I've seen this mentioned in other posts here. It's pretty funny the way they are marketing the Tower of Terror. The ads advertise it as being at the DISNEYLAND Resort (with giant 'Disneyland' lettering and very small 'resort' lettering) with no mention that it's actually in California Adventure. It's true it is in 'the resort' but the ads make it look like it's in Disneyland. Is it sneaky advertising? I wonder if people will be surprised when they get there?!

Kind of sounds like an attempt to merge the two parks, by calling the whole area 'Disneyland Resort', and emphasizing the DL aspect. It's a bit deceptive, considering they are supposed to be separate entities. I wonder what the reception would be for such a concept- how could they even consider DCA a part of Disneyland? Don't get me wrong; I think on it's own it's an okay park, but it is the antithesis of what Walt intended for DL, and it needs to remain apart. It must really stick in Eisner's craw that they have to keep importing DL resources (such as the Electric Parade) and using the DL name to try to get people to attend DCA.:rolleyes:

Even the new unified security gates going up between the esplanade and DTD evoke a dual Disneyland gate. Shades of the future?

We had another family with us during our visit last week, and they commented on the very short lines to DCA compared to the very long lines at DL. We held off from visiting DCA for a few days, and when we did finally go they were able to see why there was such a disparity in line length between the parks. They didn''t know a whole lot about Walt Disney, so I did my best to educate them with regards to the history and intent behind DL, and why DCA is such a point of contention for Disney enthusiasts. They much preferred DL, even though it was packed and lines were long. The thing they enjoyed most about DCA was the parade, which is, of course, a DL import. ('It's Tough To Be A Bug' was a big hit, too).

They also noted the single security check area, and wondered why the entrance gates to the parks weren't shared. That was the start of the Disney history and philosophy lesson......:rolleyes:

The ads advertise it as being at the DISNEYLAND Resort (with giant 'Disneyland' lettering and very small 'resort' lettering) with no mention that it's actually in California Adventure. It's true it is in 'the resort' but the ads make it look like it's in Disneyland. Is it sneaky advertising? I wonder if people will be surprised when they get there?!

I've seen it both ways. I was just throwing away the trash and there was a Tower of Terror advertising flyer which says California Adventure, but doesn't mention Disneyland. How do you think it is sneaky? I mean, don't they want people to go to DCA, if someone misunderstood where the ride was, wouldn't they buy tickets to Disneyland by mistake. How does Disney benefit by that? I guess if something was in Disneyland and they made it seem like it was in DCA by sneaky advertising, that would make sense, somewhat. I don't see how Disney benefits even if they are trying to confuse people about Tower of Terror's location.

As far as the security gates. I assume the change was made simply because people were saying "we don't like having to go through security every time we park hop." I understand this is the same system they have at WDW and there is no indication they are going to be merging those parks.

I think what Filbert means is the omission (in some ads) of the fact that it is in DCA, not DL, and that it sort shows that there seems to be an attempt at blending the two parks into one entity- the DL Resort. After several years of promoting DCA as a separate park, complete with separate entrances and (if you do not have a Park Hopper) separate ticket fees. I would not be at all surprised if plans are not in the works to merge the two parks and charge one higher admission fee. It seems as if there is a not so subtle shift in that direction, anyway.

I would not be at all surprised if plans are not in the works to merge the two parks and charge one higher admission fee. It seems as if there is a not so subtle shift in that direction, anyway.

I guess it's possible, but I would, in fact, be surprised if they did this. They have changed the logo, but everything else remains the same from the time they opened DCA. I can't read too much into changing the way they do security, since everyone seems to prefer having one check per day, rather than a check every time you switch parks. Merging the parks seems to be contrary to their desire to make the place into a multi-day Resort destination. I assume they will continue to try to improve DCA with new rides and such like Tower of Terror.

I agree about the security checkpoints, but I still think they are at the very least using the DL angle when promoting DCA- it seems much less separated than in the past. When we first visited, the summer DCA opened, it was very clear that this was a separate park with a different sort of philosophy behind it. Perhaps this was to attract a target audience, or to placate the people who criticised it as just the sort of park Walt wanted to NOT build. It may be that they want people to just consider it as part of the overall resort experience, except this is not a resort. It's two parks, three hotels and a shopping district. I had thought they were going to do away with the whole resort thing, but it seems they are not. I guess they need to decide just what it is they have going there and I get the feeling they don't really know.... Anyway, I also noticed these ads when I was down there last week and it seems like they are just using whatever they can to get the word out about the new attraction, which is fine, but they really do need to clarify which park it is in.

