Disney has built last park in Central Florida

speck76

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
The Mouse searches for fresh magic

By Jerry W. Jackson, Debbie Salamone and Sean Mussenden | Sentinel Staff Writers
Posted May 1, 2005


Walt Disney World is at a crossroads.

Faced with an aging U.S. population, more sophisticated children and increasing competition for leisure dollars, the crown jewel of Disney's worldwide theme-park empire has set out on a new path.

The Walt Disney Co.'s once-successful growth strategy -- build, and they will come -- is no longer the road map for the future.

As the entertainment giant this week celebrates the 50th anniversary of Disneyland, the company is closing a chapter on its U.S. building boom.

Squeezed by rising costs and Wall Street pressures, the Burbank, Calif.-based business is looking for different, more economical ways to grow and focusing on overseas locations for its next parks.

The change means Animal Kingdom, which Disney opened in 1998, may be the last major park built by the company in Central Florida. There are no current plans to add another.


Instead, Disney is looking to take advantage of the more than $12 billion in capital that it has already plowed into former Florida swampland.

Disney's goal: Make more money through additional time-shares, targeted marketing campaigns, investments in the four existing parks and programs to entice tourists to stay longer and spend more. It's a plan that plays well among analysts, who say it makes business sense to reinvest in established parks rather than build anew.

"I think the premise is truly we are going to grow," said Al Weiss, Disney World president. "It's going to look very different. It's not going to be a big blip up when you build a theme park. It's going to be growth that is going to continue over a long period of time."

In Central Florida, a region long accustomed to park openings and robust tourism growth, the impact from Disney's strategy is hard to predict. But as other sectors play a larger role in the regional economy, the result may be greater diversification in the region, a goal of many area leaders.

Consider:

As Disney pursues its next phase of development, the rate of growth in the region's tourism sector could slow to a more steady pace. While visitation is at record levels -- nearly 51 million tourists are expected to come to Central Florida this year, a 5.9 percent increase from last year -- the pace is not as brisk as it sometimes was in the past decade, when increases hovered around 10 percent.

Central Florida will feel the effects of Disney's growth strategies. Though Disney World is still the area's largest employer with 57,000 employees, its share of the metro Orlando work force has mostly been dropping since 1998, when Animal Kingdom opened. And Disney's roster of about 38,000 full-timers today is less than the 40,000 or more it had during the late 1990s. As tourism jobs grow at a slower rate, the region's economic makeup could change, which some see as positive.

Rajeev Dhawan, an economist with Georgia State University, said Central Florida could benefit from an easing of tourism's growth rate.

"It's a blessing in disguise," said Dhawan, whose forecasting center studies economies throughout the nation. "There is short-term pain if you look for other industries to grow, but it pays off in the long run. The hoteliers may not like that and others [in the hospitality industry] may not like that. But it is true. "

Business strategy

Decades of experience as the nation's leading theme-park operator may no longer be enough to ensure a successful future for Disney as the landscape shifts. The industry has matured in the past 50 years and the challenges are greater:

Disney has to be more creative to draw increasing numbers of visitors. Its core audience -- young children -- is shrinking as a share of the overall population. The percentage of U.S. children younger than 14 has decreased from about 28 percent in 1970 -- just a year before the Magic Kingdom opened -- to about 20 percent today. As a result, Disney has already taken steps to appeal to adults in its parks and through other activities, such as spas and golf. Aside from the demographic challenge, increasingly sophisticated children aren't as easily entertained as before, putting pressure on Disney to make a theme-park vacation ever more exciting.

Disney's theme parks and resorts worldwide brought in more than $7.7 billion last year. But as good as it sounds -- with Disney World tickets at a high of $59.75 and a record number of hotel rooms for more than $100 a night -- it's getting harder to make a profit. Costs are up, competition for leisure dollars is intensifying and consumers are opting for bargain vacations. Yet Disney -- with its stock price closing at $26.40 Friday, off about 12 percent from the year's high -- is under increasing pressure from Wall Street and investors to boost profits.

Tourism still dominates Central Florida's economy -- industry estimates put it as high as 40 percent of the area's gross regional product -- and Disney remains the strongest player. But there are signs of a shift.

Like Disney, Universal Orlando executives say they have no current plans to add another major park to their two-park complex. SeaWorld would not comment.

Visitation to Central Florida is at record levels, but the pace of growth has cooled somewhat since the 1990s. Attendance at Disney World is up, according to industry estimates, but it's still short of the peak of 2000.

