A Spirited Perfect Ten

[The Empress Lilly]

Annual Passes are exceptionally cheap for Disneyland Paris, and I think it's due to a different business model.

A DLP vacation is quite expensive upfront, and because there's only four or five days of things to do, it's hard to tempt people back within a year.

Having cheap passes is a good way to hook people into returning, as much of that upfront cost is gone.

In the USA, because of shorter vacation times, or the tendency to blow thousands of dollars on one trip, few families would do two trips and annual passes tend to be mainly used by locals for day trips, whereas in DLP they're primarily offered as an incentive to get families to do a second vacation there within a year, instead of just one.

Yes. Typically, I would use my passport for five or six days, divided over three trips. Per day in dollar value it does not differ much from a 10-day WDW ticket.

 

[GoofGoof]

The funny thing about Disney CEO Fumbles Entry To China is that who wrote it, even if there is a Redstone connection, doesn't matter. I doubt that Gary Snyder is alone, within the context of financial/media circles, in noticing that Disney has had troubles getting the Chinese public interested in its BRAND and products. Anyone could have written that Op-Ed with a similar background. Honestly I'm not all that sure him being a Redstone can be considered having an ulterior motive. Despite media speculation on Viacom/CBS's future post Redstone, which is really a non factor given that long term plans are in place, the Redstones don't need to attack Disney. They are doing just fine and have a strong and growing international portfolio. Plus, I hear Nickelodeon has a cable channel in China. Jealous Bob?

I agree with all of this. That's what makes the story even more bizarre. Why go to all this trouble to kill a story that's not really anything that isn't already known? There has to be something more to this. Maybe it really is just personal. A p'ing contest between the 2 guys.

 

[ParentsOf4]

Here's a thought: if poor billionaire Gary Snyder was censored, then why isn't he screaming murder? That's right. Why is he silent? He is still sitting on those 'censored' articles (that he retracted...). If he wants them out in the open, why doesn't he distribute them?

It takes five seconds to put them on a blog, so the world can read his poor 'censored' words. Five minutes if he needs to rephrase to avoid rights issues with his publisher.

None of that though.

Not even any threats of sueing, despite playboy Snyder having a history of unleashing his shark lawyers on everybody who looks at him funny.

Because Gary 'flashy' Snyder simply overplayed his hand. As an advisor and large owner of Disney competitor stock, he needs to be prudent in what he writes professionally. He needs to be able to back up his assertions with facts when writing as a business advisor in manners pertaining to his competitors. It is fine for you and I to write nonsense about Disney on a cult fan forum, but not for somebody with competing business interests in a negative published article. When TWDC threatened libel - as they should, they are supposed and expected to protect their shareholders' interests - it turned out billionaire baby Snyder couldn't put his money where his mouth was. He had published unsubstantiable allegations for or at least with private gain, leaving Huff no option but to withdraw. Like a petulant child throwing the entire Monopoly board from the table, Snyder then withdrew all his articles and went sulking in the corner.

Interesting. If he is not who he claims to be, then there is no case. No censorship, no drama, just nothing. Except a fake identity duly exposed.

Yes, sorry. Gary Snyder of the Redstone family, who own Viacom and CBS. A direct competitor of Disney. Gary is an advisor on media corporations entering China, and has a vested competing business interest to, and an axe to grind with, Disney.

We shall have to ask billionaire bunny Snyder, who has not dared repeat his fluff little piece. In all likelihood at the advice of his attorneys.

Waste of a read anyway. Misplaced triumphant trash-talking of a competitor. Meanwhile, Viacom's massive investments in China aren't doing all that hot. One would get the impression Beverly Hills Gary is seeing green with envy at the prospect of a competitor succeeding where he and his ilk largely failed.

Investing in any market is risky. Personally, I think Shanghai Disneyland eventually will be financially successful but the article raises some interesting points.

Yet you seem intent on insulting Gary Snyder at every opportunity.

I'm interested in reading what you have to write about the article.

I'll ask my question again. Besides calling into question the financial wisdom of Disney investing billions in China, exactly what is so controversial about the article?

What exactly are the "unsubstantiable allegations" you are referring to?

That Disney isn't a well-known brand name in China? That investing in China is risky? What?

 

[asianway]

That's interesting. A Tokyo 2-park annual pass is about $680 (¥82,000), which means you pay only about $136 for your DLP passport.

Pretty amazing since a 1-day ticket at DLP is $109 for Americans while a 4-day ticket is $230. Impressive that you pay nearly $100 less for your AP than a 4-day ticket. Any special discount?

Of course, a WDW PAP is about $100 more than a TDL AP, so that means it's nearly 6 times your DLP passport.

Perhaps surprisingly, I've been told that WDW's 1-day ticket is one of its biggest sellers.

Unfortunately, most Americans haven't seen a 10-day vacation since they were children. The typical vacation is 4-to-5 days, meaning Americans pay considerably more for a 4-day MYW hopper ($369) than you pay for your DLP passport.

We can only dream of Tokyo Disneyland's $137 4-day hopper ticket.

Most European countries have mandatory minimum number of paid vacation days, typically 20 days or more. (Is France still 25 days?) In the U.S., it's 0 days. Unfortunately, most U.S. workers are 'at will' employees, meaning they can be terminated at any time without having to establish just cause.

That Tokyo 2 park AP cannot get you in on a capacity day. To compare apples to apples you need to price out buying two separate 1 park APs which can get you in on those days similar to the US. The Yen isn't going to stay at 120 to 1 forever either(although just a little longer please)

 

[Cesar R M]

I'm pretty sure that a large percentage of the guests in line for Soarin's and Toy Story are repeat riders - especially the latter where the whole thing is designed to get you to ride again to beat your score.

Why is this not an issue in Disneyland? Because there's so much to do that few would go on Soarin' Over California or Toy Story Mania twice in one day - why would you when there's so much else? So lines are a lot shorter.

If DHS built new attractions that diverted the attention of repeat riders, you'd see huge drops in TSMM wait times and suddenly you have lots of extra capacity for guests that currently miss out, without any kind of expansion needed.

Look at any other park, Busch for example - Sheikra used to have huge wait times - then Cheetah Hunt opened and Sheikra's line plummeted but Cheetah's were huge. Now Falcon's Fury is open, Cheetah's line have eased a little. But Sheikra would still have the same lines it did in 2008 if they hadn't built anything new since.

The latest thing will always have the longest lines, but if the latest thing is 2008's latest thing, those lines aren't going anywhere.

unless disney wants to artifcially keep the waiting times high.
people who dont want to buy anything will be waiting in the standby lines or using fastpass.
keeping it artificially "busy" and claiming it is a "success".

 

[Cesar R M]

A Tokyo two park annual passport is five times (!) the price of my DLP passport.

As for WDW, who goes there for a day? And a 10-day ticket for WDW is cheaper than ten days TDL.

question is, due of crowds, availability and number of parks-rides.. do you need 10 days in tokyo?

 

[The Empress Lilly]

Investing in any market is risky. Personally, I think Shanghai Disneyland eventually will be financially successful but the article raises some interesting points.

Yet you seem intent on insulting Gary Snyder at every opportunity.

I'm interested in reading what you have to write about the article.

I'll ask my question again. Besides calling into question the financial wisdom of Disney investing billions in China, exactly what is so controversial about the article?

What exactly are the "unsubstantiable allegations" you are referring to?

That Disney isn't a well-known brand name in China? That investing in China is risky? What?

I insult Billionaire Gary to accentuate the point that nobody was censored, certainly not some hard-working reporter. Gary's kin own some of the world's largest media companies. They are not silenced because they withdrew four articles for fear of libel. Heck, Gary can run his articles on MTV all day long, or on any of the other 170 tv channels they own.

My guess is, if it is true what Spirit's source says and an attorney adviced the article would not hold up in court, the bit about 'graft'. Although Gary stops short of actually accusing.

Under Mr. Iger's stewarding, Disney has partnered with the Shanghai Shendi Group, an umbrella name placed on a panoply of government-owned companies created to facilitate Western investment as a massive anti-graft campaign is just now rattling Beijing and beyond
​

 

[RSoxNo1]

I agree that spending on domestic capex is absolutely the larger issue, BUT you are still lauding Disney for putting a bandage on gaping wounds. Wounds that were greedy and self-inflicted.

And acting like more busses or Double Dumbos or the Soarin and TSMM moves are commendable just helps perpetuate the TDO cycle of abuse with WDW Guests, fans , consumers.

You add attractions/capacity at all four parks (and I do NOT mean replacing capacity that you removed before) and suddenly you'll see waits go down at those other attractions without adding tracks and theaters.

#firewillowbay #disneycensors

Adding capacity to attractions is still a good thing. We are allowed to commend them for good things, that doesn't exonerate their greater needs and larger scale negligence.

 

[Lee]

I insult Billionaire Gary to accentuate the point that nobody was censored, certainly not some hard-working reporter. Gary's kin own some of the world's largest media companies. They are not silenced because they withdrew four articles for fear of libel. Heck, Gary can run his articles on MTV all day long, or on any of the other 170 tv channels they own.

My guess is, if it is true what Spirit's source says and an attorney adviced the article would not hold up in court, the bit about 'graft'. Although Gary stops short of actually accusing.

Under Mr. Iger's stewarding, Disney has partnered with the Shanghai Shendi Group, an umbrella name placed on a panoply of government-owned companies created to facilitate Western investment as a massive anti-graft campaign is just now rattling Beijing and beyond
​

He was censored. Disney/Iger/Bay had the China article pulled. That is censorship, period.
Whether or not he could place his article somewhere else is irrelevant.

What is relevant is that Disney doesn't want it read. So they pulled it, using Iger's wife's pull at the post to do so.

 

[Phil12]

I insult Billionaire Gary to accentuate the point that nobody was censored, certainly not some hard-working reporter. Gary's kin own some of the world's largest media companies. They are not silenced because they withdrew four articles for fear of libel. Heck, Gary can run his articles on MTV all day long, or on any of the other 170 tv channels they own.

My guess is, if it is true what Spirit's source says and an attorney adviced the article would not hold up in court, the bit about 'graft'. Although Gary stops short of actually accusing.

Under Mr. Iger's stewarding, Disney has partnered with the Shanghai Shendi Group, an umbrella name placed on a panoply of government-owned companies created to facilitate Western investment as a massive anti-graft campaign is just now rattling Beijing and beyond
​

Indeed, Mr. Snyder could have rewritten or had the articles reprinted in any number of other venues, yet, he did not. However, a conclusion has been reached that the original HuffPo articles were censored for nefarious reasons. This entire censorship explanation doesn't make sense. Occam's razor comes to mind.

 

[the.dreamfinder]

Investing in any market is risky. Personally, I think Shanghai Disneyland eventually will be financially successful but the article raises some interesting points.

Yet you seem intent on insulting Gary Snyder at every opportunity.

I'm interested in reading what you have to write about the article.

I'll ask my question again. Besides calling into question the financial wisdom of Disney investing billions in China, exactly what is so controversial about the article?

What exactly are the "unsubstantiable allegations" you are referring to?

That Disney isn't a well-known brand name in China? That investing in China is risky? What?

Or that Disney picked the wrong venture to make its grand entrance into China. A while back I linked to a number of comments Jay Rasulo made to an investors conference on Disney's international business. His major point was that the Disney Channel is the single greatest means that folks, children in particular naturally, are exposed to the BRAND. He then stumbles around the issue of not having a Disney Channel in China by saying SDL will be a sufficient replacement. Hold up!! You just said the Disney Channel is the best way to introduce international audiences, many of whom don't have a cultural connection to the company's work, but you're going to go with a theme park?

One thing to keep in mind here, as @ParentsOf4 has brought up time after time, is the street's dislike of capital investment in P&R given the high expense and depreciation. In writing an article about how little BRAND recognition Disney has in China, it may make Disney nervous that Wall Street will realize the company went with a riskier investment that may do poorly, at least initially. The street wants more higher margin cable channels in the international markets, not theme parks.

Rasulo's Comments:

Here are Rasulo's comments from the 2012 Citigroup conference on SDR's role as TWDC's beachhead to China.
http://cdn.media.ir.thewaltdisneycompany.com/2012/events/jar-citi-2012-0105-transcript.pdf
Jason Bazinet – Analyst, Citigroup

And given your history at Disney in the parks division, and I know it's still a few years out, but do you mind just taking a second and explaining a little bit of the sheer scope and size of the operation in China and what it will ultimately be relative to the US investments?

Jay Rasulo – Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, The Walt Disney Company

In terms of Shanghai Disneyland?

Jason Bazinet – Analyst, Citigroup

Yes.

Jay Rasulo – Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, The Walt Disney Company

So, not to forget the park we already have in China, in Hong Kong, Hong Kong Disneyland has been doing amazingly well over the last couple of years, has definitely contributed along with Paris to that international growth picture you've seen. But Shanghai Disneyland is a very important strategic down stroke for the company. I mentioned that part of our international strategy, and if you look around particularly at emerging markets, investments of scale are something that we have decided to do in new markets. We recently announced a free to air deal in Russia to get a joint venture to get the Disney Channel on free to air television in Russia. We are engaged in buying in the rest of UTV in India that we own 50% of, but really want to have a significant statement there.

And in China where of course media entry is much more difficult than it is in most counties of the world, we decided our strategic play was going to be to plant the flag of a major destination theme park in Shanghai. And we worked on it for a decade. As you all know, the deal came to fruition, it is underway. It is a sizable investment in a partnership between the Chinese government and Disney. It's on a very, very big piece of land in Pudong in between the airport and the older part, more developed part of Shanghai, although Pudong is becoming quite developed. And it has the potential to be probably our second biggest resort around the world.

So the scale there -- of course we won't open at that size, but we'll open with significant scale if we compare it to Hong Kong, and have every reason to believe even in the microcosm of the Hong Kong Disneyland project where we see bigger and bigger penetration from mainland China, really gives us a good perspective and a good high optimism about how successful this park can be. It will be, look quite different from our other parks around the world in terms of how it's organized, but it will be 100% Disney, make no mistake about it. It will be distinctly Chinese, but it will be 100% built around Disney equities. That's what our partners want, that's of course what we want, and we have every reason to believe that it will accelerate quickly. And as I said, it certainly has the land potential and we think the market potential to be our second biggest destination around the world. And when you think about the size of the Orlando destination, that's a pretty big statement. And even Tokyo which brushes up against 30 million attendees a year. So we're pretty optimistic about it.

 

[Lee]

Or that Disney picked the wrong venture to make its grand entrance into China. A while back I linked to a number of comments Jay Rasulo made to an investors conference on Disney's international business. His major point was that the Disney Channel is the single greatest means that folks, children in particular naturally, are exposed to the BRAND. He then stumbles around the issue of not having a Disney Channel in China by saying SDL will be a sufficient replacement. Hold up!! You just said the Disney Channel is the best way to introduce international audiences, many of whom don't have a cultural connection to the company's work, but you're going to go with a theme park?

One thing to keep in mind here, as @ParentsOf4 has brought up time after time, is the street's dislike of capital investment in P&R given the high expense and depreciation. In writing an article about how little BRAND recognition Disney has in China, it may make Disney nervous that Wall Street will realize the company went with a riskier investment that may do poorly, at least initially. The street wants more higher margin cable channels in the international markets, not theme parks.

Quoted for truth. Fine points.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I insult Billionaire Gary to accentuate the point that nobody was censored, certainly not some hard-working reporter. Gary's kin own some of the world's largest media companies. They are not silenced because they withdrew four articles for fear of libel. Heck, Gary can run his articles on MTV all day long, or on any of the other 170 tv channels they own.

My guess is, if it is true what Spirit's source says and an attorney adviced the article would not hold up in court, the bit about 'graft'. Although Gary stops short of actually accusing.

Under Mr. Iger's stewarding, Disney has partnered with the Shanghai Shendi Group, an umbrella name placed on a panoply of government-owned companies created to facilitate Western investment as a massive anti-graft campaign is just now rattling Beijing and beyond
​

There is no need to republish the articles. Nothing disappears once it is online. The articles have been cached and saved by others. The article is still easily found, but that very slight extra step of seeking it out gives it the weight of being forbidden fruit.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Or that Disney picked the wrong venture to make its grand entrance into China. A while back I linked to a number of comments Jay Rasulo made to an investors conference on Disney's international business. His major point was that the Disney Channel is the single greatest means that folks, children in particular naturally, are exposed to the BRAND. He then stumbles around the issue of not having a Disney Channel in China by saying SDL will be a sufficient replacement. Hold up!! You just said the Disney Channel is the best way to introduce international audiences, many of whom don't have a cultural connection to the company's work, but you're going to go with a theme park?

One thing to keep in mind here, as @ParentsOf4 has brought up time after time, is the street's dislike of capital investment in P&R given the high expense and depreciation. In writing an article about how little BRAND recognition Disney has in China, it may make Disney nervous that Wall Street will realize the company went with a riskier investment that may do poorly, at least initially. The street wants more higher margin cable channels in the international markets, not theme parks.

If the Disney a Channel really is so important to success of theme parks then Iger's stateside Parks and Resorts strategy is right and we are all wrong.

 

[asianway]

He was censored. Disney/Iger/Bay had the China article pulled. That is censorship, period.
Whether or not he could place his article somewhere else is irrelevant.

What is relevant is that Disney doesn't want it read. So they pulled it, using Iger's wife's pull at the post to do so.

Once you have your opponent in Checkmate, you don't need to keep playing the game

 

[GoofGoof]

There is no need to republish the articles. Nothing disappears once it is online. The articles have been cached and saved by others. The article is still easily found, but that very slight extra step of seeking it out gives it the weight of being forbidden fruit.

It's not about republishing that article. The content of the article is, generally speaking, irrelevant to most of the outside world. However, a story about a well known media company censoring news stories would be major headlines. Especially when you add in the head of a journalism program at a well known University. The story is too good not to be told.

 

[ParentsOf4]

I insult Billionaire Gary to accentuate the point that nobody was censored, certainly not some hard-working reporter. Gary's kin own some of the world's largest media companies. They are not silenced because they withdrew four articles for fear of libel. Heck, Gary can run his articles on MTV all day long, or on any of the other 170 tv channels they own.

My guess is, if it is true what Spirit's source says and an attorney adviced the article would not hold up in court, the bit about 'graft'. Although Gary stops short of actually accusing.

Under Mr. Iger's stewarding, Disney has partnered with the Shanghai Shendi Group, an umbrella name placed on a panoply of government-owned companies created to facilitate Western investment as a massive anti-graft campaign is just now rattling Beijing and beyond
​

Of course The Huffington Post, the original source of the Disney CEO Fumbles Entry to China piece, has published a bevy of articles about China's anti-corruption campaign:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/china-corruption/

There's hardly anything controversial in acknowledging that "a massive anti-graft campaign is just now rattling Beijing and beyond".

 

[ford91exploder]

Investing in any market is risky. Personally, I think Shanghai Disneyland eventually will be financially successful but the article raises some interesting points.

Yet you seem intent on insulting Gary Snyder at every opportunity.

I'm interested in reading what you have to write about the article.

I'll ask my question again. Besides calling into question the financial wisdom of Disney investing billions in China, exactly what is so controversial about the article?

What exactly are the "unsubstantiable allegations" you are referring to?

That Disney isn't a well-known brand name in China? That investing in China is risky? What?

Remember TWDC is the perfect company it never makes bad decisions or does things which degrade the guest experience, Disney has never been better than it is today, We have always been at war with Eastasia...

 

[ford91exploder]

That's interesting. A Tokyo 2-park annual pass is about $680 (¥82,000), which means you pay only about $136 for your DLP passport.

Pretty amazing since a 1-day ticket at DLP is $109 for Americans while a 4-day ticket is $230. Impressive that you pay nearly $100 less for your AP than a 4-day ticket. Any special discount?

Of course, a WDW PAP is about $100 more than a TDL AP, so that means it's nearly 6 times your DLP passport.

Perhaps surprisingly, I've been told that WDW's 1-day ticket is one of its biggest sellers.

Unfortunately, most Americans haven't seen a 10-day vacation since they were children. The typical vacation is 4-to-5 days, meaning Americans pay considerably more for a 4-day MYW hopper ($369) than you pay for your DLP passport.

We can only dream of Tokyo Disneyland's $137 4-day hopper ticket.

Most European countries have mandatory minimum number of paid vacation days, typically 20 days or more. (Is France still 25 days?) In the U.S., it's 0 days. Unfortunately, most U.S. workers are 'at will' employees, meaning they can be terminated at any time without having to establish just cause.

And depending on the part of the country paid vacation days are becoming an endangered species as vacation and sick time are being morphed into PTO which usually is about 10 days, So PTO is saved for sick time and vacation days need to be taken as "unpaid". And people wonder why vacations in the US are usually only 4 days...

 

[Hakunamatata]

And depending on the part of the country paid vacation days are becoming an endangered species as vacation and sick time are being morphed into PTO which usually is about 10 days, So PTO is saved for sick time and vacation days need to be taken as "unpaid". And people wonder why vacations in the US are usually only 4 days...

Interesting. The company I work for must have a liberal PTO benefit. 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 days based on time with company plus 4 "personal days" each year. After five days of consecutive illness, PTO becomes short term leave (paid) for a certain number of days (can't recall ).