DCA, Future Expansion
Topic: Tom Staggs basically confirms the massive upgrade

#	Author	Message
71	jonvn Mon 9/24/2007 1:58p	"The reason the 7 million number is used is because it is a firm number that was clearly stated." Yes, I know. But that is one tiny shard of information that we know little about. You can't reasonably extrapolate that to everything you are trying to say. "Ergo, we understand that the Comapny predicted that 7 million would visit DCA in a given year." Actually, we don't really know that. We know that was one prediction, but we don't know what sort. Like I said, high, medium, low? You see, they don't usually have trip wires set up on things like that. They'll have a series of things. A high projection, we expect to max out at this level. A low one, we expect at least this many people. A middle one, we expect to maybe get this many people. Was 7 million the high water mark? Or was it the low water mark? Which was it? "By using common deductive reasoning. AB released figures for many years following the opening of DCA." AB was making guesses. They had no way of knowing, and some people who claim to know say those figures are wrong. So I would suggest not taking AB numbers as hard and fast figures because they're not. Again, you have this one piece of information of 7 million, and keep going at it as if nothing else matters. That's not a very realistic way of looking at things. "Disneyland and other Disney parks are routinely feted for meeting attendance milestones" Are they? I haven't seen that. Perhaps I missed them. Could you point me to one? "Whether it does or not, the fact will remain that its attendance numbers historically were disappinting" Even assuming what you say is true, that does not make it a failure, which is your claim. And assuming that it is true is a big leap of faith. "If you choose to disagree with Jack Kyser, Chief Economist of the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp. in 2001, that's fine. But don't try and twist what he said." Let's look at this realistically. I live outside the LA area. You don't. You actually think that people from around the world decided to not make a visit to the SoCal region because Disney built a theme park you don't like? You are actually suggesting that people where I live said "I was going to go to Los Angeles, but because they built this park, I'm not going to now?" Do you have any idea how absurd that sounds? This is why I find it very difficult to accept that as a reason. It's simply unrealistic and makes no sense. And if it makes no sense, it's not true.
72	jonvn Mon 9/24/2007 1:59p	"What I have never claimed is that I have, "access to all the attendance goals and the actual attendance numbers." " Then I suggest you stop acting as if you do.
73	DlandDug Mon 9/24/2007 2:04p	>>Why would management have decided to cut back on maintenance at Disneyland if the money was rolling in? Cut backs because of a recession are still cut backs because of a recession, whichever form they take.<< I don't believe I have claimed that money was either "rolling in" or otherwise. The cut back on Disneyland's maintenence was not a matter of lack of budget. It was a matter of maximizing profit. A discussion of this is better left to others, as it tends to devolve into a heated argument over the character of Paul Pressler. >>I went to the resort several times in 2001 and 2002 because I got great deals on the hotels, and neither park was busy when I was there.<< If you had gone to Disneyland in the Summer of 2001 you would have found the crowds to be about average. That is to say, a bit crowded as usual. DCA, of course, was not as crowded. 2002 was simply a dreadful year for theme park attendance all over the country. We can all agree on that.
74	jonvn Mon 9/24/2007 2:10p	"The cut back on Disneyland's maintenence was not a matter of lack of budget." And how on earth do you know this?
75	DlandDug Mon 9/24/2007 2:11p	>>And if it makes no sense, it's not true.<< I wouldn't take that statement to the bank...
76	jonvn Mon 9/24/2007 2:18p	If something makes no sense, and is otherwise not backed up by some other evidence, there is no way to believe it is true. And the likelyhood is that it isn't. There are things that are crazy that happen. Sure. But really when you are talking about certain fundamental things, they have to make sense otherwise the world doesn't work.
77	DouglasDubh Mon 9/24/2007 2:24p	<The cut back on Disneyland's maintenence was not a matter of lack of budget. It was a matter of maximizing profit.> And the cut backs at DCA weren't? <If you had gone to Disneyland in the Summer of 2001 you would have found the crowds to be about average.> I went in the Spring and Fall. I found crowds at Disneyland to be less than average for those times of year. I suspect that Disneyland didn't meet it's attendence goals in 2001 and 2002 as well. I don't think it's fair to label DCA a failure because of a prediction made before the scope of the recession of 2001 and 2002 was really known.
78	jonvn Mon 9/24/2007 2:28p	The story I've heard is: 1) No parks met their attendance goals in 2001. 2) DCA has had steadily increasing business, in some years double digit since 2001. So, with those "facts" (which aren't facts either but just rumor) maybe the place isn't a failure at all. How about that?
79	DlandDug Mon 9/24/2007 2:36p	>>Was 7 million the high water mark? Or was it the low water mark? Which was it?<< I don't know simpler words to use to explain this (yet again). The 7 million figure was used to reverse engineer the design of DCA. There's no guess work involved. >>So I would suggest not taking AB numbers as hard and fast figures because they're not.<< Nor did I. (Read what I said again.) >>"Disneyland and other Disney parks are routinely feted for meeting attendance milestones" Are they? I haven't seen that. Perhaps I missed them. Could you point me to one?<< Guess you've never seen any of those press releases and news stories about the attendance at various Disney theme parks. Here's a couple of quick online links: http://www.laughingplace.com/N ews-ID10005720.asp http://www.laughingplace.com/N ews-ID507840.asp http://www.disneylandnews.com/ article_display.cfm?article_id=145 >>...attendance numbers historically were disappinting" Even assuming what you say is true, that does not make it a failure, which is your claim.<< I suppose we could now go 'round and 'round over what constitutes "failure." But why bother? >>You actually think that people from around the world decided to not make a visit to the SoCal region because Disney built a theme park you don't like?<< I've never said I don't like DCA. It doesn't matter whether I do or not. I have said (and will continue to say) that it is a failure. >>You are actually suggesting that people where I live said "I was going to go to Los Angeles, but because they built this park, I'm not going to now?"<< No, Jack Kyser, Chief Economist of the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp. suggested it was a contributing factor. Personally, I would tend to agree with him, as did the editors of the business journal he was interviewed for. But I suppose if a bunch of guys on discussion boards six years later disagree, we can just ignore it.
80	DlandDug Mon 9/24/2007 2:46p	>><The cut back on Disneyland's maintenence was not a matter of lack of budget. It was a matter of maximizing profit.> And the cut backs at DCA weren't?<< That's an interesting line of reasoning. I've had this discussion before. (Haven't we all?) The deterioration at Disneyland was the result of cutbacks to maintenence budgets. There was no effort made to eliminate food, retail or entertainment venues. DCA, on the other hand, saw an immediate cut back in entertainment venues. One show, Lights! Camera! Chaos!, was cut even before the official park album with the music for the show appeared. This was followed shortly by cutbacks in shops, restaurants, and personnel. These cuts included traditional revenue enhancers (shops and restaurants). The logical conclusion is that DCA was not meeting anywhere near its expected attendance.

All times are Pacific Time (US)

Note: Information on the discussion boards is sometimes based on rumors or incorrect information and should not be assumed true. Messages do not necessarily reflect the opinion of LaughingPlace.com or its editors.

More messages:	1-10	11-20	21-30	31-40	41-50
	51-60	61-70	71-80	81-90	91-100
	101-110	111-120	121-130	131-140	141-150
	151-160	161-170	171-180	181-181

< Previous Topic

Next Topic >

You must be a registered user to post messages.
Click here to register.
After registration you will automatically be brought back to this topic

Laughing Place Podcast
The LPP discuss the return of Captain EO, Alice in Wonderland, the new ESPN Wide World of Sports and ESPN the Weekend, their recent Disney Cruise, Listener Mail and the Rocket Rod Round. Sponsored by MouseEarVacations.com and HoJoAnaheim.com.

What's on
The Latest
Video: World of Color paper animation
THR: Chris Evans Offered Role of Captain America
Catch Special Primetime Handy Manny Episode on Disney Channel 3/20
The Worlds of Fairies and Humans Converge for the First Time in an All-New Magical Adventure
Radio Disney and Nintendo Team Up to Offer Oceans of Fun at Georgia Aquarium
Disneyland Resort Expansion Continues with New Parking Lot Opening
EW: Captain America Possible Starring Roles
Mediaweek: Flash Forward Return to ABC Respectable
Fess Parker who played Davy Crockett and Daniel Boone on TV, dies at 85
StarWars: Star Wars Weekends 2010 guest list

Click here for The Latest