News Big changes coming to EPCOT's Future World?

_caleb

_caleb

Well-Known Member
Nunu said:
Starbucks sells well inside the parks, there's always a good number of customers at all 4 locations. Also, for what I've seen, their Disney exclusive pastries and mugs sell very well.
Click to expand...
Do you think the same exact cafes but with, say "Mortimer Mouse" branding instead of Starbucks would do as well, not as well, or about the same?
 
FigmentFan82

FigmentFan82

Well-Known Member
_caleb said:
Do you think the same exact cafes but with, say "Mortimer Mouse" branding instead of Starbucks would do as well, not as well, or about the same?
Click to expand...
I totally get where you're thinking is with this, and yeah that would def be fun. And not to be argumentative, but a lot of people take coffee very seriously, like their addiction to it, and sometimes people just want the coffee they know from the outside world cuz they know how it will taste. I think this is one of those instances where a little window dressing is fine like how they're not called Starbucks, but beyond that people just want their Starbucks
 
Nunu

Nunu

Wanderluster
Premium Member
_caleb said:
Do you think the same exact cafes but with, say "Mortimer Mouse" branding instead of Starbucks would do as well, not as well, or about the same?
Click to expand...
Can't speak for everyone, but wouldn't make much of a difference to me, I love coffee. I recognize Starbucks and know their product, that doesn't mean I wouldn't buy a Mortimer Mouse if that's what Disney decided to call it.
 
_caleb

_caleb

Well-Known Member
FigmentFan82 said:
I totally get where you're thinking is with this, and yeah that would def be fun. And not to be argumentative, but a lot of people take coffee very seriously, like their addiction to it, and sometimes people just want the coffee they know from the outside world cuz they know how it will taste. I think this is one of those instances where a little window dressing is fine like how they're not called Starbucks, but beyond that people just want their Starbucks
Click to expand...

Nunu said:
Can't speak for everyone, but wouldn't make much of a difference to me, I love coffee. I recognize Starbucks and know their product, that doesn't mean I wouldn't buy a Mortimer Mouse if that's what Disney decided to call it.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I know brand recognition is huge. And I'm sure Starbucks would NOT want to have a low-key presence in the parks. When Disney struck a deal with Joffrey's, it was such an unknown brand to most WDW guests, it served as essentially an in-house brand (though with no internal story that I'm aware of).

I know that Joffrey's featured the Disney brand heavily when it was introduced in other retail outlets, so I'm curious how Joffrey's feels about Starbucks on property, though...

Anyway, this is fun to think about.
 
FigmentFan82

FigmentFan82

Well-Known Member
_caleb said:
Yeah, I know brand recognition is huge. And I'm sure Starbucks would NOT want to have a low-key presence in the parks. When Disney struck a deal with Joffrey's, it was such an unknown brand to most WDW guests, it served as essentially an in-house brand (though with no internal story that I'm aware of).

I know that Joffrey's featured the Disney brand heavily when it was introduced in other retail outlets, so I'm curious how Joffrey's feels about Starbucks on property, though...

Anyway, this is fun to think about.
Click to expand...
I think in parks, the heavy foot-traffic, Starbucks is fine. The resorts usually have their own little cafe or coffee shop that is themed to the resort, so I think that is a fine compromise
 
Magic Feather

Magic Feather

Well-Known Member
You can call Starbucks whatever you want (ex. Trolley Car Cafe), but there has to be at least some explicit acknowledgement that what is inside is effectively a Starbucks. To the casual guest, walking by somewhere that says “Mickey’s Grind” or something like that has no appeal, no familiarity, and no draw. Put “Mickey’s Grind” with a Starbucks below it, and now people know what they’re getting and are excited about it. Like it or not, Starbucjs has a lot of consumer goodwill built up, almost as much as Disney, and they’d be crazy but to capitalize on it.
IMO, the balance they’ve struck with their existing locations are about as good as it can get.
 
UNCgolf

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
Magic Feather said:
You can call Starbucks whatever you want (ex. Trolley Car Cafe), but there has to be at least some explicit acknowledgement that what is inside is effectively a Starbucks. To the casual guest, walking by somewhere that says “Mickey’s Grind” or something like that has no appeal, no familiarity, and no draw. Put “Mickey’s Grind” with a Starbucks below it, and now people know what they’re getting and are excited about it. Like it or not, Starbucjs has a lot of consumer goodwill built up, almost as much as Disney, and they’d be crazy but to capitalize on it.
IMO, the balance they’ve struck with their existing locations are about as good as it can get.
Click to expand...

I strongly disagree.

I mean, I agree from a business standpoint, but that's not what I was talking about. Of course it makes more business sense to slap Starbucks all over everything because they'll probably sell more coffee. But if everything was done solely from what makes the most business sense, the Disney parks would be a dramatically different place than they are right now -- I don't think anyone wants that, so I don't think that's a great argument. Plus, if people want coffee and they are in the parks, they're going to go to the place that sells coffee regardless of whether it's labeled as a Starbucks. It's not like the Main Street Bakery is going to be deserted if it doesn't have a Starbucks logo on the window.

The Starbucks branding is bad for the parks from a theming standpoint. It's just not a good look.

EDIT: To follow-up on my point above, if they were just going for what might make the most possible money, they should probably change all the quick service restaurants into McDonald's, Chick-Fil-A, Panera, etc. and put up big signs pointing people there.
 
Last edited:
Magic Feather

Magic Feather

Well-Known Member
ImperfectPixie said:
We need something better than Starbucks. It tastes burned.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, but at least it consistently tastes burned. I long for the day that Dunkin will give me the same thing every time I give the same order.
UNCgolf said:
I strongly disagree.

I mean, I agree from a business standpoint, but that's not what I was talking about. Of course it makes more business sense to slap Starbucks all over everything because they'll probably sell more coffee. But if everything was done solely from what makes the most business sense, the Disney parks would be a dramatically different place than they are right now -- I don't think anyone wants that, so I don't think that's a great argument. Plus, if people want coffee and they are in the parks, they're going to go to the place that sells coffee regardless of whether it's labeled as a Starbucks. It's not like the Main Street Bakery is going to be deserted if it doesn't have a Starbucks logo on the window.

The Starbucks branding is bad for the parks from a theming standpoint. It's just not a good look.

EDIT: To follow-up on my point above, if they were just going for what might make the most possible money, they should probably change all the quick service restaurants into McDonald's, Chick-Fil-A, Panera, etc. and put up big signs pointing people there.
Click to expand...
So, I agree with you to an extent. From a purely theming perspective, having any brand in the park is bad. Having “sponsored by Enterprise Rent-A-Car” under the TRON sign won’t be great, but it makes a lot of sense from a business perspective, and the thematic concession doesn’t weaken the product enough to override the business perspective. To the contrary, it would be prohibitive to paint the enterprise logo over the TRON canopy, because it actually weakens the product significantly to the point where it could affect consumer perception of the product.

This is why you’ll never see a Panda Express in the China Pavilion. It weakens the perception of the product by bringing in a cheap fast food place, and it significantly hurts the brand image to the point that it could turn off consumers.

So, in order to maintain their business, Disney is put in a unique position where theming is a business strategy, but strategic partnerships can be mutually beneficial without detracting significantly.

Starbucks is an especially unique partnership, because it is viewed in an incredibly high regard by most consumers. It is viewed as a premium product, which when paired with Disney theming that dominates the spaces with a few direct Starbucks callouts, makes a unique space that is mutually beneficial to consumers, Disney, and Starbucks.

And while Main Street Bakery would not have been empty, every single Disney Starbucks location outperforms its previous tenant by a pretty large margin.
 
UNCgolf

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
Magic Feather said:
So, I agree with you to an extent. From a purely theming perspective, having any brand in the park is bad. Having “sponsored by Enterprise Rent-A-Car” under the TRON sign won’t be great, but it makes a lot of sense from a business perspective, and the thematic concession doesn’t weaken the product enough to override the business perspective. To the contrary, it would be prohibitive to paint the enterprise logo over the TRON canopy, because it actually weakens the product significantly to the point where it could affect consumer perception of the product.

This is why you’ll never see a Panda Express in the China Pavilion. It weakens the perception of the product by bringing in a cheap fast food place, and it significantly hurts the brand image to the point that it could turn off consumers.

So, in order to maintain their business, Disney is put in a unique position where theming is a business strategy, but strategic partnerships can be mutually beneficial without detracting significantly.

Starbucks is an especially unique partnership, because it is viewed in an incredibly high regard by most consumers. It is viewed as a premium product, which when paired with Disney theming that dominates the spaces with a few direct Starbucks callouts, makes a unique space that is mutually beneficial to consumers, Disney, and Starbucks.

And while Main Street Bakery would not have been empty, every single Disney Starbucks location outperforms its previous tenant by a pretty large margin.
Click to expand...

That's fair. And Main Street Bakery's Starbucks branding is also the least obvious among the parks, at least if I remember it correctly. It's also probably the most incongruous with the theming around it because of Main Street USA's attempt to invoke a specific time and place, but it's definitely a minor thing overall.

I'm never going to love seeing Starbucks signs/logos on in-park buildings, but there are far bigger issues.
 
FigmentFan82

FigmentFan82

Well-Known Member
I feel like last year there was a big Starbucks hating thread derailment for a bit. I think people love to hate on Starbucks, but to me it's such a pointless endevour. Like people who hate Apple products. The fact is Starbucks makes good coffee. If they didn't they wouldn't be as popular as they are. You don't keep going back for a cup of coffee it it tastes like crap. If the taste is not for you that's fine, but it would be disingenuous to call it bad. As to whether they should be in Disney parks? Well, again their long lines should tell you the answer. There's always something someone won't like in a Disney Park, unfortunately we can't just get rid of the stuff we don't like
 
UNCgolf

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
FigmentFan82 said:
I feel like last year there was a big Starbucks hating thread derailment for a bit. I think people love to hate on Starbucks, but to me it's such a pointless endevour. Like people who hate Apple products. The fact is Starbucks makes good coffee. If they didn't they wouldn't be as popular as they are. You don't keep going back for a cup of coffee it it tastes like crap. If the taste is not for you that's fine, but it would be disingenuous to call it bad. As to whether they should be in Disney parks? Well, again their long lines should tell you the answer. There's always something someone won't like in a Disney Park, unfortunately we can't just get rid of the stuff we don't like
Click to expand...

I don't hate Starbucks, though. It has nothing to do with the brand itself. It could be Dunkin' Donuts or literally any other major brand of anything.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom