A Spirited Perfect Ten

[PhotoDave219]

I'm not twisting words.. maybe your words just suck? You started out with...



1) stating they don't own the content is a generalization that is largely BS. They sign up for the exclusive right to BROADCAST the games.. productions they control and create. No they don't own everything, but they as the producers and studios own a very significant portion of their content... and it's what differentiates themselves from the lesser networks that largely rely on syndication or smaller productions.
2) Then you point to SVOD services like Netflix.. which have a hand in, or own not even a measurable fraction of the content they rely on.. and why they are changing to produce more content so they can stop fighting on the open market for it... having to take cards from the networks in how to do things because they knew they couldn't just survive bidding wars as the # of viable SVOD providers increased.

So your argument about 'not owning the content' and pointing to services like Netflix as stronger... the facts directly undermine your future model. The ABCs/ESPNs of the world already drive and control far more content (and continue to grow) than SVOD providers.. so this is 'weak'.

Then you go onto how the business is... I quote "a dying breed"... and ridiculous comments like 'they have a few shows here and there'



'some' relevancy... I'm not sure how anyone defines the market that drives north of 85% of all TV consumption as dying nor not really relevant (Source - http://blogs.forrester.com/james_mc...50_of_adults_under_age_32_will_not_pay_for_tv) - Even by Forrester's estimates they don't think the cord cutting population will hit 50% of the market for another 10 years. Your argument is like saying Gasoline cars are not really relevant because the growth of hybrid cars.

You cite 2 Netflix shows as signs of relevance.. nevermind that is 2 vs hundreds?? of others. You continue to make this flawed connection between distribution method and content creation.

For those not simply following the hype wagon - you should pay attention to how ABC and others have been working to wind their way out of the the broadcast stations they used to own, etc. Those are the actual 'distribution' portions.. not the actual umbrella organizations.

Then you make hyperbolic statements and infer ABC and the like are never going to change..


A claim based on what? NOTHING.. A claim that ignores all the shifts that have been happening. So yes, WEAK ARGUMENTS.

Then, when your garbage is called out.. you soften to.. 'well eventually'.


So bringing it back around to your last post..



You've gone from saying they are not relevant.. a dying breed.. the equivalent of believing the same business model will last forever.. to now 'they will have to evolve'. REALLY? SHOCKER!!! Businesses must evolve to progress? HOLD THE F'IN PRESSES!! You've gone from dismissing them as lame ducks to retreating to 'if they remain unchanged' they face trouble.

So.. your points of lack of dominace... BS
your points of already dying... BS
your points about property rights owners taking things direct... BS because they don't have the ability to do it themselves - they still rely on the studios and production companies. The model simply changes.
your points about why they are troubled are now simply 'if they don't change' - wow, earth shattering reveal there..
your points about not owning the content.. proven to be overgeneralizing and largely BS considering who you are lumping in

So what's my point? That you're full of it and playing chicken little by jumping on the fact that ESPN needs to change their revenue model in the future.. and leaping to all kinds of the sky is falling, dead-end, etc garbage.

ESPN is by far the most advanced of the US sports broadcasters when it comes to direct digital content and distribution.. including having dedicated channels online. They and other broadcast companies continue to be the leaders in sports broadcasting, even if not via OTA or paid subscribers.

Your statements are based on bangwagon'ing comments not actually rooted in the state of the business, nor the near term. Just because someone doesn't change at the first sight of competition... doesn't mean they'll never change. The savvy people know WHEN to change (ref: Apple), not simply change because the long term horizon means change is inevitable.

It means that Wall Street hates anything that doesn't go up
In perpetuity.

 

[flynnibus]

It means that Wall Street hates anything that doesn't go up
In perpetuity.

I know why the analysts don't like it... But it's not for the same reasons stated here.

 

[ford91exploder]

As to ESPN having the 'expertise' to televise games well that ship sailed LONG ago, It's been a long time since I've seen a ESPN satellite truck, the games coverage is done by outsourced contractors, Just drive by Boston Garden, Fenway or any other sports venue and you will see 'Random Video Productions" on the side of the production trailers and satellite trucks.

 

[ford91exploder]

I know we talk a lot about business here. Business, movies, theme parks, and god knows what else Disney is invested in.

Thinking movies for a second.... If youve ever been interested in even 1% of the business conversations we've had, go watch "The Big Short." Its really really good.... tho you may need to chase it with vodka and vicodin.

It explains exactly how messed up our financial system is.... and has Margo Robbie in a bubblebath.

In a rational universe LOTS of people should have gone to jail forever for that one.

 

[ford91exploder]

Is ESPN going the way of Kodak, Sure looks like it from where I sit. Kodak INVENTED digital photography and has the majority of the basic patents. However they refused to see the big picture and ignored the market shift from chemical to digital photography because it broke their basic business model.

Kodak discarded successful product lines because they did not return drug dealer profit levels, In fact the reason Disney no longer has prints in the park is Kodak dropped their line of professional dye sublimation printers which hurt a hell of a lot of event and wedding photographers, Unlike a traditional C-print a dye sublimation print is archival (will last > 100 years). Whats worse is Kodak refused to LICENSE the technology they dropped so that someone else could sell it.

We see everyday at TWDC the same brand of corporate hubris which destroyed kodak.

 

[MKCP 1985]

Was there supposed to be some discussion about Walt Disney Imagineering in here today? Or with the holiday is it still technically "the weekend?"

 

[Cesar R M]

That pretty much describes Mad Max, and that got lots of nominations.

I have no idea what you watched.. but that wasnt mad max.

 

[Cesar R M]

Disney's problem is they with the exception of A&E and ESPN is they have very little compelling content which appeals to a broad spectrum of the audience and when they DO get a hit they kill it off for reasons unknown 'Phineas and Ferb' and 'Gravity Falls' two shows which were legitimate hits with kids AND their parents Disney killed those. I coach a robotics team and the kids (late teens) ALL watch both shows.

Disney whacks those and amps up crap like 'Mighty Med' and others and creates a faux CW network (Freeform). The CEO's lack of creativity is trickling down to the rest of the company which at the moment is creatively bankrupt.

Well, At least they didnt kill the shows after their first season.. see Cartoon Network..killing REAL GOOD series and letting crap ones get 10+ seasons.

I could have sworn both Gravity Falls and Phineas and Ferb ended because their creators chose to wind them up in the time/manner that they wanted to.

seconding this..
Also, didn't Phineas and Ferb lasted for years?
IT wasnt that bad for them.
With the demise of Gravity Falls, Right now the only super popular (as in viral) series remaining.... seems to be Steven Universe.

but I wonder how long until they make series from undertale.

 

[Cesar R M]

No sweeping. The major networks (As in ABC,NBC,CBS, and Fox) are a dying breed. Sure they have a few shows here and there, but they're nowhere near as relevant as where they were even a decade ago. The viewership deteriorates and moves...to things like Netflix. Network TV is going the way of newspapers. And yes, it is still holds some relevancy today. And it will probably hold some relevancy for the foreseeable future. But it is not as relevant as it once was and there is no disputing that. Newspapers own their content too, and look where they are. To base a business model and invest in something that is deteriorating makes no sense.

And where do Netflix content comes from? outside of original content.. most shows are still from these major networks and their studios.

 

[Cesar R M]

This is boring, can't we go back to skewering social media personalities?

oh god, please not.
dont inflate the unmentionable again.

 

[Cesar R M]

And you think the old guard is going to do absolutely nothing about it and just wait till cable subscribers goto zero? Market shifts man... they happen all the time and businesses adapt or die. You've not really painted any picture of credibility of how ABC or ESPN are incapable of changing and instead are just beating a drum about 'the world is changing...'. Your arguments lack the critical part about how the business is failing, will fail in the future, and your claims about their current businesses have largely been nonfactual.

The chicken little arguments are pretty weak... especially when the come back is 'well EVENTUALLY' -- ignoring the tens of billions inbetween here and there. As if.. no company will change at all in the next decade.

Less you forget... ABC/NBC/CBS were a radio broadcasting companies... before they were Television broadcast companies. And GE was a DC electric company back in the day.. You shouldn't be saying companies are doomed simply because there is a market shift in front of them.

Well, theres the case like the oil dependency enforced by big oil companies and producers... *grabs his tinfoil hat* Where they kill, absorb, buy any tech that could replace normal oil based engines for now.. you know, to keep the economy chugging.

 

[Cesar R M]

I'd sit through that before watching Forrest Gump again.

and here it is.. the first step towards idiocracy

Nice way to work in a Sweeney Todd reference. . .

You sure you dont want some fresh meat pie!

View attachment 126761

so.. thats where you put the college CMs before inserting them to front line to deal with angry honey booboos and "May I talk to the Manager" women?

 

[Cesar R M]

Is ESPN going the way of Kodak, Sure looks like it from where I sit. Kodak INVENTED digital photography and has the majority of the basic patents. However they refused to see the big picture and ignored the market shift from chemical to digital photography because it broke their basic business model.

Kodak discarded successful product lines because they did not return drug dealer profit levels, In fact the reason Disney no longer has prints in the park is Kodak dropped their line of professional dye sublimation printers which hurt a hell of a lot of event and wedding photographers, Unlike a traditional C-print a dye sublimation print is archival (will last > 100 years). Whats worse is Kodak refused to LICENSE the technology they dropped so that someone else could sell it.

We see everyday at TWDC the same brand of corporate hubris which destroyed kodak.

ironically. the kodak films (for movies) is having a resurgence thanks to the interest of using newer films by filmographers.

 

["El Gran Magnifico"]

I'm not twisting words.. maybe your words just suck? You started out with...



1) stating they don't own the content is a generalization that is largely BS. They sign up for the exclusive right to BROADCAST the games.. productions they control and create. No they don't own everything, but they as the producers and studios own a very significant portion of their content... and it's what differentiates themselves from the lesser networks that largely rely on syndication or smaller productions.
2) Then you point to SVOD services like Netflix.. which have a hand in, or own not even a measurable fraction of the content they rely on.. and why they are changing to produce more content so they can stop fighting on the open market for it... having to take cards from the networks in how to do things because they knew they couldn't just survive bidding wars as the # of viable SVOD providers increased.

So your argument about 'not owning the content' and pointing to services like Netflix as stronger... the facts directly undermine your future model. The ABCs/ESPNs of the world already drive and control far more content (and continue to grow) than SVOD providers.. so this is 'weak'.

Then you go onto how the business is... I quote "a dying breed"... and ridiculous comments like 'they have a few shows here and there'



'some' relevancy... I'm not sure how anyone defines the market that drives north of 85% of all TV consumption as dying nor not really relevant (Source - http://blogs.forrester.com/james_mc...50_of_adults_under_age_32_will_not_pay_for_tv) - Even by Forrester's estimates they don't think the cord cutting population will hit 50% of the market for another 10 years. Your argument is like saying Gasoline cars are not really relevant because the growth of hybrid cars.

You cite 2 Netflix shows as signs of relevance.. nevermind that is 2 vs hundreds?? of others. You continue to make this flawed connection between distribution method and content creation.

For those not simply following the hype wagon - you should pay attention to how ABC and others have been working to wind their way out of the the broadcast stations they used to own, etc. Those are the actual 'distribution' portions.. not the actual umbrella organizations.

Then you make hyperbolic statements and infer ABC and the like are never going to change..


A claim based on what? NOTHING.. A claim that ignores all the shifts that have been happening. So yes, WEAK ARGUMENTS.

Then, when your garbage is called out.. you soften to.. 'well eventually'.


So bringing it back around to your last post..



You've gone from saying they are not relevant.. a dying breed.. the equivalent of believing the same business model will last forever.. to now 'they will have to evolve'. REALLY? SHOCKER!!! Businesses must evolve to progress? HOLD THE F'IN PRESSES!! You've gone from dismissing them as lame ducks to retreating to 'if they remain unchanged' they face trouble.

So.. your points of lack of dominace... BS
your points of already dying... BS
your points about property rights owners taking things direct... BS because they don't have the ability to do it themselves - they still rely on the studios and production companies. The model simply changes.
your points about why they are troubled are now simply 'if they don't change' - wow, earth shattering reveal there..
your points about not owning the content.. proven to be overgeneralizing and largely BS considering who you are lumping in

So what's my point? That you're full of it and playing chicken little by jumping on the fact that ESPN needs to change their revenue model in the future.. and leaping to all kinds of the sky is falling, dead-end, etc garbage.

ESPN is by far the most advanced of the US sports broadcasters when it comes to direct digital content and distribution.. including having dedicated channels online. They and other broadcast companies continue to be the leaders in sports broadcasting, even if not via OTA or paid subscribers.

Your statements are based on bangwagon'ing comments not actually rooted in the state of the business, nor the near term. Just because someone doesn't change at the first sight of competition... doesn't mean they'll never change. The savvy people know WHEN to change (ref: Apple), not simply change because the long term horizon means change is inevitable.

They don’t own the content that generates the majority of their revenue. That is not BS it is fact. Your reply states they “sign up” for the rights to distribute it. That isn’t exactly owning it now is it. ESPN took away MNF from ABC. Fox took the NFC from CBS, who took the AFC from NBC, who bid on a package for SNF. Just because they “produce” something does not give them an implied right of ownership. I just doesn’t. What do you suppose happens if ESPN gets outbid by FOX and loses the rights to the NFL, NBA, and SEC. Think they’re going to sustain on the advertising revenue Cornheiser brings them? Now back to the first point. If Fox does outbid ESPN…does ESPN retain implied right of ownership (as you believe they do) because they “produced” the game last season? No. They don’t. You may want to rethink that argument.


Your reference to SVOD is way out of context. If you go back through the posts, I ascertain that these alternate forms of distribution models pose one of the biggest threats to a company like ESPN. You remember a company called “Blockbuster” don’t you? How about “Hollywood Video”….ring a bell. SVOD and ODV put them out of business. They tried to adapt. They came out with their own streaming service but it was too little too late.


Your relevancy argument holds no merit. I have a feeling if we had this discussion 20 years ago and I told you that you would be watching movies and/or streaming sporting events on your mobile phone, you’d have the same reaction you’ve had on this post. You would have seriously taken issue if I would have stated you’d be surfing the internet more from your mobile phone and something called a “tablet” that you could take with you anywhere, than you would from a PC. And if I’d told you that payphones would pretty much be obsolete and companies like Ma’Bell would not adapt quick enough to compete with the likes of Verizon you would have said “you’re nuts”. Call it weak all you’d like…it’s reality. You can chose to believe it or continue in your sheltered point of view. I could care less either way.


Again you must have a reading comprehension issue. Nowhere did I say tomorrow, next week or next year. I did say eventually. And eventually it will happen. If you have an issue with that…too bad. So let’s be clear on your position. Are you saying that SVOD will never become mainstream and overtake traditional TV. ESPN has invested heavily SVOD with their Watch ESPN app, so has HBO, along with many other outlets. I guess you can call Bezos and tell him Amazon Prime is a huge waste of time and money from your nearest payphone. Eventually cassette tapes overtook vinyl, CD’s overtook Cassettes, Streaming overtook CD’s. Look at the recording artists themselves. Ask them how mainstream they feel Spotify is. There are hundreds of examples of this. If your issue is simply a matter of specifying the timeframe, then you are acknowledging the hypothesis. It is a progression and an evolution. I get the fact that you want to hold on to yesteryear but face facts: pagers aren’t coming back, the VHS tape isn’t coming back, nor are silent movies, Disney Ticket Booklets aren’t either.


The fact of the matter is that some companies will evolve, others won’t. To pretend to say that you know which companies will and which will not…You’re blowing smoke out of your *ss.


So let’s bring it around to my last post. The words in between those things called parenthesis that reference (..if remain unchanged..) you probably didn’t catch that. Just want to make sure you understand what it means.


Because apparently you have the unique insider knowledge of identifying which companies have the correct plan to adapt.


Nobody’s saying that ESPN is shutting down. But their stock price is down, their subscriptions are down and a lot of companies are starting to catch up. In short....They're hurting just a bit.


I’m amused at this entire exchange. Can’t help but feel I’m dealing with someone firmly entrenched in the late 80’s early 90’s whose way of life is being undermined.

 

[BlueSkyDriveBy]

And where do Netflix content comes from? outside of original content.. most shows are still from these major networks and their studios.

I'm loving Netflix original content. They inherited Dreamworks Dragons from CN, and the series just keeps getting better. The new season came out earlier this month, and they've left us with a major cliffhanger. Alfred Molina voices the new evil villain du jour, and I'm hoping he's the one slotting up for HTTYD3. Makes Drago Bloodfist look like a Kindergarten teacher.

 

[flynnibus]

[...].

I can sum up your argument and play it back to you by simply saying you are dead man... you are irrelevant... because you know what.. someday you are going to die. And you are already dying now. Might as well write you off right now.. because you are going to die. It doesn't matter if you are 18, 25, 35,45.. you're already dying.

That's all you've brought to the table that 'eventually' things will change and you've painted the current media companies as lacking relevancy because they aren't the disruptors themselves.

And your painting of me as some resistant to change guy... you're clueless. What I'm trying to point out is that, 1) as the forecasters predict, this changeover point is still AGES away 2) These guys will adapt and change (they already are) 3) The smart business people pivot when the time is right.. not simply panic and jump overboard on the first sign of change.

ESPN is under market pressure because of the escalating cost of broadcast rights due to increased competition while their bread&butter revenue stream is under pressure from the breakdown of the monopolistic cable map and bundling. The challenge for ESPN and others is to break away from the heroin of bundling and monetize in different ways... not that the idea of content production, buying broadcast rights, or the idea of networks as a whole are a 'dying breed'.

I mentioned your SVOD things because it shows just how broken your position is. SVOD are just alternate carriers who do not carry the legacy of the old business practices of bundling. They are a more open market... but they do not fundamentaly change the idea of how content gets created, who pays for it, who bids on it, and what content is out there. Their biggest disruption is the idea of how advertising works, and that they are a fluid, on-demand product, instead of the fixed, captive audience that a traditional cable carrier locks in.

ESPN is facing erosion... erosion that will take a VERY long time to significantly hurt their core business. You don't paint them as dead simply because they are happy to collect their 95% existing instead of risking it all prematurely.

Their current problem is an investor relations one - not that their business is on the rocks.

 

[Lord_Vader]

Your reference to SVOD is way out of context. If you go back through the posts, I ascertain that these alternate forms of distribution models pose one of the biggest threats to a company like ESPN. You remember a company called “Blockbuster” don’t you? How about “Hollywood Video”….ring a bell. SVOD and ODV put them out of business. They tried to adapt. They came out with their own streaming service but it was too little too late.

Actually, Redbox and othe kiosk video rentals for $1.00 killed Blockbuster and the brick and mortar video rental companies, this was aided by VOD.

What will slow the adoption of VOD and is already hurting it is caps being set by broadband providers such as Comcast & TWC. My daughter is a cord cutter and is realizing that the $30 to $40/mo she is spending on overages of Internet access is creating a situation where they could get cable or satellite for a few more $$$ and get all the content they want including ESPN which they use my satellite account for.

If too many subs disconnect and start using even more data, the cable companies will respond in kind by lowering the caps and/or charging more for Internet access. They will try to make their profit margins from somewhere.

As it is, if you are a minority using Internet for video you can get away with it but if it starts to become the norm the ISPs will start jacking up rates, they pay for Internet access from peering partners too and if their costs continue to rise so will their customers.

 

[jbolen2]

Seven Dwarves Mine Train queue before the vault doors. I took that picture at 10:00am so it's safe to say that pile of gum has been there for a while.

it was there when we visiteda few weeks back, dec26-jan3

 

[Absimilliard]

Glad you had a good time. And I thought it was Space Mountain going down again, but Angie told me it was RnRC. Women. You can't trust them for accurate theme park information, am I right? It is a shame you didn't catch Ratatouille as it, even with the obvious budget cuts, is the kind of E-Ticket that WDW could just dream of. It is a bit screen heavy, but since this isn't UNI-FL it is acceptable. Just a high quality, immersive fun family ride (had waits of up to two hours on Saturday and 40 minutes for single rider). The whole area looks so good that it does remind one of how ugly most of the WDSP really is. The park isn't bad. There are plenty of attractions and top notch ones. But no water, terrible layout, barely any trees.

Small World just looks like new. It gleams. We got so many pics of it because it just looked so great in the sunlight that we became Tom Bricker wannabes.

Dreams is great, one of Disney's best night spectaculars worldwide. But we had two nights of Dreams of Christmas before the regular show returned. It has changed quite a bit in two years. In 2013-14 winter, Olaf was the host and there was a Let It Go segment, but it wasn't over the top. If anything, it had too much Toy Story in it. But this year's show has cut much of the early stuff and placed Let It Go late in the show ... after we have Olaf singing about how much he loves ... summer ... and then the ridiculously out of place Love Is An Open Door. We also see the Frozen sisters building that annoying snowman early in the show, just no song. In other words, they took a great show about Christmas and the holidays and made it into a Frozen heavy storm. They removed Olaf's sing a long to Jingle Bells, but that was likely because they added it to the new Tree Lighting show with Mickey, Minnie, Santa and some assorted helpers this year.

I have never seen the Studios this busy and we wound up spending a great deal of time there. When the Aladdin spinner is having a 25-minute wait and those Toy Story rides are approaching an hour, well, you know the park is busy and not about to be bulldozed for a Super Carrefour and condos. BTW, interesting thing happened that never did in all my visits, but without asking (they can do four languages) the library and the entire ToT ride were in English. We had UKers with us. But we also had at least half French folks in our elevator.

The Rat ride having merchandise saying DLP is no different than seeing Cars stuff in Anaheim with DL on it etc. They want the BIG name to drive folks there. They do have lines of WDSP merchandise and it really looks good because one of the things they did right was the original logo for the park.

I disagree about strollers. While you get more of them than in China and Japan, where they seem almost non-existent, they weren't bad for us in the four days we were there and no double wides and not a single ECV (although the Emporium was strangely very open in places like in the MK so the double wides and ECVs can drive into shops that were never designed for their mere existence). The smokers bother me ... even morso since someone close to me who smoked for decades was diagnosed with lung cancer. But it isn't like everyone is doing it and you can move away. Smoking is still viewed as a thing you do in much of Europe, certainly France and Germany (and it's been bad in Holland, Italy, Portugal and Spain in my experience). It didn't change in the USA overnight. 25 years ago you could walk into a tobacco shop on MSUSA in the MK.

I understand what you are saying in your wrap. I still think folks from the USA should do Paris as their first international resort, followed by HK, followed by Tokyo. You appreciate all of them much more that way, I think.

Things are getting better. I actually have some faith in Tom Wolber as a leader, something I haven't had in anyone running the show in Paris since the 90s.

Oh, and I hope you checked out the new Adventureland restrooms (main ones near the Aladdin walk thru). They were photo worthy. I only wish they could do more than one or two complexes a year.

And, yes, last I heard (and it has been a while) but new attractions of a major nature are coming to DLP ... but you're looking at years. First, they fix everything. In between they keep adding new entertainment, especially seasonal stuff. Then they throw a big 25th anniversary event. Then ... then ... they start building new stuff.

I was at DLP last saturday and I will add on Spirit's observations.

Space Mountain was closed last monday to friday for its annual refurb where they change the launch cable and remove the "Pusher" (pusher car, what launch the train) to get inspected and fixed. That's why Space Mountain was closed when you went BrianLo and it had just reopened when I was there on Saturday.

Speaking of Space Mountain, I am happy to report the exterior is back to near 1995 shape with everything that could be fixed working! Even the lasers and flashing green rings on the ring were back and the interior was also in great shape. All in all, my best ride on Mission 2 ever.

Rock n Roller Coaster is closing soon for 6 months as they are changing the LSM launch system.

Adventure Isle was closed and the Treehouse is getting a full rebuilt. Not a major loss, but it made going from Pirates to Indiana Jones a pain... Indiana Jones was also looking good with 3 torches out of 4 lit up at night.

Ratatouille lines were a mess and that was due to the TERRIBLE ride ops. They just could not dispatch the rats on time and quite often, the other side was "stealing" the dispatch since one side was taking twice to triple as long to check their 3 rats. The last time I saw such poor operation at a Disney park was at the Magic Kingdom on Seven Dwarves Mine Train. Seven Dwarves Mine Train cast members were selected for their smile... and that was it. Not a single cast member from Everest (who are so good they forced management to raise the official ride throughput of the ride!) was selected to work on it and it shows. Ratatouille line was 130 minutes and the stand-by line was nowhere full. Fast Pass return was spilling outside and we waited 30 minutes there.

Last, is there a more hidden gem for dining at a Disney then the Walt's on Main Street? Walt's occupies most of the second floor on the second block of Main Street and is themed to the park itself. Each room is decorated to a land and the Discoveryland room is gorgeous with concept arts of the land and the foyer mantle of the Nautilus. We had lunch in the Phantom Manor room and it was amazing. I had the signature dish of the restaurant: a Foie Gras burger where they start with fresh french Charolais beef and is topped with a large Foie Gras scallop and that is on top of sweet grilled peppers. It is the best burger I ever had and is beyond anything I ever had at WDW. Price wise, I had it as part of a set menu and it came up to 43 euros without a drink. I had "Veal Carpaccio" as a starter and finished with a Poached Pear with White Chocolate Mousse.

Beside DLP, I spent the weekend in Paris and had a great time. I discovered a great new beef restaurant in Paris called BANG! and the premise is interesting: its a carnivore paradise and the owners source beef from all around the world and serve it as traditional french cuts. I had the scottish Black Angus "Onglet" and my friend the Argentine Black Angus "Entrecote". For starter, we shared a "Os a Moelle": picture a large beef bone, cook it and then saw it in half. It is served with toasts and you basically scoop up the bone marrow and spread it like a fat and rich jam. Delicious and typically french!

 

[doctornick]

Nobody’s saying that ESPN is shutting down. But their stock price is down, their subscriptions are down and a lot of companies are starting to catch up. In short....They're hurting just a bit.

What companies are "starting to catch up" to ESPN? Every cable company if hurting when it comes to losing subscriptions.