and monthly visits to DLR. This may change after my trip next week to WDW. 1 week to go. :)

[YoHo]

Based on multiple visits to each of those parks, I'd say yes it very much does include both Animal Kingdom and Disney/MGM studios.

I've had this discussion many a time here, but since some of you are new I'll sum up.

When Walt built Disneyland, he had to scrounge for money, sell his soul, whatever it took. Disneyland is the fruit of his devotion Likewise, MK and Epcot represent the devotion to every ideal Walt had in building Disneyland. Everything he despised about other amusment parks.


Enter Disney Studios. Mike's first Themepark. Now don't get me wrong, when it first opened, I loved the theme, the styling, the idea.

Disney Studios may have been envisioned as a Universal Killer, but it had soul.

What it didn't have was a reason for you to stay very long.
One of the first things invented after it opened was park hoppers, because people were feeling cheated by what they paid to get into the Studios.

And following on those heals, the ToT.

And then, everything was still...okay. Even if the place feels like a maze. (ie laid out stupidly.)

Even after that, it was okay, but then, they dumped everything I loved about it, the how the movies work aspect and decided to make it Synergyland. Drew Carey replaced talent comedians, Who wants to be a millionaire, Disney Channel kids shows. Synergy synergy synergy and not an once of imagination as far as the eye can see.




As for AK.

Animal Kingdom had promise. I love parts of animal kingdom, but I'll be honest with you, a quick trip to the Sandiego Zoo and Wild animal park is worth a thousand trips to Animal Kingdom.

I love the feel of this place, but they screwed it over by putting in to little to do and expecting too much of the guest without cluing them in. They couldn't decide if it was a zoo or a themepark and so it's neither. And DARNIT, I WANTED BEASTLY KINGDOM.

And lets not even discuss Dinoland, because that's just offensive. Dinoland, much like Paradise pier is 100% exactly what Walt HATED about Amusment parks. Carnival rides and Carnival sham games. great, just great, yeah wooee that's magic for you.


So, I'd say,

DL
MK
Epcot
AK
MGM
DCA.

[wtg2000]

Even after that, it was okay, but then, they dumped everything I loved about it, the how the movies work aspect and decided to make it Synergyland. Drew Carey replaced talent comedians, Who wants to be a millionaire, Disney Channel kids shows. Synergy synergy synergy and not an once of imagination as far as the eye can see.I agree. It was the purchase of ABC that led to that. For example, Monster Sound Show was replaced by ABC1 then Drew. The park was always laid out poorly. Imagineer Randy Bright was mad at Eisner at the time for charging full admission, admitting that it was intended as a half-day park. I remember how upset my brother was when he visited just after it had opened saying that it was a ripoff at $30!

I can only rate the non-MK parks because the MKs are the heart and soul of what Disney parks are so they sort of get an honorary first place. My order:

TDS
EPCOT
AK
MGM
WDSP

As for the MKs themselves, I can't really rate them because I like unique aspects of each.

[raidermatt]

The other amusement parks set a bar, Disney excedes that bar. Of course they use other parks. Of course the look at their competition. This has always been the case.

Oh my.

Of course they "look" at the competition, and need to be aware of what is going on. But suggesting that other parks set the bar for Disney's parks is just not correct. The public doesn't go to a new Disney park with "Knott's" type expectations, they go to it with Disney-type expectations.

And yes, its a double-edged sword. On the one hand, Disney IS held to a different standard. A higher one. People know what they are capapble of, and they want Disneyland, they want the Magic Kingdom, and they want Epcot. Disney has to work harder if they want to meet that standard.

But on the other hand, it is (or was) a tremendous advantage as well. Disney has a huge fan base who at one time was willing to flock to a new Disney park simply because of Disney's reputation. The whole "what will they come up with next" thing. Whenever you hear the company talk about "leveraging the brand name", this is the type of thing they are talking about.

As YoHo pointed out, the "open small and enlarge" strategy with DL came from necessity. It opened with everything the company (and Walt personally) could muster. The Magic Kingdom opened with a much larger array of attractions at its opening than DL.

The company also strained its resources to open Epcot as well.

