I think that Disney's management and PR department need to rethink their approach in their opposition to the proposed housing that the Anaheim City Council is pushing for.  While I think Disney and the other businesses have every right to and should defend the resort district, they have found themselves in what could become a very ugly PR nightmare.  There must be a way to protect the Anaheim Resort District and find a way to help provide affordable housing to lower income workers and their families.  This would be the best approach for all parties involved because it would show that everyone is working toward the same goal.  From a public relations standpoint, it seems better than suing the City of Anaheim.  That, to me, seems a bit "un-Disney-like".  

What ever gets the job done.

there are other reasonable solutions for building low income housing.  There is plenty of land outside the resort.

the housing development within the resort has less to do with supplying low income housing and more of  city council women wanting to push her power around and then turning things around to get attention on her side right before a re-election.

"...wasting its time & effort on trying to find new ways to make the people who live right next door to the Anaheim parks happy."

How anyone could say trying to improve the Disneyland resort is a "waste of time and effort" is beyond me.  For goodness sakes it's an American legacy.  Why we should focus on giving a better show and product in other countries than our own is ludacris.  There's plenty of money here in the US.  It's crazy that just about everything that comes out of the Tokyo Disneyland resort continues to top anything done in the states for decades.

Jim, you're answering your own question here.

In the Shijingshan situation, Disney was willing to "overlook" the situation in order to stop a bigger problem - billions of dollars of lost revenue from pirated videos.  Disney got exactly what it wanted - the characters are coming down, and they still have talks for their lost revenue.

In the "Tomorrow's Pioneers" TV situation, any aggressive attempt to remove the Farfour character would have given Hamas more fuel for their anti-western campaign - probably prolonging the character's use.  Public opinion killed it quickly and efficiently; again, exactly what Disney wanted.

But in the case of the subsidized housing, Disney has to kill the project NOW.  Once groundbreaking occurs, or worse yet actual construction begins, it isn't Disney vs. Orange County - it's Disney vs. low income families.  It's a battle they can't win, so they need to avert it before it begins - this is Disneyland's only possibility for expansion.  Again, what's best for Disney.

It's great to have a Disney CEO that actually thinks rather than reacts - Eisner doubtless would have pulled out the hammer in all three cases, and Disney would be paying through the nose in damage control.

I kinda agree with you that Disney should be looking to the US first, since it's where it's based, Sageoftime, but I suppose they got tired of being constantly hit on the head for no real reason. I mean, nowadays your country has been famous for making huge deals out of very little. So in Disney's mind, why try to bend over backwards to please a crowd that will constantly try to find something to nitpick about when they have the rest of the world eager and open to receive them? I mean, lots of countries would love to be able to host a Disney park of some kind, since it's so difficult to get a visa and actually go visit Disneyland and Walt Disney World.

I think this is a good, new approach to PR issues. I don't agree with MKCustodial though, that they're based in the US doesn't say they have to tend to the American crowd first. If they would, they would be overlooking a lot of potential in international territories. The whole Disney vs. Orange County deal is ugly, but does Disney have more right to building "something" there in the "near future", than Anaheim has to build actual housing NOW. I mean, if Disney had solid plans, that were actually in a well-thought-about state, fine, but they don't yet. I'm for Disney getting the property, but not if they are planning to do "something" in the "near future".

Oh, and I never really understood the whole daycare stuff. Besides those three daycare centers, I bet thousands of other daycare centers, kindergarten schools, etc. around the world also use Disney characters without having a license agreement for it. And isn't it kinda like free advertisement for the whole company? (Also, begin brainwashing (in other words, having Disney characters EVERYWHERE) people young, so that they will love Disney their whole lives!! :P)

Perhaps the deeper issue here is that Walt Disney's art and personality were deeply rooted in uniquely American cultural values, and his parks are a product of that.  We all like to think that those values are "universal", and can be marketed around the word.  But they aren't, especially in places where Disney is looking to grow, like the ME and China.  So in situations where in the past they would defend themselves domestically, they are now willing to stay quiet for the sake of furture foreign profits.  The danger is that practicing "soft diplomacy" with people whose values are contrary to yours is historically more likely to corrupt you than convert them...

Jim was not complete in his coverage of the Save Our Anaheim Resort v. Anaheim issue. The developer isn't just building 225 units of "affordable" housing - they're building 1500 units of which 225 are "affordable" (and almost 85% are "what the market will bear"). And this is in the area of a mobile home park which will be removed to build the new housing (and there are more than 225 spaces in the mobile home park). Which is a net loss.

Also it should be remembered that the area was zoned as Resort area by agreement with the city in 1994, which set standards for the area to support tourism - which provided over 50% of the tax revenue for the city. Most of the negative press is being fostered by the developer, with misleading letters and brochures. Supporters of the SOAR petition have been harrassed by supporters of the developer.

The real question is how does the city benefit by losing part of the resort area to a developer not based in Anaheim, and with no interest in improving infrastructure around this housing plan. Keeping the Resort area zoned as Resort is supported by a substantial majority of the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce, the Mayor of Anaheim and another council member. The vote was 3 to 2 in favor of the developer, not a rousing majority...

Just so people know the facts...

I have been reading JHM for a while.  I appreciate a lot of the articles.  This one however is a stretch.  

You cannot compare the legal or political climates of the Palestinian authority (and Hamas) and China to the US.  You have 3 distinctly different climates.

Palestine and Hamas are engaged in a "Holy" war and Disney lawyers would have absolutely no effect.  

China - you had the answer in your story.  The problem is not 1 park or a couple of hundred thousand dollars it is climate of piracy that seems to be encouraged by the government in many ways.  Again, Disney lawyers would have little effect.

US -  strict, established protections for Disney lawyers to enforce when needed.  Should they go after daycare centers?  Disney could probably be more creative and generate positive pr instead.  Anaheim; I don't know much about it, but I have a feeling if the same issue arose for one of their parks in another country it would be approached in whatever way would be deemed most effective for that legal and political climate.

These 3

Another inteesting article, Jim! Only one thing I'd add: Disney also probably doesn't want to push hard on the issue of characters in the Being Shijingshan park too much because they don't want to take the chance of stepping on the toes of people they'll need to develop their parks in China.

There have been rumors for a while that Disney's interested in building a park in Shanghai, and I wouldn't be surprised if they've considered developing a park closer to Beijing somewhere down the road. If they released the hounds against Beinjing Shijingshan - whihch is a government-owned operation - now, they might end up upsetting someone with connections to folks in the national government or in the regional governments for Beijing or Shanghai; that person might be tempted to make things difficult for the Company when they come calling to ask one of those governmental entities to pony up part of the costs of another Disney theme park.

Hey all. I agree with just about everything in today's article and what previous posts say. Except for Anaheim as I know little about it. Maybe I should say I know little about Disney's international relations and even less about Anaheim. I would like to put in my two cents about DCA in case there are any Disney executives reading this. As I have stated before, it's my personal opinion that DCA has a lot of room for improvement. I would put Disney money to work there before building a third park.

I do like DCA as I like to root for the underdog LOL. It's a fine park. If it were built anywhere else in the nation it would be considered a World Class park. Building it right next to THE PARK that changed history wasn't a great idea.

Hate to break it to you, but Tomorrow's Pioneers ran last Friday in its usual time slot, this time with Al-Aqsa TV deputy director Hazem Al-Shawa'ari dishing out the propaganda as 'Uncle Hazem.'  

Farfur (the spelling used on the PMW website) was also on the show.  He appeared in a skit about how he was forced to cheat on his test because, "the Jews destroyed our home, and when the Jews destroyed our home I couldn't find my notebooks."

I won't go into all the messy details, but Al-Aqsa TV promised Palestinian Information Minister Mustafa Barghouti that they'd pull the show pending a review, then the broadcaster reneged on that promise in order to embarrass Barghouti.  As far as I understand, it's all part of the violent power struggle that's going on between Hamas and Fatah right now.

BLATANT PLUG: You can read my take on it over here: http://international-animated-films.suite101.com/article.cfm/farfur_still_on_air

I am not sure where Jim got this particular information

"Whereas when it comes to Orange County, California ... There's a feeling among some Disneyland officials that this particular market is verging on tapped out. Which is why it would probably be best for the company to concentrate its efforts on international expansion, rather than wasting its time & effort on trying to find new ways to make the people who live right next door to the Anaheim parks happy."

but its totally wrong.  Many in disney have finally noticed the potential of the Disneyland resort.  He might be confusing the resorts but the one that has been seen as being close to tapped out is WDW.

Many in upper managment feel that there is great potential in the growth of the Anaheim resort and that is the reason why Disney is being very straight forward about how it feels how the land around its parks will be used.

Disney has four to five hotels in development, a large investment in expanding DTD and the addition of a possible third gate is yet again on everyones mind.  Lets also not forget the large plans for DCA's expansions.

The only reason that disney has been more cautious about the situation with Hamas and asia is because of its international plans to keep developing in those nations.  Disney as we know has been in talks for future expansions and it is not the right time to focus bad publicity towards the Chinese government.  That does not mean that they just stood back and said or did nothing.  Disney is very protective of its trademarks.

In regards to Hamas, the problems that could have occured if Disney tried to challange that would have been a complete PR nightmare and they made the right decision to just let it fade as quickly as it came.

I think Disney overreacted a little on the daycare situation which resulted in a lot of bad press. However DIsney needed to address the daycare situation. It comes across as big bad DIsney picking on little daycares, however how could Disney possibly allow these 3 daycares to use it's characters without licensing fees while charging thousands of other companies for their use.

I don't understand why certain Anaheim city council members have decided that it is in the city's best interest to anger the city's single largest employer by reneging on the Resort deal. It really seems all about politics and very little to do with what is best for both parties. From what I read in another article, if these housing units are built instead of the hotels that Disney has planned, DIsney could be on the hook for several millions of dollars to help repay the bond that Anaheim floated to create the Resort. This bond was suppose to be paid back by hotel bed taxes, however the revenue from the taxes has fallen far short of it's estimates due to the lack of hotels being built.

It's a no-win situation with the daycare centers. I remember when this ski resort in Park City used to have junior skiers wear tunics with Disney's Bambi over their ski clothes- but they were replaced at least 5 years ago. If you go after each and every thing just in this country, though, it's never ending and it runs the risk of bad PR. WB learned that lesson with Harry Potter and now invites fan podcasters to the film sets.

But overseas is really bad. When I went to Sorrento, Italy, about 2 years ago, I passed by a Mickey Mouse Bar.

China's record for protecting intellectual property is as dismal as its human rights record. Why Disney--or any other western company--is doing business over there is beyond me. There's profit to be made, but at what cost? We're pumping money into a regime that doesn't want to play by the rules of the civilized world, and that poses a very real military threat to us.

ParrotHead said:

"China's record for protecting intellectual property is as dismal as its human rights record. Why Disney--or any other western company--is doing business over there is beyond me. There's profit to be made, but at what cost? We're pumping money into a regime that doesn't want to play by the rules of the civilized world, and that poses a very real military threat to us."

Oh, don't even get me started on how small minded that vision is.. Because the US is 100% civilized, has an excellent human rights record and doesn't pose a real military threat to many other countries across the world?

And for the doing-business-in-China-part, look at it this way: Disney can not do business there and still have hundreds of companies bootlegging their products; or do business there, make a profit, still have hundreds of companies violating their copyrights, but even though making profit. I would pick option two and fight like hell to bring the violators down. Companies should always take an active position, not such a defensive position as you propose.

I'll stack the U.S. against China any day of the week when it comes to human rights.

I don't view all developing nations as a threat to the U.S., but China is going to become one--and I mean militarily, not just financially. Maybe in a few years I'll be proven wrong about this. I'd love for that to be the case, but it seems unlikely.

It seems that Chinese weapons are showing up in Iraq and Afghanistan:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/82ce0740-2c03-11dc-b498-000b5df10621.html

Regarding China's massive military buildup and unwillingness to be open about it, a Pentagon official says that "[t]here is a great shortfall in our understanding of China’s intentions." He adds, "When you don’t know why they are doing it, it is pretty damn threatening . . . they leave us no choice but to assume the worst."

As always, I sincerely hope I'm wrong about the threat I believe Chine is to us. I continue to believe, however, that at this point U.S. companies--including Disney--don't need to be doing business with them. We're funding the expansion of their army, and what the end results of that will be, no one can say.