The Future of Imagination and Universe of Energy

[PeterPan]

People, people, people. I hate to be a nay-sayer, but this endless discussion of Disney bringing back a ride (Journey into Imgination or Toad or Whatever) is just so SAD. It AIN'T gonna happen! Wise up! Pay attention! WHY rebuild a ride when:
1. It would cost 100 times more than the original ride did.
2. There is NO precidence. They have NEVER rebuilt a de-funct ride.
3. The ride was taken out because it was FAILING. (Don't get me wrong - I LOVED everything about the original ride. My kids literally grew up on it).
4. Why rebuild something like JIYI when there are a MILLION better, new, updated, state-of-the-art ideas out there buzzing around.

In short - give it up. It ain't gonna happen. Period.

[wdwfansince75]

OK, a solution to several problems....
Lets have Petrobras fund the new energy pavilion!

[brer frog]

Why does all of the attractions in Future World need to be sponsered? why can't Disney put up money for ride / attractions? Future World isn't that future any longer. Wonders of Life should have medial advances in it. Inovations, the most 'recent' thing in there is the segway. Doesn't Disney make enough on park ticket sales to cover the cost of new rides / attractions, or to rehab what they have?

[GoBlueLacheta]

Sponsorships offset a lot of costs. With EPCOT, you are usually talking about an entire large pavillion in future world. Not the Teacups brought to you by Splenda.

As far as a conflict of interest with Apple, doesn't Jobs have a seat on the Board of Directors after the Pixar buyout?

I like the Epic Mickey tie in with the Paintbrush, anything with guest interaction is always a plus during a ride. If the guests can choose their own ending or paint a certain wall and have it go away or push them down another path i think it would be very succesful. Figment and DF should be a part of the NEW attraction. You can't go backwards at this point, especially in Future World. It would be a great way to incorporate Figment, DF, and MICKEY something that is lacking in a lot of physical rides, especially in EPCOT.

The UoE pavillion needs to be rethought. Maybe only make a small portion of the buidling a physical ride and then incorporate different aspects. It could be easier to get sponsorship if they can plug their technologies and products into different areas throughout the building instead of just the marquee. Wouldn't have to be a mega-E-ticket-thrill-ride but something more compact that could tell the story of Energy.

[Ian]

1. It would cost 100 times more than the original ride did.

While I actually agree with your overall point (not your somewhat cranky tone maybe) I will have to disagree with you on this part of your post.

The single largest cost driver in a new attraction is the ideation/R&D/architecture phase. That's all done for these attractions, so you'd be talking strictly about construction costs which is actually fairly cheap when it comes to building new theme park attractions.

The big bucks are spent paying the dreamers to dream up the ideas.

[TracyL]

There's a lot of cranky in this thread, actually....

I liked the old ride as much as anybody, but I don't want it back. I'd much rather see something cool and new. Walt would not bring back an old ride -- the whole point of the parks is that they keep growing and changing. What our old buddy Eisner and his money-grubbing finance team didn't seem to understand is that you do actually have to make the new thing BETTER than the old thing, not just simpler, cheaper, or with more gift shops.

I think a lot of what we're looking at right now is the slow recovery from Eisner's Reign of Error. It took ten years to get us into this mess, and it's going to take *at least* ten to get us out. The rotten economy is certainly not helping that whatsoever.

Sponsorships bring an infusion not just of cash, but also of new perspectives. A sponsor for Imagination and/or Energy would give Imagineering a direction to go and the money to get there. Yes, Disney can in theory spend money on attractions, but I think they are more likely to spend it on resorts, dining, infrastructure and maintenance -- because you *can't* get sponsors for that kind of stuff, and you also can't avoid doing it. Obviously they are very profitable, but the enterprise is not cheap to run.

[McLiberal8]

Sponsorships bring an infusion not just of cash, but also of new perspectives. A sponsor for Imagination and/or Energy would give Imagineering a direction to go and the money to get there. Yes, Disney can in theory spend money on attractions, but I think they are more likely to spend it on resorts, dining, infrastructure and maintenance -- because you *can't* get sponsors for that kind of stuff, and you also can't avoid doing it. Obviously they are very profitable, but the enterprise is not cheap to run.

