The Future of Imagination and Universe of Energy

[sportsguy2315]

I was in Epcot earlier this month, and what I saw saddened me: Two of the original pavilions, UoE and JIYI, seem to be on its last legs, at least in their current incarnation. What's also scary is that neither of these pavilions have sponsors, and we all know what happened to a sponsorless WoL, now just a giant meeting/party spot.

With the ongoing recession drying up sponsors and the Florida focus on Fantasyland's enlargement, I doubt anything would change on that front anytime soon.

At least Imagination got a temporary boost with Captain EO returning, but that "engagement" will end sooner than later (Unless this is Disney's timekiller until Fantasyland's done and/or they come up with something new). I guess the question I have is, where do we go from here Epcot fans? What would you do with these pavilions that need some life and some rejuvenation?

[retiredfigment]

Go back to the orginal Figment!

[Jeddie]

I agree, bring back the original Imagination. For UoE, I would like to see something like the orignal, in the sense it was more of an educational attraction. Since the original though, technology and understanding (in terms of energy) has changed so much they would have to update it accordingly. But of course, keep the dinosaurs!

[Reedy Creek Buccaneer]

The oil companies are making plenty of money. They should have plenty to show us something new in the energy area. How about a gulf oil slick? or a exploding oil well?

[WDWfanatic742]

If Wonder's of Life wasn't closed, I don't think we'd see Universe of Energy still open. But until something opens where Wonders is, Energy is forced to stay open just for capacity reasons on that side of the park.

It's a shame because I really like Universe...

[TheRustyScupper]

I agree, bring back the original Imagination.


1) Alas, physically impossible.
. . . track has been removed and destroyed
. . . ride space has been replaced by gift shop
. . . sets /cars/mechanisms destroyed
. . . old system was poorly engineered *
2) Without a major sponsor, do not look for WDW to invest.
3) Or, a sponsor to agree to a major upgrade
. . . Spaceship Earth was dying between sponsors
. . . Energy is showing major old age
. . . Body Works died out
. . . Innovations is weak
. . . Carousel of Progress is old and tired
. . . etc

* The original was a technically difficult ride. It would have to be completely redesigned and rebuilt. (READ: Big Bucks) Without a major sponsor, WDW will not make a ride investment.

[Ian]

1) Alas, physically impossible.
. . . track has been removed and destroyedI'm not disputing the spirit of your post, but I don't believe this is accurate. I'm pretty sure that the original ride track still exists. If memory serves, some of it is still in use while other parts are just "buried" under new flooring that was installed.

But in general I agree with you ... unless the economy recovers and Disney can find a partner who wants to dump some serious money into the pavilion to bring back the original version, it will never happen. They'd never pony up that kind of cash themselves.

I still think Apple is a no-brainer partner for that pavilion and with Jobs Disney's majority shareholder, I'm amazed they haven't pulled something off yet.

[Mogie]

As nostalgic I get remembering the old Imagination ride and song, and seeing those big dinosaurs in Energy...I gotta say I think it's time to bulldoze both, start from scratch on something new and amazing. After going back to disney for the first time in 20 years a few years back, I could not believe I was sitting in the same giant "traveling theater cars" all beat up and scratched and creaking and squealing as the ride moved. Dont even get me started on the new Imagination...

[Dirty Bird Street]

As nostalgic I get remembering the old Imagination ride and song, and seeing those big dinosaurs in Energy...I gotta say I think it's time to bulldoze both, start from scratch on something new and amazing. After going back to disney for the first time in 20 years a few years back, I could not believe I was sitting in the same giant "traveling theater cars" all beat up and scratched and creaking and squealing as the ride moved. Dont even get me started on the new Imagination...

(First, hi all, new here, long time listener, first time caller.)

In theory, I agree with you: who doesn't want to see exciting new rides? However, as noted above, economic pragmatism says those ideas are a long way off at best.

Caveat: if Disney does some shrewd politicking, they might be able to lean on oil sponsorship to redo Universe of Energy. Follow me here. Right now, the oil companies are facing an ever-expanding PR problem. ExxonMobil is touting the seven scientists in their company that aren't working on finding more oil fields; Chevron's running a fairly insincere "We Agree" television campaign; BP is a four-letter word in many Gulf towns. They're pretty desperate for some good press as an industry.

All the oil companies are concurrently trying to soften their image by emphasizing their commitment to green energy; unfortunately for them, most Americans dismiss it as a typical business canard. Retooling a giant green-energy-intensive attraction at Epcot, however, is a PR coup on many levels. One, they can instantly trumpet job creation in an economy that's begging for it. Two, they can hold a big ribbon-cutting ceremony, pledging their commitment to green tech and saving our blah blah blah. Three, if they and the show writers focus on establishing an iconic (and, more importantly, cute/kid-friendly) mascot a la Figment, they've won the battle of public opinion among families with young kids.

[Ian]

Pretty good post for only #2! ;)

I may be misunderstanding your last point, though, but the current Universe of Energy pavilion is already green. It's powered by those solar panels on the building.

Although I'm not sure at all how much of the attractions power needs are actually met by those panels. Might be only a fraction.

[sportsguy2315]

I still think Apple is a no-brainer partner for that pavilion and with Jobs Disney's majority shareholder, I'm amazed they haven't pulled something off yet.

I think the big question with Apple is Jobs' health. It came out this morning that he's taking another health-related leave of absence. I'm not one for speculation, but I doubt Apple would pony up at this point.

[Dirty Bird Street]

Pretty good post for only #2! ;)

I may be misunderstanding your last point, though, but the current Universe of Energy pavilion is already green. It's powered by those solar panels on the building.

Although I'm not sure at all how much of the attractions power needs are actually met by those panels. Might be only a fraction.

Unless the UofE solar panels were replaced within the past few years, they are far behind the times when it comes to efficiency and output. New solar, of course, costs big bucks; however, by keeping the operating costs down with the day-to-day power savings, it could be a cost-saver the longer it runs. Then, of course, they'd have to redo the HVAC, lighting, etc., to maximize efficiency. So my vote is for overhaul on an unpopular oil company's dime.

[Ian]

I think the big question with Apple is Jobs' health. It came out this morning that he's taking another health-related leave of absence. I'm not one for speculation, but I doubt Apple would pony up at this point.Yeah, I posted that before I read the Jobs news.

Definitely de-stablizes things a bit at Apple.

[Dirty Bird Street]

I think the big question with Apple is Jobs' health. It came out this morning that he's taking another health-related leave of absence. I'm not one for speculation, but I doubt Apple would pony up at this point.

Also, would Apple abide HP's presence right across the way, and vice versa?

[Ian]

Also, would Apple abide HP's presence right across the way, and vice versa?A very fair point. I think Disney has, historically, tried to avoid having sponsors in competing industries.

In fact, I'm certain that part of their deal with HP includes a clause that they won't have any competing computer hardware sponsors in Epcot for the duration of their agreement.

Very good thought.

[Tekneek]

If they aren't going to maintain some theme/purpose for Epcot/Future World and will continue the trend towards it being a generic theme park, I'd rather they do nothing with anything. If they are going to regain some sense of purpose about the whole concept, then by all means I hope they start working on some solid concepts and hit the pavement looking for some forward thinking enterprises out there that want to be attached to something timeless.

[sportsguy2315]

A very fair point. I think Disney has, historically, tried to avoid having sponsors in competing industries.

Going back to the Imagination pavilion, the whole competing industries argument is why Figment is purple as opposed to green; there was speculation that a green dragon in a Kodak sponsored pavilion may bring up connotations of their competitor Fuji, whose main color is green.

[Ian]

Going back to the Imagination pavilion, the whole competing industries argument is why Figment is purple as opposed to green; there was speculation that a green dragon in a Kodak sponsored pavilion may bring up connotations of their competitor Fuji, whose main color is green.Yep, I had heard that.

Although I'd prefer to think that a purple dragon was viewed as a little more whimsical and ... well ... imaginative than a boring old green one. ;)

[spinnerf]

Was driving home from work and listening to the Intercot podcast in the car...... and it was suggested that Phineas and Ferb would be a great anchor for a new Imagination ride. I couldnt agree more, they would be perfect, if only I had the money to sponsor it....

[Ian]

Was driving home from work and listening to the Intercot podcast in the car...... and it was suggested that Phineas and Ferb would be a great anchor for a new Imagination ride. I couldnt agree more, they would be perfect, if only I had the money to sponsor it....It's strange ... for the most part, Disney seems fairly reluctant to commit any serious money to building attractions around the Disney Channel shows.

About the only place they really showcased the PD characters was in the Studios at the PD Live on Stage Show (which was low risk, since it was just some cheap sets and puppets ... easy switches).

I suspect they don't think the shelf life of these shows is such that it's worth making a big investment in them in terms of a real theme park attraction.

[sportsguy2315]

I suspect they don't think the shelf life of these shows is such that it's worth making a big investment in them in terms of a real theme park attraction.

I see that side of the argument...most DC shows don't last long, making any attractions about them obsolete quickly.

[Frog]

It almost seems as if Disney is "satisfied" with a classic product line... kinda like oh, lets see... Quaker oats is "satisfied" with selling oatmeal?? It has worked for so long with our grandparents and their parents, but is it going to have the appeal to us and our kids?? I for one am hoping immagineering has not "left the building" on these places as they seem to have soo much potential for future visitors!

[spinnerf]

Good points, probably wouldnt work, too bad... Phineas and Ferb crack me up. And the whole theme of the show is imagination. DC shows do seem to have a short shelf life.

[TracyL]

I could see a re-imagining of Imagination, keeping Figment and bringing back Dreamfinder (which they're doing pretty aggressively in merchandise, so it keeps making me wonder if they have something on the drawing board), and an overhaul of the post-ride space using Phineas and Ferb. THAT would be COOL. And would meet your low-risk requirement. I agree it needs a sponsor, and that Apple is the obvious choice, and that the HP snag is a problem. I wonder if you could look at somebody like Crayola? They've been pushing "imagination" in their marketing lately....

I also totally agree that one of the embattled oil companies ought to jump in on UoE. Such an obvious thing, and it's not like they don't have the money, no matter how much they whine about it. Record profits, guys -- it's all there in the paperwork. 'Fess up and do something useful with it.

[ERJDriver]

The only problem with an Apple sponsorship is that if you hold on to the hand rails incorrectly the ride shuts down:mickey:

[Ian]

I see that side of the argument...most DC shows don't last long, making any attractions about them obsolete quickly.Well but the question is why don't they last very long?

Most of the shows that my kids were fans of they still love ... Disney just cancelled them. And based on everything I hear, most other families loved them, as well.

Personally I think that when the shows get so popular that the creators actually want to be (GASP!) fairly compensated for their work, Disney bails on them and moves on to the next thing.

[Imagineer1981]

In another posted I had suggested 2 ideas

1) Something based on Epic Mickey, or the idea of an amazing Imagination adventure with Mickey (or it could be Figment) in which you must make it through using your imagination, senses, and a magic paintbrush. Could be alot of fun and maybe an open ended attraction like Indiana Jones where each experience is different based on what the car decides should happen, hence using your imagination!

2) Develop Figment as a true Character. stop trying to shove Duffy down my throat and devout a feature film to Figment. Then base the attraction around Figments adventures with the Dreamfinder

[Dirty Bird Street]

I like the framework of an Imagination Institute as far as advancing a plot and establishing a cohesive theme throughout the pavilion. Think Muppet Labs but... Epcot-ier. If Disney really decides to sell the idea of the Imagination Institute, there's no reason it can't include Figment and Dreamfinder in prominent roles. All that'd take is some... well, you know.

Recently, I was thinking about Captain EO, and how it brought a pop icon like Michael Jackson together with the (then-still remaining) prestige and artistic credibility of George Lucas. This got me thinking: what if Disney were to try injecting such visionary outsiders into the ride presentation? I like Eric Idle as a comedian, but such a concept has me thinking of an entirely different Monty Python alumnus: Terry Gilliam. You want to talk about imagination... and if you've ever seen anything about how he concocts his films, he's more of an Imagineer than any other director I've ever seen. But hey, who am I?

[AndrewJackson]

It does seem odd that the "Imagination" pavilion is the least imaginative of all! :blush:

I think one "retro" pavilion would be nice - and why not Imagination? Epcot (EPCOT Center) has been around for 30 years now. Those of us that loved the cheesy songs and rides of the 80s are now bringing our kids to Epcot. Honestly, I would wait in line for the old World of Motion, Horizons, and would LOVE to hear Listen to the Land on more time.

Why not change Imagination back to the original design. Heck, even put the cast members back to the orgininal costumes. (My sister-in-law worked at the land in the late 80s. I guess the joke was that EPCOT stood for Eccentric Polyester Costumes of Torture. :mickey:)

Disney should then advertise the pavilian as such - a trip back to the 1980s. Almost like a living museum and tribute to the orginial EPCOT Center.

[PopeCharming]

I do think that simply re-doing the original JII is possible. As some posters rightly pointed out, the track is destroyed, and ride space is taken up, but surely blueprints exist, right? Disney saves everything!

Moreover, nostalgia sells- just look at Captain EO; you have a whole generation of parents taking their kids, and seeing a long-forgotten attraction that brings up good memories: JII serves this kind of function as well. It is easy to forget that at the time of its closing, it was still the second most-ridden ride in Epcot, after Spaceship Earth.

Nevertheless, it does pose a problem, doesn't it: shouldn't imagination be focusing on the new?

[WDWfanatic742]

I'm saying right off the bat, I don't remember a single thing from the original ride, partly because I was only nine when the ride first closed. I'm going off of videos and info from people alot smarter than me on JII :mickey:

The ride was complex back in the early 80's, think of it like how Test Track was when they built it and it opened 2-3 years behind schedule because it had (and still has) complexity issues. Rotating the cars around during the different sets, keeping them in trains and then again omnimover style, and getting them to sync with the unload belt among other things. The main issue was keeping the ride timed with the rotating set and it was a very hard thing to do. So much so that Kodak wanted a brand new ride...

Like Ian said in a previous post, some of the ride track is in fact buried underneath the floor. The rotating set in the old ride is partly intact but is most likely beyond repair. The queue now goes right through the old rotating set. I think you used to be able to see part of the old ride track (or the track floor? I remember it was something weird) in the post show where they covered over a few years back until they had a refurb and blended it in.

If they REALLY wanted to go back to the old ride, they could. However it would take alot of work. Like Rusty said awhile back, the post show that is there now covers about half of the entire old track. They'd also have to put the Imageworks back upstairs and that was a guest traffic nightmare (The Land). With what they have done in the last decade and new ride technology, they could do something similar to the rotating set, but again it would be a tough thing to sync the cars and the set all of the time. So they COULD do it, but will they? I doubt it.

I'll say one thing, just watching the '99 version of the ride for the first time in awhile, thank goodness they decided to re-do the ride again. I haven't seen anything that bad in a long time...

[sportsguy2315]

I do think that simply re-doing the original JII is possible. As some posters rightly pointed out, the track is destroyed, and ride space is taken up, but surely blueprints exist, right? Disney saves everything!

Moreover, nostalgia sells- just look at Captain EO; you have a whole generation of parents taking their kids, and seeing a long-forgotten attraction that brings up good memories: JII serves this kind of function as well. It is easy to forget that at the time of its closing, it was still the second most-ridden ride in Epcot, after Spaceship Earth.

I think the biggest hurdle in your plan is the lack of a sponsor. Despite the improving economy, I don't think that anyone will step up to support either a sponsorship and/or the massive amount of money for a massive refurb either at JII or UoE.

[SandmanGStefani24]

2) Without a major sponsor, do not look for WDW to invest.
.

If they are looking for extra cash, why not set up a coin jar for donations? lol...

I am not suggesting we should have to pay to keep rides open but why not something fun like a penny drop. I only thought of this when going home one day with my pockets full of change. :D

But if you figure every park guest drops one penny into this eventually you would have a decent ammt. Maybe park it into innoventions with a neat little "ride" for the coins to go through and guests to watch.

OK, while a neat idea this is a stretch and sets a dangerous precident for asking guests to foot some of the bill when already paying high ammts to enter and stay at WDW.

Just my :twocents:. Sorry for the pun, maybe.
;)

[McLiberal8]

It's strange ... for the most part, Disney seems fairly reluctant to commit any serious money to building attractions around the Disney Channel shows.


You'd think that - then they go and start the Kim Possible Epcot thing, AFTER the show has stopped producing new episodes. :confused:

[Ian]

You'd think that - then they go and start the Kim Possible Epcot thing, AFTER the show has stopped producing new episodes. :confused:Ha yeah good point ... similar, although obviously not Disney Channel related, is their decision to start an American Idol show at the Studios about 2 years after its peak popularity. :confused::confused:

[DizneyRox]

OK, while a neat idea this is a stretch and sets a dangerous precident for asking guests to foot some of the bill when already paying high ammts to enter and stay at WDW.
You just described DVC. Not quite a stretch!

[brownie]

Was driving home from work and listening to the Intercot podcast in the car...... and it was suggested that Phineas and Ferb would be a great anchor for a new Imagination ride. I couldnt agree more, they would be perfect, if only I had the money to sponsor it....

Add my vote! I think Phineas & Ferb would be great to build the Imagination pavilion around.

[DisneyWitch]

I am a three time cast member and a many years AP holder and here's my opinion.

I don't care what it costs. I don't care how much trouble it is. I don't care how far you have to dig to find the things you need to do it. We need to have rides that are worth riding. Like the old imagination. We need rides that inspire and at Epcot we need rides that make us think. We don't need more animated characters. We have 3 other parks for that.

You keep raising my ticket prices and I keep paying them in the hopes that a little more money will put things right again.

I was pregnant with both of my children while I worked there so they have grown up in the parks. I started going myself the month MK opened. I miss some of the magic and my children (who are now grown) also comment on the missing magic. They would be totally devastated if they knew the place from when I was a child and had the full sense of what has been lost.

Of course, I won't stop going because I am ridiculously optomistic and I still have so many memories that sort of overlay what isn't really there. But really, where is Disney's pride? They really should be ashamed!
:(

[Mousemates]

You just described DVC. Not quite a stretch!

:funny:

[Imagineer1981]

But really, where is Disney's pride? They really should be ashamed!
:(

Good question. I think there are people who really want to achieve the impossible, but I think what happens is the finance guys aren't on the same page. The imagineers have blue sky sessions and dream up great ideas and by the time vps, presidents, and number crunchers get through it, the great ideas are dead

[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... :D

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.