PDA

View Full Version : Why Does Epcot Need Outside Investment to Green Light New Attractions?



Super Ninja
03-17-2012, 09:15 AM
I don't know, but this is starting to annoy me a bit. Epcot is the second most visited theme park on Earth, yet Disney thinks they need outside investment from other companies or foreign countries to justify investing in new attractions. Am I the only one who see this model as Disney being cheap?

tiggerbuddy
03-17-2012, 10:10 AM
Totally agree:number1: Very disappointed at the current state of Epcot. It used to be soo much better..I understand that as time goes by, attractions need to be upgraded etc. But to completely remove an attraction or replace it with a horrendous one (JIYI) is downright wrong.

Ian
03-17-2012, 10:48 AM
I'm a bit torn on this one ... historically, seeking outside investors to help fund new attractions and rides has been something the company has done dating all the way back to Walt Disney himself.

In fact, quite a bit of the funding for Disneyland came from outside sources ... sponsors, advertisers, etc. The Disney Company actually funded little-to-none of the park's expenses.

At the same time, I sort of feel like hey ... it's not the guest's fault you can't find sponsors. If you don't want to fund new attractions yourself, Disney, that's your choice, but then don't keep upping your admission every year.

tiggerbuddy
03-17-2012, 03:30 PM
Great point Ian !!

If you don't want to fund new attractions yourself, Disney, that's your choice, but then don't keep upping your admission every year.

Main Street Jim
03-17-2012, 04:25 PM
Did I miss something?

Ian
03-17-2012, 04:27 PM
Did I miss something?I miss something ... it's called "The Wonders of Life Pavilion" lol. ;)

Polynesian Dweller
03-17-2012, 05:36 PM
Great point Ian !!

If you don't want to fund new attractions yourself, Disney, that's your choice, but then don't keep upping your admission every year.

That isn't logical. Currently 7 day non-park hopper tickets works out to $41 per day and a7 day park hopper works out to $49 per day. That's pretty inexpensive and one of the reasons is that sponsors cover much of the cost. Don't have sponsors then Disney will have to charge for the 10s of millions it costs to create and operate a ride. Then you'd really see ticket prices escalate.

Everything at Disneyland when it was opened was sponsored by some company and some of the stores were private enterprises. Heck, you even had to pay for the park map. The company has always worked with sponsorships and it helps keep ticket prices down.

brownie
03-18-2012, 11:07 AM
If Disney starts putting in a lot of attractions without sponsors at Epcot, it may encourage current sponsors to not renew contracts or to negotiate lower costs. I think they have to keep seeking sponsorship for attractions if they don't want to lose sponsorships they already have.

jwallace378
03-19-2012, 02:43 PM
Back in the 70's, 80's, and early 90's, just about every attraction and ride was sponsored by a corporate company (Dole, Delta, FedEx, AT&T, GM, and many more)...once we got into the new millennium it seems like Disney started to phase out sponsors. Although, there are still some left.

Ian
03-19-2012, 02:52 PM
Back in the 70's, 80's, and early 90's, just about every attraction and ride was sponsored by a corporate company (Dole, Delta, FedEx, AT&T, GM, and many more)...once we got into the new millennium it seems like Disney started to phase out sponsors. Although, there are still some left.I don't think Disney phased them out, I just think corporations started to question the value of the spend.

That became especially true after the meltdown in 2007 ... A lot of corporations (banks in particular) came under fire for spending tens of millions of dollars on things like stadium sponsorships. It was criticized as an "ego" move, a waste of stockholder dollars, irresponsible, etc.

Rather than argue the merits of such an arrangement, I think many companies chose to pull back their sponsorship dollars and ride out the storm.

I'm quite certain Disney would prefer to have all the sponsors they can. ;)

Gator
03-19-2012, 02:55 PM
Wondering when they'll close down restrooms because Charmin or AngelSoft won't pony up.

SBETigg
03-19-2012, 03:20 PM
Wow, I never thought of it as Disney being cheap. I thought of it in the sense of building community. If you want to build a small but supposedly authentic version of a country, doesn't it make sense to get the country on board for contribution and authenticity? It wouldn't be the same to walk into France and not be able to speak with someone French. It adds to the sense that we're all working together, building together, playing together.