Now, with the company's increased capital at its disposal, nobody is suggesting they should build new parks that risk the entire company's survival. But at the same time, they do have ample resources to meet THEIR OWN standard at OPENING, without even needing to take the risks they once did.

Problem is, the public no longer flocks to a Disney park opening. YoHo again does a good job of summing up MGM's history, but regardless, even at opening it was a disappointment to Disney's guests because of its lack of scope.

Then there was AK. Again, some love the detail and depth of what's there, but again, it lacked, and still lacks, scope. Meaning numbers of attractions, meat, whatever you want to call it.

Then DCA. Same problem, only complaints have not only been about scope, but also about the content of what is (or was) there.

By using this "open small" strategy, Disney no longer has much of the advantage they had built up over the years. Its impossible to measure that cost, because you can't run down a number that doesn't exist. But is there a company out there that wouldn't jump at the chance to have the kind of brand loyalty Disney had? Of course not, and Disney had it. They still have a powerful brand, but they are slowly squandering it through strategies like "open small", especially when its priced the same as the real deal's sitting on the same properties.

The strategy has always been start small(yes, even DL), add additional things later. I believe when they didn't do this(DLP) they had problems.
The park itself was never the problem. It was the overbuilding of hotels that caused the initial problems. Then, when the resort was back on something resembling reasonable financial footing, they opened DSP, which is a textbook example of opening small, and the resort has been plunged back into financial difficulty.


As for the newer parks on an individual basis:

MGM- Yes, opened too small. Expansions have helped, but its still doesn't provide the value for most that the older parks provide. And yes, I'm in full agreement that it has been "over synergized" with ABC. ToT is a great attraction.

AK- Unlike some others, I do see some significant plusses in this park. I can see the effort in many places, but again, its a problem of scope. It opened without Asia, and has since had Beastly Kingdom scrapped. Dinorama is embarassing. But the somewhat bizarre poaching storyline aside, the Safari attraction is strong and Festival of the Lion King is a great show. The streetmosphere is fun to watch and even take part in. The walking trails are nice as well, but the park really does need more. EE could help, but that still isn't going to "finish" the job.

DCA- You'll never hear (or read) me seriously say the place was better as a parking lot. I'm a firm believer that if they weren't going to do it right, they shouldn't have done it, but to me that's not the same thing. DCA was worse at opening than MGM or AK because not only did it suffer from the same scope issues, but it also had serious problems with what was there. Superstar Limo has to go in the synergy bust hall of fame. The upscale restaurants were out of place. Paradise Pier was an easy out to fit a loose "theme". It has decent copies of ITTBAB and Muppets, and Soarin' is a great ride. But even Soarin' lacks the themeing and story aspects that a ride of that quality deserves.

It just wasn't anywhere close to what the public wanted, and hence the scrambling with regard to pricing, theme, etc.

Look beyond the "parking lot" hyperbole and its clear Disney squandered a tremendous opportunity.

[ShadowWind]

To me, it's not the amount of rides a park started with, it's the quality of those rides. Look at the list...

1) HK Disneyland Railroad - Probably one of the most expensive in this lot...
2) Space Mountain - Off the shelf Roller Coaster under a dome
3) Buzz Lightyear's Astro Blasters - Moving and static cutouts
4) Orbitron (Astro Orbiter) - Dumbo
5) Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh - Moving and static cutouts (at least a bit better than some)
6) Mickey's Philharmagic - 3D film
7) Dumbo the Flying Elephant - Dumbo again
8) Mad Tea Party - Off the shelf cup ride
9) Carousel - Off the shelf ride
10) Jungle Cruise - AT least some audio-animatronics in this
11) Tarzan's Treehouse - Of the shelf climbing ride with cutouts or statues
12) Festival of the Lion King - Live show (very little set design)

Where is the Haunted Mansion, Pirates of the Caribbean, Splash Mountain, Small World even? Any ride that is not a cheap off the shelf solution. They could probably do this whole thing for $40 million. It's like Disney Sampler. Especially considering they are probably all copies of the other park's rides.

I have to wonder, considering how Hong Kong is not really a big tourist spot and since kids are limited to one per family (right?), that the audience would be quite limited. Perhaps that is the reason for this shortened version.