Attraction Sponsorship...

[po1998]

I've always been a little puzzled by the whole attraction(or in the case of Epcot WS country) sponsorship.

Aren't the guests already "sponsoring" attractions/countries by way of park admission? I can understand WDW collecting additional revenues by having an attraction sponsor(much like arena/stadium naming rights), but I just don't get attractions not being built, maintained, or closed due to an attraction sponsor. It should be as simple as no sponsor, then more of the attraction costs fall on WDW.

Is this really happening as much as I think?

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Is this really happening as much as I think?

No.

 

[Master Yoda]

It has been this way since Disneyland opened in 1955. The money brought in my sponsors goes a long way to offsetting the cost for building, running and maintaining the parks.

Using sponsors has however been waning in recent years, but seems to be on the rise again.

The articles linked below goes a little more in depth on the subject.

http://themeparkuniversity.com/disney/happened-theme-park-sponsorships/

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-theme-park-sponsors-20160521-snap-story.html

 

[dreamfinder]

In a way, they are. But just like every sports team selling naming rights, in venue ads, heck even logo placement on uniforms, WDW wants the extra money. Having a sponsor usually dictates regular updates/refurbs in their agreement. So while WDW will still eat the costs themselves and perform regular maintenance, having the sponsor will perhaps increase the maintenance, or lead to additional changes/refurbs that would otherwise be shelved. I do believe one of the reasons why Imagination was refurbed (somewhat disastrously) was that it was written into the contract with Kodak that they would get an updated attraction.

 

[jrogue]

I don't know if I understand the sponsorship situation 100%, but I know that our admission price goes into TONS of things in WDW. It doesn't just go towards attractions, it goes towards salaries, food, and maintenance on several other things. Transportation, etc. We are paying for every little part of our vacation, all the way down to the soap! lol Therefore I think that's why WDW gets some sponsorship for the attractions, and why things can fall apart if the attraction is no longer sponsored (and left in the hands of WDW) or if the sponsor isn't pulling their weight.

 

[po1998]

...and why things can fall apart if the attraction is no longer sponsored (and left in the hands of WDW) or if the sponsor isn't pulling their weight.

I guess thats my point. I don't think an attraction should ever be "ignored" by WDW due to lack of sponsorship. They are making fistfuls of money, and if a very small percentage of the profits are needed to maintain/upgrade an attraction in lieu of sponsorship, than so be it.

 

[DManRightHere]

Is there a list of what rides/attractions original sponsors and whether they still have sponsors today? I did a quick search and saw someone had a complete list of anything in the park sponsored, but it was from 2004.

 

[ShoalFox]

Is there a list of what rides/attractions original sponsors and whether they still have sponsors today? I did a quick search and saw someone had a complete list of anything in the park sponsored, but it was from 2004.

Test Track is one of the few pavilions in WDW that has maintained its original sponsor through multiple incarnations (World of Motion -> Test Track 1.0 -> TT 2.0).

At least for Future World, everything in Epcot that still has a sponsor (except TT) has a different sponsor from its original version.

 

[FigmentForver96]

Is there a list of what rides/attractions original sponsors and whether they still have sponsors today? I did a quick search and saw someone had a complete list of anything in the park sponsored, but it was from 2004.

Imagination had Kodak from park opening to a couple years ago. I want think Kodak was one of the first to sign onto the EPCOT Center project

 

[Master Yoda]

Prefect place for advertising for Kodak. In fact I can't think of a better place?

Except that Kodak no longer does much if any thing with the consumer market since the filed for Chapter 11 in 2012.

 

[LuvtheGoof]

All of the Kodak Picture Spots are now sponsored by Nikon at all the parks.

 

[JIMINYCR]

Disney shouldnt have to rely on company sponsorship for maintaining safe, well run attractions, but it helps with the bottom line. Anything that pays for refurbs that doesnt come out of their pocket helps. I have always been surprised that more companies havent sponsored more attractions at Disney. Company name/ product recognition drives product and what better place to put that in front of people coming from all over the country and beyond, than at Disney. Of course I'm glad that everything isnt branded and Disney hasnt become a property wide commercial, but it would help if done in low key placements of company logos. Anything Disney brings in from the outside that helps keep an attraction running should be sought after and welcomed.

 

[trr1]

without Exxon Universe of Energy turned into Ellen's energy adventure and hasn't changed in 20 years

 

[ShoalFox]

without Exxon Universe of Energy turned into Ellen's energy adventure and hasn't changed in 20 years

Exxon was still the sponsor when EEA opened...

 

[trr1]

sponsorship from Exxon ended in 2006 so if a new sponsor came along it could be replaced