News Coco Boat Ride Coming to Disney California Adventure

[coffeefan]

Yep, DLR is basically a country club/spa that also sells day passes. The business needs both, but they are different customers with different perceptions and needs. The company's investment decisions, including expansion, would seem to take these different customers into account, based on their understanding of the customers' wants, motivators, etc., and modeling business outcomes.

Unless they plan to go on a mass hotel expansion soon, I think they will lean on locals. AFAIK DLR hotels are usually at near occupancy. If they double down on tourism without having hotel capacity for it it will only benefit the surrounding hotels, which would make it more difficult for DLR to acquire more land later on.

 

[Disney Irish]

Yep, DLR is basically a country club/spa that also sells day passes. The business needs both, but they are different customers with different perceptions and needs. The company's investment decisions, including expansion, would seem to take these different customers into account, based on their understanding of the customers' wants, motivators, etc., and modeling business outcomes.

Yes, the point is that overall I think Disney doesn't view each Park independently but rather looks at the whole Resort when it comes it investment decisions, no matter what individual group of guests thinks about the Parks vs Resort.

 

[MistaDee]

Unless they plan to go on a mass hotel expansion soon, I think they will lean on locals. AFAIK DLR hotels are usually at near occupancy. If they double down on tourism without having hotel capacity for it it will only benefit the surrounding hotels, which would make it more difficult for DLR to acquire more land later on.

My understanding is that out of town tourists, whether they stay at Disney resorts or not, generally spend more on food and merch than locals, so I think they’d like to attract as many of that category as they can, with the understanding that locals will always make up a much larger portion of attendance than in WDW.

I do think a big motivation for developing the DLF space is to create a higher premium for “park view” or “inside the park” hotel stays, and would imagine they’ll want to add at least one additional hotel in that space - hopefully built in such a way that still allows for ample theme park usage on the ground floors

 

[coffeefan]

My understanding is that out of town tourists, whether they stay at Disney resorts or not, generally spend more on food and merch than locals, so I think they’d like to attract as many of that category as they can, with the understanding that locals will always make up a much larger portion of attendance than in WDW.

I'm sure on a per-visit basis that's true, because tourists pay more for tickets and shop more. But I suspect that on a year-end calculation, an average local APer spends more at DLR than a tourist staying off-property, if you account for all the dining and shopping they do throughout the year.
It's different than at WDW, where Disney has an almost 360 hold on tourists, thus their incentive for promoting WDW more.

I do think a big motivation for developing the DLF space is to create a higher premium for “park view” or “inside the park” hotel stays, and would imagine they’ll want to add at least one additional hotel in that space - hopefully built in such a way that still allows for ample theme park usage on the ground floors

Yeah, that's why I think Simba will have both as well. It's far more lucrative to sell hotel rooms with a park view and exclusive entrance into the parks.

 

[PUSH]

I hope it was okay to cite your trip report, it's been fun to read, and I appreciate the effort you've put into it!

Not a problem!

 

[DrStarlander]

Yes, the point is that overall I think Disney doesn't view each Park independently but rather looks at the whole Resort when it comes it investment decisions, no matter what individual group of guests thinks about the Parks vs Resort.

If an executive got up in front of a room of other executives and proclaimed "it doesn't matter" where they build new attractions at the resort, that "the result for the business is the same", I can't imagine how fast the other hotshot executives in the room would throw up their hands for their chance to explain exactly all sorts of reasons it absolutely matters: Resort perception, average length of stay, excess/insufficient relative demand of F&B/retail, amortization of gate-specific overhead, foot traffic pinch-points and the need to spread the attendance burden, and many more.

Which is essentially what Jill Estorino was saying in the Funworld interview:

Estorino tells Funworld that the second step when planning an expansion is looking at operational and financial goals.

