Theme parks jump aboard brand wagon

[General Grizz]

Theme parks jump aboard brand wagon
By Todd Pack|Sentinel Staff Writer

June 7, 2003

Just as whiz kid Jimmy Neutron was landing at Universal Studios in Orlando, SpongeBob SquarePants surfaced at Paramount's five U.S. and Canadian parks.

SpongeBob SquarePants 3-D plunges audiences into the Nickelodeon star's undersea home of Bikini Bottom.

Jimmy Neutron's Nicktoon Blast at Universal rockets riders through the whole Nick neighborhood, including SpongeBob's home, but Jimmy rushes right by him.

It's the same with the parks themselves. Regional parks are adding name-brand attractions, but Orlando's megaparks keep zooming ahead.

Friday night, Universal Studios gave a group of invited pass-holders a peek at Shrek 4-D -- an all-digital 3-D movie projected onto a giant screen using four high-definition video projectors.

"We are using cutting-edge technology," said Scott Trowbridge, the Universal vice president who is overseeing the project, which includes versions of the show at Universal Studios Hollywood and at the company's park in Osaka, Japan.

Outside the Universal parks, "you're not going to see this anyplace else," he said.

Disney is finishing work on a revolutionary ride called Mission: Space.

Built for a reported $100 million, the ride gives passengers the sense they're blasting off by securing them in capsules attached to a centrifuge like the contraptions used to train astronauts -- or those carnival rides that pin thrill seekers against the wall of a spinning chamber.

Bob Zalk, a senior show producer for Walt Disney Imagineering, said passengers won't feel the capsule spinning but will be pushed back in their well-cushioned seats by the centrifugal force.

That, combined with the photo-realistic views outside the capsule "windows" and sound effects you feel rather than hear, will create the illusion of liftoff, he said.

"This is the only way you can get an experience like that, short of being launched into space," he said.

Next spring, Universal Studios is expected to open Revenge of the Mummy, an $80 million "psychological thrill ride" the company claims will be one of its most technologically advanced, with a skeleton warrior seemingly leaping aboard ride vehicles, and a "ceiling of flame" burning inches overhead.

Big parks can buy spectacle

Such spectacular rides are outside the reach of even the most successful regional parks, said Steve Baker, an Orlando-based theme-park consultant.

The combined cost of the Mummy ride and Mission: Space, Baker said, is about what it would cost to build an entire regional amusement park from scratch.

Even if a smaller park wanted to build a ride on the scale of a Mission: Space, "they'd never get their money back," Baker said.

Such rides depend on parks attracting millions of people throughout the year, and regional parks usually close in the winter and attract a fraction as many visitors as one of Orlando's big parks.

Paramount's Carowinds in Charlotte, N.C., for example, drew 1.9 million visitors in 2002, compared with the Magic Kingdom's 14 million, according to estimates by the trade publication Amusement Business.

Regional players acknowledge that Disney and Universal are in a league of their own -- Paramount parks spokesman David Mandt said, "It's comparing apples and oranges" -- but analysts say that the smaller attractions have no choice but to compete.

"It's the people who come to Central Florida," Jerry Aldrich, an Orlando-based theme-park consultant. "When they go home, their expectations are at another level," he said.

Mandt said research has shown that people are drawn to the park by branded attractions such as Nickelodeon Central, a cartoon-theme neighborhood that expanded this spring into all five Paramount parks.

"We talked to folks about Nickelodeon Central, and 75 percent said it improved their overall impression of the park experience," he said. "Ninety percent said something similar about SpongeBob SquarePants 3-D."

Universal spokeswoman Susan Lomax said the ways the characters are presented at the Orlando park are "completely different" from how Paramount uses them. Nickelodeon and Paramount are owned by Viacom Inc.

"We have a wonderful relationship with Universal in Orlando and a wonderful relationship with our sister company," said Howard Smith, senior vice president of recreation for Nickelodeon. "We want Nick to be where kids are."

Small parks must compete

Regional parks such as Paramount's for years have relied oncartoon or movie characters to attract kids and their families. Kings Island, for example, had rides and attractions based on Hanna-Barbera characters such as Fred Flintstone, while Six Flags Over Georgia and other Six Flags parks used Warner Bros. characters such as Bugs Bunny.

But branding began playing a greater role in the regional parks in the 1990s.

Paramount Communications Inc., now part of Viacom, bought Kings Island near Cincinnati and Carowinds' parent, Kings Entertainment, for about $400 million in 1992. Time Warner Inc., now AOL Time Warner, bought Six Flags the next year, calling the deal an opportunity to extends its movies, comic books and other brands.

Soon after the deals closed, Klingon warriors from Star Trek were strolling Paramount's Kings Island near Cincinnati, and a Batman coaster, with a gritty Gotham City-theme queue, opened at Six Flags Great America. Premier Parks bought Six Flags in 1998 but continues to license the Warner Bros. characters.

"Since the regionals have been purchased by corporate entities with rather deep pockets, the investment into those parks has moved to a new level," said John Robinett, a Los Angeles-based consultant who specializes in the economics of attractions.