Similarly with corporate involvement, sponsorship allows Disney to explore new innovations in different fields with experts on hand beyond their own areas of knowledge. Sure, Disney could do it all alone and maybe in some cases, they could do more. But isn't the whole idea to build an Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow? While it isn't quite in keeping with Walt's original vision of Epcot, it is still supposed to be a community. Disney does a pretty good job of it, but I appreciate the fact that with Epcot, they keep to the idea of building a community beyond what Disney can offer alone.

Ian
03-19-2012, 03:29 PM
Wondering when they'll close down restrooms because Charmin or AngelSoft won't pony up.I don't know if they'd close the restrooms, but we might very well lose those spiffy signs that explain to us how to wash our hands. ;)

DVC2004
03-19-2012, 04:20 PM
I don't know if they'd close the restrooms, but we might very well lose those spiffy signs that explain to us how to wash our hands. ;)

:D How did we ever manage before those signs? LOL

Super Ninja
03-20-2012, 10:25 AM
Wow, I never thought of it as Disney being cheap. I thought of it in the sense of building community. If you want to build a small but supposedly authentic version of a country, doesn't it make sense to get the country on board for contribution and authenticity? It wouldn't be the same to walk into France and not be able to speak with someone French. It adds to the sense that we're all working together, building together, playing together

Disney could still get the countries involved while also paying more to build quality attractions around them. I don't think its that inconceivable. Epcot needs more investment I think. If they can't get it else where, then Disney should do it their selves.

joonyer
03-20-2012, 11:03 AM
Disney could still get the countries involved while also paying more to build quality attractions around them. I don't think its that inconceivable. Epcot needs more investment I think. If they can't get it else where, then Disney should do it their selves.

They might. But if they do, I'll bet we see some big increases in park admission prices.:sad:

MickeysBestPal
03-20-2012, 11:34 AM
The WOL did not have to close because it lost its sponsorship.

There are many attractions that Disney continues to operate without corporate sponsors after their contracts have expired.
(Ellen's Energy Adv. is a case-in-point.)

For whatever reason, Disney simply decided that they did not want to operate WOL, so they closed it.

Ian
03-20-2012, 12:53 PM
The WOL did not have to close because it lost its sponsorship.

There are many attractions that Disney continues to operate without corporate sponsors after their contracts have expired.
(Ellen's Energy Adv. is a case-in-point.)

For whatever reason, Disney simply decided that they did not want to operate WOL, so they closed it.I'm pretty sure we all know it closed because it lost its sponsorship. The fact that Met Life backed out and the pavilion closed a few months later is a lot more than just coincidence.

As for your Ellen example, while they did lose Exxon as a sponsor, I wouldn't be surprised if they get money from Jeopardy since they're so prominently featured. Also, it was probably an either-or situation since Disney knew they couldn't shutter two Epcot pavilions and still handle capacity.

It was a money decision, plain and simple. If it was any other reason it could have been fixed with ... well ... more money. ;)

MickeysBestPal
03-20-2012, 02:09 PM
I'm pretty sure we all know it closed because it lost its sponsorship.

1- The fact that Met Life backed out and the pavilion closed a few months later is a lot more than just coincidence.

As for your Ellen example, while they did lose Exxon as a sponsor,

2- I wouldn't be surprised if they get money from Jeopardy since they're so prominently featured.
3- Also, it was probably an either-or situation since Disney knew they couldn't shutter two Epcot pavilions and still handle capacity.

4- It was a money decision, plain and simple. If it was any other reason it could have been fixed with ... well ... more money. ;)

1- That's far from obvious (and not true.)
MetLife's connetion was terminated in 2001.
The pavilion continued to operate for about 2-3 more years, unsponsored.
After that, Disney opened the pavilion only "seasonally" (and not often) for the next couple of years.
The lost MetLife sponsorship was used as an excuse for the closure, but that's all I will agree with.

2- I doubt that very much.
Any more than Ellen would be paying to be featured in the attraction to promote, well, Ellen.
It was a creative production decision to incorporate Jeopardy into the humor of the dream sequences.

3- There are more WDW attractions than just those two which have lost their sponsorship.
Most are still operating.

4- I strongly disagree with this.
There is nothing simple about it being a "money decision" if you mean that the pavilion simply lost its sponsorship so that it had to close.

The evidence is very much to the contrary if you look at all of the other examples of the many still-operating attractions at Disney parks (including Epcot) who've outlived their sponsorships.

Ian
03-20-2012, 03:35 PM
Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, so in the absence of any evidence one way or the other I'll choose to believe it was financially motivated and you'll choose to believe it isn't.

All good by me! :thumbsup:

MarkC
03-20-2012, 04:50 PM
I am both a stockholder and an annual passholder. I understand where the company is coming from. I want maximum fun and enjoyment but I want them to keep prices affordable. I want them to return maximum value for my stock investment, so I want that corporate sponsorship. Companies wrestle with these decisions every day. Its a fine line and there is no way to keep everyone happy.

darthmacho
03-20-2012, 05:26 PM
Wondering when they'll close down restrooms because Charmin or AngelSoft won't pony up.

I pray that doesn't happen. It would really mess up my ABRs (Advanced Bathroom Reservations) for my August trip! :mad:

tiggerbuddy
03-20-2012, 07:20 PM
Now...With all this said...
Can I please have my HORIZONS back !!!:mickey:

Super Ninja
03-20-2012, 07:58 PM
I am both a stockholder and an annual passholder. I understand where the company is coming from. I want maximum fun and enjoyment but I want them to keep prices affordable. I want them to return maximum value for my stock investment, so I want that corporate sponsorship. Companies wrestle with these decisions every day. Its a fine line and there is no way to keep everyone happy.

You also have to spend money to make money. Or other wise you end up like K-Mart I think. A company that refuses to spend money to update its stores and then is shocked when customers don't want to shop in dilapidated buildings that haven't been renovated since the mid-70's.

Right now the theme parks are Disney's major source of income. I think less investment in the parks right now would be a stupid move. That should include Epcot I think.

Drachengeist
03-21-2012, 12:33 PM
I would have to agree more with Ian.
Anybody with access to the annual report know how much operating profit the parks made last year? Disney as a whole? Sure they want sponsorship. Jump up and down when you get it!
But dont keep that wallet welded shut just because you cant get it. When I first started going to Disney World (early 80s) a 3 day park hopper was right at $40, Parking was $1/day
Inflation...some, extra expenses for Disney Studios/Animal Kingdom....sure. But a lot of that loot is staying in pockets instead of being reinvested into what made the money in the first place.

Super Ninja
03-21-2012, 02:07 PM
I would have to agree more with Ian.
Anybody with access to the annual report know how much operating profit the parks made last year? Disney as a whole? Sure they want sponsorship. Jump up and down when you get it!
But dont keep that wallet welded shut just because you cant get it. When I first started going to Disney World (early 80s) a 3 day park hopper was right at $40, Parking was $1/day
Inflation...some, extra expenses for Disney Studios/Animal Kingdom....sure. But a lot of that loot is staying in pockets instead of being reinvested into what made the money in the first place.

This is one of the worst aspects of large corporations. Instead of the profit being produced by the successful divisions of the business being reinvested in those parts of the company, it goes to keep afloat money losers that the other people in charge think are "more important" or in many cases are their pet projects.

slottedpig
03-21-2012, 02:34 PM
Revenue by division

Media Networks 18.7 Billion
Parks 11.8 Billion
Studio 6.3 Billion
Consumer Products 3.0 Billion
Interactive Media 1.0 Billion

Operating Income by Division

Media Networks 6.1 Billion
Parks 1.6 Billion
Studio 0.6 Billion
Consumer Products 0.8 Billion
Interactive Media -0.3 Billion


ESPN, Disney Channel, and ABC are the real income generators recently. More so than the parks which also includes the cruise line.

Ian
03-21-2012, 04:37 PM
Yeah, the ESPN franchise is insanely profitable. Cable providers are terrified not to carry it, so Disney uses it as a part of their cable channel package to leverage higher rates for less desirable properties.

I'm not sure I like it, because it drives up your cable rates somewhat artificially, but it's obviously good business practice since you can see what it does for profits.

ronandjulie
03-22-2012, 02:44 PM
Maybe Disney has trouble finding Sponsors because the ROI isn't worth it? When I was a kid, and a young adult, almost everything was sponsored. Now we see many empty buildings and outdated attractions. Too bad.

Ian
03-22-2012, 04:33 PM
Maybe Disney has trouble finding Sponsors because the ROI isn't worth it? When I was a kid, and a young adult, almost everything was sponsored. Now we see many empty buildings and outdated attractions. Too bad.I don't know if it's that the ROI isn't worth it or if the public perception that the ROI isn't worth it is what turns people off.

