Is Disney World ready for a fifth theme park?

[fannatic]

The Disney Villain Park (Dark Kingdom) would be a great way to counter Harry Potter, since it deals with dark fantasy. Also, I don't understand why so many disboarders are worried about if it would make "financial sense". Are they Disney accountants? Disney has more than enough money to create several new parks, that would no doubt be highly successful, and still remain financially healthy. While it's a free country, I think that Disney fans should be more concerned with the quality of new attractions and not how much they cost.

 

[nytimez]

The Disney Villain Park (Dark Kingdom) would be a great way to counter Harry Potter, since it deals with dark fantasy. Also, I don't understand why so many disboarders are worried about if it would make "financial sense". Are they Disney accountants? Disney has more than enough money to create several new parks, that would no doubt be highly successful, and still remain financially healthy. While it's a free country, I think that Disney fans should be more concerned with the quality of new attractions and not how much they cost.

I don't think we "worry" that it makes financial sense so much as recognize that since it doesn't make financial sense, it won't happen.

I can't speak for anyone else around here, but recognizing the cost limitations as well as the company's inherent CHEAPNESS isn't the same as not being concerned about the quality of new attractions.

 

[wdwdano@yahoo.com]

The Disney Villain Park (Dark Kingdom) would be a great way to counter Harry Potter, since it deals with dark fantasy. Also, I don't understand why so many disboarders are worried about if it would make "financial sense". Are they Disney accountants? Disney has more than enough money to create several new parks, that would no doubt be highly successful, and still remain financially healthy. While it's a free country, I think that Disney fans should be more concerned with the quality of new attractions and not how much they cost.

 

[Faldred]

The economics determine if a project is going to happen. Disney may have the money to build and expand, but why should they do so unless they're going to see a return on that investment?

I think the general concern on the boards is not about Disney's bottom line, per se, but rather what corner-cutting will come into play if they do so, as they already seem to be letting quality slip in the existing parks, let along spreading the problem out to a 5th gate.

 

[tjkraz]

That's great fellow Disers. Now we are on to something. This thread wasn't about ripping the idea apart it was about blue sky and brainstorm. That is where the fun lives. Love the ideas!

I thought it was about "Is Disney World ready for a fifth theme park?"

If you just want rah-rah, cheerleader-ish posts about fun ideas for a 5th park which will never see the light of day, there's an extensive post on that topic already:

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=2651621

 

[ASteelersMidget]

I thought it was about "Is Disney World ready for a fifth theme park?"

If you just want rah-rah, cheerleader-ish posts about fun ideas for a 5th park which will never see the light of day, there's an extensive post on that topic already:

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=2651621

Yeah. I posted basically the same thing on page 1 and here we are now on page 5.

People don't listen to common sense a lot. Look at sports.

P.S. The Monsters Inc coaster has been rumored since the movie came out.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

I don't think we "worry" that it makes financial sense so much as recognize that since it doesn't make financial sense, it won't happen.

I can't speak for anyone else around here, but recognizing the cost limitations as well as the company's inherent CHEAPNESS isn't the same as not being concerned about the quality of new attractions.

x2...shockingly

I also add that this is a mechanism of the stock market...any and all publically traded companies place the #1 priority on revenues, profits, and return to execs/ shareholders.

There are no exceptions in 2012.

My personal dream - short of taking disney private - which is damn near impossible, would be to have a new company setup where there is no board of directors...where the execs answer to an annual referendum to all stockholders.

that way the board can't protect those who lost their way (eisner) and those that never had one (bobby). And somebody truly creative can have the flexibility to spend and construct on a longterm plan without fear of immediate backlash from a board.

But hey, off topic.

No 5th park...not now nor probably ever.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Everything i remeber reading states that this was disproven with AK. It worked with the opening of MGM, BUt they hit saturation with AK Most people don't take more than a 7 day vacation. so with MK and EP being 2 days each with MGM and and AK being at least 1/2 day each (for new customers they are full day parks) that brings it up to 5 to 7 days of stuff for people to do.(that is ignoring waterparks, DTD and the pools at the resorts) Add in travel time(wich is included in most peoples 7 days of vacation) and you have exactly what Disney wants. Enough to do on a 7 day vacation. Add in Magical express and WDW now extremly happy with a customer that has enough to keep most people busy for their whole vacation. So there is less of a desire and no car (excluding a taxi or mears) to vist the non-WDW parks.


Nevermind the already stretched thin labor pool in the area, talk about a decline in service witha fith gate.


If they were to build one I would love to see it contain all the extinct rides.

Amen, Reverend!!

This is 34% of the arugment against...lack of labor/lack of cheap labor/labor costs is 33%...and construction cost/low profit projection is 33%

that is a 100% ironclad case against.

 

[Mickey'sApprentice]

You missed my point. Of course people go into Disney's Animal Kingdom. The problem is if you compare pre-DAK to post-DAK, the opening of the 4th park didn't cause guests to extend their stays by any substantial degree. Instead all they did was shift their schedules. Instead of spending 3 days (out of 7) at the Magic Kingdom, your typical family may have switched to 2 days at MK and 1 at Animal Kingdom.

Problem is that doesn't make any more money for Disney to justify the extra gate. Put it this way: If Disney opens a 5th park, their operating expenses grow by about 25%. They need more ride toll booth attendants, security, Guest Relations, ride attendants, restaurant staff, gift shop clerks, and so on. They also need to pay for utilities, maintenance, landscaping and all other expenses associated with running a multi-billion dollar park.

So Disney's expenditures grow about about 1/4. How would they cover that added expense? Can you honestly say that if Disney opened a 5th park, you would increase your own personal spending by 25% with every single trip you take?

Very few people would do that. As I illustrated, most people would just keep spending the same amount of money, while shifting their park schedules. They'll reduce their time at MK, Epcot, DHS and DAK to squeeze in a day or two at the 5th park. They'll skip the Epcot t-shirt and buy a 5th park shirt.

End result is Disney's spending millions to run a park without any real prospect of added revenues covering added expenses.

I haven't read the whole thread...but instead of a 5th gate...I think Disney should start thinking seriously about that TEXAS (or anywhere in warm weather mid-America) park that has been tossed around for years.

Another park on WDW property doesn't help the congestion very much. I can argue that it could actually increase congestion at MK and EP.

Seriously, how many people do you see on the DIS discussing WDW from California? Yes, they are here...but not in mass.

We would enjoy having a park here in Alabama! (Its probably too far East.) ;(

 

[NutDisney]

Disney needs to focus on the 4 parks they have now. MK is the only park that is more than a 1 day park. Epcot is close.. but DHS and AK is a joke. They need to beef up these parks before doing a 5th.

 

[tjkraz]

I haven't read the whole thread...but instead of a 5th gate...I think Disney should start thinking seriously about that TEXAS (or anywhere in warm weather mid-America) park that has been tossed around for years.

I always thought Disney could compete in the indoor waterpark / hotel market. Throw in a character meal, meet and greets and perhaps even some smaller-scale attraction / simulator outside of the waterpark. Include a few dozen DVC villas to help fund the project.

With regard to theme parks, Disney's argument has always been that building another resort complex in the US would mostly cannibalize business from WDW and DL. But smaller-scale venues seem like they would only whet people's appetites for the larger parks.

 

[Faldred]

But smaller-scale venues seem like they would only whet people's appetites for the larger parks.

I imagine it would be an extremely tricky, if not impossible, balance to maintain, though. You'd need the regional parks to be enough Disney to warrant putting the name on it, but not so much that DLR and WDW aren't worth a special trip.

Something very narrowly themed, such as the abandoned Disney America concept, might work, but that'd be a very expensive mistake if it didn't. Shame the project got stalled -- as far as I can tell, it's the closest Disney has been to opening a third domestic location.

 

[tjkraz]

I imagine it would be an extremely tricky, if not impossible, balance to maintain, though. You'd need the regional parks to be enough Disney to warrant putting the name on it, but not so much that DLR and WDW aren't worth a special trip.

Something very narrowly themed, such as the abandoned Disney America concept, might work, but that'd be a very expensive mistake if it didn't. Shame the project got stalled -- as far as I can tell, it's the closest Disney has been to opening a third domestic location.

My thinking wasn't so much a park as an indoor venue similar to Great Wolf Lodge or Kalahari. Living in the midwest, we usually spend a night or two at a place like this during the cold weather months. The indoor waterpark is the centerpiece of the resort. Kalahari in particular has over a dozen different types of body slides and rafting tubes. It even has a Crush N Gusher-style coaster plus wave pool, lazy river, cabana rentals, hot tubs, etc.

A similar Disney hotel could leverage some theme park technology just to give guests a taste of the theme parks. Integrating things like one Star Tours ride vehicle or a small 3D theater would add to the uniqueness. Even a small-scale dark ride like Buzz Lightyear would be fairly cheap to staff and have substantial re-rideability. (Don't kill me on the specifics--those are just a few examples off the top of my head.)

This is solely my opinion but I don't see such a venue as cannibalizing much business from WDW or DL. I can't see many people forgoing a trip to WDW because they can experience one or two slimmed-down attractions closer to their home. Meanwhile it could help introduce more guests to Disney-type attractions and encourage trips to the theme parks.

 

[Mickey'sApprentice]

I always thought Disney could compete in the indoor waterpark / hotel market. Throw in a character meal, meet and greets and perhaps even some smaller-scale attraction / simulator outside of the waterpark. Include a few dozen DVC villas to help fund the project.

With regard to theme parks, Disney's argument has always been that building another resort complex in the US would mostly cannibalize business from WDW and DL. But smaller-scale venues seem like they would only whet people's appetites for the larger parks.

My point was that another park would cannibalize WDW and DL. As the parks become overstuffed...it would be a relief!

Here's the strategy...Disney opens a third U.S. location. DL & WDW attendance dips a little for a few years, but overall attendance goes up. In a few years, DL & WDW attendance are back to 2012 levels, and the new park has great attendance as well.

Result: Disney grows their business.

 

[tjkraz]

Here's the strategy...Disney opens a third U.S. location. DL & WDW attendance dips a little for a few years, but overall attendance goes up. In a few years, DL & WDW attendance are back to 2012 levels, and the new park has great attendance as well.

Result: Disney grows their business.

But what reason is there to assume that would happen?

Assume Disney builds a park in--I dunno--Illinois. That's closer to me so instead of going to WDW 1x per year and DL 1x per year, I go to the new park 1x and alternate between the others. DL and WDW have each lost some of my business so yes, attendance goes down.

But where do the extra guests come from which drive DL and WDW attendance back up "in a few years"?

The new park would pick up some business from people who would not have otherwise gone to WDW or DL but I don't see how you can arbitrarily assume that other customers will step in to fill the lost traffic at WDW and DL.

 

[nytimez]

My point was that another park would cannibalize WDW and DL. As the parks become overstuffed...it would be a relief!

Here's the strategy...Disney opens a third U.S. location. DL & WDW attendance dips a little for a few years, but overall attendance goes up. In a few years, DL & WDW attendance are back to 2012 levels, and the new park has great attendance as well.

Result: Disney grows their business.

They WANT the parks to be stuffed -- the stuffier, the better. Crowd relief is great from a visitor's point of view... but it's completely at odds with what the company wants.

In any case, business wouldn't necessarily grow -- the number of people who want to go on a Disney vacation won't necessarily increase simply because there's another park. It'll be the same people who would go anyway, now choosing between one of three destinations instead of two.

 

[mcd2745]

My thinking wasn't so much a park as an indoor venue similar to Great Wolf Lodge or Kalahari. Living in the midwest, we usually spend a night or two at a place like this during the cold weather months. The indoor waterpark is the centerpiece of the resort. Kalahari in particular has over a dozen different types of body slides and rafting tubes. It even has a Crush N Gusher-style coaster plus wave pool, lazy river, cabana rentals, hot tubs, etc.

A similar Disney hotel could leverage some theme park technology just to give guests a taste of the theme parks. Integrating things like one Star Tours ride vehicle or a small 3D theater would add to the uniqueness. Even a small-scale dark ride like Buzz Lightyear would be fairly cheap to staff and have substantial re-rideability. (Don't kill me on the specifics--those are just a few examples off the top of my head.)

This is solely my opinion but I don't see such a venue as cannibalizing much business from WDW or DL. I can't see many people forgoing a trip to WDW because they can experience one or two slimmed-down attractions closer to their home. Meanwhile it could help introduce more guests to Disney-type attractions and encourage trips to the theme parks.

Interesting idea and one that probably could work. And I certainly don't think it would take any business away from WDW/DL also. Most families have that one big vacation per year that could be WDW/DL or maybe DCL. Additionally, they may go on a few "mini-vacations" throughout year such a 2 or 3 nighter at a Great Wolf/Coco Key or something else within a few hours driving distance. I think Disney could be very successful in that type of market. It could help hold over the big-time Disney fans until that next trip to WDW/DL. Or for those who can not afford a trip to WDW/DL, it can be the next best thing.

 

[MJMcBride]

I dont see any reason why disney would ever open a 5th park ar WDW

 

[Mickey'sApprentice]

But what reason is there to assume that would happen?

Assume Disney builds a park in--I dunno--Illinois. That's closer to me so instead of going to WDW 1x per year and DL 1x per year, I go to the new park 1x and alternate between the others. DL and WDW have each lost some of my business so yes, attendance goes down.

But where do the extra guests come from which drive DL and WDW attendance back up "in a few years"?

The new park would pick up some business from people who would not have otherwise gone to WDW or DL but I don't see how you can arbitrarily assume that other customers will step in to fill the lost traffic at WDW and DL.

People who would attend the more local park would be people who could not otherwise afford a trip to Orlando or Anaheim, plus WDW/DL visitors who would like to get a little fix for Disney between visits.

WDW/DL attendance continue to go up anyway. The middle class of emerging markets going to WDW, plus U.S. consumers are beginning to see going to WDW as a rite of passage for their kids.

(One interesting thought though...demographic reports have stated that fewer people have been born since 2008 because of the economy -- that may have an effect on future theme park attendance.) Not good for Disney.

 

[tjkraz]

WDW/DL attendance continue to go up anyway. The middle class of emerging markets going to WDW, plus U.S. consumers are beginning to see going to WDW as a rite of passage for their kids.

Disney park attendance has been relatively flat in recent years and it's taken deep discounts just to get there. Disney even went so far as to change its reporting methodology to hide the struggles of WDW.

Sure there would be some gains to be realized through locals who visit this theoretical new park. But once you get beyond that, the resorts simply start cannibalizing one another. It's no different than the arguments against a 5th theme park--why would Disney build more when they can earn similar revenues with what they have now?

In the end, they would be relying on new business from locals to drive the new park. I don't see that revenue as being sufficient to prompt billions in up-front investment plus hundreds-of-millions in annual operating costs.

Like nytimez said, there's no reason for Disney to build more when they can bring in similar dollars with what they have now. In a perfect world, attendance (and profits) will continue to grow but that growth will happen within the existing 6 domestic parks, not 7 or 8 or 9.

Building more parks in the US is akin to stepping over a dollar to pick up a nickel. Too many expenses required to earn a small amount of new revenue.