Rich People Love Goofy

According to several newspaper accounts, extremely rich people are spending their money on something that surprises me: theme parks. It just goes to show how out of touch I am with the ultra rich. I thought that they might treat themselves to things like putting an extra stamp on an envelope "just in case," showering for as long as they want, or splurging at the car wash and getting that carnuba wax. But I was wrong. Now the picture is more like this: After an executive receives his obscene bonus of tens of millions of dollars, he starts for the office door and is stopped by a colleague who asks, "Where are you going?" The guy with the big bucks looks at the camera and replies, "I'm going to Disneyland."

Theme parks are suffering financially these days. While so many people are struggling to pay their grocery bills, the last thing they are thinking about spending their money on is "The Mad Hatter's Tea Cups." However there is a niche market that is spending more than usual on things like Disneyland, Sea World, and Universal tours. That niche with a spending itch is the very rich.

For years, bored, rich people have gone on challenging and dangerous vacations. They've run with the bulls in Pamplona, hunted bears in Alaska, and even taken the ultimate risk by having their kitchens remodeled. So it's not surprising that Disney and the others have been trying to attract this kind of spending. Sea World plans on expanding their special "swim with the dolphins package" that starts at $199 per person now. Disney World has started to sell homes ranging up to $8 million with special access to the rides at the theme park. If I had $8 million to spend on a house, I'd want it to be as far as possible from a theme park. Once again, I'm just not thinking like the very rich.

How much money do you have to have to be considered "ultra rich," and how does anyone know how these people spend their money? American Express gathered the statistics and released them. (Isn't that nice to know that credit card companies can do things like that)? American Express classifies people as "ultra-affluent" if they charge at least $7,000 a month -- or $84,000 a year -- on their credit card. And someone at American Express noticed that these ultra-affluent cardholders spent 32% more on theme parks in the first quarter of this year than in 2009.

So how will theme parks cater to people who have all that money? I assume that they will have more and more adventurous and exclusive experiences. Sea World, for example, already has plans to expand its Discovery Cove. That's where admission is limited to just over 1,000 people a day who do things like hand-feed parrots. You can also pay $500 to be a trainer for a day at Sea world. I guess they think it's worth every penny to have their hands smell like fish for a week. A new addition will give rich visitors a chance to have "shark encounters." The only problem with having some of these Wall Street instant millionaires in that tank is that it'll be hard to tell which ones are the sharks.

There will be more exotic rides and attractions at all of the theme parks. Don't be surprised if a night at "Psycho's" Bates Motel includes being attacked when you take a shower. Isn't that just perfect for the wealthy honeymoon couple? At the "Dumbo, the Flying Elephant" ride, you'll be able to jump out of a plane while sitting on an elephant. I guess for a few bucks more the truly adventurous can do it the other way around – jumping out of a plane with the elephant sitting on them. And on the Jungle Cruise, the pampered but bored ultra-richie will be able to wrestle a python while getting a pedicure.

Maybe I should sign up for one of these exclusive adventures. I could meet somebody there who could help me in the business world. Who knows? I might be in line with a super billionaire who will want to be partners with me. It's possible. Let's face it: it's a small world after all.

Is Disney Goofy?

When it comes to our jobs, we are all replaceable. The current recession has certainly brought this home to many people. There's always somebody who is younger, smarter, or closer to the boss' cousin waiting to step in and take somebody's job. But how would you feel if you lost your job to a cartoon character? That's kind of what happened to noted sportscaster Al Michaels. Michaels is the famous voice America has been hearing on Monday Night Football for years. Next year, he'll be broadcasting Sunday Night Football on NBC. And he'll have that NBC job all because of a cartoon character named Oswald the Lucky Rabbit.

It's a bit complicated, but Disney owns ABC and ESPN. Universal owns NBC. Michaels has been working for Disney who wanted Oswald who was owned by Universal. So they made a swap: NBC got Al Michaels, and Disney got Oswald the Lucky Rabbit. I wonder how many MBAs they needed to work that out.

Of course, there were other parts of the deal. NBC gave ESPN more access to certain sports events, but the clincher was Oswald. In case you never heard of this lucky rabbit, you're not alone. He was a character created by Walt Disney more than eighty years ago, before Walt came up with that famous mouse of his. Somehow he lost the rights, and somehow Universal/NBC got them.

When I first learned about the deal a few months ago, I thought it was a bit strange. But when I heard Al Michaels' voice the other night on Monday Night Football, I couldn't get it out of my head that this man -- the announcer who, at the 1980 Winter Olympics, came up with the phrase, "Do you believe in miracles?" -- was being traded for a fictional character.

Reacting to the deal, Disney president Robert Iger commented, "... Oswald is back where he belongs, at the home of his creator and among the stable of beloved characters created by Walt himself." I guess the corporate people at Disney thought it was important for Oswald the Lucky Rabbit to finally get away from the bad influence of the likes of Woody Woodpecker and start hanging out with someone like Bambi.

I admit that I don't understand big business, but are the Disney stockholders really excited that after all these years, they've finally recovered Oswald the Lucky Rabbit? Are they saying things like, "I'm not interested in profits or losses as long as we have Walt's rabbit again?"

What about the kids who watch cartoons? Have they been moping for years, uncooperative at home, and uninterested at school because Oswald the Lucky Rabbit has not been part of their lives? In fact, is this rarely seen rabbit what's been missing from American culture all these years? Would the crime rate have gone down and the literacy rate have gone up if we all had just watched Oswald as children?

Who knew that a cartoon character that most of us had never heard of could be so important? And if Oswald is this significant, other cartoon characters might have equal value in American society. When our economic situation started going downhill, should our top economists have consulted Scrooge McDuck? Instead of concentrating on Brad and Angelina, should all those gossip magazines really be focusing on Boris and Natasha? Rather than turning to all those diet gurus, should millions of Americans be commiserating with Porky Pig?

Oswald won't be calling the football games next year instead of Al Michaels, but maybe we're just a slip on a banana peel away from something like that happening. A television performer's career is precarious at best. We've all seen actors and actresses replaced on shows by others who are younger, blonder, or willing to work cheaper. But at least these people were replaced by actual humans. How would you feel if you got back to the office from lunch one day and Tweety Bird was sitting at your desk?

Anything's possible in television. Trading places with cartoon characters could start a trend. Who knows? Maybe David Letterman will end up at ABC in a trade for Fred Flintstone. At least CBS wouldn't have to worry about Fred fooling around.