Remember the stink about Citibank sponsoring Citi Field right in the middle of the mortgage meltdown? I think some companies fear the backlash.

Although I don't know if that holds water either, because a lot of the corporate sponsors pulled out before the economy collapsed, so maybe you're right.

Aurora
03-22-2012, 10:44 PM
Maybe Disney has trouble finding Sponsors because the ROI isn't worth it? When I was a kid, and a young adult, almost everything was sponsored. Now we see many empty buildings and outdated attractions. Too bad.

I believe that's it. There are far more efficient ways for companies to spend their marketing and branding money, with laser-like customer targeting, less fishing and more immediate feedback. With the low-cost reach of the Internet and iPads, sponsoring attractions like Epcot's is way too esoteric nowadays.

Ian
03-23-2012, 11:06 AM
I believe that's it. There are far more efficient ways for companies to spend their marketing and branding money, with laser-like customer targeting, less fishing and more immediate feedback. With the low-cost reach of the Internet and iPads, sponsoring attractions like Epcot's is way too esoteric nowadays.Just to credential myself before I say this, I work for an ad agency ...

I'm not sure I agree. What your brand gets from being associated with Disney World is hard to quantify, but based on market research I've seen done for other sponsorship deals it definitely works. Trust me, companies wouldn't be shelling out $20 and $30 million for stadium licensing deals if they weren't getting an ROI for it.

You look at something like what GM has with Test Track ... you get people in a car mindset by going on the ride and then BAM hit them with a showroom full of shiny new cars on the way out. I wouldn't be at all surprised if that showroom generated annual sales in excess of what their sponsorship dollars are!

Epcyclopedia
03-29-2012, 12:24 AM
I believe that's it. There are far more efficient ways for companies to spend their marketing and branding money, with laser-like customer targeting, less fishing and more immediate feedback. With the low-cost reach of the Internet and iPads, sponsoring attractions like Epcot's is way too esoteric nowadays.

As mentioned above by Ian, GM's own research has repeatedly shown that the Epcot show room at both World of Motion and Test Track has proven a key-influencer in people's car buying decisions after they visit.

I wish I had archived that article back in the day with the exact percentage of respondents back in the day, but it was impressive.

You have to remember that if properly presented an Epcot-style sponsorship is "all positive" without any sales pressure, as in it's not a sales room, it's just a showcase.. you just see it. No one wants you to sign or buy or anything. There's no expectation. So even people who hate that situation are willing to look.

Add to that the throughput - 2000 an hour or so for most Epcot attraction for an 12 hour day. That's a lot of people. People who are not just seeing an advertisement that's annoying them between their TV shows, but interacting with your product and "enjoying" your brand and the idea of it.

There are still people who buy Kikkoman soy sauce entirely because of its connection with a defunct restaurant in Magic Kingdom's Adventureland.

It has to be done right and it has to be done well - GM and their show room at the end of the attraction has always been the right way of doing things. The more obscure barely-connected-way of HP and United Technologies, etc.. aren't the right way and they've failed and are continuing to fail. The only reason HP is still around at all is internal contracts with Disney. Same for Siemens. Disney buys their products for internal use.

What Epcot could really use is an interested consumer product brand... Apple seems to fit the bill.. but doesn't seem interested.

Epcyclopedia
03-29-2012, 12:26 AM
Oh, and one more thing - the vehicles that GM puts out in the show room are put through the paces for seatbelts, knobs, buttons, etc.. durability/use.. in a matter of days.

Much moreso than they could simulate in a lab. It's something they discovered very quickly in the World of Motion days. If they want to try a new seat-belt or button design or something they simply plop it in the showroom and let the masses try to break it.

Aurora
03-29-2012, 03:19 PM
It has to be done right and it has to be done well - GM and their show room at the end of the attraction has always been the right way of doing things. The more obscure barely-connected-way of HP and United Technologies, etc.. aren't the right way and they've failed and are continuing to fail. The only reason HP is still around at all is internal contracts with Disney. Same for Siemens. Disney buys their products for internal use.

You put it in a way that I was trying to say, but you said it much better. By esoteric I meant hard to measure. I also work in marketing and clients have always wanted measurable results, but now it's more directly connected to revenue, and I think trends in stock trading make it more difficult for a company to strategize for the long term.

