I’m pretty jaded when it comes to boosterism in place of news, but yesterday’s spectacle
at Washington Place with the governor, mayor, and a gaggle of reporters mouthing lines from Disney press packet for the return of The Lion King was over really the top.
I recommend checking out the “news” coverage at Hawaii News Now story and KITV, both following the script by highlighting the economic benefits to the state.
Then check out Chad Blair’s description of the intense, big money hype put on by Disney and apparently lapped up by the press corps and our public officials.
It seems Disney’s approach is to dazzle the locals with lots of shiny things and free food. Unfortunately, it seems to have worked.
Attention was successfully focused on the economic “benefits.”
Gov. Abercrombie:
“The expectation is there will be tens of millions of dollars of economical benefit to the state as well.”
Mayor Caldwell bubbled enthusiastically about the millions the production will supposedly bring into the local economy, “helping us crawl out of this recession.”
Caldwell put the figure at $30 million “with the multiplier.”
KITV anchors giggled with glee over all the money to be “pumped into our economy.”
Wayne Harada’s “Show and Tell Hawaii” in the Star-Advertiser added:
:
“We really did make history,” said Jack Lucas, president of West Coast Entertainment, which partnered with Disney Theatricals in the Mouse House’s first theatrical venture in the 50th state. “All hands within the (Disney) room said yeah,” when the gross and attendance records were broken for the first visit.
In other words, Disney made big bucks the last time around and hopes to repeat the experience.
The problem is that this is not new money being brought into our economy. That would be true if most of the tickets were sold to visitors, but we know that’s not true. Local people paying to see a Disney production doesn’t bring money into our economy. They are simply taking money that might otherwise have been spent with local businesses and instead giving it to Disney.
Disney Theatrical Productions and West Coast Entertainment will suck the money out of local audiences, then pocket the profits and send the cash back to their mainland headquarters.
Instead of regurgitating Disney’s press releases, reporters should take a look at the actual impact of a big production like this one.
Back in December 2012, Hitting the Stage, a website focusing on Hawaii’s theater scene, asked Tom Holowach, manager of Windward Community College’s Paliku Theatre, about the impact of these big traveling productions.
Here’s Halowach on the Lion King’s 2007 run in Honolulu:
Lion King hurt all of us who were doing any kind of a show in town, and I thought mistakenly that by changing the date of our show that year that I would be able to avoid it. And as it turned out, it wasn’t a time and space issue as much as it was just a money in the pocket issue. People have x-amount of disposable income that they feel comfortable spending for certain things. We have people who come see our shows every year because they’ve been watching Ron Bright’s shows ever since he was teaching at Castle 50 years ago. They actually called Mr. and Mrs. Bright that year and said, “We’re so sorry we can’t come to see your show this year because we just paid $600 for tickets to The Lion King for us and the grandkids, and that’s it for us for this whole season.” Lion King had a huge effect on everyone in town.
Basically, Disney was allowed to rent the news media for the day, with the assistance of the governor and mayor. Not a good day for Hawaii.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Wow, critical thinking! Using my “freebie” CB view on Chad’s article. Thank you!
The Disney folks were also no doubt aware that scheduling their announcement (which had actually first been “reported” a fe w weeks ago in Watne Harada’s blog) on a semi-holiday would likely generate more coverage than on a non-holiday.
To be fair, Wayne Harada is clearly identified as a long time “entertainment” columnist for the SA. I don’t think the SA went over the same line as the TV media which will likely get the “Lion’s share” of the advertising dollars for this show. Sorry…couldn’t resist the pun!!
Just look at the SA’s “business news” this morning at: http://www.staradvertiser.com/businesspremium/20130327__Honolulu_Airport_a_hot_place_for_hookups_dating_website_says.html?id=200174931
This is suppose to pass for hard news?
Welcome to Hawaii journalism, 2013 era.
I can only imagine the late Sandy Zalburg singing the Mickey Mouse song as he ushered them out of the newsroom.
The Mouse is evil-
Wait, no animal is evil in your mind, it’s the humans who are evil (not that I disagree with you in either count).
I was watching KHON channel 2 last night, and after the video of the Lion King publicity, he remarked: if only the money earned by Disney stayed in Hawaii, not taken back to the mainland. Hmm. Another perceptive, informed voice… I’m disgusted with Abercrombie and our lawmakers who keep crowing about good for our “economy” and “economic development” — hooray, someone else is maximizing profits at public expense?
he = JOE MOORE.
Think of poor Steven Tyler sitting at home going “Gee, and all along I thought I was the one they really loved.”
The Senate fell for Steve, the Gov fell for Simba, for whom will the House fall?
What does this production of the Lion King have in common with the local train project?
Answer: To my knowledge, for all the local money expected to be spent, neither is officially projected to return much in the way of economic benefits, yet each has induced an abundance of tongues on the island to wag in a way that is meant to make the public believe they will.
