A Spirited Perfect Ten

[gmajew]

Back in the day...key phrase.

It's a new day. And I'm sorry, your ideas are antiquated.

The patent being stolen was Jan 2015 so not much has changed.... The business name was 2004.

The manufacturing coming back to US because cost savings is not as great anymore began in 2012 and has been steadily increasing since. One due to the increase in production cost in this country but the other reason is the fear of their patents and tech being stolen.

Now auto industry is actually asking for products to move back to US from on of my companies that we partner with because the cost savings is no longer worth the risk of keeping them in china....

China is a country that is in a transitional phase and anyone that thinks it won't have major political changes in the next 10-20 years is not reading the tea leaves right. People will demand more pay will not work in those conditions etc and they will have to learn to evolve and become a player with higher wages etc.

 

[hopemax]

The bolded is what that sentence suggests to me, except likely not outright closure to foreigners, likely using "softer" measures like pricing or "phased closings" as a control. The "except for the people of China" is the important part of the sentence. That "except for" is exclusionary, and it is excluding everyone but the people of China. This is clearly "China's Disney park," and that exclusionary statement makes it even more clear.

So this is where we need the Spirit to come back and clarify...is China's intention to "lock the gate" or is it simply "focused marketing?"

 

[wogwog]

You left off some zeros there (unless you were being sarcastic!)

Should have had @ParentsOf4 review my numbers before posting. I can't type, I have staff for that. I think I had it correct at one point then had more wine before finishing. My typing limit is e-mail and booking DCL.

 

[AEfx]

China is a country that is in a transitional phase and anyone that thinks it won't have major political changes in the next 10-20 years is not reading the tea leaves right.

That is precisely the point. China is undergoing MASSIVE changes. Disney wants a seat at that table with those decisions. That's why they aren't wiping their thing in everyone's faces, because the Chinese government would not respond well to that and instead of going in the direction of allowing companies like Disney to defend and preserve and profit from their IP they could go the opposite way.

It's really that simple.

 

[HenryMystic]

Strong Water Tavern and Rum Bar coming next year to Loews' Sapphire Falls at Universal Orlando Resort:

Art courtesy of BestOfOrlando blog. More renderings and details here: http://www.bestoforlando.com/articles/first-look-new-renderings-loews-sapphire-falls-resort/

 

[hopemax]

Next issue disney is bending over to protect their IP.... Which should not be needed... but because China is not conforming to the rest of the world we are in these spots.

Just throwing it out there, but how much respect (may not be the right word) does Disney show when they start using an IP? Obviously, they conform to US and International trademark and copyright laws. The proper credit is made in all the small print, licensing fees paid, etc. But look at how PL Travers responded to Mary Poppins. Disney took far more "liberties" with the story than she expected, but as far as Disney's POV, they had the complete freedom to do that.

I'm trying to find the line where "China screws Disney" actually is, do they feel the contract allows them to take liberties with Disney's IP as long as proper payment is made, small print made? And as far as the shareholders and board is concerned...while it might be "embarrassing" for Iger and Co, personally, if the money rolls in...how bad is it? And do we know if China is working to screw Disney out of the money? Or just the credit, especially within China (expected)?

 

[Bairstow]

Again, with my limited knowledge, it seems like taking the park is too big of a middle finger to Western business, and might scare off future investment. Disney seems "too big of a company to screw entirely." While doing something else, I started wondering if how China views Disney might be more akin to how Disney views somebody like Valley Crest. They are a "landscaper" and thus are entitled to receive payment for their services, which will be paid on time and in full, like an honorable business would. And maybe they get some input into the best way to turn the idea into reality. But a landscaper's place is only to suggest the plants and flowers, placement, etc. The entity commissioning the project expects to retain the right to say, "no, we don't want any yellow flowers," and for the "contractor" to say nothing. For Disney to expect to have their people present would be as ridiculous as Valley Crest's CEO expecting to be in a photo op for Flower & Garden. Maybe in small, horticultural business publication you might see it, but not in Newsweek or something. And the problem is that it never crossed anyone's mind at Disney that they could be used in such a way, after all, they're Disney!

So how far off am I?

That's more or less how I view the probable relationship between the companies from Shendi's perspective, with the added caveat that China not only seems uninterested in Disney's continued input as the project draws to a close, but sees Disney's influence as an actively harmful influence on their their culture and country.

Yes it would. Even then, it doesn't answer why the Chinese would force Disney out.

Because there isn't a compelling reason not to.

Shendi needed three things from The Walt Disney Company; their capital, their expertise in designing the park's look and infrastructure, and the "Disneyland" name. At this point, when Shendi already has all three of these things, what useful purpose does it serve for Disney to still be in the picture? There would be no downside for Shendi and the Chinese government's unilaterally, and secretly, changing the nature of their agreement with Disney so that they no longer have to share any operational control decisions with Disney, and they can, if they like, begin gradually cutting back on Disney's ownership take on the profits of the venture. There is no downside to doing this from China's perspective, because Disney has no legal recourse to stop alterations of their agreement with a Chinese state-owned entity, and even if they wanted to Disney's management would appear tremendously weak and foolish for complaining about the position they have found themselves in. It wouldn't be a deterrent to future investment in China because Shendi wouldn't tell anyone, and for different reasons, neither would Disney.

 

[asianway]

Well, I tried to get people to discuss China and Stock Buybacks on Twitter, but no dice.


Congrats @flynnibus and @ParentsOf4 on connecting all the dots for me with the buybacks. Scary stuff.

Next time use the word cornbread in the tweet. They'll drop trou and you'll get 117 replies. Here's some life advice, if you're the smartest person in the room, you're in the wrong room. #disneytwitter

 

[Lee]

Didja read the article before you labeled it "quite prescient"?

It's difficult to find on Google, but you can find it back in this thread.

"[W]e have so many Western companies in China, but you cannot simply replicate the Western ideas and philosophies in China. They need to adapt to the Chinese realities... So for Fortune 500 companies in China it's very important, it's imperative for them to learn traditional culture in China and how is it interrelated with the modern business culture."

Golly gee, that doesn't sound like the thought Iger should run into China with his big thing hanging out and waving it in the Chinese faces, does it?

Now, the majority of the rest of the article is really a blog opinion piece that rails Iger previously, but what the many mentions of Gary Snyder do not mention is that he is a member of the Redstone family which owns Viacom - a direct competitor for Disney.

Gee, I wonder why his piece was removed? Nah, not conflict of interest - must have been that Shady Iger in between his puppy beating sessions!

The more you look into this all, the more it completely falls apart.

I think the Snyder article was indeed prescient.

In the paragraph you quoted he is warning against trying to barge into China without adapting to their way of doing business.

What did Disney do? They tried to go in there with a "cavalcade of characters" and multiple photo and PR opportunities.

The result? China shut them down. They put the kibosh on the characters and big events and kept the Bob and Tom Show contained to their hotel.

They tried to do exactly what Snyder warned them not to do, and it didn't work.

At least, that's how I see it.

 

[tissandtully]

But what ...???

Do you work for Disney? (Don't feel any need to answer this because I wouldn't answer it -- at least in public!)

Close enough that they wouldn't publish anything about this.

 

[TP2000]

Am I the only one who is baffled that too many folks here think you can increase Maelstrom's hourly capacity by "adding more boats"?

You could add 100 extra boats and a mile of extra flume in a new building behind Norway, but if the boats seat 12 passengers and are being dispatched every 40 seconds via the same ride system as they have since 1988, then the hourly capacity is still about 900 riders per hour.

The extra boats and extra flume would only make the ride chronologically longer, not increase the hourly capacity. It's still just 900 per hour, even if they replace the cheesy polar bears with a cheesier Olaf.

 

[hopemax]

Am I the only one who is baffled that too many folks here think you can increase Maelstrom's hourly capacity by "adding more boats"?

You could add 100 extra boats and a mile of extra flume in a new building behind Norway, but if the boats seat 12 passengers and are being dispatched every 40 seconds through the same station as they have since 1988, then the hourly capacity is still about 900 riders per hour.

The extra boats and extra flume would only make the ride chronologically longer, not increase the hourly capacity. It's still just 900 per hour, even if they replace the cheesy polar bears with a cheesier Olaf.

I actually can, because the number of boats CAN be the limiting factor under the right set of circumstances. Example: The Living with the Land boat ride during the post-introduction of Fastpass. For awhile, they were running like only 3 boats. Which meant that the dispatch time dropped because when you only have 3 boats and a 15 minute ride cycle, you end up waiting several minutes for a boat to enter the load zone.

But Maelstrom never had a "break" from boats arriving, so it doesn't apply.

 

[Lee]

Am I the only one who is baffled that too many folks here think you can increase Maelstrom's hourly capacity by "adding more boats"?

You could add 100 extra boats and a mile of extra flume in a new building behind Norway, but if the boats seat 12 passengers and are being dispatched every 40 seconds via the same ride system as they have since 1988, then the hourly capacity is still about 900 riders per hour.

The extra boats and extra flume would only make the ride chronologically longer, not increase the hourly capacity. It's still just 900 per hour, even if they replace the cheesy polar bears with a cheesier Olaf.

I actually can, because the number of boats CAN be the limiting factor under the right set of circumstances. Example: The Living with the Land boat ride during the post-introduction of Fastpass. For awhile, they were running like only 3 boats. Which meant that the dispatch time dropped because when you only have 3 boats and a 15 minute ride cycle, you end up waiting several minutes for a boat to enter the load zone.

But Maelstrom never had a "break" from boats arriving, so it doesn't apply.

Both true.

In this case, the flume is being extended by...oh...40-50ft or so. Room for about three boats.

If they didn't add boats, there would be gap that wasn't previously there. That would create a potential lag between loading one boat and the next one arriving.

Adding a few boats will keep the boat/length of ride ratio where it needs to be.

 

[AEfx]

I think the Snyder article was indeed prescient.

In the paragraph you quoted he is warning against trying to barge into China without adapting to their way of doing business.

What did Disney do? They tried to go in there with a "cavalcade of characters" and multiple photo and PR opportunities.

The result? China shut them down. They put the kibosh on the characters and big events and kept the Bob and Tom Show contained to their hotel.

They tried to do exactly what Snyder warned them not to do, and it didn't work.

At least, that's how I see it.

That's a much more valid narrative than "OMG Iger is a whipping boy for China! He just bent on over and took it!" which is what this is being spun as by others.

If what you say is the case, that's a failure on a lot of folks (since we know Iger didn't write that itinerary himself), but of course the buck should stop with the CEO so yup, that would be on him.

But again, that's not the criticism most folks are giving - it's that he didn't go in there and represent 'Merica by stomping around and taking a leak everywhere to mark his territory and being in the center of everything.

 

[Lee]

That's a much more valid narrative than "OMG Iger is a whipping boy for China! He just bent on over and took it!" which is what this is being spun as by others.

If what you say is the case, that's a failure on a lot of folks (since we know Iger didn't write that itinerary himself), but of course the buck should stop with the CEO so yup, that would be on him.

But again, that's not the criticism most folks are giving - it's that he didn't go in there and represent 'Merica by stomping around and taking a leak everywhere to mark his territory and being in the center of everything.

Agreed, some people are missing the point, I think.

The point isn't that Iger wasn't allowed to do what he wanted. It's that he tried to do it his way in the first place, despite being warned against it, and got shut down.

That's called "fumbling your entry to China."

 

[HauntedMansionFLA]

@WDW1974 - Any information out there about Star Wars Land???? Is it still on life support ???? Like a lot of people here, I'm very frustrated with Iger for dragging his feet with what looks like a sure thing.

 

[ford91exploder]

And, no, every relationship between an American company and a Chinese government entity doesn't go down like this.

No but a substantial minority do go down like this, This exemplar is not the first and will not be the last.

 

[hopemax]

That's a much more valid narrative than "OMG Iger is a whipping boy for China! He just bent on over and took it!" which is what this is being spun as by others.

If what you say is the case, that's a failure on a lot of folks (since we know Iger didn't write that itinerary himself), but of course the buck should stop with the CEO so yup, that would be on him.

But again, that's not the criticism most folks are giving - it's that he didn't go in there and represent 'Merica by stomping around and taking a leak everywhere to mark his territory and being in the center of everything.

Which is where I'm at too. I expected a scenario like Lee presented, which means there was NEVER going to be a photo op and Cavalcade. Either A. Disney played it right and wouldn't have one or B. Disney played it wrong and China slapped their hands. Which is why it was so hard to follow Spirit going on and on about the lack of photo. The only way anyone should have had a reason to expect one, was if Disney was so perfect in their dealings that China took a very rare step to allow it, which would be the first time this Disney has been so perfect.

The story is not really about "bad China," but "foolish Iger and Co."

 

[ford91exploder]

Yes, it does. One about as likely to be published as my tome on Mental Heath and The Disney Fan Community: How Pixie Dust Destroys the Brain.

I believe that Shanghai Disneyland Resort will do very well ... eventually. No, it won't attract 23-24 million visitors a year unless the CCP buses in thousands of people a day and sticks them on boats or around the lake and includes them in the attendance figures (something that already has been suggested to me as a possible number-building strategy)

But considering that every international resort, except Tokyo, has struggled at the start -- as have most domestic parks, I fully expect difficulties from opening.

The Chinese government isn't taking over the park. That keeps permeating these discussions and it isn't happening. Why take over something that's already yours?

Yes it is China's park, However at least what I've been talking about is China taking Disney's minority share and operational control of the park now that they no longer NEED Disney...

 

[ford91exploder]

And do we know if China is working to screw Disney out of the money? Or just the credit, especially within China (expected)?

If other companies experience in china is any gauge BOTH!