According to various sites, they are looking at nearly 1 billion for the chain. I just don't get how Paramount can call the parks a non-core asset, when Disney proves time and again how if done right, being a park operator is ideal for a media company.

I've only been to Paramount's King's Dominion, but if all the Paramount parks are run as poorly as KD it's no wonder they want to dump them. And $1 million dollars for the chain sounds like a steal, considering how many of them there are, until you see how much it would cost to fix KD up.

He said 1 billion not 1 million. Still think it's a steal? ;)

Yes, I certainly do. There are 7 theme parks; that's only $142 million each. Considering that a single new attraction these days can cost upwards of $30 million to $40 million, $142 million for a whole theme park is a steal.

I just don't get how Paramount can call the parks a non-core asset, when Disney proves time and again how if done right, being a park operator is ideal for a media company.

Just because two companies are in relatively similar overall businesses doesn't necessarily mean that they have the same core assets. Disney's theme parks clearly are far more valuable than Viacom's and it is pretty unlikely that the Paramount Parks would ever come close to matching Disney's in terms of popularity or prestige.

To give a comparison on the other side, Disney would probably view publishing as much less of a core asset than Viacom does, since Hyperion Books (Disney's publishing arm) is certainly a much lesser publisher than Viacom's Simon & Shuster.

-Jeff

To give a comparison on the other side, Disney would probably view publishing as much less of a core asset than Viacom does, since Hyperion Books (Disney's publishing arm) is certainly a much lesser publisher than Viacom's Simon & Shuster.Not to mention that Disney Editions is actually distributed by Time Warner.

AVP

Yes, I certainly do. There are 7 theme parks; that's only $142 million each. Considering that a single new attraction these days can cost upwards of $30 million to $40 million, $142 million for a whole theme park is a steal.
There are other financial measures that are important. Cash flow and profits, for starters.
Maybe the value of those rides diminishes over time. That's called "depreciation."

Lastly, DCA cost some $600 million to build. You think anyone would pay that much for that?

I've always wondered why Paramount's Parks aren't a priority for the company. Looks to me like the corporate structure decided a long time ago to knock off the Six Flags model of a park versus what Disney used to do. Odd they would choose to emulate a company that has struggled for years, instead of the far more successful Disney.

Paramount sits on a very popular franchise (and their management of this property is questionable at best), Star Trek, yet has done incredibly little with it outside of the Star Trek Experience in Las Vegas at the Hilton.

Really, if you analyze what makes Disneyland work it isn't that hard to apply to any other parks in the chain. Most of the big DL hit attractions over the years rely on common underlying technology (at least it's common now and available from any number of vendors) - but it's the amazing execution of the theme that elevates something like a simple steel coaster into a classic like Space MT. And how those themed rides fit with each other to create a "land" completes the package.

Zero themed coasters may look like they are financially more desirable at first, but after the initial attendance spike is over, well, just look at Six Flags to see what happens in the long haul.

To give a comparison on the other side, Disney would probably view publishing as much less of a core asset than Viacom does, since Hyperion Books (Disney's publishing arm) is certainly a much lesser publisher than Viacom's Simon & Shuster.

Hyperion is actually under ABC (and covers Miramax, ESPN Books, Hyperion East, ABC Daytime Press, Theia, et al.). Indirectly owned by disney and most definitely not a key factor when it comes to the direction of the company.

The only publishing company directly under Disney as far as I know is Disney Publishing Worldwide which does its periodicals and covers Hyperion Books for Children, Disney Press, Disney Editions, Volo and Jump at the Sun.

I remember in the early 90s when Paramount first bought the parks. King's Dominion was, at the time, still a nice, cleaqn, family-friendly park, and the first year after the Paramound buyout I went there and enjoyed it a lot. They started putting Star Trek characters (Star Fleet, Kilingons, Bajorans, Ferrengi) in the park and having displays of movie props and memorabilia. Star Trek was the overriding theme, but there were others as well, including the Mirthmobile from Waynes World, and later they built a Wayne's World-themed coaster called, appropriately enough, the Hurler.

But as the 90s progressed, the park fell apart rapidly. It's now dirty, rusty, has few if any characters, and has become, shall we say, family un-friendly to the point where there are now metal detectors at the gates (put there in direct response to several stabbings that occurred inside the park in the mid-90s). It's terrible to see a park that I loved as a kid going to the dogs like that; I simply stopped going to KD a few years ago and won't return till I hear about some rehabs and major changes to the park.

Hershey Park, on the other hand, is still a wonderful, family-friendly park with great rides and good service. I think Hershey compares favorably with the Disney parks in cleanliness, friendliness, and upkeep. Paramount could learn a lot from examining how Disney, Hershey, and some of the other small parks in the country, operate.

Hyperion is actually under ABC (and covers Miramax, ESPN Books, Hyperion East, ABC Daytime Press, Theia, et al.). Indirectly owned by disney and most definitely not a key factor when it comes to the direction of the company.

As I said, it is a secondary business for Disney, just as Paramount Parks is a secondary business for Viacom.

There is nothing "indirect" about the ownership, though, even if it is somehow managed under the ABC umbrella (which I actually don't believe is correct). ABC and Disney are not run as separate entities.

-Jeff

http://www.hoovers.com/walt-disney/--ID__11603--/free-co-subs.xhtml

Hyperion (but not hyperion for children) is in fact a subsidiary of ABC. I had a friend who worked for Hyperion and they actually use abc.com for their email and they are based in the abc building here in nyc (7 west 66th st).

It's all but impossible to expect that in a conglomerate that the head of the top of the organization will be involved in all aspects of every company's business. As you move down the tier, your involvement becomes less and less. Disney Publishing Worldwide is directly under WDC while Hyperion is managed by ABC. All I'm saying is if it were more of a priority for the company as a whole, it would be higher up on the food chain. just trying to agree with you here.