Abandoned projects after Disney's death

[old lady]

Is it true that Disney wanted to build an amusement park in St. Louis and ski resort in California?

 

[OKW Lover]

Disney considered an amusement park in St. Louis however they decided not to build there after the Budweiser folks insisted there had to be beer (theirs) in the park. Walt had plans for a ski resort in California but could never get the needed permits to build it.

 

[OKW Lover]

Just wanted to add that I hope @Merry Mousketeer chimes in with his knowledge of this. He's the DIS expert on Disney history.

 

[ChrisFL]

Is it true that Disney wanted to build an amusement park in St. Louis and ski resort in California?

The ski resort was going to be in Colorado:

http://www.yesterland.com/mineralking.html

The interesting part is when he was having the press conference about 6 or so months before his death, people could see that he wasn't looking healthy

St. Louis was going to be the first location of Disney World, but as mentioned above, they couldn't agree on terms with Busch.

Then of course there was the EPCOT City project, his biggest project that never came to fruition.

 

[MommaBerd]

I *wish* they'd do a DVC ski resort!!! I think it would be a fabulous success, provided they were able to secure some good slopes (or however that works).

 

[JoeA]

I *wish* they'd do a DVC ski resort!!! I think it would be a fabulous success, provided they were able to secure some good slopes (or however that works).

RCI has properties in ski areas - I know Austria and Colorado (Key Stone) at least. Not the same but an option none the less!

 

[rteetz]

I *wish* they'd do a DVC ski resort!!! I think it would be a fabulous success, provided they were able to secure some good slopes (or however that works).

DVC resorts outside of the parks just don't tend to do very well look at Aulani, Hilton Head, and Vero Beach. All of those resorts can sell rooms but selling contracts was a different story.

 

[George4]

DVC resorts outside of the parks just don't tend to do very well look at Aulani, Hilton Head, and Vero Beach. All of those resorts can sell rooms but selling contracts was a different story.

This is Disney getting caught up in how great they are in their own minds. Disney selling timeshares in Hawaii was a ludicrous idea. They specialize in entertainment, and they almost totally remove that when they build these hotels away from the parks. There are pieces of entertainment in these hotels, but that really isn't what drives Disney's success, and they seem to be losing sight of that.

And then you look at the parks, and they are ramming Disney characters down your throat in places they aren't needed (EPCOT), but not really increasing the entertainment value for their repeat visitors, which seem to be about half their visitors (based on a phenomenally unscientific poll conducted by me among the people I know in casual conversation). Recognize what you do well, and build on that. If your park attendance is out of control, then expand the parks, or expand the capacity of the parks. Don't try to send people to other places. If you feel you can charge us more and people keep paying it, then fine. But just realize, you are moving people form your repeat visitor to once in a lifetime visitor. That costs you revenue in the long run.

While it seems I may have wandered off topic, I don't think I have. Disney is getting lost in what their company is good at in pursuit of more profit. Their revenue exploded at the parks when they were expanding capacity and providing new things fairly consistently. The same is true of the DVC resorts away from the parks - they are simply examples of a company that is losing its way, and has lost sight of what it is good at.

 

[rteetz]

This is Disney getting caught up in how great they are in their own minds. Disney selling timeshares in Hawaii was a ludicrous idea. They specialize in entertainment, and they almost totally remove that when they build these hotels away from the parks. There are pieces of entertainment in these hotels, but that really isn't what drives Disney's success, and they seem to be losing sight of that.

And then you look at the parks, and they are ramming Disney characters down your throat in places they aren't needed (EPCOT), but not really increasing the entertainment value for their repeat visitors, which seem to be about half their visitors (based on a phenomenally unscientific poll conducted by me among the people I know in casual conversation). Recognize what you do well, and build on that. If your park attendance is out of control, then expand the parks, or expand the capacity of the parks. Don't try to send people to other places. If you feel you can charge us more and people keep paying it, then fine. But just realize, you are moving people form your repeat visitor to once in a lifetime visitor. That costs you revenue in the long run.

While it seems I may have wandered off topic, I don't think I have. Disney is getting lost in what their company is good at in pursuit of more profit. Their revenue exploded at the parks when they were expanding capacity and providing new things fairly consistently. The same is true of the DVC resorts away from the parks - they are simply examples of a company that is losing its way, and has lost sight of what it is good at.

Now I like their Hawaii idea but Hilton Head and Vero Beach weren't that great. Aulani is highly rated as one of the best hotels/resorts in Hawaii and has won numerous awards. It sells ok as a stand along resort but as a time shaw not so much.

Disney isn't worried about the repeat guest as much as they are the new guest because that new guest is going to often spend a lot more as many times this is their once in a lifetime trip to WDW. Disney loves that once in a lifetime visitor more than the repeat these days.

The whole profit thing goes along with who and ow the company is being run these days. This isn't Walts company anymore, this isn't even Eisners company anymore. Iger is all about keeping that stock price up.