I agree - let's also not forget - EPCOT was supposed to be about collaboration between business and innovation, to begin with.

[Ian]

I agree - let's also not forget - EPCOT was supposed to be about collaboration between business and innovation, to begin with.

Right and the Old Moustro himself was the one who architected that idea. It's not like corporate sponsorship is some new, evil idea cooked up by the modern day accountants who run the company. This was Walt's creation. He developed it first for Disneyland and also for the '64 World's Fair.

[Dirty Bird Street]

As much as I'm not a fan of their business or products, Microsoft seems to be a fairly synergistic choice for sponsor of an Imagination pavilion redo. Working in their favor:

1. They're predominantly a platform company, not a hardware company (HP, Siemens) or content company (Disney itself). Thus, they really don't have any in-house competition.

2. Their most recent launches (Windows 7, Windows Mobile, Kinect) have all been fairly well-received and well-done. The Kinect technology itself has some pretty interesting potential when it comes to interactive rides.

3. While Gates isn't involved with the day-to-day at Microsoft, his aura of charity and corporate activism fits well with Disney's environmental initiatives.

4. Gates himself is one of the two major shareholders in the Four Seasons. With the addition of a Four Seasons to Disney property... the blank fills in itself.

[mommad]

Personally I'd love to see both the Energy Pavilion and Imagination Pavilion redone. Energy has needed updating for quite some time and Imagination got a tiny reprieve when they added Figment back in, but sadly even that version is getting a tad stale. Really I think the powers that be at Disney need to not worry about building new parks or expansions but work on fixing and tweaking the areas that are weak and starting to suffer mechanical issues. As far as Energy goes I'd almost recommend that they get with the oil companies, but also get with some possible car companies that are working on more fuel efficient cars as well. Now for Imagination they need an entirely new 3d show, not a rehash, and a new Imagination ride that features a lot more Figment.

[Ian]

The real problem is, I think in these economic times corporations (especially U.S. based corporations) are very hesitant to have their names publicly attached to a sponsorship deal.

Remember all the heat some of the financials took when they were paying $20 million for things like stadium naming rights and such? The public backlash was pretty intense.

That right there pretty much rules out any of the domestic auto manufacturers.

[joonyer]

The real problem is, I think in these economic times corporations (especially U.S. based corporations) are very hesitant to have their names publicly attached to a sponsorship deal.

Remember all the heat some of the financials took when they were paying $20 million for things like stadium naming rights and such? The public backlash was pretty intense.

That right there pretty much rules out any of the domestic auto manufacturers.

Yet nobody really complains about companies advertising, even though we don't like watching all the commercials during our favorite shows or games. Ford, GM, Chrysler, and all the imports still advertise very heavily. And If it weren't for all those ads, most TV shows wouldn't be free. Sponsorship is really just a different kind of advertising. Yeah, some of the naming rights things did get out of hand, but everyone expects companies to advertise, so if it makes it more likely that a WDW attraction will get created or refurbished, I'm all for it. I guess it comes down to what their bean counters think will give them return on their investment of ad dollars. Personally, i have rarely bought any product just because of a commercial or print ad.

[Ian]

As someone who works in advertising, I would tell you that the "sell" for advertising is really awareness not necessarily sales.

If people don't know you're out there, they won't buy your product. Also, most purchasing decisions are made sub-consciously so while you may not think you're influenced by advertising you probably are.

Branding is what's really important. How you perceive a certain product via their advertising is what really drives purchasing decisions. For example, the ever-popular Coke vs. Pepsi debate. I'm sure you have a favorite between the two and it's almost definitely due to the branding of one or the other.

[DizneyRox]

Not really, Pepsi tastes like garbage! Has nothing to do with their ads...

I think the problem with sponsorship at Disney is that Disney is probably looking for them to cover complete costs, maintenances, etc. In other words, Disney is doing them a favor for allowing them to advertise. Back when the Disney name was synonymous with quality, etc, that might of gotten them something. I think the brand is tarnished, however they are still peddling it like it's gold.

