A Spirited Perfect Ten

Smiddimizer

Smiddimizer

Well-Known Member
WDW1974 said:
OK, I lied. I'm back. Back because I truly feel that something huge is going down as Bob and Willow sit at the Dolby listening to Mary Poppins.

Two stories. Two puff PR pieces designed to counter the HuffPo piece and make SDL seem like it is going to be huge and the best thing next to sliced bread:

http://www.fool.com/investing/gener...n-little-to-disneys-earnings-this-segmen.aspx

Why? Why two stories on the same subject? Why two stories on the same subject in 48 turmoil filled hours that read like propaganda?

Oh, and the author is someone who clearly carries the weight of a Redstone who advises clients in China on western media/culture. What does he really do for a living? He's an acrobat (albeit with an MBA) for a Macau casino.

I swear this story just keeps getting more bizarre. Maybe Disney will make a movie? Oh yeah, they only do $200 million tentpoles that are franchises.
Click to expand...

"A total investment so far of $5.5 Million", In other words work is completed on installing all park benches.
 
cdd89

cdd89

Well-Known Member
WDW1974 said:
Disney is virtually unknown in much of the mainland. The name, the man, the mouse and the BRAND. They don't have a clue or the majority does not.
Click to expand...
Oh I agree - that's what makes it so interesting - they're effectively building up a brand from scratch. And as for the rest of the 'history' that's more attached to the 'brand' than anything tangible or usable in the parks, I think that may all be up in the air. It makes sense to re-use the castle, mascots etc (because why not!), but will they even bother referencing Walt Disney, since there's no goodwill attached to his name there? (Incidentally, I think this kind of thing will make it pretty hard to make objective comparisons between SDL's MK and the others around the world, once complete).

But I'd suggest the purpose of this is far greater than simply enamoring the Mainland Chinese with the idea of a Disney theme park - it's a gateway to getting them interested in Disney movies, and all the stuff that goes along with that. The attraction line-up suggests a nice sampling of IPs (the Tron sequel will be the first test of SDL's power here, I guess).

I also don't know how you come to the conclusion that Disney is playing cleanly over there at all. Maybe you have sources in Shendi like some of us?
Click to expand...
Take my words for what they are - the speculation of an uninformed idiot with too much time on his hands ;). That said, I don't think I said they were playing cleanly. I'd agree with the opinion of others that their chances of success (if they are playing cleanly - by which, I assume, we mean "by Western rules") is a real gamble. I visited Beijing/Shanghai in 2013 (which feels like a long time ago now...) and was taken aback by how many Western brands had a footprint there that didn't visibly seem to be making any money. From idle observation (see, I wasn't kidding about the uninformed idiot bit!), it seemed like there were a lot of empty stores from companies who felt obliged to have a footprint there to build awareness of themselves a a luxury brand.

Now, I'm sure there's plenty of that "foot-in-the-door before it closes" mentality in Disney's venture, but the capital investment to set up a storefront (even an expensive one) is obviously exponentially less than that of setting up a theme park. A failing, empty park is not a risk Disney can afford to take in the same way as Chanel etc can afford to have empty stores sitting around as (basically) expensive billboards.

So I think it's fair to say they'll be doing (if you excuse the politics-speak!) 'whatever is necessary' to try to guarantee it's a success. The potential gain/loss scale is hugely amplified. I think the biggest risk is not with the government taking against them, or the Chinese population not buying into Disney, or nobody getting to hear about it, or people being turned-off by the idea of 'America' - they've got things lined up to protect themselves against all those things to a degree - but with macro changes in the economic situation in China, which affects all companies investing there to a degree but Disney especially due to that huge sunk cost. As it happens, I'd say a secondary concern (moreso than anywhere else) is with Universal coming along and eating their lunch. I don't think the quality gap is as large as many people make out, and while Disney had the head start in Fla., and (from what I gather, though I had never visited a Disney park before Sept 2013) a greater emphasis on meticulous maintenance and quality, that's not the case in China.
 
alphac2005

alphac2005

Well-Known Member
WDW1974 said:
One Last Quickee:

Anyone recall Roy E. Disney's impassioned speech during the Save Disney days in 2004 in Philly? How much he HATED the word BRAND being used by MDE? How he said ''you brand cattle.''? How he felt Disney was unique and special and needed to remain that way in the marketplace because that, above all else, differentiated it from everyone else.

Yeah, if you wanna get drunk fast on a cold Saturday night, put on an interview with Bob Iger and throw back a shot everytime Bob utters the word 'BRAND' ... you'll be passed out from alcohol poisoning in 15 minutes easily.
Click to expand...

My wife makes a tidy living in her field due to being an English professional and I (in a prior career incarnation) was in the media field, so let me tell you that the whole branding of DISNEY (R) has been nauseating for years (and I know there has been discussion in the past on here about it), but now that they've done the brilliant oughts concept of non-possessive branding, it's whatever that falls below nauseating. I used to think that every resort and item being named as Disney's "XYZ" was terrible, let along our now DISNEY "XYZ" property/license/resort. Ugh. It's dehumanization of the company, just as Roy E. Disney would harp on.

There is a difference between say a Ford and a Disney. Ford has been dehumanized in the same way, however, Henry Ford was for quick reference a bigot, anti-semite, and all around biographied as a lousy human being that sold countless vehicles and ushered in the mass age of automobile in-spite of himself. A Ford versus a Henry Ford isn't so bad considering the original source and there simply isn't the same direct connection between all the products of a Ford per se and Walt Disney. The Walt Disney Company having Walt Disney's name was attached to it was akin to a Consumer Reports Best Buy or Good Housekeeping seal. It meant that the product was of quality and there was a direct connection to Walt even after he died. Outside of Walt Disney Feature Animation, the typical PR puff pieces, and some assorted statues, WALT is not part of DISNEY.

One other thing since you mentioned the OSCARS (R): I can't think of two brand advocate organizations that are better suited together than ABC/DISNEY and the Academy. In my years in the industry, I can tell you that I never dealt with a more pompous or obnoxious brand oriented group than the Academy. There was one year that I received this large package from the Academy for the upcoming OSCARS (R) and included in it was a packet from legal with all the ways that my organization could and couldn't reference their show, their statue, etc., and if we didn't adhere to their stipulations, they would gladly strip my people of their seats upon arrive if they so chose to attend the Academy Awards show. I would hear if others in the media that would receive letters from legal if they wrote about the OSCAR without writing the word in capitalization along with a registered trademark logo. Nice people. A pompous organization propping up a group that in the real world is composed of mostly damaged human beings that you wouldn't want to watch your kids for even a handful of minutes.
 
Last edited:
culturenthrills

culturenthrills

Well-Known Member
tirian said:
Granted, rumors suggest some of the $800 million had to reconstruct poorly made buildings.
Click to expand...

There is at least one ride building I know of that had to be reconstructed due to it not being built to the correct dimensions and there were all kinds of stuff that had to be ripped out and redone before Disney caught on that after being told what to do and what parts to use the Chinese contractors went behind Disney's back and ordered cheaper items.

One observation from a friend about all these theme parks that are being built in China is that they look great when they open but they are not being built to last. He has noticed many rides after just a couple of years the themeing and work is already starting to fall apart.
 
the.dreamfinder

the.dreamfinder

Well-Known Member
image.jpg
 
Travel Junkie

Travel Junkie

Well-Known Member
So we got some saying Keaton got robbed and other’s saying Birdman is a piece of garbage with the same conclusion that the Oscars are terrible. IMO the Oscars got most of them right. Birdman and Boyhood are both great films. It could have gone either way for Best Picture, but Hollywood loves to give itself props so any good film that is about acting or the industry is going to have a leg up.
 
K

kagacins

Active Member
For those who suggest last night's performance from Lady Gaga was the highlight of her career, I'd suggest listening to this performance on Howard Stern a few years ago and reconsidering. There isn't anything offensive in this video (unless wigs and leather clothing are offensive to you). This performance changed several people I know, including myself, from an uninformed hater to at least an admirer of her talent.

 
ford91exploder

ford91exploder

Resident Curmudgeon
As to Lady Gaga - she is one of the few genuine talents in today's music industry which seems to favor blond haired brown eyed dancers who can lip sync. Or alternatively Kidz from da Hood with enough metal and illegal weapons to set off every metal detector in your average airport.

And no I did NOT watch the Oscars had work to do instead.
 
ford91exploder

ford91exploder

Resident Curmudgeon
cdd89 said:
Oh I agree - that's what makes it so interesting - they're effectively building up a brand from scratch. And as for the rest of the 'history' that's more attached to the 'brand' than anything tangible or usable in the parks, I think that may all be up in the air. It makes sense to re-use the castle, mascots etc (because why not!), but will they even bother referencing Walt Disney, since there's no goodwill attached to his name there? (Incidentally, I think this kind of thing will make it pretty hard to make objective comparisons between SDL's MK and the others around the world, once complete).

But I'd suggest the purpose of this is far greater than simply enamoring the Mainland Chinese with the idea of a Disney theme park - it's a gateway to getting them interested in Disney movies, and all the stuff that goes along with that. The attraction line-up suggests a nice sampling of IPs (the Tron sequel will be the first test of SDL's power here, I guess).


Take my words for what they are - the speculation of an uninformed idiot with too much time on his hands ;). That said, I don't think I said they were playing cleanly. I'd agree with the opinion of others that their chances of success (if they are playing cleanly - by which, I assume, we mean "by Western rules") is a real gamble. I visited Beijing/Shanghai in 2013 (which feels like a long time ago now...) and was taken aback by how many Western brands had a footprint there that didn't visibly seem to be making any money. From idle observation (see, I wasn't kidding about the uninformed idiot bit!), it seemed like there were a lot of empty stores from companies who felt obliged to have a footprint there to build awareness of themselves a a luxury brand.

Now, I'm sure there's plenty of that "foot-in-the-door before it closes" mentality in Disney's venture, but the capital investment to set up a storefront (even an expensive one) is obviously exponentially less than that of setting up a theme park. A failing, empty park is not a risk Disney can afford to take in the same way as Chanel etc can afford to have empty stores sitting around as (basically) expensive billboards.

So I think it's fair to say they'll be doing (if you excuse the politics-speak!) 'whatever is necessary' to try to guarantee it's a success. The potential gain/loss scale is hugely amplified. I think the biggest risk is not with the government taking against them, or the Chinese population not buying into Disney, or nobody getting to hear about it, or people being turned-off by the idea of 'America' - they've got things lined up to protect themselves against all those things to a degree - but with macro changes in the economic situation in China, which affects all companies investing there to a degree but Disney especially due to that huge sunk cost. As it happens, I'd say a secondary concern (moreso than anywhere else) is with Universal coming along and eating their lunch. I don't think the quality gap is as large as many people make out, and while Disney had the head start in Fla., and (from what I gather, though I had never visited a Disney park before Sept 2013) a greater emphasis on meticulous maintenance and quality, that's not the case in China.
Click to expand...

I think the chances of UNI eating Disney's lunch in China are excellent especially since many of Universal's movie offerings have been #1 in Chinese box office so the product Universal is selling resonates with the chinese public unlike Disney where their movies have failed to excite the chinese public example being Frozen which made 49 million in the Mainland.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom