Why is it that all the hardcore fans are so resistant to brands being featured in the parks?
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Why do the fans hate brands?
- Thread starter mharrington
- Start date
ParentsOf4
Well-Known Member
Many people have a basic dislike to sponsor signs placed within WDW largely because it "interferes" with their enjoyment of the theme parks. It is an intrusion of the outside world into WDW. The reaction is not logical; it's emotional. They want WDW to be "pure", never mind that TWDC is one of the largest corporations in the world.
Brand hatred is nothing specific to WDW. If someone likes Coke (for example), they probably are going to like an appropriately themed Coke sign in the parks. If they dislike it, then they are going to be bothered by it. This is true anywhere, not just at WDW. Disney itself is a brand and, as difficult as it is to believe, there are many who dislike the Disney brand immensely.
Disney has been using brands at the theme parks since the beginning. When DL first opened, Walt Disney didn't have the money to build or the expertise to run many aspects of the parks. Walt brought in many brands to operate certain aspects. However, Walt disliked not having control over these aspects (Walt was a control freak) or how they were inconsistently presented to guests. Once he had the money, Walt quickly started regaining control over these elements.
For the 1964 World's Fair, Walt used sponsors to fund research into attraction development. Basically, he saw it as a great way to have someone else pay his R&D cost!
The Walt Disney Company (TWDC) had similar financial challenges creating Epcot. The park was too large and TWDC simply couldn't afford it. Attraction and country pavilion sponsorship was a must. Without it, Epcot never would have been built. Understandably, if a company is paying for something, they are going to want to advertise that fact.
In the case of the recently announced Starbucks coming to Main Street USA, a poorly worded notice allowed people to imagine that the Main Street Bakery was being replaced by a Starbucks. The reaction was not logical but emotional. However, as a good ad exec knows, the presentation of the product is often more important than the product itself. After 4 days of fury, WDW finally published another announcement calming people's concerns. The reality hadn't changed; only the message.
Brands are all about message. Two products might be identical but people will consistently pick the one with the brand name that they trust. At the parks, if people feel that the message "belongs", then they like it. If not, they dislike it. Each person has a different interpretation of the message and each reacts differently. People have preconceived notions of certain brands before they arrive at the parks. In order for them to accept a particular brand in a particular location, it has to fit within their preconceived notions of the brand itself.
None of this is particularly logical but then selling products rarely is. If selling products were logical then Land Rover, which makes notoriously unreliable and expensive cars, should be out of business. Instead, it's very popular among a certain class. Brands at WDW are no different.
Brand hatred is nothing specific to WDW. If someone likes Coke (for example), they probably are going to like an appropriately themed Coke sign in the parks. If they dislike it, then they are going to be bothered by it. This is true anywhere, not just at WDW. Disney itself is a brand and, as difficult as it is to believe, there are many who dislike the Disney brand immensely.
Disney has been using brands at the theme parks since the beginning. When DL first opened, Walt Disney didn't have the money to build or the expertise to run many aspects of the parks. Walt brought in many brands to operate certain aspects. However, Walt disliked not having control over these aspects (Walt was a control freak) or how they were inconsistently presented to guests. Once he had the money, Walt quickly started regaining control over these elements.
For the 1964 World's Fair, Walt used sponsors to fund research into attraction development. Basically, he saw it as a great way to have someone else pay his R&D cost!
The Walt Disney Company (TWDC) had similar financial challenges creating Epcot. The park was too large and TWDC simply couldn't afford it. Attraction and country pavilion sponsorship was a must. Without it, Epcot never would have been built. Understandably, if a company is paying for something, they are going to want to advertise that fact.
In the case of the recently announced Starbucks coming to Main Street USA, a poorly worded notice allowed people to imagine that the Main Street Bakery was being replaced by a Starbucks. The reaction was not logical but emotional. However, as a good ad exec knows, the presentation of the product is often more important than the product itself. After 4 days of fury, WDW finally published another announcement calming people's concerns. The reality hadn't changed; only the message.
