-
The new WDWMAGIC iOS app is here!
Stay up to date with the latest Disney news, photos, and discussions right from your iPhone. The app is free to download and gives you quick access to news articles, forums, photo galleries, park hours, weather and Lightning Lane pricing. Learn More -
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
30 January 2003 Site Update: GE Sponsorship Ending
- Thread starter wdwmagic
- Start date
Damn.
I suspect Disney execs will find some way to cut back on the show. Seems like all they care about is milking every penny out of the parks to spend on ABC to keep it afloat.
Who's next?
What if Kodak split? (They are quickly losing their "film" market.) That would be a massive blow to all the parks.
CocaCola? na,...probably not. They are solid enough.
Exxon? Probably not...unless we have major oil problems in the near future....never know with current events being the way they are.
GM?...dunno?. I wonder when their contract is up?
Nestle?...Have no idea. Stocks seems relatively stable???
McDondalds?....maybe. They sure are hurting all of a sudden... and closing franchises??
Who's left? I'll bet Kodak will fall next. If they don't gain more ground soon on the Japanese digital camera competition, they'll be looking for cuts....maybe big ones. Fuji would happily replace them just out of spite alone!!
Financially, the parks can hold their own just fine and be very profitable for Disney. This really wouldn't be a huge problem if it wasn't for the ABC "black hole" suking away all the park profits.
My money is on Kodak.
CT : - )
I suspect Disney execs will find some way to cut back on the show. Seems like all they care about is milking every penny out of the parks to spend on ABC to keep it afloat.
Who's next?
What if Kodak split? (They are quickly losing their "film" market.) That would be a massive blow to all the parks.
CocaCola? na,...probably not. They are solid enough.
Exxon? Probably not...unless we have major oil problems in the near future....never know with current events being the way they are.
GM?...dunno?. I wonder when their contract is up?
Nestle?...Have no idea. Stocks seems relatively stable???
McDondalds?....maybe. They sure are hurting all of a sudden... and closing franchises??
Who's left? I'll bet Kodak will fall next. If they don't gain more ground soon on the Japanese digital camera competition, they'll be looking for cuts....maybe big ones. Fuji would happily replace them just out of spite alone!!
Financially, the parks can hold their own just fine and be very profitable for Disney. This really wouldn't be a huge problem if it wasn't for the ABC "black hole" suking away all the park profits.
My money is on Kodak.
CT : - )
orangefan15
New Member
I'd agree that Kodak will probably be the next to go...they're certainly having some really bad financial times lately.
Dizknee_Phreek
Well-Known Member
Originally posted by dopey
There ya go! The new sponsor could be Chili's or whichever chain it is that makes the Bloomin' Onion. There wouldn't a dry eye in the house!
LOL! :lol:
EthylCooper
Active Member
It makes a difference for me. I don't go out of my way to hunt down GE when I need something, but if I'm standing there in Walmart looking at a 19.99 GE cassette recorder and a 19.99 Emerson cassette recorder, I'm going to grab the GE. That little soundtrack in my head will be saying "Because GE brings good things to life, in just 5 minutes...."
I'm sad I won't hear that on my next trip.
cymbaldiva
Active Member
I have read this thread, and I am troubled...
Is "sponsership" supposed to help Disney, the sponsering company, or both?
I ask because I've heard that several attractions have closed to "lack of sponsership". That makes it sound like Disney can't afford to operate it's own attractions...
Can someone please explain?
Is "sponsership" supposed to help Disney, the sponsering company, or both?
I ask because I've heard that several attractions have closed to "lack of sponsership". That makes it sound like Disney can't afford to operate it's own attractions...
Can someone please explain?
prberk
Well-Known Member
Sponsorship goes all the way back to Walt himself, when he created attractions for Disneyland and especially the 1964 World's Fair.
The problem, as I see it (and have stated before on these boards), is the seriously declining sense of goodwill and technological innovation associated with the Walt Disney Company and its parks. In the early days, Walt was seen as an innovator and goodwill ambassador worldwide. That is why four organizations (GE, for COP; Pepsi, for It's a Small World; the state of Illinois, for Great Moments with Mr. Lincoln; and one other that I forgot) contracted him and the imagineers to create innovative, showcase attractions for their companies in the World's Fair. These sponsorships and sense of innovation and showcase are what actually gave rise to Walt Disney World, which itself was supposed to include the MK but actually focus on innovation and progress at EPCOT.
In the past, the Walt Disney Company had technological respect also that would rival the kind of respect that Industrial Light and Magic has today.
I think the company of late has focused on entertainment so much that it has lost much of the goodwill that made it a showcase that companies wanted to be associated with. Their benefit came from being associated with a company (and a man) that, by its (and his) very name, brought both a smile and respect.
The company just needs to refocus some of its priorities on innovation and exploration (such as with television programs that show it off -- that is how Walt did it, and how The Discovery Channel and Animal Planet still do it today) for that sense to come back. In the 2001 annual report, Michael Eisner said that he was surprised at a recent survey that showed the people saw his company as a "technology company," as well as an entertainment company. I personally believe that the fact that he was surprised lies at the root of the sponsorship problem: he and some management do not realize fully what they have, and have not been nourishing that part of the company as much as they could have. The company flourishes when it is seen as much as a true innovator and goodwill ambassador as it is an entertainment (show) place.
The problem, as I see it (and have stated before on these boards), is the seriously declining sense of goodwill and technological innovation associated with the Walt Disney Company and its parks. In the early days, Walt was seen as an innovator and goodwill ambassador worldwide. That is why four organizations (GE, for COP; Pepsi, for It's a Small World; the state of Illinois, for Great Moments with Mr. Lincoln; and one other that I forgot) contracted him and the imagineers to create innovative, showcase attractions for their companies in the World's Fair. These sponsorships and sense of innovation and showcase are what actually gave rise to Walt Disney World, which itself was supposed to include the MK but actually focus on innovation and progress at EPCOT.
In the past, the Walt Disney Company had technological respect also that would rival the kind of respect that Industrial Light and Magic has today.
I think the company of late has focused on entertainment so much that it has lost much of the goodwill that made it a showcase that companies wanted to be associated with. Their benefit came from being associated with a company (and a man) that, by its (and his) very name, brought both a smile and respect.
The company just needs to refocus some of its priorities on innovation and exploration (such as with television programs that show it off -- that is how Walt did it, and how The Discovery Channel and Animal Planet still do it today) for that sense to come back. In the 2001 annual report, Michael Eisner said that he was surprised at a recent survey that showed the people saw his company as a "technology company," as well as an entertainment company. I personally believe that the fact that he was surprised lies at the root of the sponsorship problem: he and some management do not realize fully what they have, and have not been nourishing that part of the company as much as they could have. The company flourishes when it is seen as much as a true innovator and goodwill ambassador as it is an entertainment (show) place.
figmentmom
Well-Known Member
You make some excellent points, prberk. I personally feel that the withdrawal of sponsorships is, plain and simple, economic belt-tightening for the companies involved. I don't think it's their best move in terms of public relations, but obviously that's not bothering them. It's too bad, because I think everyone loses - Disney, the sponsoring companies, and park guests, but I believe it's a sign of the times.
Pumbas Nakasak
Heading for the great escape.
I would have thought that given the sudden increase in potential sales Raytheon would have been ideal sponsors for illuminations, after all they are in the whizz bang buisness
wannabeBelle
Well-Known Member
Does this mean that I should return my brand new GE Answering machine?? And it was pretty funny as I was standing there in Circuit City picking it out, I did think of the corporate sponsorship and did choose GE becasue of it as I had no other preference!!! Belle
Originally posted by figmentmom
You make some excellent points, prberk. I personally feel that the withdrawal of sponsorships is, plain and simple, economic belt-tightening for the companies involved. I don't think it's their best move in terms of public relations, but obviously that's not bothering them. It's too bad, because I think everyone loses - Disney, the sponsoring companies, and park guests, but I believe it's a sign of the times.
I agree totatly. It's not because companies don't WANT to affiliate themselves with Disney. I'm sure the desire there...for ALLOT of companies. Years ago, companies were throwing money away like it was water. Sponsership was a nice little "feel good" gesture.
Today, it's strictly a matter of expence vs. revenue. Shareholders of ALL companies now don't like seeing their comapnies spending money in ANY area that does not directly generate revenue.
Let's not lie to ourselves here. These companies spend millions on sponsorship and only get hundreds of thousands in return... maybe not even that.
Companies are fighting to just stay alive right now and they want more effective use of their dollars...especially if they are hurting.
I don't understand why people don't accept this concept. It's happening accross the enitre global economy.
Maybe we are thinking with our hearts and not with our heads.
CT : - )
BRER STITCH
Well-Known Member
:wave:
Well, the economic reality of these arrangements is this:
If it was a good deal for the sponsor company, they would still be doing it.
If the return on the investment has grown increasing smaller, to where it cannot be justified to employees and stockholders, it will not be done.
The first responsibility of these companies is to their stockholders. With economic reality being how it is currently, sponsorship money is better spent on trying to keep people in jobs or on research and development of new products, or even cost cutting in general.
A couple theories on this topic that many may not have addressed:
1) Perhaps Disney is trying to phase out sponsorship of attractions by these companies in hopes of attracting newer, more exciting companies.
2) Perhaps the companies themselves wish to associate their name with newer, more exciting products or attractions.
3) Perhaps in their quest to grab on to more free money, the suits in California have made turned sponsorship deals into one-sided, take-it-or-leave-it deals that, to their surprise, many companies are choosing to leave.
In any event, NO NEED TO WORRY! Park operations will not be affected by these departures. The attractions will continue to operate as usual.
Disney has a product/brand identity that is second to none. It is not that they NEEDED sponsors, but that they successfully gambled that sponsors would pay to associate themsleves with that identity.
They were right.......until now.
Well, the economic reality of these arrangements is this:
If it was a good deal for the sponsor company, they would still be doing it.
If the return on the investment has grown increasing smaller, to where it cannot be justified to employees and stockholders, it will not be done.
The first responsibility of these companies is to their stockholders. With economic reality being how it is currently, sponsorship money is better spent on trying to keep people in jobs or on research and development of new products, or even cost cutting in general.
A couple theories on this topic that many may not have addressed:
1) Perhaps Disney is trying to phase out sponsorship of attractions by these companies in hopes of attracting newer, more exciting companies.
2) Perhaps the companies themselves wish to associate their name with newer, more exciting products or attractions.
3) Perhaps in their quest to grab on to more free money, the suits in California have made turned sponsorship deals into one-sided, take-it-or-leave-it deals that, to their surprise, many companies are choosing to leave.
In any event, NO NEED TO WORRY! Park operations will not be affected by these departures. The attractions will continue to operate as usual.
Disney has a product/brand identity that is second to none. It is not that they NEEDED sponsors, but that they successfully gambled that sponsors would pay to associate themsleves with that identity.
They were right.......until now.
>>>Perhaps in their quest to grab on to more free money, the suits in California have made turned sponsorship deals into one-sided, take-it-or-leave-it deals that, to their surprise, many companies are choosing to leave.<<<
You absolutely hit the nail on the head. You can now add General Electric to that infamous list of companies that includes MetLife, American Express, and last month's sucker that bought into Innoventions.
>>>Park operations will not be affected by these departures. The attractions will continue to operate as usual.<<<
At least until the attractions fall apart and become to expensive to operate, as was the case with the Seacabs in The Living Seas, Horizons, Rocket Rods (the GM sponsorship that never happened).
It should be noted that Oriental Land Company has not had much of a problem with sponsorship issues, and they operate in a far worse economic climate than Disney does.
You absolutely hit the nail on the head. You can now add General Electric to that infamous list of companies that includes MetLife, American Express, and last month's sucker that bought into Innoventions.
>>>Park operations will not be affected by these departures. The attractions will continue to operate as usual.<<<
At least until the attractions fall apart and become to expensive to operate, as was the case with the Seacabs in The Living Seas, Horizons, Rocket Rods (the GM sponsorship that never happened).
It should be noted that Oriental Land Company has not had much of a problem with sponsorship issues, and they operate in a far worse economic climate than Disney does.
no2apprentice
Well-Known Member
Maybe the sponsers there haven't learned what the American sponsers have learned.
>>>Maybe the sponsers there haven't learned what the American sponsers have learned.<<<
HA! American companies don't even have the slightest CLUE how bad things can get! If our economy were to instantly become as sour as Japan's I have a feeling that most company executives would be commiting suicide, and the ones that were left would be desperately looking for ways to cash out before their ship crashed.
Wow, Japanese companies don't have the "business sense" that American companies do. That's some serious claim to make!
HA! American companies don't even have the slightest CLUE how bad things can get! If our economy were to instantly become as sour as Japan's I have a feeling that most company executives would be commiting suicide, and the ones that were left would be desperately looking for ways to cash out before their ship crashed.
Wow, Japanese companies don't have the "business sense" that American companies do. That's some serious claim to make!