TEA/ERA Theme Park Attendance Report: DCA Attendance Drops 4.5% In 2007

[Spokker]

A business wouldn't produce anything they feel wouldn't work, and Disney didn't intentionally make DCA 'poor' as some call it. So, the fact the park is not as successful as they hoped was not planned then leaves for this update...

I cannot tell you how strongly I disagree with this. DCA was built poorly in order to save money while still claiming to deliver that special brand of Disney "magic". It was the antithesis of a good Disney theme park. Attractions were downplayed in favor of shops and restaurants. Management seemed to be more excited about Wolfgang Puck and Downtown Disney than Soarin' Over California.

During an internal Powerpoint presentation the mantra for DCA was, "If it's good enough for Six Flags..."

I think some things have changed for the better with the makeover. Al Lutz's last few updates have talked about how much the Carsland budget has ballooned over the early stages of the project, and instead of cutting back on the actual ride, they cut out the restaurant, which to be honest, DCA has enough of.

Don't get me wrong, I'm looking forward to seeing how Carsland turns out. So far I like what I'm seeing and hearing. But on a personal level these Pixar rides don't have an emotional impact with me. I don't go to Disneyland to ride the movies. As much as I love the movie Finding Nemo the attraction doesn't do anything for me. The submarine ride with the giant squid and the mermaids and ship graveyard and all that did resonate emotionally with me. There's just something about a product where there's the movie, the soundtrack, the toys, the theme park ride, the happy meal, and everything else that just rubs me the wrong way. It's hard for me to take the Pixar rides seriously in that regard.

Furthermore, the update isn't just about rides, and you see that the entrance is going to change drastically, and other things will be coming our way that are clearly not pixar.

I think the Los Angeles and Hollywood areas look great so far. That's more in line with what I want to see from a California themed park, transporting us to a California that ceases to exist today.

The one thing I'm most excited about is the Pacific Electric Red Cars replicas. Though I've been on the ones in San Pedro and Perris, CA, it's going to be great seeing more people exposed to this aspect of California history.

[KNRG]

Spokker, i think you'd quite like The Seas with Nemo and Friends at Epcot. It essentially replaced a ride no one ever liked that was closed for years, so it's not a loss, but acts as a gateway to a fascinating little world - which happens to have a tiny gift shop at the exit. Very non-rub-the-wrong-way, unless you just utterly despise the characters. It's hard to dislike Mr. Ray while he's telling you about manatees and they're floating by eating their salad though.

[Spokker]

I don't know. Maybe.

I think I'm one of the few people who actually wanted to go to Epcot when it was the boring edutainment complex, and not the thrill ride/character haven it is today.

On the Simpsons when they were flying to Florida and Homer said, "It's even boring to fly over!" I got the joke and laughed, but I didn't agree with it in spirit. Epcot was always the second most fascinating Disney park to me when I was younger and I would have dreams about going there.

Not so much today, though.

[SNJ]

I cannot tell you how strongly I disagree with this. DCA was built poorly in order to save money while still claiming to deliver that special brand of Disney "magic". It was the antithesis of a good Disney theme park. Attractions were downplayed in favor of shops and restaurants. Management seemed to be more excited about Wolfgang Puck and Downtown Disney than Soarin' Over California.

What business, especially one like Disney, would intentionally build a park that's 'bad.' That would mean that DCA, which they spent less money building, would overall COST them more with the 'poor' attendance and now the upgrade. That's just stupid. No. Disney wasn't built poorly. It was built cheaply. Not cheap in quality, but cheap in price.

During an internal Powerpoint presentation the mantra for DCA was, "If it's good enough for Six Flags..."

Is that an actual quote?

Don't get me wrong, I'm looking forward to seeing how Carsland turns out. So far I like what I'm seeing and hearing. But on a personal level these Pixar rides don't have an emotional impact with me.

I agree, and the same goes with me. I have a feeling Carsland attractions (namely Radiator Spring Racers) has the potential of becoming a classic Disney attraction.

I don't go to Disneyland to ride the movies. As much as I love the movie Finding Nemo the attraction doesn't do anything for me. The submarine ride with the giant squid and the mermaids and ship graveyard and all that did resonate emotionally with me.

I don't to ride the movies either, but it turns out that a good portion of the rides I enjoy are movies (Fantasyland). But the Nemo ride doesn't do anything for me either. It's actually, for me, a disappointing ride. I was so happy in the beginning lagoon scene of the ride. "Ahh, the subs are back," then we enter the waterfall and for me, it all goes DOWNHILL. The original subs was a favorite of mine, and had a place in my heart. I even went on it on the last day of it running.

There's just something about a product where there's the movie, the soundtrack, the toys, the theme park ride, the happy meal, and everything else that just rubs me the wrong way. It's hard for me to take the Pixar rides seriously in that regard.

I understand what you mean, and where you're coming from, but don't lose all hope on Disney's abilities.

I think the Los Angeles and Hollywood areas look great so far. That's more in line with what I want to see from a California themed park, transporting us to a California that ceases to exist today. The one thing I'm most excited about is the Pacific Electric Red Cars replicas. Though I've been on the ones in San Pedro and Perris, CA, it's going to be great seeing more people exposed to this aspect of California history.

That should be a great addition, and something extremely needed at the park.

[KNRG]

I don't know. Maybe.

I think I'm one of the few people who actually wanted to go to Epcot when it was the boring edutainment complex, and not the thrill ride/character haven it is today.

On the Simpsons when they were flying to Florida and Homer said, "It's even boring to fly over!" I got the joke and laughed, but I didn't agree with it in spirit. Epcot was always the second most fascinating Disney park to me when I was younger and I would have dreams about going there.

Not so much today, though.

Don't worry, many people still think Epcot is just as boring as ever.

[SBLisa]

From this thread...

http://micechat.com/forums/showthrea...last-9078.html

Somebody was kind enough to send me an internal PointPoint presentation file from over 5 years ago. I totally trust this person in the fact that this is the real Mc Coy, and not a fake. If I could share my source, I am sure you would agree that it is a true document.

Sorry, guys I will not post the file, nor will I share it. I am sorry, but you are going to have to trust me on this one. I will clearly identify my comments with brackets [like this]. I am also only going to post selected information, mainly related to the infamous comment, and other points discussed over the last few years.

I received a 10 slide presentation, based on the wording, is an internal WDI presentation.

The first slide is the title slide...

THE "OFF THE SHELF" DECISION

Slide 2 is titled "1995 Company Mentality", which had 7 points.

Point 2 is "Can we do a "E" attraction for $70M?"

Point 6 is "With Paul Pressler's arrival our client became the "parks", not MDE."

Slide 3 is

1996 KEY TO A CHEAPER PARK

Facility, Show or Ride - Pick any 2.

Capitalize on an improving ride industry.

Take known technology & theme it with paint color, lighting & graphics.

Take advantage of engineering already spent by others.

"Direct Lifts"

If it's good enough for Six Flags ....

The "Guiding Principles"

As to the second point of Capitalizing, [To me, this is looking at outside companies, such as S&S Power, since the outside vendors have been making better products in the last decade or so]

And the fifth point, "Direct Lifts" [and as described in a later slide, this is taking attractions from other Disney parks, such as Muppets 3-D (the example they used)]

Slides 4 and 5 talks about the Guiding Principles.

The 4th slide is titled "How can Disney's California be realized for less than traditional practice?"

Then we have 11 points for the sub-category "Park Planning/Design/Theming" (the next slide has the other sub-category).

Point 1 is "No berm around the park", other points mention outside visual intrusions are OK, themed facades are faux, show-like, not immersions or period reproductions, that only the entries and front facades are to be themed, and to keep the Monorail as is.

Slide 5 contains 5 "Backstage Philosophy" points, including "First cost before life cycle savings"

Slide 6 is titled "Embracing the Industry... Their way"

5 points, my favorite is "We don't have any lawyers & we don't want to get any."

Slide 7 is titled "Our Experience", with the category of "good" and 11 points

Slide 8 is the category "Lessons Learned" and 6 points.

Slide 9 is just a title slide, "Would we do it again?" and nothing else.

Slide 10 starts with "Yes" in large letters, and then the sentence "The pros far out weigh the cons. But..."

Then we have 5 points, my favorite on this page is, "Have attractions partners sign(underlined) in advance of the buy." [I read this as get the prospective sponsor to pay up before spending the money, or at least be guaranteed that they will pay for it]

[OK, this is the end of the PowerPoint presentation. So what have we learned, that the statement "If it's good enough for Six Flags..." was actually made at a meeting inside the Disney company, and not made up, as some folks wanted us to believe! That Disney had serious cost control issues while designing and building DCA. That Disney made the decision to use "Off the Shelf" rides instead of designing and building their own. That Disney is looking to keep the costs down on new "E" attractions (the $70 million comment, and now the LA Times report of DCA's ToT costing $75 million). That Disney purposely cut back on the theming at DCA.]

A second post going into more detail...

Let's look at the fourth slide, and the "Park Planning/Design/Theming" points.

point 1, "No berm around the Park", matches up with what was built.

point 2, "Each attraction will be designed to achieve a specific emotional impact. “Mega E’s with elaborate facilities, shows and rides will be avoided in favor of story.", and the park opened with no Mega-E's, finally we are getting a large E with ToT, but nothing of that level was included in the original park.

point 3, "Some visual intrusions are okay, including structures outside park boundary", as people have mentioned (and complained about) seeing the city from GRR, the Sun Wheel, etc. detracts from the attraction.

point 4, "Themed facades are faux, show-set like; not immersions into replications of period themed architecture." Once again, matches up with what is offered at DCA.

point 5, "Themed facades are limited to entries and front facades and thus cover only a portion of the visible facility." Once again, a perfect match to what was delivered with DCA.

point 6, "Keep the Monorail as is". And that is exactly what happened, they didn't move one inch of track, instead the attractions and other park structures were built to accommodate the Monorail. Disney did try to hide and/or use the monorail a part of the design, for example the Golden Gate Bridge at the front entrance, or the Superstar Limo sign. And they helped to limit the intrusion, but by no means did it eliminate it. They also helped keep costs down by not moving the Monorail, or adding a DCA station.

Point 7, "Use “direct lifts” (e.g. Muppets 3-D) where possible." And we got direct lifts, Muppets 3-D, WWTBAM-PI (but of course, without the pre-show offered at WDW) and ITTBAB. And Animation, which I would not call a "Direct Lift", but the majority of the attraction was.

Point 8, "Surf City rides are “off-the-shelf” except for paint, lighting, graphics and show features.", And what did Paradise Pier (the revised name for Surf City) get ?

Point 9, "Where possible no new ride systems to be invented. We will use developed technology." And what did we get, the one new ride system (Soarin') was actually part of the Westcot design, so much of the design work was already completed.

Point 10, "Make “provisions only” for the future addition of a parade or water spectacular." And what did they do, build a large path through the park to accommodate a Parade, and added no infrastructure to the lagoon. They had to build the Parade building after opening, and had to add many features when they attempted LuminAria. And some of those "provisions" for the water spectacular were not that well thought out in regards as to where the guests were going to gather to watch the future show.

And the last point "No upgrades or tie-in to the existing Disneyland systems.", also how DCA was delivered.

[SNJ]

Like I said, they were trying to go for successful with cheap. They didn't want to spend big bucks and tried to squeeze on by. I'm just surprised with the quote

If it's good enough for Six Flags ....

What's the end of the sentence? What were the key points in this slide with the good enough for Six Flags mentality?

[1FoolishMortal]

Let me reiterate that we already know DCA was not successful, and the WDC has acknowledged they're spending the money to renovate it. Why, then, does it have to keep getting proven multiple times in the same thread as if we don't know this already?

[TP2000]

First of all i do not believe that Tokyo offers park hopping. This is done mainly to prevent Tokyo Disneyland from being overwelhmed. So every entrance to TDS is counted as an attendance click.

You can not buy a one-day or two-day park hopper ticket at Tokyo Disney Resort, at any price. A one-day ticket lets you into one or the other park for the day, and that's it. A two-day ticket lets you visit Disneyland one day, and only DisneySea the next.

Only if you buy a three-day or four-day ticket are you allowed to park hop. And only then after the second day. So when I last visited Tokyo Disney Resort and bought three-day tickets we went to Disneyland on day one, and weren't allowed in to DisneySea that day. We visited DisneySea on day two, and weren't allowed into Disneyland that day. And on day three we started the day at Disneyland, but then were allowed to enter DisneySea later that afternoon.

They run their annual pass program roughly the same way. There are only three AP options. A Disneyland AP that gets you into Disneyland only for one year for about 400 dollars. A DisneySea AP that gets you into DisneySea only for one year for about 400 dollars. Or a two-park AP that gets you into either park for one year for about 650 dollars. I am unsure if the two-park AP allows daily park hopping, although it wouldn't surprise me to learn that with the two-park AP you were required to stay in the park you first entered that day.

Needless to say, it's a very different experience than the ticketing policies and pricing for Disneyland and DCA. DisneySea stands on its own two feet when it comes to design and entertainment value, and the ticketing policies and pricing strategies for Tokyo Disney Resort fully reflect the solid full day park offering that is DisneySea.

[club33az]

As the most elegant of the Magic Kingdoms, Disneyland Paris is very successful today.

Ok, where are you getting that info from?