I've seen it both ways. I was just throwing away the trash and there was a Tower of Terror advertising flyer which says California Adventure, but doesn't mention Disneyland. How do you think it is sneaky? I mean, don't they want people to go to DCA, if someone misunderstood where the ride was, wouldn't they buy tickets to Disneyland by mistake. How does Disney benefit by that? I guess if something was in Disneyland and they made it seem like it was in DCA by sneaky advertising, that would make sense, somewhat. I don't see how Disney benefits even if they are trying to confuse people about Tower of Terror's location.

Yes, I guess what I was suggesting is that the ads I've seen (I'm not in Southern Cal) on TV just say the TOT is at DISNEYLAND resort (resort in small letters) so it looks as if it's a new ride in Disneyland (park). So my question was I wonder if when people get there, thinking the new ride is in Disneyland (park) and they have to buy tickets to see it in California Adventure Park, would they be dissapointed? Because they wouldn't be seeing the new ride in Disneyland (park) but they had come all that way to see the ride IN Disneyland (park) so they would probably want to go to Disneyland (park) - as well as seeing the new ride in the new park. When you buy a ticket to Disneyland (park) does it include admission to California Adventure so that you can see the new ride? If so, I suppose people wouldn't be dissapointed. I don't know, I'm just asking. Confused yet?

Also in this thread you all are talking about them possibly having both parks included in the price of one ticket? So I'm assuming it's not that way now? I think it would be great, but doesn't it defeat the whole idea of why they spent a fortune to create the new park? Just to take the Disneyland overflow? Now I'm really confused.

If you buy Park Hopper passes, you may skip between both parks; otherwise, they have separate admission fees. As a person who has only used the Hopper passes, DCA is the place to go when I want a break from the crowds at DL, or a Happy Meal for the kid. I have no real idea what the execs are planning for it, but as a 'stand on it's own day park', it is not making it. There are lots of theories as to what they may have planned to increase attendance, but I guess we will just have to wait and see what takes place. If you are confused, you are not alone!:rolleyes: They did spend a fortune (and continue to) on a poorly conceived and mis-themed park, and now they have to figure out how to rescue it.

Also in this thread you all are talking about them possibly having both parks included in the price of one ticket? So I'm assuming it's not that way now? I think it would be great, but doesn't it defeat the whole idea of why they spent a fortune to create the new park? Just to take the Disneyland overflow? Now I'm really confused.

There was an idea, and then there is reality. DCA is not as good as DL. Idea #1: "Make a second park (and plan room for a third park), so that people don't come only one day to DL and spend the rest of their money elsewhere in SoCal. Make hotels, so they stay at our hotels for a few days or longer. ake it their central location, so if they do venture off, at least we're getting our $200 per night."
Next step is to make a park that people will go to over and over. Now, it's not as if there aren't Disney-named parks in the world that do not fit this description. But somewhere in the process, the "CA in CA" idea stuck (I mean, this was Idea #1: create a park so people don't go anywhere else; let's call it "California Adventure"! Can we BE more direct?), the budget got cut back to a point where it is a parody of itself and doesn't know it. (My solution: DCA should become aware of the parody, and play it up. Make fun of California. The OOS tourists will dig it, and most CA's can laugh at other CA's (surely they're not laughing at ME).

Should return its investment, but it isn't. It was and continues to be a big waste of money for the company (this is the "Business of Magic" forum). It means that the revenue that was supposed to come in from this park now has to come from expense reduction in other areas. So, Eisner, the main guy behind this failed park, should step aside and let someone with a real imagination take over the company.

There are only a few less informed people out there who won't be able to figure out where the ToT is. They'll be legally blind.

So my question was I wonder if when people get there, thinking the new ride is in Disneyland (park) and they have to buy tickets to see it in California Adventure Park, would they be dissapointed?

I think there might be some people who see the advertising and are confused about where the ride actually is. However, I don't think Disney is intentionally trying to get people thinking that the ride is in Disneyland. How do they benefit from that? Getting people to go to DCA is the reason they built Tower of Terror in DCA. It's in Disney's best interest to have the people buy tickets to DCA and go to DCA rather than mistakenly buy tickets to Disneyland thinking the ride is in that park.

I agree about the security checkpoints, but I still think they are at the very least using the DL angle when promoting DCA- it seems much less separated than in the past.

I think when they opened DCA, they made an effort to make sure people understood that this was a new seperate park (the ad with the Disney characters standing in Disneyland looking over the wall at the new park is one that springs to mind.) At this point, most people realize that it is a seperate park, so they don't need to emphasize that so much. I don't see that much WDW advertising but it seems that they don't draw a big distinction in the tv commercials I have seen that there are 4 seperate parks and which attraction is in which location. Seems like a similar concept at work here.

Yes you're right EandCDad about the marketing in Florida combining everything under one name, and they're doing the same thing here and that makes sense. The only difference is that in Florida they started with a name for the resort, different than that of the park(s), where here they started with a park and then named the whole resort after it.

The only difference is that in Florida they started with a name for the resort, different than that of the park(s), where here they started with a park and then named the whole resort after it.

I agree, it has the possibility to be confusing at the Disneyland Resort. I'm guessing if they get a lot of feedback saying that it is confusing people, they'll change it. I think the ToT campaign can be confusing, I just don't think there is any sort of scheme by Disney behind it.

I had always interpreted the marketing of DCA as EIsner's way of distancing it- and himself- from DL; it was very clear that DCA was HIS baby. Again, maybe that was to silence critics who said that it was the anti-DL, or a marketing strategy to present the park as a 'hipper' alternative to the other. Whatever the reason, it was very separate from DL, and now it seems there is a shift in marketing and the parks are being presented in much the same way as WDW. As far as only blind people not knowing where TOT is located- I just attended the parks with another family that knew very little about DL, much less DCA. They would not have known where TOT was located unless someone told them, or they discovered upon arrival. If they had only purchased DL tickets, they would have to turn around and pay to get into DCA in order to ride TOT. Not everyone is as well informed about DL and it's environs as most of the people on these boards.

The only difference is that in Florida they started with a name for the resort, different than that of the park(s), where here they started with a park and then named the whole resort after it.

That is incorrect. I lived in the Orlando area in the early 70s and, at that time, there was a single Disney theme park there named "Walt Disney World". It was only after they greenlighted EPCOT Center that they started referring to the original WDW park as "The Magic Kingdom".

The new situation in California isn't that different, except that they realized that renaming the original park itself wouldn't really work for a park that was nearly half a century old. That creates the slightly confusing situation where the overall resort and one of the parks have essentially the same name.

I had always interpreted the marketing of DCA as EIsner's way of distancing it- and himself- from DL; it was very clear that DCA was HIS baby. Again, maybe that was to silence critics who said that it was the anti-DL, or a marketing strategy to present the park as a 'hipper' alternative to the other.

Quite frankly, I doubt very much that Michael Eisner had any direct involvement at all with the designing of the initial (or current) marketing campaign for DCA. He likely gave some high-level approvals, but that just isn't the type of thing that is designed at the CEO level in a major, multi-divisional corporation.


-Jeff

On my drive to work this morning, I saw a billboard off the freeway advertising ToT. I can't remember exactly what it looked like except that it had the creepy doorman prominent, and towards the bottom of the billboard, in big letters, it said "Disney's California Adventure". Don't know if they had the DLR logo at all, but if they did, it wasn't easily evident when you're driving by at freeway speeds.

Quite frankly, I doubt very much that Michael Eisner had any direct involvement at all with the designing of the initial (or current) marketing campaign for DCA. He likely gave some high-level approvals, but that just isn't the type of thing that is designed at the CEO level in a major, multi-divisional corporation.

Mike is not a typical CEO. He's not even the CEO he was before Frank Wells died. (Just my opinions, of course.)

