SeaWorld Parks looks for business growth beyond core business

Posted Monday, June 6, 2011 12:14 PM | Contributed by Jeff

Freed from the constraints of owners more interested in brewing beer than building theme parks, SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment is accelerating plans to expand into new businesses, including movies, television and hotels. After flirting with the idea for years, the Orlando-based theme-park operator will release a feature film this month through SeaWorld Pictures, the company's new film division.

Read more from The Orlando Sentinel.

Monday, June 6, 2011 2:02 PM

Ironically, Sea World was once owned by a publishing company...

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

    /X\        _      *** Respect rides. They do not respect you. ***
/XXX\ /X\ /X\_ _ /X\__ _ _ _____

Monday, June 6, 2011 2:06 PM
LostKause's avatar

Freed from the constraints of owners more interested in brewing beer than building theme parks

The first sentence makes me angry. Busch did a fantastic job with their parks, and the beer brewing did not distract from that. If anything, it helped. Is the nitwit who wrote this article trying to rewrite history?

I will probably not read the rest of this article. I got the jest of it right there. >:(

Monday, June 6, 2011 2:38 PM
Jeff's avatar

Under the original Busch ownership, yes, they did a nice job letting the park division run itself. Under InBev, not so much.

Jeff - Editor - - My Blog - Phrazy

Monday, June 6, 2011 3:10 PM
Tekwardo's avatar

Yeah, I think that was a jab at InBev and not AB.

Website | Flickr | Instagram | YouTube | Twitter | Facebook

Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.

Monday, June 6, 2011 9:53 PM
mlnem4s's avatar

It would be nice to see them come in and clean up the mess in Aurora that Cedar Fair left to rot. I can see a Sesame Place and some other branded park fit there nicely which would compliment Sandusky while not competing directly with it which is were Six Flags got the marketing wrong.

Monday, June 6, 2011 10:03 PM
Jeff's avatar

Why would they go back to a market they wanted so desperately to get out of?

Jeff - Editor - - My Blog - Phrazy

Monday, June 6, 2011 10:48 PM

Was it the market or was it the poor fit of a seasonal park with year around large marine animals to tend? (Or some of both?)

My author website:

Monday, June 6, 2011 11:28 PM

Mostly the latter. The facility was looking at some hefty federally mandated upgrades, and the numbers just didn't add up.Thus the sale to SF. The proceeds from the sale pretty much paid for the building of Discovery Cove in Orlando.

Wednesday, June 8, 2011 12:31 PM
Jeff's avatar

Follow up story.

Jeff - Editor - - My Blog - Phrazy

Thursday, June 9, 2011 8:31 AM

I agree with Dutchman that the care for animals year round for a park only open 4 or 5 months was a business model that was in decline. But, I think another aspect of the problem for Sea World Ohio was the limitation placed on them that would not allow them to build rides on their side of the like in deference to the park on the other side. Look at the other Sea World Parks across the country and they have all added rides to sustain crowds.

If Six Flags didn't come in and overbuild Geauga Lake then I think that park is still open today. There are plenty of "smaller" amusement parks across the country in markets that should not be able to sustain attendance yet do fine.


You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2022, POP World Media, LLC