“We may have operational needs we want to address, such as improving navigation or spreading demand across the resort. There may be financial goals or new commercial ideas we're trying to drive. So, it's a combination between what the consumer wants and desires as well as what the operation and business needs,” she says.

i'm sure on a per-visit basis that's true, because tourists pay more for tickets and shop more. But I suspect that on a year-end calculation, an average local APer spends more at DLR than a tourist staying off-property, if you account for all the dining and shopping they do throughout the year.

Yes, an APer may spend more over the course of a year, and that matters a lot to the particular APer's own personal finances, but doesn't matter much to Disney, right? For Disney, the key is revenue per head in the park because their costs to operate the park are directly related to how many heads are in the park. That is, they don't care if Jim's is there 20 times a year or 20 different people come, that doesn't change their operational costs. If the 20 different people spend a combined $2,000 of F&B/merch whereas Jim -- who comes 20 times -- spends $1,600, they'd rather have the 20 different people. Even though Jim has bragging rights for spending the most as an individual human.

 

[coffeefan]

Yes, an APer may spend more over the course of a year, and that matters a lot to the particular APer's own personal finances, but doesn't matter much to Disney, right? For Disney, the key is revenue per head in the park because their costs to operate the park are directly related to how many heads are in the park. That is, they don't care if Jim's is there 20 times a year or 20 different people come, that doesn't change their operational costs. If the 20 different people spend a combined $2,000 of F&B/merch whereas Jim -- who comes 20 times -- spends $1,600, they'd rather have the 20 different people. Even though Jim has bragging rights for spending the most as an individual human.

I don't think the difference in spending is as drastic, but I get that you're trying to make a point. Since most tourists don't stay on property, the take-home money per visit for Disney is reduced. So while yes, it would be nice to have more tourists for the marginal increase, it also requires Disney to change a business model that has worked really well for them for the past 70 years. It also means diverting tourists away from their more lucrative 360 WDW.
The best way for DLR to expand is to do it in a manner that holds their local visitors while adding more hotel capacity to benefit from increased tourism.

 

[Disney Irish]

If an executive got up in front of a room of other executives and proclaimed "it doesn't matter" where they build new attractions at the resort, that "the result for the business is the same", I can't imagine how fast the other hotshot executives in the room would throw up their hands for their chance to explain exactly all sorts of reasons it absolutely matters: Resort perception, average length of stay, excess/insufficient relative demand of F&B/retail, amortization of gate-specific overhead, foot traffic pinch-points and the need to spread the attendance burden, and many more.

Which is essentially what Jill Estorino was saying in the Funworld interview:

Estorino tells Funworld that the second step when planning an expansion is looking at operational and financial goals.

“We may have operational needs we want to address, such as improving navigation or spreading demand across the resort. There may be financial goals or new commercial ideas we're trying to drive. So, it's a combination between what the consumer wants and desires as well as what the operation and business needs,” she says.


Yes, an APer may spend more over the course of a year, and that matters a lot to the particular APer's own personal finances, but doesn't matter much to Disney, right? For Disney, the key is revenue per head in the park because their costs to operate the park are directly related to how many heads are in the park. That is, they don't care if Jim's is there 20 times a year or 20 different people come, that doesn't change their operational costs. If the 20 different people spend a combined $2,000 of F&B/merch whereas Jim -- who comes 20 times -- spends $1,600, they'd rather have the 20 different people. Even though Jim has bragging rights for spending the most as an individual human.

You still miss the whole point of what I was saying. On your point, there are various different groups of guests that view the Resort differently, some view it as a single entity, some view it as two separate Parks, some view it somewhere in-between. Nothing I was saying was trying to invalidate that, nor was I trying to say that how guests feel about the Resort doesn't matter. Disney takes it ALL into account in any planning. They have metrics on everything and use it as part of their planning.

What I'm saying and the point I'm making is that Disney's priorities for DLR and what "we" discuss here on this forum are not typically aligned in most cases. We discuss thing in terms of how would "we" do it if we were in-charge, like putting Avatar in Simba and moving Coco to a different location or making it larger in this current plot, or whatever. So saying Disney should put xyz in some future expansion, or they should build a 3rd gate, or whatever isn't likely to align with how Disney is planning the future of DLR. All I'm saying is that its very possible that when Disney is allocating funds and is planning for its future that they are doing so by looking at the Resort as a whole and what its needs as a whole rather than looking at the individual Parks needs. So I was just saying maybe we should start looking at DLR as a whole, rather than trying to say what DCA needs vs what DL needs, etc.

Also what Estorino is saying is about Disneyland Paris and their expansion specifically not what Disney does as a whole, every Resort does things differently. Disney tried it where every Resort followed the same plans with the One Disney initiative in the late 2000s with Rasulo, it failed miserably, and why TDA stopped doing that about 15 years ago as I recall. Disneyland Resort is different in its needs, so TDA does things based on DLR not based on what Disneyland Paris does or what WDW does or any other Resort.

 

[DrStarlander]

You still miss the whole point of what I was saying. On your point, there are various different groups of guests that view the Resort differently, some view it as a single entity, some view it as two separate Parks, some view it somewhere in-between. Nothing I was saying was trying to invalidate that, nor was I trying to say that how guests feel about the Resort doesn't matter. Disney takes it ALL into account in any planning. They have metrics on everything and use it as part of their planning.

What I'm saying and the point I'm making is that Disney's priorities for DLR and what "we" discuss here on this forum are not typically aligned in most cases. We discuss thing in terms of how would "we" do it if we were in-charge, like putting Avatar in Simba and moving Coco to a different location or making it larger in this current plot, or whatever. So saying Disney should put xyz in some future expansion, or they should build a 3rd gate, or whatever isn't likely to align with how Disney is planning the future of DLR. All I'm saying is that its very possible that when Disney is allocating funds and is planning for its future that they are doing so by looking at the Resort as a whole and what its needs as a whole rather than looking at the individual Parks needs. So I was just saying maybe we should start looking at DLR as a whole, rather than trying to say what DCA needs vs what DL needs, etc.

Also what Estorino is saying is about Disneyland Paris and their expansion specifically not what Disney does as a whole, every Resort does things differently. Disney tried it where every Resort followed the same plans with the One Disney initiative in the late 2000s with Rasulo, it failed miserably, and why TDA stopped doing that about 15 years ago as I recall. Disneyland Resort is different in its needs, so TDA does things based on DLR not based on what Disneyland Paris does or what WDW does or any other Resort.

Overall, yes, I agree, they are looking at the overall resort's needs, from big picture to detailed level, optimizing investment to achieve the performance sought at every operational level: at a resort, park, or even particular retail location's sales-per-square-foot or average basket size.

Agreed, fan's armchair imagineering skews toward creative/fun/"it would be cool" vs. business operations realities and needs...often resulting in a gap.

If your perspective is that Disney makes decisions based on what they feel will help their business, not so much what fans think "would be cool," yes I agree.

I thought you were saying that Disney thinks it can drop a new attraction in either park, arbitrarily, and it wouldn't matter. Glad to hear that was a misunderstanding.

As for Estorino's comment applicability to other resorts, what she's talking about is about as big picture "managing a resort" as it gets: every resort is minding the allocation of demand across its amenities. There may be many nuances differentiating the Disney resorts, but no resort can ignore that.

That is, she wasn't talking about something very specific to DLP like -- DLP probably has the most variety and relative parity of different guests' languages (French, English, German, Dutch...) or DLP may have very unique culinary requirements, or environmental standards (Europe)...she's just saying what I think we agree (based on above) that they are investing in ways to shape guest behaviors (including where they go and what amenities they use) in the ways that they think will make them the most money.

 

[Disney Irish]

Overall, yes, I agree, they are looking at the overall resort's needs, from big picture to detailed level, optimizing investment to achieve the performance sought at every operational level: at a resort, park, or even particular retail location's sales-per-square-foot or average basket size.

Agreed, fan's armchair imagineering skews toward creative/fun/"it would be cool" vs. business operations realities and needs...often resulting in a gap.

If your perspective is that Disney makes decisions based on what they feel will help their business, not so much what fans think "would be cool," yes I agree.

I thought you were saying that Disney thinks it can drop a new attraction in either park, arbitrarily, and it wouldn't matter. Glad to hear that was a misunderstanding.

Yeah I'm not saying Disney is plopping something arbitrarily without thinking about the overall impact of a specific Park. But I don't think they really look at Frozen for example and say that MUST go into a DL plot just because its core Disney, or that DCA NEEDS to have all Pixar just because that is where Pixar Pier is located. They look at the whole Resort and match available areas with specific IPs they want to push into the Parks, which is how we got Coco into that corner and Avatar into the Backlot.

As for Estorino's comment applicability to other resorts, what she's talking about is about as big picture "managing a resort" as it gets: every resort is minding the allocation of demand across its amenities. There may be many nuances differentiating the Disney resorts, but no resort can ignore that.

That is, she wasn't talking about something very specific to DLP like -- DLP probably has the most variety and relative parity of different guests' languages (French, English, German, Dutch...) or DLP may have very unique culinary requirements, or environmental standards (Europe)...she's just saying what I think we agree (based on above) that they are investing in ways to shape guest behaviors (including where they go and what amenities they use) in the ways that they think will make them the most money.

She made those comments in 2025 about the International Parks. And I was mistaken, she wasn't speaking about DLP, she was speaking about Shanghai and the expansion for Zootopia, here is the beginning of that interview about expansion.

"The wide expansion taking place across Disney’s parks in Asia and Europe began with research. Estorino says the first step when planning for growth is understanding what the consumer wants— and how that varies by market. In China, for example, Shanghai Disneyland sees high attendance from young adults.

“The young adult female has taken hold of this brand and of this park, and they’re creating a sophisticated energy inside the park,” Estorino shares. “They bring their fashion sensibility, their modern perspectives, and their technology capability. The park has become not only a backdrop for their WeChat, but they’re also creating a vibe in the park.”

There are several places for capturing picture-perfect moments in Zootopia at Shanghai Disneyland, a fitting appeal to this guest base.

“The land is rich and dynamic, which means all of the show elements have to be integrated seamlessly,” says Chang Xu, a Walt Disney Imagineering senior producer on the Zootopia project. “The team really had to come together with the same creative vision, helping and trusting each other, to bring the land to life.”

For example, one of those dynamic areas includes Otterton’s Flower Shop, which Disney Imagineers recreated as a facade in the new land—complete with plants and props—to make the store appear believable in guests’ all-important selfies for social media. Yet, the attention to detail in Zootopia doesn’t stop with a feast for the eye; it also engages the taste buds.

“We worked closely with our food and beverage partners from Shanghai Disney Resort, who understand the market—and the film—to design the dining experience,” says Xu. Imagineers elected to recreate the iconic Jumbeaux’s Cafe from the film, which exemplifies the variety of scale found in Zootopia with its huge door that’s designed for elephants. Yet, Xu says to make the facility operationally friendly, the design team turned the giant door into a walk-up window for food orders. A creative menu featuring delectable donuts and flavorful popsicles of all sizes, among other treats, are designed to look perfect on camera."

So while some of that may cross over to all Resorts, you're taking a snippet of an overall interview out of context and trying to apply it to DLR now that she is President, which the comments were not made while in that position nor about DLR. The takeaway here should be that Disney plans for the future of each Resort based on the needs of that Resort, which is exactly what I was saying. TDA is planning for DLR, which is completely different than SDL, DLP, or any other Resort as I mentioned.

The Heroine of Heartware: Jill Estorino of Disney Parks International | IAAPA.org

iaapa.org

 

[DrStarlander]

So while some of that may cross over to all Resorts, you're taking a snippet of an overall interview out of context and trying to apply it to DLR now that she is President, which the comments were not made while in that position nor about DLR. The takeaway here should be that Disney plans for the future of each Resort based on the needs of that Resort, which is exactly what I was saying. TDA is planning for DLR, which is completely different than SDL, DLP, or any other Resort as I mentioned.

But what I'm saying is that her statement which I quoted -- that they manage demand across the resort -- is true of every single resort - Disney or otherwise -- on the planet. A Sandals resort in the Caribbbean with multiple pools and outdoor bars...manages demand across their pools/bars. A resort with multiple golf courses in Palm Springs...manages demand across their courses. A cruise ship...manages demand across its different restaurants.

There is no version of professionally operating a resort where the manager looks out at Pool A and sees that it's jam-packed, body-to-body and everybody is angry, while Pool B on the other side of the hedge is empty, and doesn't walk out there and do something about it, like tell the mariachi band to go play over at Pool B and have the servers bring out some free drinks to the people over at Pool B causing -- through the magic of managing demand -- people to move from Pool A over to Pool B, balancing out the use of the amenities.

She might as well have said "we try to make money" it's so obviously part of managing a resort.

 

[MistaDee]

I don't think the difference in spending is as drastic, but I get that you're trying to make a point. Since most tourists don't stay on property, the take-home money per visit for Disney is reduced. So while yes, it would be nice to have more tourists for the marginal increase, it also requires Disney to change a business model that has worked really well for them for the past 70 years. It also means diverting tourists away from their more lucrative 360 WDW.
The best way for DLR to expand is to do it in a manner that holds their local visitors while adding more hotel capacity to benefit from increased tourism.

The point is that a tourist spends more than a local inside the parks on a 1:1 basis, not even counting the hotel stays. More likely to splurge for a souvenir, a fancy meal or a lightning lane if it’s a special trip than an AP holder who has already visited 3 times this month. If they could fill the park with just tourists they certainly would.

I’m a bit confused what you think would need to change about their business model? DL has always wanted to maximize the tourists, they just backfill with AP’s and now have better granularity with the onerous reservation system to do so. It’s really just business as usual.

My impression is that the dominance of local APs is a trend in more recent decades, certainly before WDW tourists made up a larger portion of attendance, and for some reason I feel like it wasn’t until the late 90’s/early 2000’s that the number of AP’s really exploded but I don’t have any evidence I can point to on the top of my head.

 

[coffeefan]

The point is that a tourist spends more than a local inside the parks on a 1:1 basis, not even counting the hotel stays. More likely to splurge for a souvenir, a fancy meal or a lightning lane if it’s a special trip than an AP holder who has already visited 3 times this month. If they could fill the park with just tourists they certainly would.

I agree, however my point is that over the course of the year, an average AP spends more than an average tourist at DLR.
That's not the case at WDW because of the 360 hold.

I’m a bit confused what you think would need to change about their business model? DL has always wanted to maximize the tourists, they just backfill with AP’s and now have better granularity with the onerous reservation system to do so. It’s really just business as usual.

That their business model revolves around locals and has for the majority of the park's history. APers are just an example of locals, but not the only kind of locals. The more restrictive annual passes has more to do with increased demand for DL among the local market, rather than a sudden increase in tourist demand.

My impression is that the dominance of local APs is a trend in more recent decades, certainly before WDW tourists made up a larger portion of attendance, and for some reason I feel like it wasn’t until the late 90’s/early 2000’s that the number of AP’s really exploded but I don’t have any evidence I can point to on the top of my head.

From my experience, Disneyland is woven into Californian culture, similar to how In-N-Out is. It's why locals and APers have dominated the majority of attendance for decades. It's because of that that Disneyland can rely on being profitable solely on locals. That doesn't mean they don't like or want more tourists. I just don't view the park being local oriented as bad since it has served Disneyland well all these years.

 

[Gusey]

Yes, the point is that overall I think Disney doesn't view each Park independently but rather looks at the whole Resort when it comes it investment decisions, no matter what individual group of guests thinks about the Parks vs Resort.

This is what I've been thinking with both Disneyland Resort and DLP Resort. At the 2024 D23 Expo, the only 2 theme parks to not receive any new about new attractions apart from the Walt animatronic and a night show were Disneyland Park and Disneyland Parc at DLP. But both resorts were seen as being invested in significantly because the 2nd parks were receiving the investments. Disneyland itself isn't receiving any new attractions that we are aware of, and no new projects at that park has seen construction on it since Tiana's. It is more extreme for DLP as the actual Disneyland Park hasn't received a new ride in 20 years now and an expansion since 1995, but the resort is constantly advertising its new offerings as "New for Disneyland Paris" instead of new for Walt Disney Studios Park/Disney Adventure World. In both cases, Disney sees it as investing in the two resorts, it just doesn't matter too much as to which parks gets the investment for them to market it as something new at the resort

 

[Disney Irish]

But what I'm saying is that her statement which I quoted -- that they manage demand across the resort -- is true of every single resort - Disney or otherwise -- on the planet. A Sandals resort in the Caribbbean with multiple pools and outdoor bars...manages demand across their pools/bars. A resort with multiple golf courses in Palm Springs...manages demand across their courses. A cruise ship...manages demand across its different restaurants.

There is no version of professionally operating a resort where the manager looks out at Pool A and sees that it's jam-packed, body-to-body and everybody is angry, while Pool B on the other side of the hedge is empty, and doesn't walk out there and do something about it, like tell the mariachi band to go play over at Pool B and have the servers bring out some free drinks to the people over at Pool B causing -- through the magic of managing demand -- people to move from Pool A over to Pool B, balancing out the use of the amenities.

She might as well have said "we try to make money" it's so obviously part of managing a resort.

I’m sorry but I disagree, it’s obvious based on the whole interview she was talking specifically about the Shanghai Resort and the International Parks. You want to try to apply it to all Resorts that’s fine you can have that opinion, but that wasn’t what she was talking about. The needs of Shanghai are different from the needs of California. For example Disneyland may not make the same investment in something for guest flow because it doesn’t work in the California market compared to the Shanghai market, which is even outlined in the article when she talks about operating Paris differently than Tokyo. Bottom line I think you read too much into what she said. So let’s move on from this since the only reason you brought this up was because you misunderstood my original point.

 

[DrStarlander]

I’m sorry but I disagree, it’s obvious based on the whole interview she was talking specifically about the Shanghai Resort and the International Parks. You want to try to apply it to all Resorts that’s fine you can have that opinion, but that wasn’t what she was talking about. The needs of Shanghai are different from the needs of California. For example Disneyland may not make the same investment in something for guest flow because it doesn’t work in the California market compared to the Shanghai market, which is even outlined in the article when she talks about operating Paris differently than Tokyo. Bottom line I think you read too much into what she said. So let’s move on from this since the only reason you brought this up was because you misunderstood my original point.

You are arguing against a straw man that you think I'm saying the exact approaches to demand balancing are the same among the resorts. I never said that.

At one resort, at one time, to achieve one goal, they may use a nighttime show to draw guests to a certain park, or a parade, or a food and wine festival, or even a new attraction. Each resort is run independently. What works to motivate guests in one market may not work in another market.

She was talking about expansion, something that happens at all Disney resorts/parks, and business considerations that are very high level. Since you've said that what she said doesn't apply to DLR because she happened to be working at a different resort at the time, for clarity, let me make sure I understand your position:

---Estorino tells Funworld that the second step when planning an expansion is looking at operational and financial goals.