Quite frankly, I doubt very much that Michael Eisner had any direct involvement at all with the designing of the initial (or current) marketing campaign for DCA. He likely gave some high-level approvals, but that just isn't the type of thing that is designed at the CEO level in a major, multi-divisional corporation.-Jeff

If Eisner were your typical CEO, that would probably be true. A notorious micromanager, he has been known to change storylines in both live action and cartoon features, personally approve or disapprove of the television line-ups and even picked out carpet samples for the resort hotels. DCA happened on his watch, and I have no illusions regarding to what degree he is involved, in both conception and marketing. Correction; I probably underestimate the level of his involvement.

I think online rumors regarding Eisner's direct involvement in things like this have largely developed a life of their own over the last couple years. It is now very difficult to even identify where the rumors stop and the pure outsider speculation begins. Perhaps there is some truth to stories about Eisner picking out carpet samples or other such minutia, but I tend to suspect that they are more likely to be urban legends than reality.

I absolutely do believe that Eisner is involved in the evaluation and approval of major company decisionmaking such as television line-ups, theme park concepts, etc. As I noted in my earlier post, I even suspect he was involved in the approval process for DCA's marketing campaign. With his reputation for interest in creative matters and his background as a television and film studio executive, I also have little doubt that he makes some contributions to storylines and other creative choices.

What I very sincerely doubt, though, is that he even comes close to being the micromanager that some in the online community have tried to make him out to be. At his level, he simply wouldn't have >time< for it.

In short, I can believe that Eisner would have been in the approval chain for the roll-out campaign for DCA and that he probably even contributed some ideas and suggestions for it. What I don't believe is that he "designed" the campaign or that he would have even been significantly involved in setting the tone for it or how the park should be differentiated from Disneyland.

-Jeff

That is incorrect. I lived in the Orlando area in the early 70s and, at that time, there was a single Disney theme park there named "Walt Disney World". It was only after they greenlighted EPCOT Center that they started referring to the original WDW park as "The Magic Kingdom".

That's funny. In my (c)1973 copy of The Story of Walt Disney World, Commemorative Edition, it calls it the "Magic Kingdom Theme Park." EPCOT Center had not been greenlighted by then.

What I very sincerely doubt, though, is that he even comes close to being the micromanager that some in the online community have tried to make him out to be. At his level, he simply wouldn't have >time for it.
-Jeff

Uhmm, that's kind of one of the major points in this campaign against him; his "consistent micro-management"* of everything renders him ineffectual , as both a CEO and as the (former) Chairman of the Board.

*Roy Disney, in his letter of resignation to Michael Eisner, dated 11/30/03

I enjoy seeing how these threads branch out into other topics - how much of a micro-manager Eisner is and nomenclature history of the parks! But seriously, my original comment about the TOT ad campaign seems to have been answered. Different ads refer to Disneyland resort or California Adventure - they're not all the same. And it seems that it's not a 'sneaky' tactic as I originally was thinking.

But regarding Eisner's involvement in things I'd imagine it's a hit or miss thing. He's deeply involved in some things, no so much in others, and I bet he has chosen carpet samples now and then, but so what. But I'm sure he decides all the big things and is advised on the pros and cons of every major move, you can count on it. But then he's surrounded by people who he put there, and they share his philosophy don't they? Scrambling to make money by whatever means they can come up with I guess.

I enjoy seeing how these threads branch out into other topics - how much of a micro-manager Eisner is and nomenclature history of the parks! But seriously, my original comment about the TOT ad campaign seems to have been answered. Different ads refer to Disneyland resort or California Adventure - they're not all the same. And it seems that it's not a 'sneaky' tactic as I originally was thinking.

I was laughing this morning, Filbert, and thought of you while listening to the radio. Basically, I heard a radio spot that was pushing the Tower of Terror and specifically mentioned California Adventure. I changed the station and heard another commercial that didn't mention DCA at all, just "Disneyland Resort."

I enjoy seeing how these threads branch out into other topics - how much of a micro-manager Eisner is and nomenclature history of the parks!
I'll take any opening provided.
I think that Marketing purposely includes both "DCA" and "DLR," though often separately for time purposes, in their campaigns. I don't think there's any trickery involved, unless we truly believe that the Marketing people don't think there is a City Hall that will take complaints pretty much all day from people looking for ToT in DL based on advertisements they've seen.