By Peter Ed

Related: Audiovisual technology: LEDs are the new Pixidust / Audiovisual technology: A short history of the videowall /  Aspects of EXPO 2010 -an Audiovisual Review  / Rise of the MBAs (Media Based Attractions) :The next generation of entertainment experiences /  Making (Audiovisual) Waves at Disney

What was so great was escaping from those colour wash blobs that preceded the moving lights. Now we saw not only the musicians and amazingly constructed scenery, but also the whole stage space, and beyond, come alive in a wonderful 3D reality.

OK, the moving lights have not gone away, they are still one of the most exciting lighting tools available, but they were pushed off the top slot in the mid ‘noughties’ by nothing other than LEDs! As briefly mentioned in my previous blog, LEDs are the new Pixidust, it was supergroup U2 that started it off back in 1997 with the world tour of Popmart.

Think Big

Popmart’s designer Willie Williams and entertainment architect Mark Fisher relished the challenge of how to deliver as big a visual impact as the big sound delivered by U2. ‘Let’s take a television  screen’ they mused, ‘and make it much, much bigger!’ and then, ‘let’s keep the same number of pixels as a TV screen, just stretch them out!’ Revolutionary stuff! The first low resolution video screen was born, 50m wide and 15m high with over 100,000 pixels, each with 8 LEDs.  (Image right: That pixelated feel)

In those far and distant days the technology was hugely challenging and eye-wateringly expensive, but gradually both complexity and price made low resolution video screens affordable to the merely rich.  Early adopters of the new ‘visual language’ of low resolution video were big event production companies and television entertainment and game shows. Today, you will be hard pressed to see any entertainment without the now ubiquitous pixels all over the stage – as backdrops, in scenery, in the flooring, hanging over the audience.

Freedom!

The most creative designers revelled in the sheer joy of freeing a design away from both boringly rectangular video screens and the limited effects available from even the most sophisticated moving lights. Now, any surface, any space could be totally transformed just by playing different videos. At one moment, the backdrop could be a psychedelic vision of colourful rotating  cogs – the next it could be a beautiful, huge, flickering candle flame, the next a raging fire. And so on. (Image left: Big screen (or small musicians?))

Just as exciting and also challenging, was the very nature of the ‘pixelated’ look. Television designers fell in love with it very quickly. Suddenly flat scenery could take on its own personality, colour, texture and movement. So, as low resolution LED video technology matured and creative designers everywhere started to find new exciting uses, the necessary but separated technology of media storage, playback and manipulation also came of age. The marriage of the two technologies was definitely made in heaven, but the liaison is yet in its courtship years, and we expect and hope for new and interesting developments. More later!

By Stefan Puttnam

Related:  Corporate manslaughter laws (UK) and the amusement industry/ Anticipated Legal Issues in the Amusement Industry for 2011

As the first prosecution under the Corporate Manslaughter & Corporate Homicide Act 2007 (The Act) concluded on Wednesday 16th February, I thought that it was now appropriate to write a follow up.

It might be helpful to recap: initially the Government's advisory body, the Sentencing Advisory Panel, was recommending that any company found guilty of the new offence should be fined as much as 10% of its annual turnover.  However the Sentencing Guidelines Council then proceeded to set out principles to guide courts in dealing with these matters. The advice was clear – punitive and significant fines should be imposed both to deter and to reflect public concern at avoidable loss of life:

"Fines for companies and organisations found guilty of corporate manslaughter may be millions of pounds and should seldom be below £500,000. For other health and safety offences that cause death, fines from £100,000 up to hundreds of thousands of pounds should be imposed."

It went on to state that the financial circumstances of the offending organisation must be taken into account when imposing fines.

In my original blog I asked what has happened to the threatened "10% of turnover" suggestion in respect of the level of fines to be imposed and suggested that the new guidelines may be a softened approach. 

One important complexity of the Act is that there has to have been a serious failure of "Senior Management" identified in order for a prosecution to be brought. The Company in this instance had a Sole Director, who was on site immediately prior to the accident. And in this case there was a clear link to Senior Management and initially charges were brought against the Sole Director as well as the Company. Although the Act itself does not allow for individual directors to be prosecuted, the "Senior Management" failure which has to be identified can lead directly to separate prosecutions for Manslaughter. In this instance owing to serious ill health on the part of the director, the separate prosecution was not tried. We will have to await the prosecution of a much larger organisation with a more complex managerial structure to establish how it is that 'Senior Managers' may be identified and how their conduct can potentially lead to a corporate being found guilty under the Act. 

So what was the outcome and did the courts follow the published sentencing guidelines?

The company in question was found guilty and the fine imposed was £385,000.00 which is to be to be paid over 10 years with £38,500.00 due every year.

As mentioned already the sentencing guidelines provide that the starting point for a fine in cases of Corporate Manslaughter should be £500,000.00 however, when deciding the level of fine, account must be taken of the financial circumstances of the offending organisation. In the guideline the Council emphasises the need for a court to have full, accurate and reliable information and details the method for ensuring that it is consistently provided. It also states that when fixing the fine, a court should not be influenced by the impact on shareholders and directors, nor consider the costs of complying with other sanctions.  In this particular instance the annual turnover of the company was just £330,000.

Now that a precedent has been set will future court decisions follow this example?

Although it is not possible to purchase insurance cover in respect of the actual fines most liability insurers provide cover in respect of defence costs following prosecution arising from an alleged breach of health and safety legislation. As the prosecutions for corporate manslaughter will invariably arise from a breach of health and safety legislation, it follows that prosecution defence costs provided by liability insurers should also apply manslaughter charges. This said, not all liability policies will have manslaughter defence costs included automatically. I would recommend that companies check their Employers’ and Public/Products Liability policies to ensure that defence costs are included following corporate manslaughter or a similar offence with such defence costs provided for individuals as well as for the company.  Cover may be limited and it is worthwhile checking the policy limit and seeking a higher limit where possible as defending this type of complex case can be very expensive. 

Related: Disney and Partners Break Ground on Shanghai Disney Resort / Tokyo Disneyland, DisneySea, "The Parks are ready to reopen" /  OLC up forecast to 27m visitors for 2011 - Creating Happiness at Tokyo Disney  / Pigs in Pythons: Capex at Disney and Universal  / Walt Disney Co’s 2010 results – Woody and Buzz do the business / A look at EuroDisney's 2010 results  

"Our Shanghai resort will be a world-class family vacation destination that combines classic Disney characters and storytelling with the uniqueness and beauty of China,” said Iger (see below).  "Working with our Chinese partners, the Shanghai Disney Resort will be both authentically Disney and distinctly Chinese." The park will include an interactive castle, unique to Shanghai Disneyland, which is planned to be the tallest of the iconic fairytale castles yet built. 

Due to open in 2016 the initial phase will cover 1.5 sq miles (1/26th the size of Walt Disney World in Orlando) and comprise a theme park and two hotels.  Visitor numbers are expected to be 7.3 million in the first year to the park which is 57% owned by the Shanghai Shendi Group and 43% by Disney.  (Financing will be proportional to ownership.)  In addition, Disney will have a 70% stake in a joint venture management company that will be responsible for creating, developing and operating the resort.  Alan Gould, an analyst with New York-based Evercore Partners* estimates that Disneyland Shanghai will generate management fees of $65-70 million in its first fiscal year of operations, 2016, and grow to more than $200 million in 10 years "assuming the park reaches 15 million in attendance".

International expansion is one of the three elements of Disney’s strategy (the other two being focus on content and franchises and leveraging new technology).  Thomas Staggs, Chairman, Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, told Disney’s 2011 Investor Conference Feb 2011 that, “we expect expansion outside of the United States to be our most important growth opportunity.”

Staggs set out the huge potential for China.  “Roughly 30 million Chinese enter the middle class each year, which will lead to significant growth in leisure travel.  In fact, spending on domestic leisure travel in China is expected to more than double to over $200 billion by 2015.”

“Bear in mind that more than 40% of visitors to Hong Kong Disneyland come from Mainland China. Given that our penetration rate in Southern China is currently just 1% per year, we certainly have room to grow.”

“We're well into our blue sky development, and once Shanghai opens, in about five years, we know we'll have a park that is distinctly Disney, yet, authentically Chinese. Taken as a whole, we believe China is the most exciting opportunity we've had since Walt first bought land in Florida in 1964.”

Success is not likely to be straightforward in the mainland Chinese market; Hong Kong Disneyland has had mixed fortunes, but then as Walt Disney himself said, “It’s kind of fun to do the impossible”.  Regulation of media space has meant that there is no Chinese Disney Channel to act as a launch pad for franchises.  Disney have had some innovative ideas to build market presence, for instance setting up Disney English language schools aimed at children between 2 and 12 years of age using learning materials including Disney characters.  In addition, Disney plan to invest in Disney-branded movies that will be produced in China for the local market.  Chinese protection of Disney brands may also be a problem with piracy being a particular concern in China, however the downside in losing revenue can have a silver lining: increased brand recognition.

At the Credit Suisse 2011 Global Media and Communications Convergence Conference, CFO Jay Rasulo was keen to stress that Disney have learnt lessons from their experiences in Paris and Hong Kong: working within the existing travel industry structure; recruitment and retention of cast members -“we are a sought after employer, we get the pick of the labor market”; and the universal appreciation of Disney service levels.  Key to success will be to create a culturally relevant version of Disney in China.  For all the planning and research in the end responsiveness is key: “you have to be ready to spin on a dime”. 

* Source: As reported in The Hollywood Reporter

Image: copyright Disney

By Jeroen Nijpels

Related: IP & Theme Parks: here to stay? / Optimism with a Frosty Reception : The IAAPA Expo 2010 / A Few of my Favourite Things: A day at the IAAPA Expo / IAAPA Attractions Expo Goes to Orlando 2010-2019

I'm interested to know what the Blooloop community's opinion is.  For me, it was a very positive decision. Since I came into the industry in 1996, and saw the show in Orlando in 1997, I've always thought that the show should be in Orlando, permanently. While I can appreciate the incidental attractiveness of changing the city every now and then, each of the alternatives has so many points against it, that for me Orlando is winning, every time.

First, the exhibitor's perspective: the building in Orlando is simply the best one there is. All in one hall, a very limited number of columns, very high and no issues whatsoever in bringing in attractions on the show floor (although this feature of the trade show has been in strong decline over the past few years). And it certainly has the highest number of (affordable) hotel rooms within walking distance. Exhibitor services are priced at a reasonable level (except of course drayage, a phenomenon that we in Europe will probably never ever understand). And the surrounding hotels, restaurants and leisure facilities provide ample opportunities for targeted events during the week.

I realize very well that we will see a decline in visitor numbers if the show stays in Orlando for a long while. But at the end of the day, what counts for the exhibitors is the quality of the buyers, not the quantity. At least, that is how I feel about it.

Then the visitor's perspective: is there really an alternative for Orlando? Where else, at this time of year, do you have parks that are open, better weather and a wider choice of affordable hotels but in Orlando? Where else can you bring your whole family, if you feel like it, and which place would be a more interesting incentive for your staff members to bring along, if the opportunity arises? I honestly cannot think of a better place than Orlando, as a single answer to all the questions above.

Lastly, there is a new IAAPA event that was organized for the first time last month in San Diego: the Leadership Conference. It was building on what many people in the industry will still remember as the Summer Meeting. But in this case with a slightly more educational character, and certainly for me, a very valuable visit of no less than nine attractions in three days. It was a very well organized event and the participants were all very enthusiastic. I believe that this event can grow significantly and in doing so, can really cater for the taste of those that would like to visit different cities and the attractions over in the US. So with these two events, you could have the best of both worlds: travel around to see different places and attractions, and have the trade show and conference in Orlando.

For me, Orlando is the true capital of our industry. But I would be very interested in your opinions and arguments...

Images: Kind courtesy Orange County Convention Center

By Greg Van Gompel

Related: California: Requesting Zip Code information from Amusement Park guests gets more complicated / Anticipated Legal Issues in the Amusement Industry for 2011 / Favourite ride unavailable? Refunds recommended in Taiwan

According to the news release issued by the Alberta government, rides in the province will be subject to the following five actions as a direct result of the Scorpion ride investigation:

• owners must retain on-site inspection reports from all jurisdictions in which an amusement ride has operated for five years;
• owners must complete an owner and Alberta Safety Codes Officer checklist for each ride;
• once a ride deficiency is detected, owners must confirm the ride manufacturer has evaluated the information and reported findings to the owner and Safety Codes Officer;
• if metal fatigue is detected on a ride, independent non-destructive testing will be conducted on the entire ride and repairs made to any defects; and,
• older rides would be considered for additional comprehensive non-destructive testing.

While the industry is behind any rules that will maintain ride safety requirements, in reviewing this release I have a few thoughts and comments and would be interested to hear your thoughts as well.  What happens if a ride is loaned out to another show to enhance that show’s ride lineup?  Does the owner then need to give the lessee inspection reports for the last 5 years?  Will lessee’s be required to give a copy of all inspection reports back to the owner?  Once a ride deficiency is detected (in Alberta only I assume), the information must be forwarded to the ride manufacturer but is that for any deficiency?  How is a deficiency defined?  What if the ride manufacturer is no longer in business, what happens? 

Ride manufacturers now have an affirmative duty to report findings to the ride owner and the Alberta Safety Codes Officer.  What happens if it takes the ride manufacturer excessive time to respond to the owner and Safety Codes Officer on the ride deficiency information?  Will the ride be closed until the information is delivered?  Will the ride manufacturer now be liable for lost revenue for such failure to quickly respond the deficiency notices?  Ride owners and insurers may need to review their contracts for rides that go into Alberta to cover the possibility that some of these contingencies may not be able to be met in time. 

It seems to me that the new rules infer that owners and for that matter, manufacturer of rides that go into Alberta may want to keep some form of digitized inspection reports of the rides to make compliance with the new rules easier.  These rules are certainly something to keep an eye on as we approach the 2011 operating season.
 

Related:  Tokyo Disneyland and Tokyo DisneySea Parks Attendance Figures for Fiscal Year 2010 / OLC up forecast to 27m visitors for 2011 - Creating Happiness at Tokyo Disney / OLC's 2013 Strategic Plan: Bringing Happiness

This represents a small decrease on the previous year (2010: 25.8 million) but a 6% drop compared to February’s forecast of 27 million visitors for the full year.  Favourable weather, the opening of Mickey’s PhilharMagic and special events had seen positive growth in visitor numbers, but operations have had to be suspended since the Tohoku Pacific Earthquake on March 11th.

Oriental Land Co Ltd (OLC) have said that there is no major damage to the parks and facilities.  Some minor cracks in the grounds and liquefaction in the flat parking area are being repaired and the parks are ready to reopen.  The safety of the parks has been confirmed but a date for reopening has yet to be determined.  Images of the park have been released and can be seen in this document: Condition of buildings at Tokyo Disneyland and DisneySea, 28/03/11.

Tokyo Disney Resort® had two major attractions representing a combined investment of ¥5 billion originally scheduled to open on April 15th: Cinderella’s Fairy Tale Hall and Fantasmic! 2011.  There can be little doubt that every effort is being made to reopen as soon as possible so that OLC can continue on their mission to “create happiness and contentment”.  We wish them well and note with interest the following impressive statistic included in their press release: total attendance since opening in 1983 is 514.8 million visitors.

Image: copyright Disney