The
answer might surprise you.
It’s
yes.
And…
…it’s
no.
One
area we aren’t going to touch on, except to explain why they could
matter but we’re not going to lean heavily into them, is contracts
and restrictions. They’re complicated. They don’t hit everything,
but hit parts of many things, and overlap into all sorts of limitations
and agreements.
Plus,
in some cases, they could be used to drive business around the
globe. Think: “Hey, Florida is great, but to experience this you’ll
need to visit California.” And: “We have this in Japan, and a
different version in Florida, but you won’t see it in California.”
Take
Disney and Universal for example. Universal has a theme park called
Islands of Adventure, which in turn has a section called Marvel
Super Hero Island. As a result of previous agreements and licensing
and so on that exist from the creation of that area for Universal,
and then from a variety of reasons and negotiations over the years,
Disney cannot use some characters in certain locations. Short,
basic version: Disney cannot put Hulk, Spider-Man, Doctor Doom
and some others into their Orlando theme parks. Not even supposed
to use the Marvel name.
We
aren’t going to touch on areas such as those because it’s complicated,
sure, but it’s also not fully necessary to dive into here. How
complicated? Can’t use the Marvel name. Can’t use many of the
Marvel characters. But there is wiggle room. It’s not all of Marvel.
Guardians of the Galaxy? Already got a roller coaster in Epcot.
That
restriction in place, this is a response to the idea that Universal
is about to open Epic Universe, and some are saying that means
trouble for Disney World.
Well,
let’s just consider the amazing roster of possibilities for Disney
World. Marvel. Yes, guardians proves it, some of Marvel can be
designed for use. Pixar. Star Wars. Then there are the
classic Disney brands such as Mickey Mouse and Winnie the Pooh.
There’s plenty of material here to use and develop in multiple
new parks.
Take
Pixar. Regardless of what is already in place at their parks around
the world, let’s sit down and give some basic consideration to
a Disney theme park built in Orlando and based exclusively on
Pixar properties. You could have areas, each with two or three
major attractions, set up around Toy Story, Cars,
and The Incredibles. For other attractions, what about
Monsters, Inc.? Disney doesn’t like to repeat centerpieces
of attractions in multiple parks, so there are ideas that need
to be considered. Still, a full theme park for Pixar is obviously
a very real and attractive option.
Not
just Pixar.
Could
you imagine a Fantasy Kingdom? Use Frozen as the central
castle, and develop an area around Elsa and Anna. Build Metroville
(The Incredibles) and Radiator Springs (Cars)
as lands with attractions. Create areas based on Encanto
and Moana. Look toward the legendary archives for possibilities
from Sleeping Beauty to Alice in Wonderland.
How
about a Kingdom of Villains? Attractions and restaurants and merchandise
set up around Maleficent, Evil Queen, Chernabog and Cruella de
Vil. What about deep dives that could bring about designs based
on Bruce, Oogie Boogie, Ernesto de la Cruz, Dr. Facilier, Syndrome,
and the Sanderson Sisters?
Same
thoughts hold true for Star Wars.
Same
thoughts hold true for Marvel.
There
are some things that would come up in design meetings that we
on the outside aren’t concerned by. Some we know, some we don’t.
Just the idea of agreements that restrict the use of some properties
presents a few hurdles. Then, existing attractions add other considerations.
But, blue skies, anything possible, throwing ideas against a wall,
Disney is positioned wonderfully for expanding into not just one
additional theme park but multiple additional theme parks.
Do
you think it’s a coincidence that Disney began working on new
projects with Mickey Mouse in recent years? Do you think short
videos and theme park attractions and more are only happening
because it’s Mickey Mouse, and not to create new intellectual
property designs and trademarks? Visiting these ideas, and really
exploring the archives (which they already do with new versions
of films and more), allows Disney to reset property-rights clocks,
strengthen brand associations and fully utilize their vault.
With
all of the appealing options available, it’s obvious Disney can
add a new theme park in Florida. Disney could actually, easily,
add multiple new theme parks in Florida.
So,
yes, they should.
So,
if they should, why am I also saying no?
Numbers.
Whether
it’s attendance, staffing or dollars. The answer is in the numbers.
Let’s start with an average vacation.
Instead
of playing the game of figuring out extended weekend getaways,
holidays and more, which could take up hours of research and pages
of text, we’re going to go very basic. People travel in nine-day
segments, in general. Not fully true, but true enough for our
discussion. The five-day work week, plus the bookend of two weekends.
One week of vacation time can be stretched into nine days on the
road. If travel takes up two of those days, seven remain for doing
things. An alternating run of day on then day off for parks means
four parks in those seven days.
What
a funny thing, Disney already has four parks. (Disney also has
two water parks and a shopping village as fillers for the three
relaxation days.) Theme park, water park, theme park, shopping,
theme park, water park, theme park and… and… and there you’ve
used seven days.
Where
does a fifth park day fit in if you’ve already used all of your
available days? Disney, arguably, doesn’t gain anything if you
split days up and go to two parks on the same day. They already
had you spending money on food and souvenirs in one place. All
your park hopping accomplished was that you’ve moved your wallet
to another location. Same idea if you swap out one park for another
and still only visit four. In short, a new park is a multi-billion-dollar
investment that doesn’t necessarily increase revenue.
We
need to pause here. I need you to go back two paragraphs and read
where I said we’re not going to make this heavy research with
drawn out examples. Basic stuff.
Yes,
keep them wanting more. Yes, people that enjoy one trip and haven’t
seen it all will come back. Can’t do everything on one visit,
so let’s spread out the crowds into another park or two and improve
the experience for folks.
That
concept is nice. Almost nice enough to sweep aside that initial
example. But it comes with increase costs beyond the construction.
There’s more than just stabilizing or marginally improving revenue.
For one, you need to staff it. Long term, likely will pay off
in several ways. Day-to-day though, and short term one or two-year-plan
though, costs rise with no guarantee that revenues rise because
of it.
And,
don’t forget the other parks. Remember the other parks. There
are four theme parks already in operation looking for maintenance,
refresh work, new additions and potential expansions. (One of
my favorites is the World Showcase at Epcot, where I have been
watching and hoping for decades to see added pavilions. Never
happens. Wishful thinking. Still, things are happening at Epcot.)
Adding a new theme park doesn’t mean leaving plans for the other
parks stagnant.
So,
yes and no. Reasons to build. Reasons to not.
Here’s
a really funny thought. And if I’m thinking it, I have to believe
someone in a conference room, meeting, or text group from Disney
has presented it as well. Could the real argument and consideration
be that Disney needs to investigate different ways to use its
vast property advantage in Florida and not theme park options?
Have
you been to Disney Springs? Instead of a theme park, an idea might
be to locate a section of their unused property, move to revive
the Lake Buena Vista name and build a new diverse complex. The
current place can get busy and congested and ridiculous. (Not
always amazingly so, but head over to World of Disney and you’ll
understand.) For those that remember Pleasure Island, an entertainment
zone formerly adjacent to the area during the Downtown Disney
years, the idea of something designed with a return of that as
the foundation could be a welcome addition.
Simple
truth: Disney doesn’t need a new theme park to remain the top
destination in Orlando. Nor do they need a new theme park for
their Orlando destination to be one of the top places to visit
in the world. They don’t. Universal can add a third theme park,
they aren’t a serious challenger.
(Seriously,
who makes up these articles and nonsense about Universal being
close to knocking off Disney? Daily attendance figure estimates
from 2022 place Magic Kingdom way off on its own, just about doubling
any of the other theme parks in the world. After that, in Florida,
both Universal parks operating right now are in an attendance
batch with Epcot, Hollywood Studios and Animal Kingdom. (And many
of those estimates give Hollywood Studios the nod over both Universal
Parks. Kind of hard to be number one, when your best efforts might
be number three.))
But
the reason Disney is so solidly number one is because they don’t
stand still. They feature their legacies, bring in the new, refurbish
and expand. Disney World today will have something new a year
from now, and that something will be something special that you’ll
hear about. The question isn’t what they’ll do to top Universal.
It’s what they’ll do, without comparisons, whatever it is.
(That
won’t stop me from swooning over the thoughts of the Fantasy Kingdom
and Kingdom of Villains theme parks, two or three new countries
at Epcot and a Lake Buena Vista district with a new Pleasure Island.
Dare to dream, and dare to dream big.)