 

[George4]

Now I like their Hawaii idea but Hilton Head and Vero Beach weren't that great. Aulani is highly rated as one of the best hotels/resorts in Hawaii and has won numerous awards. It sells ok as a stand along resort but as a time shaw not so much.

Disney isn't worried about the repeat guest as much as they are the new guest because that new guest is going to often spend a lot more as many times this is their once in a lifetime trip to WDW. Disney loves that once in a lifetime visitor more than the repeat these days.

The whole profit thing goes along with who and ow the company is being run these days. This isn't Walts company anymore, this isn't even Eisners company anymore. Iger is all about keeping that stock price up.

Aulani sounds great, but not as a timeshare - as a destination resort. You go there to enjoy Hawaii, and the resort is part of that. Most people buying a timeshare with Disney are looking to go back year after year, and at those prices, you can stay somewhere else nice and still have a nice Hawaiian vacation - same with Vero and Hilton Head. You can't justify the higher cost of these DVC resorts.

The problem with your profit statements (not that you are wrong, but that they are) is that when you do a profit analysis, Disney has to spend more money on their new customers to get them here, get them up to speed on how things works (customer service, etc.) and more help in the parks to get them around. Even though a repeat customer may be less likely to buy souvenir's and such, they are more likely to take advantage of more profitable items for DIsney (tours, dining, etc.), and they are more likely to come back and spend money every year if they have a good experience.

Your park attendance and profit numbers continue to increase if you have both returning visitors and new visitors. Losing even 5% of the returners each year costs you hotel occupancy and potential future profits. That will prop up the stock price over the long term. Too many of our current CEO's (and stockholders) are too preoccupied with current profit, and not long term maintenance and growth of profit.

 

[graychef]

And then you look at the parks, and they are ramming Disney characters down your throat in places they aren't needed (EPCOT)

EPCOT was initially not a park filled with characters. Very early on, guests constantly complained about no characters, other than a big scary purple dragon. So Disney brought out Mickey and friends in space suits. Then came the rest.

 

[rteetz]

EPCOT was initially not a park filled with characters. Very early on, guests constantly complained about no characters, other than a big scary purple dragon. So Disney brought out Mickey and friends in space suits. Then came the rest.

Figment is scary?

 

[graychef]

Figment is scary

Lol. Well, 30+ years ago the character suits probably didn't accurately represent a happy dragon. Plus if a four year old is expecting Mickey Mouse and sees a purple dragon instead, I'm betting a few meltdowns happened.

 

[OKW Lover]

a big scary purple dragon

Never heard Figment referred to as scary.

 

[rteetz]

Lol. Well, 30+ years ago the character suits probably didn't accurately represent a happy dragon. Plus if a four year old is expecting Mickey Mouse and sees a purple dragon instead, I'm betting a few meltdowns happened.

It's not that I don't believe you its just I've never heard of that before.

 

[OKW Lover]

Lol. Well, 30+ years ago the character suits probably didn't accurately represent a happy dragon. Plus if a four year old is expecting Mickey Mouse and sees a purple dragon instead, I'm betting a few meltdowns happened.

I don't recall Figment ever being a walk around character. He was always just a puppet on the arm of Dreamfinder.

 

[ChrisFL]

EPCOT was initially not a park filled with characters. Very early on, guests constantly complained about no characters, other than a big scary purple dragon. So Disney brought out Mickey and friends in space suits. Then came the rest.

There was no "big, scary" Figment in the early years, only after the refurb IIRC...the early one was just a small puppet as mentioned above

 

[Merry Mousketeer]

Just wanted to add that I hope @Merry Mousketeer chimes in with his knowledge of this. He's the DIS expert on Disney history.

Here's a link to a blog I wrote about Mineral King: Mineral King: Walt Disney's Last Lost Project
This link is to the Mineral King segment I did on The DIS Unplugged Disneyland Edition: Mineral King: Walt Disney's Last Lost Project
This link is to the Connecting with Walt episode Craig and I did that includes the St. Louis Waterfront Project: Connecting with Walt Episode 2: You Can't Top Pigs with Pigs.

I hope you find these entertaining and interesting!

 

[Chuck S]

Iger is all about keeping that stock price up.

He HAS to be all about stock price. It is what makes the world go 'round these days. Seriously, if you think Eisner had kept the stock price growing, do you think he'd have been voted down by the fund managers. It wasn't about "losing the magic" or what ever else his opposition tried to tell you, it was about stock price and ROI...no more, no less.

 

[rteetz]

He HAS to be all about stock price. It is what makes the world go 'round these days. Seriously, if you think Eisner had kept the stock price growing, do you think he'd have been voted down by the fund managers. It wasn't about "losing the magic" or what ever else his opposition tried to tell you, it was about stock price and ROI...no more, no less.

Give me half of Eisner and half of Iger and we have the next Walt. Eisner did some great things with the parks and made WDW what is today. Iger has made some great acquisitions and helped that stock price stay up. Iger is worried about what's going to happen to ESPN these days though.