Location is vital

But while they still aren't on par with the Orlando parks, he said, the regionals have at least one advantage: location.

With the economy still expected to drive many families to take shorter vacations closer to home, "there's something of a substitution effect," Robinett said.

Orlando's rides and shows may be bigger, he said, but given the cost of hauling a family down to Florida, a lot of families could seek thrills closer to home.

"It's something I call 'the McDonald's theory,' " said Dennis Speigel, president of International Theme Park Services, a Cincinnati-based consulting firm: If there's a McDonald's around the corner, why would someone drive to one across town?

But 8-year-old Mallorie Moore may have the answer.

Orlando, she said, has "funner rides."

Mallorie's family went to Six Flags St. Louis last summer and Orlando this summer, and "there's really no comparison," said her father, Deron, 43, an Omaha, Neb., police officer.

Strolling with his family through Universal Studios on the family's first visit to Orlando, he said, "There's nothing close to this."

Todd Pack can be reached at tpack@orlandosentinel.com or 407-420-5407.


Copyright © 2003, Orlando Sentinel

 

[THX-1701]

UM?

Thank you Mr.President!

lol

 

[Captain Cab]

Originally posted by THX-1701
UM?

Thank you Mr.President!

lol

If you're referring to the current economy, then I believe you mean "Thank you Mr. Former President Clinton."

See, the interesting thing about the economy is that overall trends won't be noticed until 4 or 5 years down the road. Therefore real impact of President Bush's economy won't be noticed until another 3 or 4 years from now. Sure the economy will have great daily reactions to certain events in the news (9/11, Enron, business mergers/bankruptcies, etc.), but the overall trend is what really matters, and those usually take several years to compute.

NOTE - The following text is not intended to start fights over Democratic and Republican members here. All it is is a brief history of each President for the last 25 years and the impact they left on the economy. The main sources of information are from the unbiased websites of the Dow Jones Indurtrial Average and the White House's Presidential website.


Let's start the economy trend and Presidential impact lesson by looking at President Gerald Ford's economy. As you can see in the link, he was inaugrated in the middle of an extremely bad recession. President Nixon was able to pull the economy out of President Johnson's slunder, but his own personal problems met with other national and international problems, an one of the nation's worst depressions was the result. President Ford was able to sitimulate the economy (and reduce inflation) through tax cuts, less governmental spending, got the U.S. out of the Vietnam Conflict, helped small businesses (tax cuts and eased controls exercised by regulatory agencies), and maintained the U.S.'s international power and prestige (new nuclear weapon limitation treaties with the Soviet Union, foreign aid to the Middle East, etc.). Overall, his economic plans worked and he left the Oval Office with a rising economy and good impressions of foreign nations.

Next is President Jimmy Carter's economy. At the start of his Inauguration Address, he said "For myself and for our Nation, I want to thank my predecessor for all he has done to heal our land." When Carter took office in 1977, he received a moderately growing economy in which inflation was 5.4 percent and interest rates were around 8 percent. When he left office, the Soviets were entrenched in Afghanistan, Iranian students had been holding US State Department personnel and US Marines hostage for 444 days, the American military had been gutted by the administration's post-Vietnam cutbacks. American prestige was in tatters abroad, inflation was in the double digits and interest rates were so high it was impossible for Americans to finance large purchases like homes and cars. By 1979 the gasoline shortages and economic problems brought Carter's popularity to an all-time low. Carter's administration is without a doubt the worst in modern American history, yet Carter himself blamed his failures on a "national malaise". This "malaise" kept his Democratic party out of power for 12 years, and even today it wrestles to free itself from Carter's legacy.

Next up is President Ronald Reagan's economy. Also known as the Reagan Revolution, the economy was given a significant boost that lasted for almost the next 20 years. The following are actual quote's from the White House's official Presidential website.

Dealing skillfully with Congress, Reagan obtained legislation to stimulate economic growth, curb inflation, increase employment, and strengthen national defense. He embarked upon a course of cutting taxes and Government expenditures, refusing to deviate from it when the strengthening of defense forces led to a large deficit.
. . .
In 1986 Reagan obtained an overhaul of the income tax code, which eliminated many deductions and exempted millions of people with low incomes. At the end of his administration, the Nation was enjoying its longest recorded period of peacetime prosperity without recession or depression.
. . .
Reagan sought to achieve "peace through strength." During his two terms he increased defense spending 35 percent, but sought to improve relations with the Soviet Union. In dramatic meetings with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, he negotiated a treaty that would eliminate intermediate-range nuclear missiles. Reagan declared war against international terrorism, sending American bombers against Libya after evidence came out that Libya was involved in an attack on American soldiers in a West Berlin nightclub.
. . .
By ordering naval escorts in the Persian Gulf, he maintained the free flow of oil during the Iran-Iraq war. In keeping with the Reagan Doctrine, he gave support to anti-Communist insurgencies in Central America, Asia, and Africa.

In addition to all the above listed, he practically destroyed Communism in the Soviet Union and ended the Cold War. Because of President Reagan, all Americans (and our allied friends) were able to sleep at night without worrying of a nuclear war with the Soviets. When he left his second term American patriotism was soaring, the economy was rising ahead at full speed, and the decades long Cold War had finally ended.

Next on the list is President George H. W. Bush's economy (data continued here). President Bush's term faced many changes in the world. The Soviet Union broke up, the Berlin Wall fell, and certain tyrants had to be dealt with accordingly. American troops were sent into Panama to overthrow General Manuel Noriega, and Operation Desert Strom freed Kuwait from Iraqi Dictator Saddam Hussein. At the end of his term, the economy was on the beginning of a massive rebound (previously brought down by corporate scandals and Hussein's invasion of Kuwait), but by the time of the 1992 elections most people had the idea that the economy was bad, so they elected him out of office.

Next up is President Bill Clinton's economy (also continued here). Upon entering office, President Clinton was given a growing economy that was started by the previous administration. The economy continued to grow at amazing rates and many people credited President Clinton. Did he do anything to deserve the credit though? Probably not. The following was posted in an article written in January of 2001.

How then to explain the boom? While any business cycle expansion has multiple causes, two stand out here. The first, and most important, was a change in policy at the Federal Reserve about five and a half years ago. The Fed, which had previously operated under the theory that six percent unemployment was the best that the economy could do without accelerating inflation, abandoned that view. Unemployment was allowed to fall to its current 4 percent, and growth continued beyond the point at which the Fed, in the past, would have pulled the plug.

The second was the stock market bubble: a 14 trillion increase in stock holdings over the last decade caused many upper income households to spend freely. This spending, even if it was based on paper increases in wealth that are now disappearing, provided a considerable stimulus to the economy -- much the same as we would get from a large increase in deficit spending by the federal government.

Mr. Clinton cannot claim credit for the stock market bubble, nor would he necessarily want to. Nor did he have anything to do with the Fed's policy shift, which was probably the most important positive change in economic policy in the last twenty years.

The economic policies for which the President can honestly claim responsibility -- e.g., NAFTA, the creation and expansion of the World Trade Organization -- served primarily to prevent the majority of Americans from sharing in the gains from economic growth. And then there was welfare reform, which threw millions of poor single mothers at the mercy of one of the lowest-wage labor markets in the industrialized world.

In short, Clinton's policies continued the upward redistribution of income and wealth, and punishment for the poor, that were the hallmarks of the Reagan era. It was not until 1999 that the median real wage reached its pre-1990 level, and it remains anchored today at about where it was twenty-seven years ago.

Clinton's foreign economic policy was similar, although more devastating. His administration, together with its allies at the IMF and the World Bank, presided over the destruction of the Russian economy, helped to cause and worsen the Asian economic crisis, and squeezed billions in debt service from the poorest countries in Africa. Not to mention racking up a record, economically unsustainable trade deficit for the United States.

Clinton's legacy is by no means an academic question. If the economy fares badly over the next few years, the Clinton era will look quite good by comparison. The "New Democrat" strategy of abandoning core constituencies -- especially working Americans -- in favor of big business and the rich will be judged an economic and political success.

In reality it was neither: Clinton's fight for NAFTA cost his party the House in 1994, and the New Democrats' long-term strategy to win back the South could hardly have failed more miserably: Gore did not carry a single Southern state, not even his home state of Tennessee. So long as Democrats continue to offer the average American nothing to improve his or her economic situation, many voters -- and not only in the South -- will continue to vote against them on the basis of issues that are irrelevant to their economic well-being.

George W. Bush may well hand the White House back to the Democrats in 2004, if his extremist cabinet nominations are any indication of his political judgment. But if Bush's successor is to do any good for America or the world, we will first need an honest evaluation of the Clinton years.

Finally, we have current President George W. Bush's economy. President Bush inherited an economy that had taken two major hits. First, Greenspan's rate hikes crushed business growth and slowed spending. Second, Wall Street discovered the Clinton Administration had been "cooking the books," lying about revenue and growth. As businesses scrambled to ratchet down plans for market expansion, this created the first stock market stall. Once in office, the economy took a third and fourth hit. The corporate scandals erupted, as a few major companies shared the Clinton accounting recipe. Then came 9-11. And the economy was in a free fall.

Yet most economists will agree that the first round of Bush tax cuts cushioned the economic blow by generating a respectable 3% growth. And most politicians agree that tax cuts will help grow an economy. They are divided only on one issue: what will the tax cuts cost? Any politician that asks this question is either wholly ignorant of any economic issues or too partisan to represent America. (Either way, they're unqualified for office.) Tax cuts don't cost revenue. They produce revenue. The indisputable Laffer Curve, which shows you can get the same revenue from two different tax rates, explains the inverse relationship between lower taxes and higher revenue. Otherwise, North Korea and Cuba would have the strongest economies in the world, and the Soviet Union would have certainly buried us long ago. Instead, Russia has a solid 6-8% growth with their new flat tax system. And people are suffering much worse in North Korea.


In short, it is extremely ignorant to blame the current economy on President Bush. The crash was not his fault, and right now he's right on track for providing a major economic boom in the near future. His tax cuts are the keys to success, and they have been very successful throughout history with previous Administrations. The economy will recover. Just give it some time and a little trust.