NEW RUMOR!!!! Kinda strange.

[YoHo]

Whoa, Fresh meat.


1FoolishMortal, there are no official attendance numbers, Disney doesn't publish them, so how you could claim good attendance with any kind of accuracy is beyond me.

Also, of course DCA's attendance has gone up steadily. The attendance during the first year was so remarkably bad that it would have been almost impossible for it not to have gone up. Disneyland itself posted record attendance during the 50th. with park hoppers and 2fers, of course DCA's attendance went up too. And even if as you say, attendance is measured as first click in, that doesn't speak to the popularity. I often go to DCA first to knock off Soarin or get a meal at the short short lines. I'll tell you right now that I think DCA is a worthless pit of f''n despair an offense to everything Walt ever did or stood for, and it smells funny.

And of course, you realize Disney made a major point about how DCA was going to be a separate ticket right? When it first opened, there was no such thing as a park hopper there, no such thing as a 2fer. You bought seperate $50 tickets.

Nobody wanted to pay that much because it's a soul sucking wasteland.
Park Hopping and 2fers exist, because Disney couldn't get people to go any other way. How in God's good name do you think you can spin that as DCA being good?

Wolfgang Puck pulled out, Mondavi pulled out, the Chinese resturant has never once been open any time I've gone.

They've floated plans for a complete makeover of DCA. Iger has discussed major questions about the failure of DCA at shareholders meetings.

What color is the sky in your world where DCA is doing even adequately?

 

[All Aboard]

Was DCA supposed to be a standalone park like the 4 major parks at WDW? I hate to open this can of worms, but I don't think DL even qualifies.

Disneyland was desingned to be a standalone park from day one (and certainly qualified) and remains one today. Or, do we define "standalone" differently?

I define it as a park worthy of a full day's stay at a full day's cost. Having enough attractions to fill a day's time for a family and leave them feeling like they got their money's worth.

Disneyland most assuredly does that in my opinion. So does MK and Epcot. DCA doesn't even come close. But, it seems like the Disney folks thought it would as they priced it exactly the same as they Disneyland when it first opened. That didn't last long, though.

 

[airlarry!]

AV I agree with most of what you are saying but I cant quite understand what you are saying with the above. Over the last year the SandP was up 18% while Disney was up 40%. They normally grew more than 40% per year? Not during my lifetime.

OWTS:

Can't just look at the last two years when you talk about success against the S&P. DIS is just about 2/3 of the way to its previous highs. Look at a price scan over the last ten years, you will see that it is only just now catching up to the tremendous losses spurred when the DIS tanked to below $19 per share prior to Ei$ner's removal.

And this from Morningstar:

This stock is in the media conglomerates industry, which has proven to be an excellent industry over the past 10 years, but has been much weaker the past five. Compared to its peers, this stock hasn't fared very well, however. It's relative returns have been poor over the 10-year period, though its five-year record is somewhat better.

Overall, Disney has been a great company to invest in for the life of the stock. If you were lucky enough (cough! cough!) to buy some shares when the stock hit its lows, yes, then you have done pretty nice since 2003. However, the recent price spike is just bringing it back up to BELOW the level it was before the spiral.

I've got a question, though. If you were in charge of the long term growth of the stock, would you want Disney to continue to build ECA type parks? Of course not. An outsider checking out the placemaking work being done there would be tempted to rename ECA as "Pixarland" and just make a secret tunnel from the edge of DL to get there. For the life of the park, it has been basically a larger-than-normal sized 'land' of Disneyland anyway.

And this from personal experience, nothing says Disney like Bob Seger at 6:30 a.m.

 

[YoHo]

Just to pile it on, and cause I forgot.


DCA opened up with a ticket price the same as Disneyland's. No discounts, no 2fers, no hoppers.

If Disney didn't expect DCA to be as good or Better then Disneyland, then why would they charge the same?

Maybe, they charged the same, because they thought we the public were a bunch of simpering morons? Or maybe, they actually thought they built something worth that price? Or more likely, a little from column A, some from Column B.

 

[DVCconvert]

YoHo said:

Wolfgang Puck pulled out

As a result of divorce.

 

[EUROPACL]

YoHo said:

Quote:
Wolfgang Puck pulled out

As a result of divorce.

Holy double-entendre Batman.

 

[YoHo]

no kidding, I just sat there staring for a minute.

 

[G8RFAN]

Disneyland was desingned to be a standalone park from day one (and certainly qualified) and remains one today. Or, do we define "standalone" differently?

Yes, apparently I have a different definition. Standalone meaning a vacation destination. When we booked a trip to Phily to go to Sesame Place, everyone, including co-workers from Phily and NY thought we were nuts. Did we spend a week there at SP, of course not. We spent one day at the Independence Hall/Liberty Bell/Museum in Phily, and also had a "whiz wit" at Pat's, but we also spent part of our vacation driving up to NYC and visiting my brother. If I were to take SP and put it in the middle of nowhere, I would not have gone for just a couple of days, particularly with the hassle of flying since 911.

DL at it's inception was pioneering. Today, it is just a 2-5 day destination and it helps that Southern Cal is a very attractive destination in itself. Because we love Disney, we planned a trip, but I can not see spending an entire vacation on property (5-6 days). I felt that DCA helped add more to the DLR experience. I agree that it definitely is not worth the same price of admission as DL, but without it, we would have probably gone to KBF or SD Zoo for a day. That may not have been Disney vision of DCA, but IMO, it still gives DLR more creedence to be called a true vacation destination which I think is the ultimate goal.

People aways complain about AK and MGM in the same manner in regards to value vs ticket price. I think AK is getting better, and if we had to buy tickets a la carte, I would not be PO'ed that I wasted my money going to AK. However, I would not make it a habit of going back. And once would be enough for MGM. The hopper feature helps diminish the "a la carte" value comparison and the PAP makes DQ, TL & BB on equal footing with the four theme parks as venue choices.

So going back the the OP, if Disney were to build a park in the middle of nowhere, I really don't think it will do well as a tourist attraction. Maybe as a weekend destination for regional residents.

 

[YoHo]

Disneyland was never, ever, ever intended to be a resort destination.

That's not how I or anyone I've talked to has defined stand alone park.


People go to Disneyland. People used to go to the Magic Kingdom. Nobody has ever or will ever go to MGM or AK. They go to Disneyworld. Ergo, MGM and AK are not stand alone parks.


DCA was built as an attempt to turn Disneyland into a destination resort. DL is a stand alone park that people go to in isolation. And yes, they have millions of locals going there, that's kinda the point.

 

[DVCconvert]

no kidding, I just sat there staring for a minute.

seems odd -- if you're looking for "fresh meat"

 

[drakethib]

Whoa, Fresh meat.


1FoolishMortal, there are no official attendance numbers, Disney doesn't publish them, so how you could claim good attendance with any kind of accuracy is beyond me.

Also, of course DCA's attendance has gone up steadily. The attendance during the first year was so remarkably bad that it would have been almost impossible for it not to have gone up. Disneyland itself posted record attendance during the 50th. with park hoppers and 2fers, of course DCA's attendance went up too. And even if as you say, attendance is measured as first click in, that doesn't speak to the popularity. I often go to DCA first to knock off Soarin or get a meal at the short short lines. I'll tell you right now that I think DCA is a worthless pit of f''n despair an offense to everything Walt ever did or stood for, and it smells funny.

And of course, you realize Disney made a major point about how DCA was going to be a separate ticket right? When it first opened, there was no such thing as a park hopper there, no such thing as a 2fer. You bought seperate $50 tickets.

Nobody wanted to pay that much because it's a soul sucking wasteland.
Park Hopping and 2fers exist, because Disney couldn't get people to go any other way. How in God's good name do you think you can spin that as DCA being good?

Wolfgang Puck pulled out, Mondavi pulled out, the Chinese resturant has never once been open any time I've gone.

They've floated plans for a complete makeover of DCA. Iger has discussed major questions about the failure of DCA at shareholders meetings.

What color is the sky in your world where DCA is doing even adequately?

Let me take a while guess, you don't like DCA do you?

 

[1FoolishMortal]

1FoolishMortal, there are no official attendance numbers, Disney doesn't publish them, so how you could claim good attendance with any kind of accuracy is beyond me.

Also, of course DCA's attendance has gone up steadily. The attendance during the first year was so remarkably bad that it would have been almost impossible for it not to have gone up. Disneyland itself posted record attendance during the 50th. with park hoppers and 2fers, of course DCA's attendance went up too. And even if as you say, attendance is measured as first click in, that doesn't speak to the popularity. I often go to DCA first to knock off Soarin or get a meal at the short short lines. I'll tell you right now that I think DCA is a worthless pit of f''n despair an offense to everything Walt ever did or stood for, and it smells funny.

YoHo, there are no official attendance numbers, Disney doesn't publish them, so how you could claim good attendance with any kind of accuracy is beyond me.

And of course, you realize Disney made a major point about how DCA was going to be a separate ticket right? When it first opened, there was no such thing as a park hopper there, no such thing as a 2fer. You bought seperate $50 tickets.

"When DCA first opened...," "When DL first opened...," "When WDW first opened..." I keep hearing this same argument over and over again. Things change folks. You don't follow the exact same business plan you started with at the opening of the park. Disney realized that DCA wasn't perfect, started fixing things, and have continued to do so to this day. We might as well keep DCA the same as when "it first opened" if you and everyone else is going to use that logic.

Nobody wanted to pay that much because it's a soul sucking wasteland.
Park Hopping and 2fers exist, because Disney couldn't get people to go any other way. How in God's good name do you think you can spin that as DCA being good?

I guess AK, MGM, and Epcot are soul sucking wastelands, too. People don't view park hoppers as getting DCA free with a DL ticket. It's more along the lines that they get both together with one ticket.

What color is the sky in your world where DCA is doing even adequately?

Blue. I prefer to live in a world of color instead of black, white, & red, thank you very much.

We all know what they were TRYING to do with DCA. The point is, it failed. That's why the pricing was changed almost immediately. That's why the theme was essentially abandoned. That's why the 3rd gate, which Disneyland actually had a website for, was cancelled.

Its great that you like DCA, and you're right that for your family, that's all that matters. But when we are discussing the park with respect to the business goals it was designed to achieve, and even if those goals were the right goals in the first place, then whatever you or I personally think about the place doesn't matter.

See my comments above.

There's a big difference between a ticket that allows going back and forth between two parks for one operating day, and one that allows admission for two operating days.

You even say that its a "better deal". That's the point. Its HAS to be a better deal to get people in the park.

See my comments above.

And that's cool with you?

That sort of "lower the bar" mentality is what drew you to Disney?

Give the people less than you gave them before, but charge them the same?

Once again I really appreciate everybody twisting my words against me. Really makes me feel welcome as a first-time poster here. I never said that DCA was designed with a "lower the bar" mentality. You said that. What I said was this:

"Also, the park wasn't designed to be better than Disneyland. No where, anywhere, did they state the park was supposed to be better."

That doesn't = horribly worse than DL. Don't try to string the logic in that direction.

Is your only argument that the park is a failure, but not a complete disaster zone?

Nope. That's your argument. I never said that.

 

[YoHo]

I guess AK, MGM, and Epcot are soul sucking wastelands, too. People don't view park hoppers as getting DCA free with a DL ticket. It's more along the lines that they get both together with one ticket.

Actually, AK and MGM underperform. Epcot used to be seperately ticketed before MGM was opened.

You don't follow the exact same business plan you started with at the opening of the park.

Really? Disneyland did, Magic Kingdom did. Epcot did for a year or so until Eisner ruined things.

 

[YoHo]

YoHo, there are no official attendance numbers, Disney doesn't publish them, so how you could claim good attendance with any kind of accuracy is beyond me.




"When DCA first opened...," "When DL first opened...," "When WDW first opened..." I keep hearing this same argument over and over again. Things change folks. You don't follow the exact same business plan you started with at the opening of the park. Disney realized that DCA wasn't perfect, started fixing things, and have continued to do so to this day. We might as well keep DCA the same as when "it first opened" if you and everyone else is going to use that logic.




I guess AK, MGM, and Epcot are soul sucking wastelands, too. People don't view park hoppers as getting DCA free with a DL ticket. It's more along the lines that they get both together with one ticket.




Blue. I prefer to live in a world of color instead of black, white, & red, thank you very much.




See my comments above.




See my comments above.




Once again I really appreciate everybody twisting my words against me. Really makes me feel welcome as a first-time poster here. I never said that DCA was designed with a "lower the bar" mentality. You said that. What I said was this:

"Also, the park wasn't designed to be better than Disneyland. No where, anywhere, did they state the park was supposed to be better."

That doesn't = horribly worse than DL. Don't try to string the logic in that direction.




Nope. That's your argument. I never said that.

So what was the expectation if it wasn't to be better? Or at least equal? Cause I'll tell you right now, it isn't either.

 

[Another Voice]

YoHo, there are no official attendance numbers, Disney doesn't publish them, so how you could claim good attendance with any kind of accuracy is beyond me.

Yet you claim that attendance is going up?

If there are no good figures - how can you make the claim. Your entire rationale for "DCA is good" is based on things were good and they're only getting better. But if there are no figures to back up you statement, then why did you make it?

So are which of your posts are wrong - the ones where you know attendance is getting better, or the ones where we don't know what the attendance is??

DL at it's inception was pioneering. Today, it is just a 2-5 day destination and it helps that Southern Cal is a very attractive destination in itself. Because we love Disney, we planned a trip, but I can not see spending an entire vacation on property (5-6 days).

Actually, since it opened Disneyland has been a single day park (and over two-thirds of its attendance from Southern California). It was never intended to be a week-long resort stay. The park has always been just one of many sights people would see on a trip to L.A.

The only reason it happened was Disney's corporate greed and a massively poorly executed con job to turn the place into a "resort". It could have worked, but Disney does not have the corporate will power to take that kind of risk.

Instead we got the least possible effort wrapped up just enough marketing to fool people into beleiveing in "magic". Disney's problem is that people aren't as stupid and gulible as they want them to be.

 

[OnWithTheShow]

OWTS:

Can't just look at the last two years when you talk about success against the S&P. DIS is just about 2/3 of the way to its previous highs. Look at a price scan over the last ten years, you will see that it is only just now catching up to the tremendous losses spurred when the DIS tanked to below $19 per share prior to Ei$ner's removal.

But we can just look at the last two years because the conversation was about Iger's impact.

 

[DisneyKidds]

High School Musical Pep Rally

Doh!!

I was getting into the conversation until I hit this one. Any conversation in which this is referenced as proof positive of the incredible improvements that are happening at the park.........well, it's not a conversation worth pursuing.

As for DCA. Free tix does indeed equal huge failure at some level. A successful theme park NEVER has to offer free admission. NEVER. If attendance is bolstered by those free bodies than nothing can be read into ticks or crowds.

As for stock prices, let's just say that Iger didn't actually have to do that much to spur Disney's 40% increase since it was in such a huge hole to begin with relative to the rest of the market. Yes, recent growth has happened under Iger, but not entirely because of Iger.

 

[Another Voice]

Any conversation in which this [High School Musical Pep Rally] is referenced as proof positive of the incredible improvements that are happening at the park

What's really scary is that 'High School Musical' is an improvement over the old 'Eureka' parade, 'X-Games X-perience X-treme', 'Step-in-Time' and other hideous attempts at "entertainment" that have plooped into DCA over the years.

It just shows you how wretched the place is.

 

[raidermatt]

YoHo, there are no official attendance numbers, Disney doesn't publish them, so how you could claim good attendance with any kind of accuracy is beyond me.

Then as others have asked, why did you claim DCA's attendance has been improving every year since 2002? By the way, using the AB numbers, the grand total of that improvement for DCA through 2005 (the last year the numbers were published) is 1.1 million. If taken from the park's opening in 2001, the improvement is only 800k. Disneyland improved 1.8 million and 2.2 million in those same respective periods.

This despite the various pricing change made to make DCA more affordable, and even free in many cases.

Once again I really appreciate everybody twisting my words against me. Really makes me feel welcome as a first-time poster here. I never said that DCA was designed with a "lower the bar" mentality. You said that. What I said was this:

"Also, the park wasn't designed to be better than Disneyland. No where, anywhere, did they state the park was supposed to be better."

That doesn't = horribly worse than DL. Don't try to string the logic in that direction.

You aren't seriously suggesting that DCA was designed to be equal to DL, are you?

Because if it wasn't, that's lowering the bar. If you want to take the position that you are ok with that, that's one thing, but you can't deny that its reality.

Further, we all agree that Disney has (finally) admitted the park didn't even meet that lowered bar, and still isn't.

If that's not horribly worse than DL, perhaps you can suggest another term that accurately reflects reality.

See my comments above.

See my comments above.

Your comments in no way addressed the fact that (a), 2-fers are not the same thing as park hoppers, and (b), that drastic pricing discounts are a very good indication of poor performance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by raidermatt
Is your only argument that the park is a failure, but not a complete disaster zone?

Nope. That's your argument. I never said that.

Well, you did cite several current and former Disney execs who have said DCA is a "challenged park that needs to be worked on." Do you define that as success, especially given how reluctant Disney execs are to criticize their parks?

 

[YoHo]

To be fair, his comment about there not being official attendence numbers was throwing my comment about record setting attendence (a fact Disney has released) in my face when I questioned his attendence figures.

As was said, Amusement business used to release numbers that were guesses. They don't any more. They were never actual numbers. However Disney has indicated that the 50th generated record attendence at Disneyland.

But even Guestimates from Amusment Business don't paint the picture 1FoolishMortal is trying to paint. As Matt indicates, DCA's growth is pathetic.

from 2001 to 2005, Disneyland has had nearly 80 Million people click through the gates according to AB.

DCA a paltry 26 million. this is success?

Also, based on the AB numbers, your growth numbers are wrong. DCA's average annual growth was 16% 2001-2005. Disneyland's was 18% 2001-2005,
but that conviently covers up that in 2002 DCA saw a net attendence decrease of 6% A year in which DL has a 3.3% increase.

The following year, DCA shows double digit increases which is probably where you get your 12%, DL shows no change, but that's also when the "free" and reduced admissions plans really kicked in, so certainly revenue didn't improve.