WHo is able to complete this discussion?
Markis_92
document.pdf
Disneyland Paris: a case analysis demonstrating how glocalization works
Jonathan Matusitz*
Nicholson School of Communication, University of Central Florida at Seminole State College, Partnership Center, 100 Weldon Blvd, Sanford, FL 32773, USA
(Received 18 July 2009; final version received 28 September 2009)
This paper analyzes Disneyland Paris and how glocalization theory has been successfully applied to it. Glocalization means interaction of the global and the local. When the park was first opened, it was such a financial debacle that it has become the typical case study on how not to open a theme park. The mistake that Disney made was to use its traditional method to force-feed its US products to local cultures. The main premise of this paper is that even a giant like Disney has to show adaptation to local preferences in order to generate maximal profits and remain competitive.
Keywords: adaptation; culture; Disney; globalization; glocalization; marketing
Introduction
This paper analyzes the theoretical concept of glocalization and how it has successfully
been applied to Disneyland Paris. Glocalization refers to the interaction of the global and
the local, a cooptation of the global and the local, and the conflation of both universalizing
and particularizing tendencies. Disneyland Paris used to be called Euro Disney. When
Euro Disney was opened, it was such a financial disaster that it has become the typical case
study on how not to open a theme park. The mistake that Disney made was to use its
traditional method to force-feed its US products from its Burbank, CA headquarters to
local cultures (Marr & Fowler, 2007). Yet, it did not work in France. The main premise of
this paper is that even a transnational firm and a global behemoth like the Walt Disney
Company has to show understanding and adaptation to local preferences in order to
generate maximal profits and remain competitive in the global arena.
This paper begins with a detailed description of glocalization theory and how the
concept exemplifies today’s internationalization trends. The paper then proceeds to
describe the evolution of the park from Euro Disney, when the European Disney theme
park first opened in April 1992, to Disneyland Paris, when glocalization and management
changes were brought in. What follows is the heart of this analysis: the glocalization of
Disneyland Paris. This section explains, in detail, the four major glocalizing changes that
have made Disneyland Paris more successful: (1) cutting the price; (2) turning shows and
settings into French style; (3) change of food menus and eating habits; and (4) change of
employee customs and labor policies. The paper ends with a discussion that also includes
suggestions for future research.
ISSN 0965-254X print/ISSN 1466-4488 online
q 2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/09652540903537014
http://www.informaworld.com
*Email: [email protected]
Journal of Strategic Marketing
Vol. 18, No. 3, June 2010, 223–237
Glocalization theory: a description
Glocalization is a theoretical concept developed by Robertson (1994). Glocalization is a
portmanteau of the words ‘globalization’ and ‘localization’ and refers to the interaction of
the global and the local (Andrews & Ritzer, 2007), a cooptation of the global and the local
(de Nuve, 2007; Swyngedouw, 1997), the dynamics of cultural homogenization and
heterogenization (Eric, 2007), and the conflation of both universalizing and particularizing
tendencies (Robertson, 1994). While globalization, in and of itself, emphasizes the
universality of corporate or cultural processes worldwide, glocalization emphasizes
particularism of a global theme, product, or service.
For example, glocalization occurs when McDonald’s replicates its corporate
philosophy and symbols worldwide, while simultaneously catering to local tastes and
preferences. To be more precise, although McDonald’s keeps its golden arches and red
color the same everywhere, it also makes cultural adjustments and shows to be location-
friendly. From this perspective, McDonald’s is flexible. McDonald’s restaurants in Brazil
have ‘happy hours’ with salsa bands. In New Zealand, they serve kiwiburgers. In Egypt,
they have what they call McFalafels (Ritzer, 2007). Falafels are meatballs with beans and
chickpeas inside. These examples demonstrate that glocalization constitutes a model that
is both global and local at the same time (Ingleby, 2006). These McDonald’s examples
also mean that glocalization is synonymous with relocalization, that is, the integration of
local elements into global themes, products, or services (Archer, 2008; Lee, 2003).
What glocalization stresses is that transplanting a theme, product, or service elsewhere
has a higher probability to succeed when it is catered to the local region in which it is
introduced (Appadurai, 1996; Robertson, 2001). The fundamental assumption behind
glocalization is that imposing our cultural values in other cultures does not always work. In
The world is flat, Friedman (2005) argues that if nations want to survive on this planet,
they must sacrifice some of their economic imperialism to global processes in order to
achieve economic success by western standards. Yet, at the same time, to remain ‘local’,
local cultures must maintain, to a certain extent, their local traditions while going through
globalizing processes. Friedman (2005) describes this as glocalization as well. Hence,
glocalization is a variety of globalization that is sensitive to and concerned about
differences within and between areas of the world (Robertson, 2001). The objective of
glocalization is to pursue local market input and break out from the ivory tower. This also
means that no single approach is right in all instances.
Glocalization refers to both small changes in global products and more important
modifications to those products for a specific local market (Robertson, 2007). From this
vantage point, there are direct associations between the local and international levels
(Mooney & Evans, 2007). Local forces work to assuage the impact of global institutions
(Aliet, 2007). As explained in this paper in detail, one of these global institutions is the
economy of global scale set by a behemoth of internationalization: Walt Disney. For the
past two decades, one of the chief concerns the Walt Disney Company has faced regarding
globalization is assessing the fit of what it wishes to transfer abroad with the new host
environment (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1989, 1997; Kogut, 1989; Kogut & Zander, 1992;
Prahalad & Doz, 1987). Since the parent Disney corporation in the USA is significantly
foreign from its subsidiaries on other continents, it is well cognizant that the transferred
Disney assets may not fit the receiving context in host countries (Hymer, 1976; Kostova,
1999; Kostova & Roth, 2002, 2003).
Glocalization is successful when adaptation to foreignness is successful. By and large,
foreignness means dissimilarity – or lack of fit – in operating contexts of a multinational
J. Matusitz224
corporation between home and host environments (Hymer, 1976; Kindleberger, 1969).