Brands are all about message. Two products might be identical but people will consistently pick the one with the brand name that they trust. At the parks, if people feel that the message "belongs", then they like it. If not, they dislike it. Each person has a different interpretation of the message and each reacts differently. People have preconceived notions of certain brands before they arrive at the parks. In order for them to accept a particular brand in a particular location, it has to fit within their preconceived notions of the brand itself.
None of this is particularly logical but then selling products rarely is. If selling products were logical then Land Rover, which makes notoriously unreliable and expensive cars, should be out of business. Instead, it's very popular among a certain class. Brands at WDW are no different.
George Lucas on a Bench
Well-Known Member
Even if it's for greater good, sponsorship at the parks has always kinda bugged me. You'll go through a great attraction and exit into a huge advertisement. Now, it must be said that it isn't simply ads at the conclusion of a ride that will annoy me. I'm also annoyed when I'm dumped into a wall of people in a crowded gift shop and can't simply exit an attraction logically. You pay so much to get into the parks these days, you absolutely don't want to see ads everywhere.
UPbeekeeper
Well-Known Member
I don't hate brands. It's just that in my mind, when I see those "brands" in the parks, it's like seeing a commercial for something in the middle of my favorite movie on TV. It's like being out for a drive, enjoying the scenery, and then out pops a billboard. Seeing those "brands" in the parks just reminds me too much of real life. I go to WDW to escape real life. If things are done tastefully and low key, it's not quite so bad, but still a distraction.
bamillerpa
Active Member
I don't mind brands if they are done tastefully. However, it would bother me in the MK. The MK is suppose to be this fantasy world full of magic and make believe. Seeing a brand while walking around is like a reality jolt. I don't mind it in Epcot or Hollywood Studios or even to a point at Animal Kingdom. If they sell Coke in Asia then why wouldn't you see it in Asia in Animal Kingdom? But to me, seeing an outside brand doesn't fit with being a pirate, or a princess, or walking down Main Street USA when some of these brands weren't even invented yet for the time frame. Do you really think that Tom Sawyer had a Starbucks coffee cup in hand while riding his raft? If just doesn't fit the theme of the park and in my opinion just takes something away from the experience.
It served a syrup based swill that they call coffee and that is all that is really changing.
bamillerpa
Active Member
Sorry, one more point. The utilidors were built because Walt didn't want to see a cowboy in Tomorrowland (or something like that). He didn't want to mess up the experience by having something there that obvious didn't fit or belong. I feel that brand placement falls under this category.
Nothing wrong with the bakery, just the line of what they called "coffee" that is being changed. From one brand to another.
And I would say that not all hardcore fans hate brands. Sponsors and the brands they've brought into the parks have always been a part of the Disney experience.
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
Imagine how much more you would pay to be in the parks if they weren't part of it. Actually, you might even have to imagine the park itself being there with out the outside support.
That argument really doesn't hold water. There isn't one thing found in any of the locations on Main Street that existed in that time frame. How would you justify all of that and yet think that Starbucks doesn't fit because of it? They didn't have much in the line of running water or flush toilets during that time either, should that be left out? Oh, yea...the streets were all dirt and mud then too.
I would share your concern if I thought that they were going to tear out the front and make it look like a current day Starbucks, but they aren't going to do that. I'm sure they had coffee back in the beginning of the 20th century too, just maybe not that brand. There is nothing bad about it being there, there is nothing that is going to "kill" the image. In fact, within a week, it will go completely unnoticed except for those that have to have their coffee.
scoobygirl39541
Well-Known Member
I love brands, it guarantees (most of the time) a familiar consistently good product every time.
taz0162
Well-Known Member
I will not turn down good coffee. Wish it could have been Dunkin Donuts (Seriously so much better tasting) but I don't think they have the same following around the rest of the country.
Matt7187
Well-Known Member
But Starbucks wasn't around in the early 1900's and we all complain about milf being in tomorrowland and stuff like that
bamillerpa
Active Member
That argument really doesn't hold water. There isn't one thing found in any of the locations on Main Street that existed in that time frame. How would you justify all of that and yet think that Starbucks doesn't fit because of it? They didn't have much in the line of running water or flush toilets during that time either, should that be left out? Oh, yea...the streets were all dirt and mud then too.
I would share your concern if I thought that they were going to tear out the front and make it look like a current day Starbucks, but they aren't going to do that. I'm sure they had coffee back in the beginning of the 20th century too, just maybe not that brand. There is nothing bad about it being there, there is nothing that is going to "kill" the image. In fact, within a week, it will go completely unnoticed except for those that have to have their coffee.[/quote]
Let me clarify....I don't mind having Starbucks in the parks or any other brand. What I don't want are the big signs advertising the brand. Starbucks just happened to come to mind because it's been in the news. If they keep the outside look of the bakery without a Starbucks sign I would be fine with that. I don't even mind if they mention that it's Starbucks on the menu board or anything like that. I just don't want a big Starbucks sign advertising their brand on the front of the building. It would be the same if I was walking down Main Street USA and saw a Gucci sign. I could care less if they carry something of that brand, just not making the store an advertisement for it.
It's about the appearance of things. Fine, they had no flush toilets but the flush toilets aren't advertised out front, they are in a restroom where the outside facade is integrated in with the building. That's what I was trying to get across. I don't mind brands in the parks, I mind the blatant advertising. I just want it to blend in with whatever theme they are trying to get across.
I would share your concern if I thought that they were going to tear out the front and make it look like a current day Starbucks, but they aren't going to do that. I'm sure they had coffee back in the beginning of the 20th century too, just maybe not that brand. There is nothing bad about it being there, there is nothing that is going to "kill" the image. In fact, within a week, it will go completely unnoticed except for those that have to have their coffee.[/quote]
Let me clarify....I don't mind having Starbucks in the parks or any other brand. What I don't want are the big signs advertising the brand. Starbucks just happened to come to mind because it's been in the news. If they keep the outside look of the bakery without a Starbucks sign I would be fine with that. I don't even mind if they mention that it's Starbucks on the menu board or anything like that. I just don't want a big Starbucks sign advertising their brand on the front of the building. It would be the same if I was walking down Main Street USA and saw a Gucci sign. I could care less if they carry something of that brand, just not making the store an advertisement for it.
It's about the appearance of things. Fine, they had no flush toilets but the flush toilets aren't advertised out front, they are in a restroom where the outside facade is integrated in with the building. That's what I was trying to get across. I don't mind brands in the parks, I mind the blatant advertising. I just want it to blend in with whatever theme they are trying to get across.
No, but bakeries and coffee shops were.....
PUSH
Well-Known Member
As long as they are subtle. It doesn't bug me when a car logo is in front of TT, or when Edy's ice cream logo is on a menu board. However if they start putting advertisements on the side of building and have signs hanging in the middle of Main Street, I'll have some problems. Just don't turn it into a Six Flags.
Florida_is_hot
Well-Known Member
I never went to the Magic Kingdom/Epcot/Animal Kingdom thinking much of brands much one way of another .... why do you think we hate brands?
I believe the Walt Disney Company does promote one brand theirs.... it gives the place identity.
Before Disney MGM became Hollywood Studios I believe the Walt Disney Corporation hated the idea of people buying shirts with a MGM logo.
If anything the "fans" have been complaining because the Disney brand is harder to see. (The napkin thread for example)
Could care less about the Coke Logo or Starbucks Logo.
Even though I like Pepsi better and I refuse to spend $6.00 for a coffee.
I believe the Walt Disney Company does promote one brand theirs.... it gives the place identity.
Before Disney MGM became Hollywood Studios I believe the Walt Disney Corporation hated the idea of people buying shirts with a MGM logo.
If anything the "fans" have been complaining because the Disney brand is harder to see. (The napkin thread for example)
Could care less about the Coke Logo or Starbucks Logo.
Even though I like Pepsi better and I refuse to spend $6.00 for a coffee.
Matt7187
Well-Known Member
Ok, good point. As long as there isn't a huge Starbucks sign hanging over Main Street, I guess I will live!