"I don't think we're going to see that kind of unbelievable growth that we saw in the 1990s," said Bill Peeper, president of the Orlando/Orange County Convention & Visitors Bureau. "That's not sustainable for any product. We were seeing double-digit growth. . . . It's unreasonable to think that could continue."

17382283.jpg

JOE BURBANK/ORLANDO SENTINEL
A worker scales the scaffolding around Expedition Everest, a coaster set to open at Animal Kingdom in 2006. Disney executives say original thrill rides, often costing more than $100 million, will be 'prudently built.' Other new attractions for Orlando include copies of rides from other parks.



During the next six years, the state's employment agency estimates the largest percentage of new jobs created in the region will be in the health-care and computer fields. Among the top 15 categories, only one tourism-related job makes the cut -- hotel and resort desk clerks.

In raw numbers, tourism occupations continue to create more jobs. But even in raw numbers, other occupations are making up ground, closing the gap and in some cases projected to exceed tourism.

Weiss, who chairs the Metro Orlando Economic Development Commission, sees opportunity for both tourism and other industries to grow robustly.

"You have to go down parallel paths. . . . You have to go down both paths as hard and heavy as we can," said Weiss, who is the second Disney executive to chair the commission. Former Disney executive ________ Nunis was chairman in 1992 and '93.

Orange County Mayor Rich Crotty says the appointment of Weiss as chairman of the not-for-profit public-private organization that promotes industries in Central Florida "shouldn't be lost on anybody."

"That's a signal we're pulling together as a community," he said.

Disney last year released an economic-impact study that showed the company accounts for more than 8 percent of the area's gross regional product, based on 2003 numbers. The study, for which Disney paid Orlando economist Hank Fishkind $25,000, used a multiplier that added in the economic effect of companies doing business with Disney, and companies that benefit from Disney's presence. When that factor is stripped out, Disney accounts for about 5 percent of the region's economy.

Local economists say they cannot independently verify Fishkind's estimates, but they don't discount them.

How the numbers compare with those of previous years cannot be determined. Fishkind and Disney declined to make his earlier impact studies available to the Sentinel, contending that they were not comparable. But Fishkind said that he is certain that Disney's impact, or size relative to the rest of the local economy, peaked some years ago, possibly in the mid- to late 1990s.

A revenue giant

Although Disney does not break out financial performance for Disney World, the Sentinel analyzed the company's public financial documents, tax figures and analysts' reports to estimate the Orlando property's revenue.

The overall Disney company's theme-park and resort division brought in more than $7.7 billion last year, and Disney World's parks and hotels easily account for 60 percent or more of the division's revenue, a Sentinel analysis shows.

With more than $4 billion a year in revenue, the Orlando operation alone would equal a Fortune 500 company based on 2003 revenue, bigger than Orlando-based Hughes Supply Inc. and about the size of Starbucks Corp. that year.

Wall Street analysts have long said that Disney World represents a majority of the division's revenue, and an even higher share of the profit.

But the Sentinel's analysis relied on tax receipts to get a more definitive total for sales and cross-checked it with everything from the company's payroll and benefits to gate-admission estimates and hotel revenue based on tourist taxes. The analysis shows that Disney World likely sends more than $700 million a year to the Burbank headquarters in operating profit.

Some or all of the numbers were reviewed independently by former Disney executives, certified public accounts who specialize in corporate reporting, county tax auditors, university professors and Wall Street analysts who follow Disney.

Although the parks in Orlando have long been a cash cow for the company -- $4 billion would represent 13 percent of the total company's revenue in fiscal 2004 -- the division's operating profit margin has been flat or falling for years. That means costs have been rising faster than the revenue coming in from park admission, hotels and other sources.

Operating profit margin -- or pre-tax profit divided by revenue -- is one key measure of how efficiently dollars are converted to profit.

While the picture has brightened in recent months, the division's pre-tax profit in fiscal 2004 was the second lowest for the U.S. parks since 1996.

Disney executives say business will grow -- indeed it must to meet the company's financial goals. But the type of growth, they concede, will be different.

"I think there's a big misnomer about, well, if you don't add a park or you don't add attractions you're not going to grow," Weiss said.

17382415.jpg

JOE BURBANK/ORLANDO SENTINEL
Sisters Kaitlyn and Chelsea Blanch of Laurel, Md., enjoy a spin through the renovated It's a Small World ride recently at the Magic Kingdom. Future visitors can expect to see the parks making the most of older attractions such as It's a Small World as few major new rides are planned.


Local officials have a stake in Disney's success.

"We need to continue to capitalize on the growth," Crotty said. "All of these things [Disney is doing] are moving in the right direction, and we need to remain the No. 1 tourist destination. Not building another theme park doesn't change that."

Celebrating past, future


Like the Disney Co.'s other parks and its cruise line, the Orlando properties will take part this week in the launch of Disney's 50th-anniversary celebration of Disneyland, the company's founding park.

The 18-month celebration will be as much a nod to the company's future as it will be a showcase of the California park's past.

Hong Kong Disneyland, for instance, will open its gates in September -- a sign of the company's emerging strategy to tap into the growth of Asia and its large child populations.

At Disney World, Animal Kingdom will add a completely new thrill ride next year, Expedition Everest, which will whisk riders through the harrowing snow-capped peaks of Mount Everest.

However, far more typical of the company's plan is what is happening at Epcot and Disney-MGM Studios. Each of those parks is getting a new attraction, but the simulator ride and high-speed stunt show are imports from other Disney parks.

By recycling existing rides or tweaking time-tested concepts, the company saves big bucks on everything from research and development to construction.

"I think it's a strategy that can work," said Jack Samuels, a professor at Montclair State University in New Jersey, who writes extensively on the amusement and theme-park industry, including Disney.

"If you can continue milking your cow and not have to invest more in grass and milk pumps, you're going to make more money."

Disney slashed capital spending for the theme-park division by half in 2002 and cut it again in 2003. While the number has rebounded slightly, top Disney executives vow to limit spending below the lofty $1 billion level that the division enjoyed in earlier years.

But some analysts have quietly questioned how much more Disney's theme-park division can contribute in cost cutting and profit growth. The U.S. economy is now in its fourth year of recovery from the relatively shallow 2001 recession, and any slowing could weaken consumer confidence and stall the tourism rebound.

With high fixed costs, analysts say, the theme-park division is more susceptible to profit pressures than the movie studios, TV networks and other Disney units when the economy falters.

Disney is also vulnerable to factors ranging from the cost of travel to hurricanes and the fear of another terrorist attack.

That's why Wall Street analysts through the years have been happy to see the overall company diversify -- reducing its reliance on the theme-park division -- to buffer against cyclical downturns.

Analyst Paul Kim of New York-based Traditional Asiel Securities gives credit to the company and outgoing Chief Executive Michael Eisner for "doing a good job cutting costs and increasing profits over the past 18 months" -- a period that saw the company fight off a takeover bid from cable giant Comcast Corp.

But Kim said that newly appointed CEO Robert Iger faces a challenge "to continue that momentum."

'Nontraditional' approach

At Disney World, Weiss won't reveal what Disney has planned for its 47-square-mile compound. But he says the company's future success will rely, in part, on "nontraditional growth vehicles," such as new marketing strategies and programs to get people to stay longer, spend more and keep coming back.

Disney also is banking on more visitors from abroad, but that's far from certain. International tourists, particularly those from Europe and Latin America, still haven't rebounded to their plentiful numbers before the 2001 terrorist attacks.

"It's still a weak area at Walt Disney World," said Dennis McAlpine, an independent analyst who follows Disney. "A lot of it is just out of their control, beyond what they can do."

Right now, Disney is having more success in targeting group travelers. Launched more than a year ago in response to the trend of multi-household travel, Magical Gatherings offers perks such as fireworks cruises, special dinners and other park activities exclusively for groups of more than eight.

The promotion has attracted extended families, reunions and other groups who need large, connecting rooms. Disney says it has reaped a 25 percent increase in household travel through Magical Gatherings.

Beyond targeted marketing, Disney is looking to its other businesses to drive more visitors to the parks. As out-of-town sports teams and school groups use the fields and facilities at Disney's Wide World of Sports, the company is trying to persuade them to spend time in the parks and stay in Disney hotels.

Children remain a core audience for Disney, but capturing their attention is increasingly difficult. Youngsters are maturing faster and their entertainment options dwarf those of earlier generations.

A key goal to Disney's long-term growth is encouraging visitors to keep coming back. By expanding its time-share business, the company aims to lock people in to years of Disney vacations.

In December, it changed its pricing structure to attract more people and prompt guests to extend visits.

Disney executives acknowledge that for some people, its theme parks had become an unaffordable vacation. The one-day admission price in Orlando has risen twice as fast as the average price of goods and services -- 106 percent -- from $29 in 1989 to $59.75 today.

The new plan, which encourages longer stays by making them comparatively cheaper, is the most sweeping change to Disney's pricing structure.

Disney's Weiss says the company is relying on its creativity and marketing prowess to drive its growth.

"I think that is something we've not lost focus on or lost sight of," he said, "because we know it's not only important for Walt Disney World and the Walt Disney Company, it's important for the Central Florida community to have tourism be as robust as it can."

Jerry W. Jackson can be reached at jwjackson@orlandosentinel.com or 407-420-5721; Debbie Salamone can be reached at 407-420-5456 or dsalamone@orlandosentinel.com; Sean Mussenden can be reached at smussenden@orlandosentinel.com.
 

mpaul32001

Well-Known Member
OMG! I think they should fill in all of the available space they have.....there is room for a park inbetween MK and AK!......THAT IS SO WRONG! although Walt did say "Walt Disney World will never be completed"......so maybe we CAN expect something in the future.
 

speck76

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
mpaul32001 said:
OMG! I think they should fill in all of the available space they have.....there is room for a park inbetween MK and AK!......THAT IS SO WRONG! although Walt did say "Walt Disney World will never be completed"......so maybe we CAN expect something in the future.

Didn't he say that about DisneyLAND?

Anyway, if you read the article, building will still take place in the existing parks, along with new resorts and timeshares being built.
 

KaliSplash

Well-Known Member
Thanks for posting the article.

Wish I could say I'm happy about their conclusions, but I'm not. It sounds a lot like marketing and pricing and relying on clones to continue to build profits.

Not exactly what most of us want to here, of course. As I am unlikely to travel to the overseas parks and probably won't get to California more than once (if that), the clones don't bother me as much as many here.

Still, the emphasis on 'getting more milk from the same cow' is not good news for us, even if it is something I've warned about since joining this site more than a year ago.

The reality of Wall Street is you must exceed expectations. It's not enough to make money, you have to make more money than expected in order to keep investors happy.

Ahoy maties, there be rough water ahead.
 

Computer Magic

Well-Known Member
Great article. It makes perfect since from a Wall Street standpoint. Although, I don't always like the buck comes first before anything else. What caught my eye was the decrease in kids under 14 and Disney having to adjust to keep people coming through the gates. and the fact that the kids that do come have a small attention span dur to computers and the internet.

Many industries are looking overseas for growth,so it's no suprise that Disney has and will continue to invest there. Although they need to be careful of over saturating the market with theme parks. I thought I heard Disney Orlando receives alot of their revenue from oversee tourist. If there is a park nearby with the same attractions, why travel to Orlando?

The clone attractions from other parks don't bother me too much as there is little chance I would travel overseas to see Disney. Orlando Disney is just fine. If I travel overseas there are other sites that would be on my list of things to do.

Disney can grow the parks without adding a whole new park. I would like to see attractions like Disney Seas, but that could be added to AK.
 

speck76

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
Computer Magic said:
Many industries are looking overseas for growth,so it's no suprise that Disney has and will continue to invest there. Although they need to be careful of over saturating the market with theme parks. I thought I heard Disney Orlando receives alot of their revenue from oversee tourist. If there is a park nearby with the same attractions, why travel to Orlando?

The percentage of overseas visitors to Orlando is not big.....3-4 million per year (of the 51 million total). If they can get 12 million people at the overseas park, it is a better investment.
 

Lynx04

New Member
Great article!!!! Not a surprise to hear that AK may be the last park, I said it before that until Disney solves the vacation length question, a 5th park is a extremely poor investment. Disney would have to reach a goal of average family stay of 7 days to even think about building another park, which will be a very difficult task. The main reason not being the cost, cause Disney can give discounts to intice people to stay longer, but the big hurtle is the lack of vacation days that most companies give to their employees.

While clones has its low cost advantages, I don't think they have as strong appeal as most people think. If MGM gets an IJA clone I won't be making any special arrangements to get down to MGM to ride it, unlike EE, I will be making a special trip just to ride it.
 

SpectroMan

New Member
I really don't think Animal Kingdom is the last park in Central Florida. It is the last for a long time to come, but never say never. As the American population keeps growing and keeps going to Disney World, there will be a point that they could easily build another park to hold more people.
 

speck76

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
There was conversation at WDC prior to DAK being announced that 4 parks was probably the limit for Disney in Central Florida.
 

DisneySaint

Well-Known Member
There isn't a Disney trip I don't go on where some bus driver doesn't get on the intercom and tells the entire bus that a new park will be built by 200x across from Caribbean Beach and will be themed Disney Villains. It must be going to be built by the bus drivers, too. :hammer:
 

Computer Magic

Well-Known Member
speck76 said:
The percentage of overseas visitors to Orlando is not big.....3-4 million per year (of the 51 million total). If they can get 12 million people at the overseas park, it is a better investment.
I thought it was you that stated oversea tourist was better then US tourist. As they spend much longer and more money when visiting?
 

Lynx04

New Member
Computer Magic said:
I thought it was you that stated oversea tourist was better then US tourist. As they spend much longer and more money when visiting?

The number of vistors are not high, but the foreign vistors that do come general stay much longer and spend more money.
 

AdLibSean

New Member
While this potentially means better quality in the existing parks, I am saddened that at least one more park won't be included in Florida resort. One quote in the article I didn't like was this one:

"Disney executives say original thrill rides, often costing more than $100 million, will be 'prudently built.' Other new attractions for Orlando include copies of rides from other parks."

Does this mean that Expedition: Everest might be the last of its kind at Disney parks or am I reading too much into that? Also...copies from other parks....sigh.....I suppose originality is a thing of the past.

And don't even get me started on the Disnelyand franchise...I mean the growing amount of parks abroad- all carbon copies of existing parks. Regardless of the investment growth it might reap in the short-term, I don't feel good about this at all- just call it a hunch, but once you over-saturate a market, doesn't that kind of take away the specialness of it all? I dunno like I said, I could be taking this too far but personally, if they're gonna halt progress in the states, it needs to be done abroad as well before there's a "Disneyland" in every major large city of the world.
 

KevinPage

Well-Known Member
Operative words

MAY & CURRENT PLANS. Which basically refutes the rest of headline.

I have no need myself for another park, I'd rather they work on existing parks, and "prundetly" build NEW original rides and UPDATE the existing attractions.

Aside from doing something with the 20K area, I'd rather have MK focus their budget on rehabbing the classis attractions ala IASW and I'll be a happy camper

:D :D :D
 

Computer Magic

Well-Known Member
AdLibSean said:
And don't even get me started on the Disnelyand franchise...I mean the growing amount of parks abroad- all carbon copies of existing parks. Regardless of the investment growth it might reap in the short-term, I don't feel good about this at all- just call it a hunch, but once you over-saturate a market, doesn't that kind of take away the specialness of it all? I dunno like I said, I could be taking this too far but personally, if they're gonna halt progress in the states, it needs to be done abroad as well before there's a "Disneyland" in every major large city of the world.
Disney should stay away from the six-flags syndrome otherwise Disney will lose it's uniqueness. One of the magic (at least for me) is I can't find Disney in every state. It's one thing to place it in different countries but stay away from adding another one in the states.
 

CTXRover

Well-Known Member
We don't need a fifth park. Orlando has already reached a point of oversaturation with parks at Disney, Universal and Seaworld. This can be seen from the fact that since AK and IOA opened, the crowds have more or less spread out rather than leading to more people coming to Orlando as a whole (there are other tourism factors at play, but we need not go there). At this point, it is the smart move to not be spending time and money on plans for a fifth park. I'm glad to hear that the money that has been used to expand the number of Disney parks worldwide over the past few years (AK, DCA, WDSP, HKDL, and at least the planning time for DisneySea) will now be diverted to reinvesting in the exisiting parks. Its the smart move at this point. All the Disney parks could use some rounding out before another park is even considered.

I also don't have a problem with clones. There is an entire park in Japan (DisneySea) full of some things I'd love see cloned domestically. Considering how MK and DL are practically clones and they have no problem attracting hordes of people, I don't see the problem. Very few people visit both resorts (or the worldwide resorts for that matter), so most win. Afterall, in order for something to be worth cloning, it required it to be "an origianl idea" in the first place that has proved its success, much like DL was before deciding to build the MK. Eventually though, there won't be anything left to clone and they will have to develop new rides :lol:

Marketing will always play a major role. I worry a little bit that there will be greater concentration on marketing and less on new attractions, but I don't fear that will happen. If the recent LA Times article is right, Iger is already pushing the Imagineers for attractions that will "wow" guests. Will that just be smaller shows like Turtle Talk and AA's like Lucky or does that mean bigger things? Who knows.

WDW is coming off its largest investment in the parks at one point since the opening of AK in 1998. Over the past three years they will have added MS, Philharmagic, Wishes, SGE, Soarin', LMA, Expedition Everest, Crush n' Gusher and some other smaller things. We're probably set to go into another dry spell for a little. But they'll build new stuff again.
 

BeachClubVillas

Well-Known Member
Before anyone gets all panicky, they're not saying they're not going to build anything else ever again. They're saying they're going to build-up what's already there. I'd be pretty upset if they built a whole new park without improving AK first (like they are with Everest)


What I found most interesting in the article, though, was Sea World's refusal to comment on their future plans. Another Sea World park? Seems unlikely, but you never know....
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom