Don't believe the hype. Disney *won't* buy Universal's theme parks.

[Mop]

http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/020807/media_disney_vivendi_1.html

This story reports that Disney is looking at Vivendi's assets. But it would make no sense for Disney to buy Universal's theme parks since Disney has never before been in the business of licensing other people's properties for entertainment purposes. And owning and operating the Universal theme parks would mean Disney having to license a series of properties (E.T., Back to the Future, Jaws, King Kong, Spider-Man, the Hulk, etc.) from several other companies. While it may be more viable if Disney were to buy ALL of Universal's assets (theme parks AND studios - thus eliminating licensing restrictions for several of these properties), it's unlikely that a) regulators would permit Disney to buy another studio and b) other people are already front runners to buy the studios, chief among them is Barry Diller.

Now, let's temper this with the fact that Eisner has been known to make some lameass moves in the past. And I wouldn't put it past him to water down Disney's Orlando and Anaheim properties by buying someone else's theme parks. I just don't see how that would fit into their business plan. It would just pull visitors away from the main WDW and DL attractions.

Raul/Mop

 

[doubletrouble_vb]

Given that Universal is already pulling business away from Disney buying it would be one way of bringing those visitors back in the fold. However...it seems unlikely...to keep the diversification Disney would have to let Universal go its own way.

I don't see any regulatory issues with Disney buying Universal...unless they own tv, radio, or cable stations. It wouldn't make for a monopoly in either the movie industry or the theme park industry.

It seems like Anheiser Busch would be a more likely candidate to buy Universal. The problem (as I see it) is that the studios go along with parks.

 

[Walt's Frozen Head]

Disney has never before been in the business of licensing other people's properties for entertainment purposes

Ever heard of Winnie the Pooh? The Muppets? MGM Studios? The Power Rangers or Pokemon?

-WFH

 

[Bstanley]

Vivendi owns all kinds of companies around the world, publishing, TV production, cable channels, etc, etc. It is highly probable that any number of them would make sense for Disney to acquire.

IF - they hadn't already spent all the money they had...as well as all the money they could borrow...

So unless the deal is a three-way - where they sell chunks of what they already have to someone so they can raise what they need to buy any of Vivendi's stuff it's really a null issue...

 

[Mop]

WFH, I realize and accept your argument, while some of your examples are flawed. Doesn't Disney either own Saban outright (Power Rangers) or perhaps they inherited a licensing agreement when they purchased the Family Channel? And Disney has a bigger vested interest in Winnie the Pooh than just a pithie licensing deal. They're part owners. The same was almost the case with the Muppets. It just so happened that a plan to buy the Muppets fell through. Disney may get another chance, though. Still, some elements of Disney's entertainment - particularly the Disney-MGM Studios theme park - rely heavily on licensing deals (heck, the name of the theme park has another company's name in it!). We have Star Tours, for example, which is a Lucasfilm property.

But for Disney to buy the Universal parks would be like Disney buying a Carnival ship and slapping the Disney Cruise Lines label on it. It just doesn't work. Disney properties have "Disney Magic" because they're designed and built by Disney from the ground up. Even with the cut backs and such, they all still have those little touches that make it exclusively Disney. And to turn a Universal theme park into a Disney theme park would be too cost prohibitive.

Again, a caveat... Disney could just use one of its shell land companies to buy the theme parks and operate them as a separate entity from Disney altogether, in effect competing against itself but still monopolizing the theme park business in the Orlando area.

Mop

 

[Walt's Frozen Head]

But for Disney to buy the Universal parks would be like Disney buying a Carnival ship and slapping the Disney Cruise Lines label on it. It just doesn't work. Disney properties have "Disney Magic" because they're designed and built by Disney from the ground up

I understand what you are saying and I agree with you that in principle all Disney properties should have that "Disney Magic." The problem is that Disney's management has not agreed with us on that for at least five or eight years.

The Imagineers who used to build Disney from the ground up are mostly gone: projects like Return To Neverland are shopped out overseas, projects like DinoRama use mechs bought from the same company that sells to Six Flags, and even a project like Mission:Space involves little Imagineering beyond painting the bought-and-paid-for cabs and making the big red ball spin (although, judging from all those security rumors we heard, the cabs must have gotten one _helluva_ paint job) .

I'm certainly not advocating this path, I'm just saying that the decision would precisely fit the mold of Disney's recent decisions.

monopolizing the theme park business in the Orlando area.

Exactly what I mean. Attempt to dominate the market via accounting coups rather with unique, high-quality products. That's par for Disney's New Millenium course.

-WFH

 

[All Aboard]

I have no idea whether Disney will buy Vivendi's assets or not. But, I'm not sure that I find the "not in the licensing business" argument all that compelling as a reason why they wouldn't.

If Pooh and Power Rangers aren't good examples, perhaps Star Wars and Indiana Jones are. Not exactly licensing agreements, but using others' content instead of developing your own. That "easy way out" seems to be (as the cryonoggin says) par for the course.

I don't think it's a good fit. Especially in Orlando. But, it sure seems to fit the recent strategies of the Disney Company. Buy and Grow.

 

[Walt's Frozen Head]

are you arguing that simply because a ride mech was bought from a third party means that is something bad

Not really, just pointing out that the "building from the ground up stuff" Mop mentioned no simply longer happens to the degree it once did.

Even though we haven't all agreed on how to define it, I think we all agree that there is more than one aspect to "Disney Magic." Technical innovation is one of those aspects. You'll not catch me saying "if no technical innovation, no Magic," but I'll usually argue that the more aspects of the Magic that get attention on the front end, the wider the variety of guests that will "get it" on the recieving end.

When it comes to Disney, I'm all about slippery slopes, not lines in the sand. Although there is no line I could point to and reasonably say: anything demonstrating this level of technical innovation is Disney Magic, anything less is simply unacceptable, I do think it's a reasonable (and too often overlooked) view to say that the more we put in the product that is special and unique, the better off our company is going to be.

I promise you, I promise you, I really do, that you will be wrong on this one

Swear to God, I _hope_ I'm wrong about it... I'm just far beyond the point of taking anyone's word for it, and there are one or two bits I do know for sure, myself. Even you got your hands burnt a bit over DinoRama, isn't it possible that your sources might be the losers of the internal argument, again?

You're really going have to consider me as coming from Missouri, on this one...

-WFH

 

[DisneyKidds]

Disney-MGM Studios theme park - rely heavily on licensing deals (heck, the name of the theme park has another company's name in it!).

Don't they just call it the Disney Studios now?

But for Disney to buy the Universal parks would be like Disney buying a Carnival ship and slapping the Disney Cruise Lines label on it. It just doesn't work. Disney properties have "Disney Magic" because they're designed and built by Disney from the ground up.

Not that Disney is going to buy up the Universal theme parks, but if they did would it be possible for Disney to buy them and not slap the Disney name on them? They could own them but let them operate autonomously. Disney could eliminate the competition as all the guest dollars would be going to Disney, but not turn them into 'Disneyfied' parks. Not everything Disney owns has to be a Disney Magic enterprise. Treat it like ABC (ok - bad example because ABC is a drag) - They didn't try and turn it into the Disney Channel. Threat the thrill ride theme park business as seperate from the 'Disney' theme park business. After all, the Universal parks are holding their numbers better than the Disney parks so why change them? Have them be a covert Disney operation if you will. Let Disney own the entire world without anyone realizing it........wwwhhaaaaahahahahahaha.

 

[Mop]

I've heard the term "Disney Studios" used several times, but I believe that the official name remains Disney-MGM Studios. That's the name on the WDW website as well as on all the documentation, I believe. MGM must have signed some kind of long term lease on their name. Maybe 20 years? When it expires, we'll see what happens.

Mop

 

[Another Voice]

Disney has no ownership rights at all to ‘Pooh’, they have a long term European license for some rights, and a licensing deal with the American right holders that the subject of a lawsuit right now. Disney also licenses ‘Peter Pan’, ‘Bamabi’, ‘Lady and the Trap’, ‘101 Dalmations’, ‘Mary Poppins’, ‘Sword and the Stone’, ‘The Rescuers’, and many other “Disney” classics. Perhaps the best magic trick Disney has ever pulled off is to convince so many people that these works are Disney’s creation. And Disney has also sold off many rights only to turn around and license them back (as they did with all the music from ‘Snow White’). The comment that “Disney has never before been in the business of licensing other people's properties for entertainment purposes” is about as far from what’s actually happening as you can get.

The regulatory problems with any Disney purchase of Vivendi assests will come from the European Union. Their regulators have already made it know they will not allow either French assets to be sold or to allow an American media conglomerate to substantial increase a dominance in a particular field. So it is highly unlikely that the EU will allow the Studios portion to be sold to Disney. Since (I hope) Disney has no interest in running Evian water or the Paris sewer system, this means on Vivendi’s Music companies would be allowed.

It should be noted that Disney’s CFO made a remark during the last earnings release saying Disney conserving cash and paying down debt so they can make a strategic acquisition.


P.S. The license to use the “MGM” name and the lion logo preclude Disney from using them for “promotional purposes”, i.e. some marketing and advertising. Disney also has to pay a royalty every time they use the MGM name, so it’s cheaper to say “Disney Studios” when they can get away with it.

 

[airlarry!]

SCENE: Busy law office in downtown Knoxville:

SECRETARY: Mr. Scoop, there is a Bob Gurr on the phone. Says he wants a word with you. Something about you saying that "in fact, Imagineering has built very few attractions involving ride mech (as opposed to shows) from the ground up? From some book on the birth of Disneyland?"

SECRETARY waits, puzzlement on her face.

MR. SCOOP: Uh, can you tell him I'm busy...uh...tell him I'm on the phone with Paul Pressler as we speak.


Seriously, M. Scoop, check out Bob Gurr's articles. It is not fair to say very few (just as it is not fair to say the opposite) of the original Disneyland attractions were built exclusively by Imagineering. The history is way, way more complex than that.

I love hearing from any and all inside sources. A post from you or AV with competing inside sources will get an instant look from me on this board. However, every prediction can't come true. Otherwise, they wouldn't be rumors and predictions.... Seems I recall a certain prediction about another water park.....

People may see this differently than I do, but I liken it to cola companies buying out each other (even where they compete for taste), or car companies or stock brokerages...the list goes on and on. Even if Universal's parks are folded into Disneys (which I admit seems a bit far-fetched), it doesn't mean that competition disappears. Remember, Disney sees their competition, as the Orlando article pointed out, as DESTINATIONS not companies. They are competitors with Busch, they feel their competition is Las Vegas, or Colorado, or Beach resorts, or even International cities like Paris and London.

WFH said it best. I would not put it past ME to worry more about buying up Universal than fixing the future of the parks and animation. Personally, I don't think he gives a toot about the parks and animation unless there are dollar bills at stake. Does that show bias? Yes. But, I think his actions speak louder than other people's words.

 

[EUROPA]

Looks like Vivendi's Video Game unit is up for sale too...some good names too in the "world of video games " ..Sierra and Blizzard.

http://www.consolewire.com/news/item.asp?nid=2548