Adaptation requires flexibility and tolerance, even encouragement of differences. One of
the greatest hurdles to effectiveness for managers working outside their home country and
culture is a lack of tolerance from the ‘locals’ that they encounter. Nevertheless, simple
tolerance of differences is just the beginning. Authentic adaptation requires managers to
generate diversity in response to local conditions (Ulrich & Smallwood, 2006). We think
we might know a great deal about foreignness, strategic fit, and differences in host cultural
contexts, but there is something about the role of the country environment in the global
transfer of corporation assets that we are missing (Brannen, 2004). As this case study on
the glocalization of Disneyland Paris will demonstrate, glocalization theory helps fill this
gap. Disney experienced unanticipated success in Japan but an equally unanticipated lack
of success in France. This illustrates that, one way or another, in the transfer process, the
transferred firm assets – as well as the notion of foreignness itself – assume unexpected
meanings that directly affect globalization outcomes (Brannen, 2004).
From Euro Disney to Disneyland Paris
In the mid-1980s, with a well-penetrated American market (Finnerty, 2007) and the
phenomenal success of Tokyo Disneyland (Bryman, 2006), Disney’s further expansion
worldwide was deemed necessary in order to achieve optimal market growth. Disney
decided on a geographical location to build a fourth amusement park: Europe. In 1987,
after considering more than 200 possible sites in the area, Paris was chosen; to be more
precise, the Disney theme park would be in the French new town of Marne-La-Vallée
(d’Hauteserre, 1999), located just outside of Paris, at 32 kilometers (or 20 miles) from the
city (Finnerty, 2007). This location was selected not only for its beauty and history, but
also for its vital position in Europe and easy access by train, plane, and cars. While 17
million people lived within a two-hour drive, more than 500 million lived within a six-
hour drive – whereas in 2004 almost 600 million lived within that distance (United
Nations Population Division, 2004). The theme park was considered to be situated inside
the hub of a vast transportation network. As such, the park would be linked to Paris by the
RER (the French regional express metro) suburban railroad system. It would also be
linked to the other main regions of France and Europe by the A4 motorway and, as it was
planned for June 1994, by the train à grande vitesse (high-speed train) railroad network
(Finnerty, 2007).
In addition, although the northerly French climate, particularly damp and cool in the
winter, was less appealing than the alternative location in Spain, the decision to select
the Paris area was facilitated by the guarantee of financial incentives and developments
of transport systems (Palmer, Cockton, & Cooper, 2007). Regional and national
governments, especially from France, agreed to provide helpful financial incentives as
they were eager to see the project as urban regeneration (Clarke & Chen, 2007). Disney
planned to build the theme park on about 4800 acres of land (Capodagli & Jackson,
2006). Approximately half of the developable land (2115 acres) would be used for
entertainment and resort facilities. Another 1994 acres would be exploited for retail,
commercial, industrial, and residential uses. The remaining acreage (that is, 691 acres)
would be devoted to regional and primary infrastructure, like roads and railway tracks
(Finnerty, 2007).
After the partnership between Disney and the French authorities was officially
implemented, the Disney theme park was built (Clarke & Chen, 2007). Upon completion,
Euro Disney, as it was called then, was the biggest theme park and resort development in
Journal of Strategic Marketing 225
Europe. The workforce that was necessary to build Euro Disney created and attracted
many jobs. It also served as the mechanism for the wholesale regeneration of the area. In
total, almost 80,000 jobs had been created by 1990, 66.6% of which were in the tertiary
sector (Ministère de l’Equipement, 1996). Although such theme parks target middle-class
customers, Euro Disney generated many jobs for unskilled and low-skilled employees
(Lanquar, 1992).
Euro Disney finally opened on 12 April 1992 (Adekola & Sergi, 2007). At the time,
Euro Disney was employing 12,000 people and had predicted that there would be 11
million visitors in the first year. Euro Disney consisted of the park, six hotels, and an
entertainment and retail center (Plunkett, 2008). In spite of all the publicity, enthusiasm,
and anticipation, the first season that Euro Disney’s first chairman, Robert Fitzpatrick, had
forecast was unsuccessful. Although Fitzpatrick spoke French well, earned two awards
from the French government, and was married to a French woman, his management style
was still too American, with substandard results (Hartley, 2007). He did not see expected
levels in attendance (50,000 people visited the park instead of the projected 500,000), food
and souvenir sales were low, occupancy rates in the six hotels were low, and the Disney
corporation could not capitalize on its enormous land holdings. Within days, hundreds of
Euro Disney employees quit their jobs amid complaints of working conditions (Wiseman,
2005). Within the first four months, over 1000 employees left for the same reasons
(Adekola & Sergi, 2007).
Euro Disney’s situation was in a predicament. Its stock ownership declined to 39%
(Aupperle & Karimalis, 2001). Per person spending in the park was less than 50% of what
was spent, per person, at Tokyo Disneyland. Hotel occupancy rates were 37%, a sharp
contrast with the rest of Disney’s US properties, where occupancy rates were 92%. The
French government’s appropriation of farmland for Euro Disney was the subject of
protests from French farmers (Mobley & Weldon, 2006). The fact that Euro Disney was
built on a former sugar beet field in Marne-La-Vallée was severely criticized for being
culturally insensitive to its European guests (Holson, 2005). In the summer of 2004, Euro
Disney’s shares sank by 13% in a single day (‘Trouble in le Royaume Magique’, 2004). As
ticket sales declined, the amount of debt increased (Smith, 2004). Many in the
entertainment industry call the opening of Euro Disney an exemplary study on how not to
open a theme park (Holson, 2005).
In line with these contentions, critics in France referred to Euro Disney as a symbol of
cultural imperialism that was ‘plastic’ (Palmer et al., 2007), the new beachhead of
American imperialism (Adekola & Sergi, 2007), a transplant of American culture into one
of the intellectual centers of Europe (Palmer et al., 2007), the exemplification of all that is
wrong with American culture; size, money, and Hollywood (Adekola & Sergi, 2007),
cultural wasteland (Aupperle & Karimalis, 2001), cultural Chernobyl (Gitlin, 2007), and
‘not Europe’s cup of tea’ (Morris-Dixon, 1992). Furthermore, critic Jean Cau blatantly
described Euro Disney as a horrible constructive design built with cardboard, plastic, and
appalling colors, and a chewing-gum construction spiced with idiotic folklore taken
directly from comic books and targeted for obese Americans (Palmer et al., 2007). After
World War II, the French government (and particularly the intellectual elite) developed a
sentiment of anti-Americanism, which escalated during the Vietnam War (Fielding, 2008).