So you are saying that Disneyland Resort does NOT look at operational and financial goals.

“We may have operational needs we want to address, such as improving navigation or spreading demand across the resort."

So you are saying that Disneyland Resort does NOT have operational needs they want to address, such as improving navigation or spreading demand across the resort.

"There may be financial goals or new commercial ideas we're trying to drive."

So you are saying that Disneyland Resort does NOT have financial goals or commercial ideas they're trying to drive.

So, it's a combination between what the consumer wants and desires as well as what the operation and business needs,” she says

So you are saying that Disneyland Resort does NOT consider a combination of what the consumer wants as well as operation and business needs.

Does the above reflect your position?

It is more extreme for DLP as the actual Disneyland Park hasn't received a new ride in 20 years now

Smuggler's Run
Rise of the Resistance
MMRR

 

[Professortango1]

I would agree, by and large all "locals" view it as one big Park, whether that be via the MKs or the Park Hoppers.

As a local, I only visit DCA if I have an AP. When I am buying a day ticket, even a park hopper isn't worth it. I'd visit DCA if it was $35 cheaper than Disneyland.

 

[DrStarlander]

As a local, I only visit DCA if I had an AP. When I am buying a day ticket, even a park hopper isn't worth it. I'd visit DCA if it was $35 cheaper than Disneyland.

Tourists barely know what Disney California Adventure is, from what I can tell. I could walk down my street, door to door, and try to find someone who could name "the other park Disney owns in California" and I am fairly confident I'd get to the end of the street without hearing a correct answer. And if I were to show photos -- say the ferris wheel or Incredicoaster -- I don't think that would help.

Whereas, on my street -- on the West coast where WDW is not nearly the factor it is compared to out East -- I'm confident a couple of my neighbors could conjure the word "Epcot" from their brain -- even if they've never been there. If I showed them a photo of Spaceship Earth, I think quite a few could say what park it represents. Again, even if never having been there.

For being next door to arguably the world's most important theme park, DCA has made an astonishingly minimal impression on pop culture as a whole.

 

[britain]

Tourists barely know what Disney California Adventure is, from what I can tell. I could walk down my street, door to door, and try to find someone who could name "the other park Disney owns in California" and I am fairly confident I'd get to the end of the street without hearing a correct answer. And if I were to show photos -- say the ferris wheel or Incredicoaster -- I don't think that would help.

Whereas, on my street -- on the West coast where WDW is not nearly the factor it is compared to out East -- I'm confident a couple of my neighbors could conjure the word "Epcot" from their brain -- even if they've never been there. If I showed them a photo of Spaceship Earth, I think quite a few could say what park it represents. Again, even if never having been there.

For being next door to arguably the world's most important theme park, DCA has made an astonishingly minimal impression on pop culture as a whole.

That’s what they get for aiming relatively low.

 

[mickEblu]

Tourists barely know what Disney California Adventure is, from what I can tell. I could walk down my street, door to door, and try to find someone who could name "the other park Disney owns in California" and I am fairly confident I'd get to the end of the street without hearing a correct answer. And if I were to show photos -- say the ferris wheel or Incredicoaster -- I don't think that would help.

Whereas, on my street -- on the West coast where WDW is not nearly the factor it is compared to out East -- I'm confident a couple of my neighbors could conjure the word "Epcot" from their brain -- even if they've never been there. If I showed them a photo of Spaceship Earth, I think quite a few could say what park it represents. Again, even if never having been there.

For being next door to arguably the world's most important theme park, DCA has made an astonishingly minimal impression on pop culture as a whole.

I live an hour away from Disneyland and I forgot it was there from June 2001 (after my first visit to DCA) until 2010. I even went to Disneyland a handful of times during that period and have no recollection of even looking that way or even seeing the Tower of Terror. It’s like it didn’t exist. Of course the park has changed a lot since then. For the better and then backtracked but it’s still better now than it was at any point between 2001-2010.