This may all be true. Here's my little rant on the topic
In order to get permission to build the project, deals had to be made with the government in the way of development and jobs. I was told they had to build out the 5 hotels to reach certain negotiated job targets in these areas. Once the budget goes up, on paper you keep adding to what you think the guest has to spend (high room rates) to cover that and at some point those assumptions become unrealistic, even for a well attended park. They eventually overshoot how much guests would spend, and culturally Europeans are not the souvenir buyers we are. And they did. Attendance was there but profit was not. Then add higher labor costs, low productivity, and issues with housing and transportation (last train back was at midnight so the cast could not get home unless they had a car) for the cast and your costs go nuts. I'm sure there is more to it, but these are big drivers.
when we built that park,
DLP had the "lowest overall cost per guest carried" of any park. Meaning if you average the capacity (how many can see it in an hour or day) of the attractions against what is spent on them, then you have a "cost" to carry that guest. So we chose attractions that were high in capacity and low in their overall cost. No one remembers that.
The only confusing thing to me is, with all the information out there about the broken business plan, making the wrong deals, building 5 hotels, or underestimating the labor costs, etc. what I still hear as the short sole reason was that "the designers spent too much money on the park". There is both truth and nuance to this. Everything was approved in advance by those in power as we built the park. What I object to is the assertion by some that we were by nature "irresponsible" or "reckless" in what we were doing, and in turn not professional or trustworthy. The truth is that we had to propose all designs to management and they had to accept or reject them. Some they did, others they did not, and we obeyed that. We did not have the authority to spend beyond any approved budget. In the case of Interiors, we
were not shown the budget we were working to and would only be told if what we were doing was going over. We turn our finishes in and they'd say we're ok or not and we kept going. Of course, eventually things would go over and we'd cut something in reaction to that and they approved it. Bottom Line is that we lived by the rules that were set for us. Ironically, DLP Main Street in many ways has been the interiors model for the other MSUSA's to follow conceptually.
Funny story alert! As an example, I got reamed after opening by one executive for the Arcades being "too elaborate" and a waste of money. I told this individual that another exec (same level) had come through earlier and upon seeing them mid construction thought they were "too dark" and "uninviting" and ordered me to "add more" and "they better be great". So I did and the costs were approved by my management in advance and they reflect that scope. Contrary to what many believe, creatives could not spend any significant money without someone approving it and you justifying it to them. (BTW-Those two execs are long gone.) I guess if you have to be blamed for something, you'd rather be blamed for making it "too good"!
