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.

 

[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!

 

[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.