The difference, by the way, is that, with the Lion King, those paying have a much better understanding of what it is they will be receiving in return for their money.
Anyone who is familiar with economics will disagree with you.
“Undecided” doesn’t represent his moniker well w/his comments about Honolulu’s elevated rail project.
The point he misses is what Ian stated:
“[Local people] are simply taking money that might otherwise have been spent with local businesses and instead giving it to Disney.”
Those who are paying for their cars, gas and insurance aren’t spending that money on local products or services. With higher gas prices that slice of the personal budget only gets bigger.
“Undecided” doesn’t represent his moniker well w/his comments about Honolulu’s elevated rail project.
The point he misses is what Ian stated:
“[Local people] are simply taking money that might otherwise have been spent with local businesses and instead giving it to Disney.”
Those who are paying for their cars, gas and insurance aren’t spending that money on local products or services. With higher gas prices that slice of the personal budget only gets bigger.
I gather from your response that you see the rail as making a lasting difference for the better for Hawaii’s economic future. Clearly, you are not alone. I can’t begin to count the number of times I’ve encountered similar sentiments online. On the Star-Advertiser’s comment sections you’ll regularly come across claims that “…without rail, our children have no future.” A better economy for decades to come for ourselves, our children and our grandchildren than we otherwise would have had without rail seems to be the message offered up by influential rail backers, at least that’s what my ears seem to me to be hearing. Powerful reason to support rail isn’t it? Well, maybe not. Not if there are strings attached. But I’ll get to that at a later time.
For now, perhaps we can agree that the much heralded long-term economic benefit of building a rail system is probably, for some, their primary reason for supporting the rail project. And perhaps, for some, their primary reason, or one of their primary reasons, for voting for Caldwell in the last election. But speaking of Caldwell, and for that matter the two mayors before him, we’ve for years heard them all speak glowingly of these economic benefits that rail would bring to the local economy, haven’t we?
But beyond what these mayors and others associated with the rail project have told the public, what does the city’s FEIS for rail itself have to say about rail’s effect on our economy?
From Chapter 4 of the Feis:
“To the extent that the Project will reduce travel times and decrease the growth of congestion, the Project is expected to generate an atmosphere conducive to future economic development. Completion of the planned extensions and other planned projects will include additional land conversion to public transportation use, decreasing the taxable land and associated property tax revenues. The Project also will require hiring additional workers to support the expanded system. In general, the Project is not a major long-term economic driver for 0`ahu’s economy.”
What did I think after finding the above passage in the FEIS some months ago? Like the very kindly Jim Nabors used to say back when he was playing Gomer on television — surprise, surprise, surprise! I guess mufi, peter and kirk, and some others, weren’t saying what I thought they were saying for all those years.
Am I at fault? Am I to blame for misunderstanding what the city and corporate project backers have been trying to communicate for all these years with regard to rail’s effect on our economy in the same way that I foolishly mistook their statements that rail would “reduce” or “alleviate” traffic to mean that my and my neighbors drives to work would be faster after rail is built than it was before? Well, if the fault is mine for once again misunderstanding what the city has spent years and many dollars trying to tell me and the rest of the public, at least I have the consolation of knowing that, judging by what was said in a couple of comments above, I’m not the only one.
It seems that in the city’s expert opinion, and the FTA’s, it is not a significantly better financial future that we are buying with rail, but merely a differently distributed one. How could we all have missed that?
And what else are we missing?
I see the rail as making a lasting difference b/c it provides a transportation alternative that does not exist today.
And if there were another viable option on the table that COULD be implemented during my lifetime for no greater cost then I would love to hear it.
If you believed the rail would reduce your automobile travel time, then perhaps you paid too much attention to the detractors who continue to comment AS IF Honolulu’s elevated rail project is mostly about de-congestion (which it clearly is not).
It helps to do one’s own sleuthing, and to consult a variety of sources instead of the ones that get the local face-time or air-time.
Maybe I cite this way too often, but I like the Human Transit blog by Jarrett Walker for explanations in plain english and Transport Politic for a much broader (but more technical) viewpoint regarding all things transit.
“If you believed the rail would reduce your automobile travel time, then perhaps you paid too much attention to the detractors who continue to comment AS IF Honolulu’s elevated rail project is mostly about de-congestion (which it clearly is not).”
Reducing traffic congestion is not the official goal of the train project. A few years back it was not even a factor in the Full Funding Grant Agreement process. But I believe that the traffic reduction lies were essential in overcoming opposition to the project. For thousands of Oahu residents weary of traffic, faster drives to and from work were their main reason for supporting the project. Without the deceived group vote the project probably would have been stopped back in 2008.
It’s just like the deceptive promises of economic growth, the official documents that very few people will take the time to examine say one thing, but the quotes from project supporters that appear in the popular media say another.
I’ll post more info on the city’s official position that rail will not result in significant long-term economic growth on another day when I have more time. I’ll address some of the other points you’ve raised as well.
To clarify, effects on traffic were taken into consideration, but from the language of the FEIS do not appear to have been the primary justification for the project.
To Undecided, who posed the Q, “…what else are we missing?”
I think more people are able to grasp the big issues affecting our local economy. Note my substitutions in Ian’s statement:
“[Big oil] will suck the money out of local [economies], then pocket the profits and send the cash back to their mainland headquarters.”
The ardent supporters of transit that I follow are advocates for their own cities b/c the data about auto-centric development suggests we’ve been doing it wrong. I’m wondering whether we will indeed learn to do transportation (and subsequent development) in a different way that is better from an economic (and environmental) standpoint.
“The problem is that this is not new money being brought into our economy”. Ian this is not an entirely true statement. Disney will be bringing in actors and support staff. They will be supporting local hotels, restaurants and so on. That will be putting money into local peoples pockets. Obviously the profits will leave the islands but this production does have a stimulative effect on our economy. It also brings a broadway show to the islands for those who cannot afford to travel. You can debate the PR extravaganza but you cannot debate the economic benefits. This is a win win for Hawaii.
Have to disagree with your “multiplier” analysis, Old Diver.
The receipts from tickets sold are what pay the salaries of the actors and support staff who come to Hawaii. If $8 of each $10 that goes to Lion King for tickets is paid to those actors and support staff, that is $8 that is not paid to local actors and support staff to put on a local production or to a local restaurant or etc.
The only way that the production has a stimulative affect is if it brings in tourists to Hawaii who would not have come and spent their money here otherwise.
Profits, if any, on tickets sold by local productions are more likely to be recycled in the local economy; profits made by Disney are more likely to go back to the Mainland.
And not only does the Disney show weaken the local entertainment providers by reducing their sales, having these kind of shows at the Blaisdell during the fall and winter in recent years has made it impossible for the symphony to use the hall, with a significant impact on symphony attendance and revenues.
Not a win win for Hawaii local culture and arts, in my opinion
Thank you.
You took the words out of my mouth.
Nope, the multiplier effect is not solely dependent on new money, but the churning of money. If we judge economic benefit by your standards then we will be all the poorer for it.
Well, this started out as a discussion of the validity of the claims that the Disney show was a stimulus to the local economy. Most economists would not agree that it is.
Yep, the multiplier effect derives from the amount of the money coming into the local economy (the money locals earn from tourism, sale of ag export products, services to other states and countries, wages from the Federal government, etc.) and how often it turns over (the churning of going from hand to cash register to hand to cash register) before it all leaks out of the local economy.
The Disney show leaks more money out of the local economy than if the money churns through a local production.
That is not to say that it does not have economic benefits to individuals and businesses who would not enjoy those benefits if the Disney show did not come to Honolulu. However, from the overall view, those benefits are probably balanced by the losses that others experience because the show diminishes their sales.
Thank you. On this we agree.
Disney’s penetration into facets of our entertainment and news is getting more pervasive.
KITV always gushes over anything Disney; remember, ABC is owned by Disney. Also, Disney is putting more product placement into its television shows (e.g., prizes on “Wheel of Fortune”, episodes centering around trips to Disneyland on “Modern Family”).
Here in California, many public schools have given over their annual elementary school plays to private production companies that come in and “teach” the students to sing and dance to a Disney-owned franchise (e.g., “Aladdin”). It costs each student $200 to participate.
Here is a list of all the media and entertainment outlets Disney owns…
http://www.cjr.org/resources/?c=disney
I don’t plan to attend the Lion King, and no one else need attend. The show will close early, and no future Disney shows scheduled. Problem solved.
The Disney production and its economic impact is an interesting discussion.
Couldn’t you make the same assertion of any “outside” entity coming into the state? Is the answer to just go with the homegrown variety?
“Couldn’t you make the same assertion of any “outside” entity coming into the state? Is the answer to just go with the homegrown variety?”
Yes, I’m sure that is so. But local doesn’t always mean better or deserving of loyalty. I will repeat a statement that made sense when I heard it many years ago when Home Depot (and Lowe’s etc. were just getting started here).
When these retailers came to town, there was a sense that “locals” should be loyal to City Mill (due to their long history in Honolulu) and not patronize these mainland retailers.
The remark I heard was why should locals feel any sense of loyalty to retailers who charged whatever they could do to the captive-ness of our geographic isolation. Home Depot and Lowe’s provides competition that helped with quality, selection and pricing of goods overall.
How about all our grocers, who don’t offer the kinds of discounts offered on the mainland b/c they don’t have to. Is there any reason for example, why locals should feel better about shopping at Foodland or Times if the product is cheaper at Costco, Sam’s or Walmart or if there’s a better offering at Whole Foods?