They were dismayed, irritated, and even outraged by the power of American culture and its
impact on France and the rest of the world. For the past 60 years or so, France’s main
consolation has been the conviction that their culture is better than anything Walt Disney
or Hollywood can offer (Riding, 2006).
J. Matusitz226
After heavy losses, Euro Disney was doing so poorly that it was believed it would shut
down. Although Tokyo Disneyland was making money, Euro Disney went nearly
bankrupt (‘Year of the mouse’, 2005). Robert Fitzpatrick resigned as Euro Disney’s first
chairman in April 1993, six years after he took the job (Bryman, 1995). Now, Euro
Disney’s new chairman was Philippe Bourguignon, a Disney insider who was French.
After careful reevaluation of its major problems, Disney management realized that the
company tried to impose a global strategy rather than a local strategy that could
accommodate the needs of Europeans (Rugman & Hodgetts, 2001). Disney committed the
mistake of concentrating its entry efforts on negotiating a more advantageous venture
contract, thereby leaving the typical Disney theme park design, management style, and
employee philosophy untouched (Brannen, 2004).
The Disney corporation was forced to change its approach. The transition from
Fitzpatrick to Bourguignon was a radical shift from American-style management to
European-style management (White, 2004). Bourguignon spun Euro Disney around
completely (Kotabe & Helsen, 2007). By appointing a French manager, top US-based
CEOs such as Michael Eisner now recognized the importance of European cultural
traditions. The company began making a series of essential modifications. First of all, it
renamed Euro Disney ‘Disneyland Paris’, after two other names had yielded unsuccessful
results; that is, ‘Euro Disneyland’ and ‘Euro Disneyland Paris’. The new name,
‘Disneyland Paris’, was selected as it would help locate the theme park with precision on
the map of Europe (Kaikati & Kaikati, 2003).
Second, another major change implemented by the Disney corporation was to change
management: the new chairman was Gilles Pelisson, who replaced Philippe Bourguignon
in 1997 (Smith, 2006), and later, André Lacroix, a French citizen appointed as the new
boss in 2003, who introduced new shows (‘Trouble in le Royaume Magique’, 2004). Both
managers boosted marketing. A third major change, facilitated by the new managers, was
to abandon Disney’s global approach and substitute one that appealed to local tastes
(Rugman & Hodgetts, 2001). In other words, the implementation of glocalization has been
the key to success of Disneyland Paris. The next section is the heart of the paper; it
demonstrates how glocalization works by focusing on the Disneyland Paris operation, a
model of glocalization that had to claim its own independence Bastille-style. Indeed,
Parisian independence was the best possibility (Aupperle & Karimalis, 2001).
The glocalization of Disneyland Paris
Glocalization is an example of what changes should be made after a company
unsuccessfully tries to impose its entire culture in other countries (Martin, 2007).
Following a disappointing beginning, Disneyland Paris was forced to glocalize its
corporate philosophy, practices, services, attractions, and products to adapt the park to
European tastes (Lainsbury, 2000). The first manager of Euro Disney had low knowledge
of French culture (Adekola & Sergi, 2007). For this reason, some tailoring to link into
European culture (Palmer et al., 2007) and to understand the fundamentals of French
culture (Aupperle & Karimalis, 2001) was implemented.
As O’Brien (1992) remarked, Olivier de Borsedon, president of Parc Astérix, nurtured
the idea that Disneyland Paris needed to have a true combination of a French/American
park. For Borsedon, this had to be achieved through a better analysis, interpretation,
evaluation, and implementation of the French culture’s components (Aupperle &
Karimalis, 2001). It was only after Disneyland Paris quit turning its staff into American
clones and started catering to local tastes that the Paris operation worked passionately and
Journal of Strategic Marketing 227
keenly to distance itself from US Disney interference in an attempt to be more closely
rooted to its European/French clientele (Aupperle & Karimalis, 2001). Eventually, the
major changes bore fruit: Disneyland Paris became the number-one paid attraction in
Europe (Martin, 2007).
This section explains, in detail, the four major glocalizing changes that have made
Disneyland Paris more successful: (1) cutting the price; (2) turning shows and settings into
French style; (3) change of food menus and eating habits; and (4) change of employee
customs and labor policies.
Cutting the price
When Euro Disney opened in April 1992, Europe was still amidst an economic
recession (Palmer et al., 2007). So, the high admission prices were, literally, a turn-off to
European visitors. The situation was made worse by the high prices on merchandise and
menus inside the park, which was reflected through low spending on Euro Disney
products and other items. Before the April 1992 opening, a market research survey
revealed that the French were unwilling to spend over 200ff (French francs) for a single
adult to enter the park. Disney fired the chief executive at that time (an American) and
hired a French chief executive who lowered admission prices. Before that, prices were
high. There were not only high by European standards; there were also higher than
Disney’s two American parks (Adekola & Sergi, 2007). So, in 1995, a year after it
became ‘Disneyland Paris’, the admission price for a single adult was cut. As a result,
the number of visitors increased by about 23% in 1995. During that year, the park
operated at a profit for the first time (Monroe & Cox, 2001). During the 1996 season, the
number of visitors increased by 33%. Of equal relevance is the fact that, by the year
1996, 40% of the visitors were from France, half of whom were from the Paris area
(Monroe & Cox, 2001).
In addition, when Euro Disney opened in 1992, the American-style hotels built around
the park cost $300 a night, which was not practical for the typical French family taking, on
average, a three- to six-week vacation (Jandt, 2007). By the time the park changed its name
to Disneyland Paris, it reduced its hotel prices. Disney also misunderstood how Europeans
arrange vacations. Unlike Americans, who like to book their trips directly with Disney,
Europeans like to go through travel agents. In 1992, Disney did not think about training
travel agents, leading to fewer bookings (Holson, 2005). By the same token, Europeans
were unlikely to spend the whole of their holiday period at a theme park, preferring to dip
in and out for just a day or two to experience the rides or attractions (Palmer et al., 2007).
Changes were also made in that regard.
Turning shows and settings into French style
Despite the anti-Americanism sentiment started by the French intellectual elite after
World War II, the average French citizen is a passionate consumer of Disney products,
particularly comic books (Dobbs, 1986). When the park was opened, France was very
familiar with the series of Disney characters (i.e. Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Goofy,
and others). In addition to Disney characters, shows, settings, and other Disney
paraphernalia had been widely experienced by the French when growing up, even long
before the entry of the Disney theme park. In other words, there was plenty of pre-existing
context for Disney in France (Brannen, 2004). Yet, such Disney experience in the host
country did not help.
J. Matusitz228
To begin, most French children’s experience with Disney characters comes from
reading Le Journal Mickey – a comic book series where characters like Mickey are
portrayed more cunningly and with a bit more brains than the American Mickey (DeRoo,
2006). So, the perception of Mickey Mouse in France is different. The traditional US
virtuous and puritan version of Mickey is considered uninteresting among the French.
What this means is that there is a negative semantic fit at a conceptual level. Therefore,
Mickey is perceived as bland at Disneyland Paris (Brannen, 2004). Mickey is just an
example of many. In general, during the ‘Euro Disney’ time, French visitors thought
that the theme park had an overwhelming American orientation. For instance, it was
‘too American’ for the French to celebrate Halloween. After realizing this, the new
management placed more emphasis on events familiar to Europeans (Adekola & Sergi,
2007). Besides, adult visitors at Euro Disney thought that their children were running the
risk of eroding both their culture and their imagination (Champin, 1992). The French did
not have a similar context of gift giving to fit into; so Euro Disney souvenirs were much
less popular. In fact, still to this day, Disneyland Paris has the lowest sales of souvenirs
among all Disney’s theme parks. Among the interviewed parents who visit Disneyland
Paris with their children, they say that Disney souvenirs are viewed as tacky and a waste of
money (Brannen, 2004).
This statement about the ‘tackiness’ of Disney products brings an interesting point:
according to Aupperle and Karimalis (2001), since the French and Europeans are quite
content with their own culture overall, they tend to desire more local content in their
parks. To the Europeans, it is better to have something that is authentic than something
reconstructed from fiberglass. From this vantage point, detail and craftsmanship are more
appealing than heart-stopping rides. A setting does not have to be sparkling and
impressive or look like it is new. Rather, it should be authentic, that is, made of wood
(Jefferson, 1993). Euro Disney was perceived to be too American, too cowboy, and too
simplistic. In places like northern France, a theme park needs to be exceptionally
cosmopolitan, something that reflects a ‘Tapestry of Nations’ like the theme of global
nations at Disney’s Epcot.
As a result, glocalization in Disneyland Paris became the key. Proper modifications
were made. Today, settings are different from what they were at Euro Disney. The theme
park looks less glittering, more authentic. US products have been downplayed; souvenir
stores carry sweatshirts with small, underemphasized Disney logos (Jandt, 2007). Since
the Walt Disney Company proved capable of incorporating memorable Disney characters,
designs, and movies within an environment that progressively became European-Parisian,
it turned out to be that American culture was less rejected (Aupperle & Karimalis, 2001).
Before, most exhibits and rides did not have a local theme and did not appeal to
Europeans (Rugman & Hodgetts, 2001). Now, shows, attractions, and exhibits are more
Europeanized. For instance, managers at Disneyland Paris got inspired by Jules Verne’s
novels and came up with a unique version of the Tomorrowland (Yee, 2006), where the
future can be as distant as Mars (Telotte, 2008). The park created other European-specific
attractions also based on Jules Verne’s stories, that is, history movie shows and a science
fiction tour (Rugman & Hodgetts, 2001). Minnie, Mickey’s lover, was transformed into a
French star, reminiscent of Josephine Baker and other chanteuses of the Moulin Rouge,
supplied with flashy dresses and garters (Brannen, 2004).
More importantly, buildings were less painted with US Disney-type colors. As it is the
case for all elements of visual identity, it is the local environment within which colors and
logos are used that will determine their relevancy (Neal & Neal, 2007). When Euro Disney
was launched, Disney faced problems with graphics and colors. Disney’s signs used great
Journal of Strategic Marketing 229
amounts of purple – a color widely seen on signs in Disney’s US sites. Yet, visitors found
purple morbid; in Catholic Europe, purple is considered a symbol of death and crucifixion.
Glocalization had to take this religious difference (or even superstition) into account
(Hammond, 2008). In a similar vein, the French had issues with an employee who painted
a Disneyland Hotel in pink, even before Disney management approved the color. The
painter thought pink was the right color and had started painting (Lymbersky, 2008). Pink
in Europe does not always have positive connotations. Among many other things, the
Nazis ordered homosexuals to wear a pink insignia before killing them in gas chambers
(Plant, 1988).
Change of food menus and eating habits
Until glocalization was brought to Disneyland Paris, Disney theme parks around the world
were notorious for not serving alcohol, especially in public areas of the parks. This
decision was motivated by the belief that alcohol and a safe, fun experience for the family
were not a good match. Not surprisingly, during Euro Disney times, alcohol was not
available on any site (Palmer et al., 2007). Although many visitors were habituated to
having an alcoholic beverage with lunch or dinner, liquor was not sold (Rugman &
Hodgetts, 2001). Unfortunately, guests at the European theme park complained about the
rule (Ulrich & Smallwood, 2006). American puritanical family values jarred with
European – especially French – traditions of having wine with their meals (Aupperle &
Karimalis, 2001). Not offering wine was more than a culinary faux pas among the French;
it was an insult (Holson, 2005).
Additionally, the American habit of eating a little while walking around – a practice
called ‘grazing’ (Wilkins & Wyche, 2008) – conflicted with the French habit of sitting
down to eat a massive meal with a glass or two of wine (Palmer et al., 2007). Since in
Disneyland Paris everyone arrives at 9:30 a.m. and leaves at 5:30 p.m., they like to have
lunch at 12:30 p.m. This resulted in producing huge crowds of brusque and bad-tempered
patrons at the park’s restaurants between 12 p.m. and 1 p.m. According to Jefferson
(1993), Disney’s employees had to engage in some behavior modification in order to cater
to the guests’ requests during lunchtime. More recently, it appears that the Walt Disney
Company has learned its lesson; the appointment of André Lacroix, a French citizen, to
run Disneyland Paris and the serving of liquor in the park have eased tensions somewhat
(Jandt, 2007).
After alcohol was introduced, Disney hoped to appease visitors by offering more
French food (Holson, 2005) and a more international menu in the restaurants (Palmer et al.,
2007). The subject of gastronomic universalism, such as US hamburgers, imposed in
places like Disneyland Paris is significant in demonstrating the success played by the
glocalization of local foods and dishes within the meal-structure system. Indeed, the
business model for the production of hamburgers, exported to other theme parks
worldwide, to replicate exactly what people eat in Disneyland in California and
Disneyworld in Florida did not work in the European theme park (Montanari, 2006).
The reason is simple: Disneyland parkgoers like hamburgers sufficiently well, but only
at mealtimes, whereas Americans eat them at any time, from morning to evening. Such a
scheduling situation posed serious problems to Disney as there were too many people
hired to flip and serve hamburgers all day long (very few personnel were needed
for morning and afternoon requirements). Yet, at the same time, there were not
enough employees at noon, when visitors waiting for lunch formed long queues
(Montanari, 2006).
J. Matusitz230
Likewise, rather than only fast-food outlets, Disneyland Paris also offered table-
service restaurants (Jandt, 2007). Waiters had to change their attitude toward patrons as
well. While in the United States, the ‘customer is always right’, in France, where waiters
like to advise (and take pride in doing so) patrons if their choice of dishes is not a good one,
the idea that the ‘customer is always right’ does not hold water (Brannen, 2004). So,
Disneyland Paris management had to consider these things when training waiters. As
Holson (2005) argues, although Disney used to be exported on its own terms, for the past
10 years or so US cultural imperialism has been tested. Now Disney had to become more
French and European.
Change of employee customs and labor policies
Glocalization implies that strategy and change are inherently linked. When the Walt
Disney Company attempted to impose US customs on French workers and management,
it was a debacle. Disney lost a great amount of revenue and employee morale was
exceptionally low. Strategy and change management go together (Liebowitz, 2006). Labor
policies were clashing with worker expectations, which led 3000 employees to leave over
pay and working conditions within a month of the opening day (Rugman & Hodgetts,
2001). As Champin (1992) pointed out, Euro Disney was seen as a gigantic shopping
center with too few worn-out and underpaid employees.
Besides, Euro Disney was the subject of lawsuits in France because there was a lack of
fit between US-imposed personnel policies and French workers charged to enact them
(Brannen, 2004; Brannen & Wilson, 1996; Van Maanen, 1991, 1992; Van Maanen &
Laurent, 1992). For instance, although French was the first official language, local staff
were required to be bilingual (Palmer et al., 2007). Management made it clear that English
would be the first language at the theme park (Adekola & Sergi, 2007). Workers were
required to speak English at meetings, even if most of them were French (Rugman &
Hodgetts, 2001). Later, after new managers came in, French and other European languages
were allowed to be used as employees’ first language. Competent interpreters were hired.
Some attractions were named in French while others kept their original American name.
Signs were both in English and in French (Adekola & Sergi, 2007).
In line with these contentions, when Euro Disney opened, it was using the same ‘Look
Book’ (a handbook on how to dress and behave) as the one used in the two Disney theme
parks in the United States. This caused a stir because the French do not have the same
perceptions of beauty as Americans do. More importantly, they were shocked at what they
saw as an invasiveness of Disney’s employee grooming policies which specified the length
of earrings and colors of mascara (Segalla, 2001). The ‘Look Book’ also stated that female
employees must wear clear nail polish and very little, if any, make-up (Adekola & Sergi,
2007). Fingernails could not be longer than fingertips and hair had to be naturally colored
(Neal & Neal, 2007). Female employees needed to wear appropriate undergarments
(Green, 2007) – specifically, such items as stockings having the typical color of a person’s
skin (Adekola & Sergi, 2007), transparent pantyhose (no colors or designs), and skirts at
four centimeters above the knee.
The requirements were no less rigorous for men, who were required to have short
haircuts, could not wear earrings (Neal & Neal, 2007), and had to shave their beards in
keeping with Disney’s image. French workers who handed out or received tickets and
operated the rides were told to shave off any facial hair and use deodorant. Everything was
done the US Disney way. The French considered this requirement as inconsiderate to their
cultural norms (Martin, 2007). The Walt Disney Company defended this wholesome
Journal of Strategic Marketing 231
American look as an essential role that employees must play in order to stage the ‘Happiest
Place on Earth’ (Brannen, 2004). Not only did staffing and staff retention prove
problematic, but, also, the stringent Disney dress code violated French labor laws (Palmer
et al., 2007). In January 1995, the theme park was charged with violating French labor
laws (Brannen, 2004). Accordingly, the ‘Look Book’ was changed to cater to employee
customs and labor policies in France. Employees were now allowed to wear colorful nail
polish and different colored stockings. At last, they could be themselves and so staff
turnover went down (Adekola & Sergi, 2007).
Of equal relevance is the fact that the ‘smile factory’ so dear to Disney was
unsuccessfully transplanted in its European theme park; cast members there could just not
smile to the level of Disney University standard (Doz, Santos, & Williamson, 2001). The
simple reason is that French workers dislike providing the smiles and friendly greetings so
anticipated at any amusement park (Cheney, Christensen, Zorn, & Ganesh, 2004). In fact,
they were required to smile at customers in less than 60 seconds of their entering the theme
park. This was a real problem because the French are not notorious for their hospitality
(Adekola & Sergi, 2007). Faking a smile or overly smiling falls under an overarching
concept called ‘emotional labor’. Emotional labor has been a major site for resistance
(Bryman, 2006). Emotional labor refers to a type of emotional regulation whereby
employees display the emotions that they are required to display as part of their job. This is
mostly surface acting, because employees suppress their real feelings and, instead, present
emotions on the ‘surface’; that is, emotions that they do not actually feel (Geist-Martin,
Ray, & Sharf, 2003). Surface acting also means that there is an emotional dissonance
between inner feelings and outer expression (Guy, Newman, & Mastracci, 2008).
All the difficulties that the Walt Disney Company experienced in its attempt to transfer
its US corporate philosophy to France contributed to making Euro Disney a less friendly
and less orderly place. It also contributed to a less clean environment. For instance, it was
not unusual to see untidy bathrooms, bathrooms with broken stall doors, grounds that were
littered, an insufficient number of sidewalk sweepers in sight (a notable feature at other
Disney parks), and, in one instance, a quarrel between a food server and a guest over a bill
payment (Brannen & Wilson, 1996; Van Maanen, 1992; Van Maanen & Laurent, 1992).
So, Disney rules and regulations with respect to employee behavior were radically
altered (Rugman & Hodgetts, 2001). What mostly happened was a shift from ethnocentric
staffing to polycentric staffing. Ethnocentric staffing involves sending one of the organiz-
ation’s ‘own members’ (i.e. of the same background and culture) abroad to manage. As we
have seen, American management at Disney had low knowledge of French culture.
Because of this, the company lost almost $1 million in 1992 and 1993. The following
season, Disney changed to polycentric staffing (Adekola & Sergi, 2007). Polycentric
staffing is a situation in which local managers from within the culture are hired to fill
management positions (Scullion, 2006). New managers, for instance, relaxed Disney’s
traditional top–down managerial style and promoted more individual initiatives.
Eventually, managerial staff was cut by 1000 (Mobley & Weldon, 2006).
The success of glocalization
The glocalizing changes have proved successful. Today, Disneyland Paris has generated a
lot of profits. Over 12 million visitors a year queue up to get into the theme park (Kapferer,
2008). Disneyland Paris has had so much success that it has contributed to reducing
demands for visits to UK theme parks (Davies, 2006). With the new extension of
Disneyland Paris, called Walt Disney Studios, and with two theme parks, seven themed
J. Matusitz232
hotels, and a 28-hole golf course, Disneyland Paris has become Europe’s premier resort
and tourist destination (Clarke & Chen, 2007). The Walt Disney Company continues to
draw yearly royalties for the acknowledgement and franchise of its brands and trademarks
(all of Disney characters) to Disneyland Paris (Kapferer, 2008). Witnessing significant
improvement in sales at Disneyland Paris, the French government recently helped the
theme park even more by offering loan concessions and investments (Holson, 2005). Local
anti-Disney hostility has faded away. Thus, glocalization was necessary: what works well
in the United States cannot be directly transplanted overseas, as is visible through its new
regionally focused strategies (Rugman & Hodgetts, 2001).
Discussion and future directions
What this paper has demonstrated is that even the Walt Disney Company, the epitome of
a transnational firm and a global behemoth par excellence, has to show understanding
and adaptation to local preferences in order to generate maximal profits and remain
competitive in the global arena. As have seen, during Euro Disney times, the Walt Disney
Company failed to understand not only the French’s food preferences, but also their eating
habits and meal times, their conception of how much should be spent (or not spent) on
Disney souvenirs or admission tickets, their view of Mickey Mouse and what settings and
backgrounds should look like, what colors should be used on signs and hotels, employee
customs and labor policies, and their version of dress code and even emotional labor.
Truly, this analysis of Disneyland Paris demonstrates that glocalization works: Disney
had to be flexible by factoring in French culture and minimizing American culture, as it
was considered cultural imperialism. As corporations become global, managers have to
balance the efficiency opportunities of global scale with the effectiveness requirements of
location adaptation (Ulrich & Smallwood, 2006). With glocalization, scholars may
reconsider the concept of globalization and concede that it cannot always be a successful
process if it operates entirely at a global scale. Instead, globalization has to be localized
through a range of strategies, depending on which region the corporation is located
(Rugman & Hodgetts, 2000). Just as managers decide and establish what is core and, thus,
common across the corporation’s global operations, they must also determine what is
noncore and, thus, be open to local adaptation. Planet earth is too gigantic and too diverse
to even contemplate the idea that every corporate philosophy, culture, policy, and practice
(let alone product, service, or process) can be the same everywhere. Disney demonstrates
that it simply does not work (Ulrich & Smallwood, 2006).
The glocalization of Disney also exemplifies that the world is not being transformed
into a single homogenized sphere because, across the globe, there are sites of resistance,
regardless of the momentum of this revered representative of popular culture (Bryman,
2006). What this means is that we must give due consideration that we cannot subscribe to
a monolithic or one-dimensional view of globalization or Americanization, a thesis that
portrays icons of American culture spreading by design worldwide and riding roughshod
over local conditions and practices. Scholars who have conducted studies on Disney have
suggested that it is erroneous to think of globalization as a simple process of subsuming
foreign cultures (Bryman, 2006; Zaheer, 2002). Not only has the Walt Disney Company
accommodated to Europe’s local preferences and dietary requirements, but it has also
applied the glocalization model to different cultures, such as the one in Hong Kong after
the Hong Kong Disneyland was opened in 2005 (Zhang, 2007).
Understanding glocalization theory is a particularly pressing concern, because
Disney’s experience is one of the many instances that indicate the current upward trend in
Journal of Strategic Marketing 233
the glocalization of firms that increasingly transfer complex assets abroad. Now, more
than ever, corporations are not just adapting ideas, themes, products, and services, but
also entire organizations, including corporate philosophies and strategies, operational
procedures, models for supervisor–employee relations, and so forth. These have to be ever
more closely linked to the contexts and the sociocultural environments in which they are
enacted (Kostova & Roth, 2003).
For future research, it might prove interesting to further analyze the concept of
glocalization not as a substitute for globalization, but as a process giving globalization a
new shape, a fresh angle. Does glocalization mean the end of global strategy, when it was
believed that firms could totally impose the global on the local and, therefore, be ultra
penetrative to local cultures, to such a point that they would erode those cultures? In other
words, is the global getting out while the glocal is getting in? Likewise, does glocalization
mean that a company like Disney, or even Wal-Mart, is now required to give more power
to local managers in order to successfully tailor its strategies for the local markets?
Disneyland Paris demonstrated this when the company replaced Stephen Burke – the new
American manager who had generated improvements and profits already – with local
French managers like Philippe Bourguignon (Adekola & Sergi, 2007) and André Lacroix
(‘Trouble in le Royaume Magique’, 2004).
Finally, in the case of the Disney expansion worldwide, what would be better for
optimal glocalization success: to build equally big or even bigger theme parks on other
continents, or to sketch out a string of niche resorts and attractions in other countries? Put
it another way, does glocalization work best in small portions worldwide, by catering
meticulously to local towns and regions, or in large sections, by catering to larger
populations? No matter what, it was long thought that the Walt Disney Company could
reach a high profile likely to accelerate the global spread of its underlying principles
(Bryman, 2006). Nevertheless, the reality is that Disney’s conventional approach to force-
feed its US products from its Burbank, CA headquarters to local cultures has somewhat
been mollified and mitigated (Marr & Fowler, 2007).
References
Adekola, A., & Sergi, B.S. (2007). Global business management. Burlington, VT: Ashgate. Aliet, J. (2007). Convergence and glocalization – not counter-penetration and domestication: A
response to Prof. Ali Mazrui. Alternatives: Turkish Journal of International Relations, 6(1), 1–14.
Andrews, D.L., & Ritzer, G. (2007). The grobal in the sporting glocal. Global Networks, 7, 135–153. Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press. Archer, K. (2008). Cultures of globalization: Coherence, hybridity, contestation. New York:
Routledge. Aupperle, K.E., & Karimalis, G.N. (2001). Using metaphors to facilitate cooperation and resolve
conflict: Examining the case of Disneyland Paris. Journal of Change Management, 2(1), 23–32. Bartlett, C.A., & Ghoshal, S. (1989). Managing across borders: The transnational solution. Boston:
Harvard Business School Press. Bartlett, C.A., & Ghoshal, S. (1997). Transnational management: Text, cases, and readings in cross-
border management. Boston: Irwin. Brannen, M.Y. (2004). When Mickey loses face: Recontextualization, semantic fit, and the semiotics
of foreignness. Academy of Management Review, 29, 593–616. Brannen, M.Y., & Wilson, J.M., II. (1996). Recontextualization and internationalization: Lessons in
transcultural materialism from the Walt Disney Company. CEMS Business Review, 1(1), 97–110.
Bryman, A. (1995). Disney and his worlds. New York: Routledge.
J. Matusitz234
Bryman, A. (2006). Global implications of McDonaldization and Disneyization. In G. Ritzer (Ed.), McDonaldization: The reader (pp. 319–325). Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
Capodagli, B., & Jackson, L. (2006). The Disney way: Harnessing the management secrets Disney in your company. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Champin, F. (1992). Disney conquers Europe. House Beautiful, 134(11), 42–43. Cheney, G., Christensen, L.T., Zorn, T.E., Jr, & Ganesh, S. (2004). Organizational communication
in an age of globalization: Issues, reflections, practices. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press. Clarke, A., & Chen, W. (2007). International hospitality management: Concepts and cases. Boston:
Butterworth-Heinemann. Davies, P. (2006). Business, economics and enterprise: Teaching school subjects 11–19. London:
Routledge. de Nuve, T. (2007). The glocal and the singuniversal. Third Text, 21, 681–688. DeRoo, R. (2006). The museum establishment and contemporary art: The politics of artistic display
in France after 1968. Cambridge: University Press. d’Hauteserre, A.M. (1999). The French mode of social regulation and sustainable tourism
development: The case of Disneyland Paris. Tourism Geographies, 1(1), 86–107. Dobbs, M. (1986). Mickey Mouse storms the Bastille. Across the Board, 23(4), 9–11. Doz, Y., Santos, J., & Williamson, P. (2001). From global to metanational: Competing globally in
the knowledge economy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Eric, Z. (2007). Glocalisation, art exhibitions and the Balkans. Third Text, 21, 207–210. Fielding, L. (2008). Before the killing fields: Witness to Cambodia and the Vietnam War. London:
I.B. Tauris. Finnerty, J.D. (2007). Project financing: Asset-based financial engineering. New York: Wiley. Friedman, T.L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. New York:
Farrar, Strauss & Giroux. Geist-Martin, P., Ray, E.B., & Sharf, B. (2003). Communicating health: Personal, cultural, and
political complexities. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Press. Gitlin, T. (2007). Media unlimited: How the torrent of images and sounds overwhelms our lives.
New York: Holt Paperbacks. Green, D. (2007). Building a better mouse: The story of the electronic imagineers who designed
Epcot. Orlando, FL: CreateSpace. Guy, M.E., Newman, M.A., & Mastracci, S.H. (2008). Emotional labor: Putting the service in public
service. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. Hammond, J. (2008). Branding your business: Promoting your business, attracting customers and
standing out in the market place. London: Kogan Page. Hartley, R.F. (2007). Management mistakes and successes. New York: Wiley. Holson, L.M. (2005, April 25). The Feng Shui Kingdom. New York Times, 154(53195), C1–C2. Hymer, S. (1976). The international operations of national firms. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Ingleby, J. (2006). Globalisation, glocalisation and mission. Transformation, 23(1), 49–53. Jandt, F. (2007). An introduction to intercultural communication: Identities in a global community
(5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Jefferson, D.J. (1993, March 23). Cheap thrills. The Wall Street Journal, p. R11. Kaikati, J.G., & Kaikati, A.M. (2003). A rose by any other name: Rebranding campaigns that work.
Journal of Business Strategy, 24(6), 1–18. Kapferer, J.N. (2008). The new strategic brand management: Creating and sustaining brand equity
long term. London: Kogan Page. Kindleberger, C. (1969). American business abroad. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Kogut, B. (1989). Research notes and communications: A note on global strategies. Strategic
Management Journal, 10, 383–389. Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication
of technology. Organization Science, 3, 383–397. Kostova, T. (1999). Transnational transfer of strategic organizational practices: A contextual
perspective. Academy of Management Review, 24, 308–324. Kostova, T., & Roth, K. (2002). Adoption of an organizational practice by subsidiaries of
multinational corporations: Institutional and relational effects. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 215–233.
Kostova, T., & Roth, K. (2003). Social capital in multinational corporations and a micro-macro model of its formation. Academy of Management Review, 28, 297–317.
Journal of Strategic Marketing 235
Kotabe, M., & Helsen, K. (2007). Global marketing management. New York: Wiley. Lainsbury, A. (2000). Once upon an American dream: The story of Euro Disneyland. Lawrence:
University of Kansas Press. Lanquar, R. (1992). L’empire Disney. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Lee, C.C. (2003). Media business strategies in the global era: From a ‘connectivity’ perspective.
Mass Communication Research, 75, 1–36. Liebowitz, J. (2006). Strategic intelligence: Business intelligence, competitive intelligence, and
knowledge management. London: Auerbach. Lymbersky, C. (2008). Market entry strategies: Text, cases and readings in market entry
management. Hamburg, Germany: Management Laboratory Press. Marr, M., & Fowler, G.A. (2007, June 11). Disney rewrites script to win fans in India. Wall Street
Journal – Eastern Edition, 249(135), A1–A10. Martin, D. (2007). Rebuilding brand America: What we must do to restore our reputation and
safeguard the future of American business abroad. New York: AMACOM. Ministère de l’Equipement. (1996). Atlas des villes nouvelles de l’Ile-de-France. Paris: Edition
Villes et Territoires. Mobley, W., & Weldon, E. (2006). Advances in global leadership. New York: JAI Press. Monroe, K.B., & Cox, J.L. (2001). Pricing practices that endanger profits. Marketing Management,
10(3), 42–47. Montanari, M. (2006). Food is culture. Columbia: University Press. Mooney, A., & Evans, B. (2007). Globalization: The key concepts. London: Routledge. Morris-Dixon, J. (1992). Disney over there: Disney’s brand of architectural patronage has been
implanted in Europe, but the question remains: Can themed architecture be really good. Progressive Architecture, 73(7), 76–100.
Neal, J., & Neal, M. (2007). The complete guide to Walt Disney World 2008. Celebration, FL: Coconut Press.
O’Brien, T. (1992). Euro Disneyland: Can they make it work? Amusement Business, 104(24), 18–20.
Palmer, R., Cockton, J., & Cooper, G. (2007). Managing marketing: Marketing success through good management practice. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Plant, R. (1988). The pink triangle: The Nazi war against homosexuals. New York: Holt Paperbacks. Plunkett, J.W. (2008). Plunkett’s entertainment & media industry almanac 2008. Houston, TX:
Plunkett Research. Prahalad, C.K., & Doz, Y. (1987). The multinational mission. New York: Free Press. Riding, A. (2006, December 26). American culture’s French connection. New York Times, 2831, 1. Ritzer, G. (2007). The globalization of nothing 2. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. Robertson, R. (1994). Globalisation or glocalisation? Journal of International Communication, 1(1),
33–52. Robertson, R. (2001). Globalization theory 2000þ: Major problematic. In G. Ritzer & B. Smart
(Eds.), Handbook of social theory (pp. 458–471). London: Sage. Robertson, R. (2007). Glocalization. In R. Robertson & J.A. Scholte (Eds.), Encyclopedia of
globalization (pp. 524–552). New York: Routledge. Rugman, A., & Hodgetts, R. (2000). International business. London: Pearson Education/Prentice
Hall. Rugman, A., & Hodgetts, R. (2001). The end of global strategy. European Management Journal, 19,
333–343. Scullion, H. (2006). Global staffing. New York: Routledge. Segalla, M. (2001). Overview: Understanding values and expectations of foreign employees creates
a better company. European Management Journal, 19(1), 27–31. Smith, C.S. (2004, October 17). Euro Disney pins hope on additions. New York Times, 154(53005), 3. Smith, D. (2006). Disney A to Z: The official encyclopedia. Bel Air, CA: Disney Editions. Swyngedouw, E. (1997). Neither global nor local: ‘Glocalization’ and the politics of scale. In K.R.
Cox (Ed.), Spaces of globalization: Reassuring the power of the local (pp. 115–136). New York: Guilford Press.
Telotte, J.P. (2008). The essential science fiction television reader. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.
Trouble in le Royaume Magique. (2004, August 7). The Economist, 372(8387), 51.
J. Matusitz236
Ulrich, D., & Smallwood, N. (2006). How leaders build value: Using people, organization, and other intangibles to get bottom-line results. New York: Wiley.
United Nations Population Division. (2004). World population prospects: The 2004 revision. New York: United Nations Population Division.
Van Maanen, J. (1991). The smile factory. In P.J. Frost, L. Moore, M. Louis, C. Lundberg, & J. Martin (Eds.), Reframing organizational culture (pp. 58–76). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Van Maanen, J. (1992). Displacing Disney: Some notes on the flow of culture. Qualitative Sociology, 15, 5–35.
Van Maanen, J., & Laurent, A. (1992). The flow of culture. In E. Westney & S. Ghoshal (Eds.), Organization theory and the multinational corporation (pp. 275–312). London: Macmillan.
White, C. (2004). Strategic management. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Wilkins, E.M., & Wyche, C. (2008). Clinical practice of the dental hygienist. Hagerstown, MD:
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Wiseman, P. (2005, November 10). Miscues mar opening of Hong Kong Disney. USA Today,
07347, A1. Year of the mouse. (2005, September 10). The Economist, 376(8443), 58. Yee, K. (2006). 101 things you never knew about Walt Disney World: An unauthorized look at
tributes, little touches, and inside jokes. Orlando, FL: Ultimate Orlando Press. Zaheer, S. (2002). The liability of foreignness, redux: A commentary. Journal of International
Management, 8, 351–358. Zhang, J. (2007). Disneyland: Hong Kong’s newest cash cow. China Today, 56(7), 28–30.
Journal of Strategic Marketing 237
Copyright of Journal of Strategic Marketing is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
