Friday , August 23 2019
Home / china / Shanghai Disney banned foreign food and small hotel banned drinks are different? | Disney _ Blue Finance_ 新浪

Shanghai Disney banned foreign food and small hotel banned drinks are different? | Disney _ Blue Finance_ 新浪

Original title: Shanghai Disney's Forbidden Food, Is It Different From a Small Hotel Banned Drink?

In my opinion, Shanghai Disney is the main basis of market operations, whatever the structure of property rights behind it, but it also respects the rules under its property rights.

Recently, Shanghai Disney continued to ferment because of a ban on foreign food and college students. In the field of public opinion, he almost praised college students and said he dared to take the law to "protect rights."

Of course, it is not just Shanghai Disney, but many hotels or CTVs are also banned from carrying their own drinks. In places like hotels and CTVs, businesses are forbidden to carry their own drinks. Few people will have hard bars. I like to eat and drink here, but I don't want to consume them. If there is such a person, it will usually be considered for the enemy. These kinds of folk rules are very common and there are very few people who actually do lawsuits.

The reason is simple: who owns the store, listen to which rules. Traders are allowed to carry their own courtesy and are not allowed to carry their own. People are opening the door to doing business, wanting to make more money, what's wrong? But once you put this on Disney, many people don't think it's appropriate. They think Disney is special and it's a different matter. But is this true?

Measuring Shanghai Disney on behalf of "state property rights"

The reason is that Shanghai Disney has no right to ban pus diet. One is that Disney Park is so open and the flow of people is so large that it is equivalent to a scenic spot and belongs to a public place. How can a business manage its own rules in public? Even if you adhere to the rules, do you see which scenic spots in the country are forbidden to carry food?

But Disney Park is bigger, it's just a park and has specific property rights. In nature, there is no essential difference between Disney Park and a restaurant, cinema or even a large mall. If the ownership rights of small hotels are respected, the rights of big businesses will be ignored. What is the equality of legal rules?

There are also friends from the property rights standpoint: Shanghai Disneyland can no longer be regarded as a private enterprise, but rather a joint venture between Shanghai Group Handy and the US company Disney. In Sino-US joint ventures, state assets also belong to the property of the whole nation, so we can not only use "respect for private property", but must also use "public interest" to measure.

In my opinion, Shanghai Disney is the main basis of market operations, whatever the structure of property rights behind it, but it also respects the rules under its property rights. As long as profit-making, Shanghai Disney will pay attention to the long-term economic benefits and actively maintain a variety of resources so that the park can operate for a long time.

I'm not in favor of someone on behalf of "state-owned companies" or "property owners", I go to the state subway to go to the local scenic spots. These businesses have property owners, and they are also in line with "social self" advocacy.

Disney Park is suspected of monopolization, more is imagined

Another reason is that Disney doesn't want to take food out, isn't he trying to make more money? Disney Park is so big, there is only one trader inside. Isn't this a monopoly? So they opposed Disney from a monopoly point of view.

It is forbidden to consume Shanghai Disney food. It has to take into account its dimension of interest. As well as making money from food in the park, it can also save on the cost of cleaning and maintaining brand uniforms. However, Disney may not be right to make more money. In the age of market economy, it is no longer necessary to use "you want to make money" to stigmatize business.

At the core of the question is whether Disney is a monopoly and takes an irregular monopoly interest.

First, Disney Park is the only one in China, and there are only three branches in Asia. Disney's brand is unique, but it also faces competition – this competition comes from other branches and from the outdoor entertainment industry. Disney's price is not expensive enough, as long as consumers can vote on their feet, facing ever-present competition.

Understand this, you can understand: Disney's monopoly is more than imagination. Will Disney set the price of food high? No, there is competition in the indoor dining area and consumers can refuse it. If food in the park is expensive, consumers are slaughtered everywhere, overall consumption will decline, and damage to interests and reputation will also hurt Disney itself – consumers will be angry and refuse to return. At that time, external competition mechanisms will work.

Is the price of Shanghai Disneyland's food expensive to the point of being outrageous? My family and friends have been there several times. Understanding this problem is: it will definitely be more expensive on the outside, but it can still be accepted. Looking at food prices as part of Disney's price tag may be safer.

The real problem with Shanghai Disney is the quest

Another reason is that Disney parks in Europe and the US are not banned. Why is it banned in Asian parks? Unfair

Such complaints do not focus on the rules themselves, but on "fairness". "Seeking justice" is also a violation of traders' property rights.

Disney's various parks have their own rules and regulations that are based solely on the situation in different regions. Disney build a park in China. Most of the employees from management to staff are Chinese. They come to serve consumers to make money. What reason do they discriminate against Chinese consumers? Removing the term "discrimination" is not conducive to good discussion.

The most controversial point on this issue is Disney's turnover. This method of damaging the entire visitor experience is really stupid and violates consumer rights. Even if the costs of overseeing the "restricted range" rule are high, park management and security guards have no right to claim. In response, a consensus has been reached in the field of public opinion.

In other words, Shanghai Disney's ban on foreign food and suspected monopoly may not be so unreasonable in economics, the real problem is in the hunt – Shanghai Disney may ban foreign food but oversee tourists in the park Meal is just legal. To clarify the authenticity of this problem, one yard of code, is a look at the current Shanghai Disney Storm.

□ Chen Xinjiang (media person)

Editor-in-Chief: Zhu Ling

Source link