There's probably better ROI on other type of advertizing (like Superbowl commercials, etc) than a casual mention on a Disney attraction quite frankly. In Disney, you are only exposed to it for a few minutes (or hours MAYBE). A commercial can nag you for weeks/months.

[Ian]

I'd agree, Rox. I'm suspect of the true value of things like stadium naming rights and attraction sponsorships when it comes to marketing.

Unless you can swing a deal like what GM has with Test Track, where the entire post-show area is essentially a big showroom. That I think has some serious value for them. I know personally two separate people who have been influenced to make car purchases by experiencing the model in the Test Track post-show area.

[PopPhan]

I've been trying to talk the big-wigs at the company I'm with to do something like "The House of Tomorrow"...We hit on a lot of the things that go into a home -- Climate Controls, Security, HVAC, Automotive Interiors, Batteries (of all shapes, sizes, and applications), etc.

They just don't want to sink the money or thought into doing something like that. Pity...It could really bring the company name, as well as the different divisions, to the forefront in our fields. Right now, I could tell you the name of the company and you'd probably say, "Who? What do they do? How are they well up in the Fortune 100?" and I wouldn't blame you.

[joonyer]

As someone who works in advertising, I would tell you that the "sell" for advertising is really awareness not necessarily sales.

If people don't know you're out there, they won't buy your product. Also, most purchasing decisions are made sub-consciously so while you may not think you're influenced by advertising you probably are.

Branding is what's really important. How you perceive a certain product via their advertising is what really drives purchasing decisions. For example, the ever-popular Coke vs. Pepsi debate. I'm sure you have a favorite between the two and it's almost definitely due to the branding of one or the other.

Yes, I probably am subconsciously affected in buying decisions without thinking about it. And obviously I can't buy a product if I don't even know it exists. But when it comes to Coke or Pepsi, I really don't have a favorite. I like them both, and I buy whichever one costs the least that week at the supermarket. I will admit I prefer them over most of the "off brands" though. Maybe that's their advertising at work on me. I know that "branding" definitiely works in the market place on may people. Have any of you ever seen Penn & Teller's expose on bottle water "brands" at the fancy restaurant. Hilarious!

[Ramblingman]

As someone who works in advertising, I would tell you that the "sell" for advertising is really awareness not necessarily sales.

If people don't know you're out there, they won't buy your product. Also, most purchasing decisions are made sub-consciously so while you may not think you're influenced by advertising you probably are.

Branding is what's really important. How you perceive a certain product via their advertising is what really drives purchasing decisions. For example, the ever-popular Coke vs. Pepsi debate. I'm sure you have a favorite between the two and it's almost definitely due to the branding of one or the other.

I know you probably won't believe this, but my preference in the Coke vs Pepsi debate is based solely on taste.

[Ian]

I know you probably won't believe this, but my preference in the Coke vs Pepsi debate is based solely on taste.

How can you be so sure? Trust me ... I've seen market research that proves that people might think they're buying solely on taste, yet when you remove the packaging and do it blind you know what? Turns out they really prefer the taste of the other cola more. So somehow they've been subtlely influenced by marketing into thinking the prefer the other cola more.

The human brain is a lot more complicated that you'd think when it comes to marketing.

[Ramblingman]

How can you be so sure? Trust me ... I've seen market research that proves that people might think they're buying solely on taste, yet when you remove the packaging and do it blind you know what? Turns out they really prefer the taste of the other cola more. So somehow they've been subtlely influenced by marketing into thinking the prefer the other cola more.

The human brain is a lot more complicated that you'd think when it comes to marketing.

I know you think that, and working in the marketing world you have a lot of faith in it.

But nothing you have said changes the fact that the two drinks have different formulas and taste different.

Are there people who are swayed by the marketing? Sure.

Are there people who simply prefer one over the other? Sure.

You can have both without either reason being slighted. So, I won't call you wrong for claiming marketing can sway some people, and you don't call me wrong for saying that different people have different tastes and preferences.