Disney, GM still mum on Test Track

[GrumpyFan]

New, albeit, useless news about GM and Test Track. Basically, it sounds like they're both hoping to carry on or renew the deal, but they're not saying anything about it.

There was a previous thread about this, that can be seen here (http://intercot.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=151000).



By Beth Kassab / The Orlando Sentinel, Fla. | Monday, September 28, 2009


The question of whether General Motors will continue to sponsor one of Walt Disney World’s most popular attractions has the attention of the automaker’s chief, but there’s no sign a deal is imminent.


The future of GM’s name on Test Track at Epcot was clearly on the radar of Fritz Henderson, who stopped into town last week on a post-bankruptcy, post-bailout tour to schmooze with dealers.


"Nothing to report today," he told me when I asked about the latest negotiations between the two companies. He declined to say anything further other than, "We’ve had a great relationship at Epcot for many years."
A Disney spokeswoman was also vague on the topic.


"We continue to have a relationship with General Motors and are having ongoing discussions about continuing this relationship in the future," said Kim Prunty.


It’s believed that GM’s 10-year sponsorship -- for a reported cost of $100 million -- expired earlier this year, and both sides are working on coming to terms on a new agreement.


My bet is that neither side wants to lose the deal, especially Disney, for which these sponsorships are huge revenue drivers.
But timing here is crucial. This one has the potential to look bad for GM and Disney. If a new sponsorship deal is inked too soon will taxpayers own a piece of Test Track? After all, it was $50 billion in federal aid that allowed GM to stay afloat.

[princessgirls]

Thanks for the info! I had been wondering about whether GM would be back.

I suspect that they will. It is awesome marketing and they already have a budget for that. GM may try to negotiate for less than they have paid in the past.
Besides, with the HOT new Camaro selling faster than they can build them, they have emerged from bankruptcy.

Julie:mickey::mickey:

[potzie]

GM will have to sell a lot of Camaros to recover the $50 Billion bailout package.

I like the attraction and as long as it's running I really couldn't care who's name is on it. In fact I might feel safer if it was someone else's name on it as my Pontiac in my driveway leaves a little something to be desired on the reliability side. Come to think of it the attraction is often down, so I guess that's par for the course.

[Scar]

Besides, with the HOT new Camaro selling faster than they can build them, they have emerged from bankruptcy.That's not how they did it.

[princessgirls]

I know... I probably shouldn't have posted that without looking at some hard facts.
My mistake...

Julie:mickey:

[TheRustyScupper]

Besides, with the HOT new Camaro selling faster than they can build them, they have emerged from bankruptcy.

1) Interesting premise.
2) Incorrect.
3) But, interesting.
4) They emerged form bankruptcy because that was the plan.
5) It was a pre-packages bankruptcy.
6) So, sales or no sales, they were to emerge on schedule.

NOTE: IMHO, I want the sponsorship to end. They have billions of our tax dollars. I want them to repay my tax dollars before they spend some on Test Track. Disney already has that, and losing the sponsor won't hurt the ride, just make Disney get more creative and have better follow-through. Something they haven't had in a very long time (to wit: California Adventure, MGM-Studios, Studios-Paris, Disney Hong Kong, Animal Kingdom. We won't even go into detail about the Stitch stage show abomination.).

[BluewaterBrad]

1) Interesting premise.
2) Incorrect.
3) But, interesting.
4) They emerged form bankruptcy because that was the plan.
5) It was a pre-packages bankruptcy.
6) So, sales or no sales, they were to emerge on schedule.

NOTE: IMHO, I want the sponsorship to end. They have billions of our tax dollars. I want them to repay my tax dollars before they spend some on Test Track. Disney already has that, and losing the sponsor won't hurt the ride, just make Disney get more creative and have better follow-through. Something they haven't had in a very long time (to wit: California Adventure, MGM-Studios, Studios-Paris, Disney Hong Kong, Animal Kingdom. We won't even go into detail about the Stitch stage show abomination.).



Once again Rusty...............I agree with your opinions!:mickey:

[Polynesian Dweller]

NOTE: IMHO, I want the sponsorship to end. They have billions of our tax dollars. I want them to repay my tax dollars before they spend some on Test Track.

Remembering that GM also has a lot of our (Canadian) tax dollars to get through this bankruptcy (about proportiante to the size of our market) I don't entirely agree. If the sponsorship helps increase sales and thus more money to pay back faster, then I would want them to invest in the sponsorship. To me its more about whether it makes business sense in terms of good use of advertising dollars than anything else. If it doesn't increase sales then it isn't a good idea.

[Ian]

NOTE: IMHO, I want the sponsorship to end. They have billions of our tax dollars. I want them to repay my tax dollars before they spend some on Test Track. Disney already has that, and losing the sponsor won't hurt the ride, just make Disney get more creative and have better follow-through. Something they haven't had in a very long time (to wit: California Adventure, MGM-Studios, Studios-Paris, Disney Hong Kong, Animal Kingdom. We won't even go into detail about the Stitch stage show abomination.).


Remembering that GM also has a lot of our (Canadian) tax dollars to get through this bankruptcy (about proportiante to the size of our market) I don't entirely agree. If the sponsorship helps increase sales and thus more money to pay back faster, then I would want them to invest in the sponsorship. To me its more about whether it makes business sense in terms of good use of advertising dollars than anything else. If it doesn't increase sales then it isn't a good idea.Right ... I went through this argument previously in the other thread and it boggled my mind that people could just so aribtrarily dismiss the sponsorship as a waste of money.

Bottom line ... if it generates more than $10 million in sales a year it's worth keeping. If not, it isn't. I presume, if GM is considering keeping the deal running, it must generate sales in excess of $10m annually. If not, I'm sure they'd scrap it.

[Scar]

Bottom line ... if it generates more than $10 million in sales a year it's worth keeping. If not, it isn't. I presume, if GM is considering keeping the deal running, it must generate sales in excess of $10m annually. If not, I'm sure they'd scrap it.I would think it would need to generate $10M in Gross Profit, not just sales. No?

[potzie]

I would think it would need to generate $10M in Gross Profit, not just sales. No?


Exactly and I just don't see it. How likely are you going to influenced into buying a car because of the ride itself or the fact that you got to sit in a car in the showroom on your vacation. Again I just don't see it.

As for ownership, the Province of Ontario and the Government of Canada owns 11.7% of the new GM and the US Government owns 60.8% as a proportion of the population Canada has a far greater stake in the new GM. The US population is more than 9x larger than Canada but your ownership is only 5x larger.

[potzie]

Remembering that GM also has a lot of our (Canadian) tax dollars to get through this bankruptcy (about proportiante to the size of our market) I don't entirely agree. If the sponsorship helps increase sales and thus more money to pay back faster, then I would want them to invest in the sponsorship. To me its more about whether it makes business sense in terms of good use of advertising dollars than anything else. If it doesn't increase sales then it isn't a good idea.

It could be as much about saving face and not allowing anyone else to have access to it then it is about it being a profitable business exercise.

Look at a little kid with a toy and another kid wants it, it's as much about holding onto it so no one else can play with it even if they don't really want the toy itself. Seems Test Track sponsorship could be the same.

[Ian]

I would think it would need to generate $10M in Gross Profit, not just sales. No?Probably, yeah. In fact, maybe even more than that, because you do need to take into account what else they could have done with that $10m that might have made them even more money.

[lockedoutlogic]

I don't...nor ever will be convinced that an epcot pavillion deal is tangibly advantageous to the sponsor...

really, how could it be? Joe from Des Moines was gonna go Ford but after seeing a Tahoe in the show dump at EPCOT, he ran right home and bought one?

I don't think so....you would have to be a little off the diving board to really let an amusement park ride influence your car purchase when you're back at home and dealing in terms of REAL LIFE...which Walt Disney World is about as far away from that as you can get.

I've always thought the sponsorship was more corporate ego...
When GM or Coke or Fedex or Kodak originally ponied up dollars to get sponsorship...they had tens if not hundreds of thousands of workers on their employee ranks that would take their kids to disneyworld ever couple of years...and they all could feel good about that big proud sign out front....and the rest of us could bask in the awe of the great american corporate and manufacturing juggernaut.

But things have change a little bit....it's not about workers and products anymore...it's about speculation, refinanced debt, and terrabytes...

"The illusion has become reality...I create nothing...I own...nothing"

So that is true of GM.....i believe it was always about just having that big sign on the front....not about recouping their investment with sales (which may or not have been accomplished now or never....we will never know)

And Disney, well...we know the deal there....we give you a billboard with a million person captive audience walking past....you pay for our spare parts and employees....we sell a bunch of junk in the shop at the end....

So from that angle...it really matters not...

The only...and i mean only thing that makes me want the sponsors is that the management has no qualms about cutting the corners if they don't think they're making enough....which means closures, reduction in services, less new things....

and that is a problem for all us addicts....i still swear that a full DHS and Animal Kingdom is the one and only logical course of action...

but hey...might as well rip up fantasyland to boost the gift shops there....

i guess i have to take it...

[Hammer]

As I just came back from riding Test Track (typing this from Beach club Villas), I have to say that I hope that GM remains. Lots of foot traffic in the showroom at the end of the ride, with many people checking out the new Camaro, though that is the 1 car that you are not allowed to sit in.

[Goofster]

Exactly and I just don't see it. How likely are you going to influenced into buying a car because of the ride itself or the fact that you got to sit in a car in the showroom on your vacation. Again I just don't see it.

As for ownership, the Province of Ontario and the Government of Canada owns 11.7% of the new GM and the US Government owns 60.8% as a proportion of the population Canada has a far greater stake in the new GM. The US population is more than 9x larger than Canada but your ownership is only 5x larger.


Since it comes out of their marketing budget, you'd really have to look at the effectiveness of Test Track as a "hands-on" commercial for millions of guests each year. Rather than spending $100 million in 10 years on forgettable commercials, this is something that is lasting and there for guests to experience, to see GM vehicles first hand and for GM to promote its vehicle brand to the public while being entertained at the same time. That could be a lot more effective then using that cash for a super bowl commercial, etc.

[Crow]

well my nephews liked sitting in the cars after the ride.
dont know if Id put my money there if in bankruptcy, but I would love to spend my time at Epcot so they could pay me to b there.

[Pagan]

Would be nice if Ford took over. :D

[Laughin' place]

I wonder what GM spends on TV commercials in one year. And, what provable link there is between a buyer watching a TV commercial and buying a brand. Im certainly no expert, but I tend to think that influencing buyers is more of a gestalt - type effect -- that a little bit here (tv commercial), a little bit there (local dealer presence), and all the pieces put together (including a tv commercial that you can actual ride in and experience, i.e. Test Track) is more likely what makes me buy one and not the other.
As far as cars go, I think many buyers are very loyal and set in their ways. I have bought nothing but one brand of car, and dont honestly consider any others. It isnt GM, btw, but I do like TT.

[Ian]

I work in marketing and I can tell you that there are a many different types of ad campaigns you can run, all with different goals.

You can run conversion programs, which are directly aimed at influencing purchaser behavior (i.e. buy our product instead of product A, B, or C). You can run retention programs, which are aimed primarly at keeping existing customers on your brand. You can run more generic brand imaging programs, that establish for consumers what your brand is all about (think jeans commercials that tell you nothing about the product, but establish a "mood" for the brand).

I was able to find an article that established GM's marketing budget for last year at $3 billion dollars.

Put that in perspective ... the $10 million Test Track deal represents less than one-half of 1% of GM's annual marketing budget.

Which is why I continually point out that, in the grand scheme of things, it's completely and totally irrelevant.

[TheRustyScupper]

Put that in perspective ... the $10 million Test Track deal represents less than one-half of 1% of GM's annual marketing budget.

1) Maybe.
2) But, they got $86-Billion of our money.
3) That makes every US taxpayer a stockholder.
4) As a stockholder, I want fewer expenses.
5) Especially touchy-feely advertising.
6) And, TT dies not sell cars are move opinions.
7) At least no one can show data to that effect.

NOTE: To me, GM has not transformed itself from a "traditional Bug-3" mentality. It still functions as it did with the huge bureaucracy. Until they change, I want expenses low, so we can get SOME of our bucks back. IMHO, I can;t see the US getting all of the billions back. GM is just not big or important any more. In fact, their total worth is only about 7-billion dollars !!!

[Stu29573]

1) NOTE: To me, GM has not transformed itself from a "traditional Bug-3" mentality. It still functions as it did with the huge bureaucracy. Until they change, I want expenses low, so we can get SOME of our bucks back. IMHO, I can;t see the US getting all of the billions back. GM is just not big or important any more. In fact, their total worth is only about 7-billion dollars !!!

I would be shocked if we ever saw one thin dime back. It's like when a quarter falls into a volcano...Let it go, 'cause it's really gone, man.:(

[Ian]

1) Maybe.
2) But, they got $86-Billion of our money.
3) That makes every US taxpayer a stockholder.
4) As a stockholder, I want fewer expenses.
5) Especially touchy-feely advertising.
6) And, TT dies not sell cars are move opinions.
7) At least no one can show data to that effect.

NOTE: To me, GM has not transformed itself from a "traditional Bug-3" mentality. It still functions as it did with the huge bureaucracy. Until they change, I want expenses low, so we can get SOME of our bucks back. IMHO, I can;t see the US getting all of the billions back. GM is just not big or important any more. In fact, their total worth is only about 7-billion dollars !!!That's nice. But incredibly short-sighted and, actually, pretty ridiculous.

Marketing is what makes businesses run. At such a critical time for GM in terms of their public perception and brand image, that's even more the case.

One of GM's biggest risks right now is lack of consumer confidence. People are afraid to buy from them because of their uncertain future. Marketing programs and sponsorship deals like this one can go a long way towards re-establishing positive consumer perceptions of the company.

Really, I mean getting worked up over $10 million lousy dollars is just silly. Would you rather they not spend any marketing money and then no one will buy their products, thus ensuring we never get re-paid??

[ERJDriver]

I disagree that TT is useless as a marketing tool. While I agree that no one comes out of the ride sees a GM vehicle and then runs home and buys one. However, I would guess that there are people that ride who may be in the market for a car in the next year, and when there kids drag them into some car because they think it's neat to sit in the drivers seat the parents get to look at a car that they may not have considered, then when they get home, and six months to a year later go to buy a car maybe they say "remeber that malibu we sat in at Disney, that was kinda nice lets look at one of those. So while no one runs out and buys one it may plant a seed, and someone who was going to buy a Honda or Toyota without considering GM, now considers GM. So even though I'm a stakeholder as Rusty says, I think this could potentielly help sales, and certaintly doesn't hurt. It's like a tv commercial, but you can actually touch the car.