Aurora
03-29-2012, 03:27 PM
Trust me, companies wouldn't be shelling out $20 and $30 million for stadium licensing deals if they weren't getting an ROI for it.

You look at something like what GM has with Test Track ... you get people in a car mindset by going on the ride and then BAM hit them with a showroom full of shiny new cars on the way out. I wouldn't be at all surprised if that showroom generated annual sales in excess of what their sponsorship dollars are!

I agree with you on the GM sponsorship, but stadium sponsorships are a little different -- every time the sports announcer states "we're here at Cellular Field for the White Sox vs." whomever, it's a free ad. I never saw many promotional mass-media tie-ins for Nestle or Kraft while they were sponsoring The Land pavilion.

Epcyclopedia
03-29-2012, 08:07 PM
Well, that's because the pavilion's major theme was never meant to be food and so it never really landed that message.

It was the mineral/mining pavilion, later the ecology/logging pavilion. Both those sponsors went belly up, but the motifs from the themes remained and got reformed into Kraft's "bounty of the Land" themed pavilion.

Face it - it's still the mining pavilion. It's almost certainly originally designed for the Mosaic corporation. (Google "Mosaic" mining company - "We help the world grow the food it needs" Note the distinct 'mosaic' logo and colors...)

The 2005 redesign where it got the most drastic overhaul pulled in the sky/tree/cloud elements along with biomes for Soarin that were stronger in the theoretical ecology pavilion. Those of course were the basis of the pavilion custom made for a logging a paper goods company.

The Land never landed the "food" part of the message because it was an afterthought.

Ian
03-29-2012, 08:28 PM
There are still people who buy Kikkoman soy sauce entirely because of its connection with a defunct restaurant in Magic Kingdom's Adventureland.Yes. I'm one of them. :thumbsup:


I never saw many promotional mass-media tie-ins for Nestle or Kraft while they were sponsoring The Land pavilion.Yeah, but as Epcyclopedia already pointed out they're just not very well done. There's no solid tie-in that particularly makes you leave feeling positive about the brand.

Aurora
03-29-2012, 08:42 PM
Yeah, but as Epcyclopediaalready pointed out they're just not very well done. There's no solid tie-in that particularly makes you leave feeling positive about the brand.

Yeah, I think that might have been Exxon's problem too. Well, not the only one. ;) "We love energy, and dinosaurs for sure, but we're looking for other ways for our cars to go besides fossil fuels."

Meh.

Ian
03-29-2012, 08:49 PM
Yeah, I think that might have been Exxon's problem too. Well, not the only one. ;) "We love energy, and dinosaurs for sure, but we're looking for other ways for our cars to go besides fossil fuels."

Meh.Right, it would kind of be like, "The Living Seas ... brought to you by Gorton's Fish Sticks!"

Aurora
03-29-2012, 08:55 PM
Right, it would kind of be like, "The Living Seas ... brought to you by Gorton's Fish Sticks!"

:funny:

TheRustyScupper
03-30-2012, 10:48 AM
:D How did we ever manage before those signs? LOL

The same way we managed without (real) signs such as
. . . Fire Extinguisher: Notice, Non-Flammable
. . . Blue Tip Matches: Caution, May Catch Fire
. . . Pool Diving Board: All divers must land in water.
. . . Rain Gage: Suitable for Outdoor Use
. . . Harry Potter Toy Broom: This broom does not actually fly.
. . . 500 Piece Jigsaw Puzzle: Some assembly required.
. . . Arm and Hammer Kitty Litter: Safe for use around pets.
. . . Sainsbury Mineral Water: Suitable for vegetarians.
. . . Dell Computer: Keyboard Not Detected. Hit F1 to continue.

shadowden
03-30-2012, 11:57 AM
The same way we managed without (real) signs such as
. . . Fire Extinguisher: Notice, Non-Flammable
. . . Blue Tip Matches: Caution, May Catch Fire
. . . Pool Diving Board: All divers must land in water.
. . . Rain Gage: Suitable for Outdoor Use
. . . Harry Potter Toy Broom: This broom does not actually fly.
. . . 500 Piece Jigsaw Puzzle: Some assembly required.
. . . Arm and Hammer Kitty Litter: Safe for use around pets.
. . . Sainsbury Mineral Water: Suitable for vegetarians.
. . . Dell Computer: Keyboard Not Detected. Hit F1 to continue.

Love it! :rotfl: