Do "sponsors" have too much control over EPCOT attractions?

[KevinPage]

How much power does Kodak and other corporations who sponsor attractions really have? You always hear it was Kodak who changed the pre show for HISTA and had the original JIYI closed completely. I assume it is not "urban legend".

I doubt they foot the entire $$$ bill on the whole attraction though. So how much power do they actually wield? Was Disney so desparate to loose Kodak they couldn't convince them it was a bad move? Who then paid the money to "replace the replacement"?

Or are we going to have to wait for a JimHill article on the subject (if one hasn't already been done).

 

[FigmentJedi]

I know that Kodak somehow owns Dreamfinder, which is why he isn't in JIIWF, as Disney didn't want to pay Kodak to use him. It makes me sad...

 

[careship]

There is an article about what epcot was originally supposed to be and how it was changed and the control of the pavillions etc on jim hill but I don't put alot of weight to it. It's pieces, I'd rather have the full story.

 

[flyersmv]

i heard that the sponsers jus pay the bill and disney puts there name in the ride and uses their products in theparks...........but all the preshows and movies and such are all disney

 

[speck76]

I dont think that sponsors have too much control, rather I think Disney is dependent on the sponsors too much.

Could anyone really have thought that JII was going to be such a huge failure until it was too late, and would it have been a failure if Test Track was finished 2 years earlier, instead of having them both reopen a short time apart from eachother. (could more money/time have been spent on JII, instead of getting TT finally running)

 

[Testtrack321]

When people give you money for you to get more money, you usually give some stuff you normally wouldn't to them. It's part of the businses.

 

[cloudboy]

I don't think there is any one way it is done. I think it all depends upon the deal they have worked out. For instance, I believe that GM had a lot of say in their pavilion, because they fotted most of the bill. But they don't have complete say, and ptrty much it is all for Disney's benefit. I believe that in order to get GM to budget that much (they are a BIG sponsor), they had to let them show their cars off.

In other cases I believe that the sponsors get less say. If anything, I would almost rather that the sponsors had MORE control. That way, I think that they would be a lot more interested in producing something that is going to be good. They know what kind of recognition they could get out of it. If anything, I think Disney relys too much on Sponsor funding but won't give the sponsors enough control, and soo they just don't want to put the money into it.

 

[speck76]

Well, there is also at least 2 different types of sponsors

1. Advertising Sponsor, which is like GM. They are there to get the word out about their products, and perhaps indirectly sell a few cars. The probably not only paid WDC a lot for this sponsorship, but also had to provide WDW with a good amount of vehicles for park use.

2. Product Sponsor (Coke, Kodak) These sponsor are also known as "The Official --- of Walt Disney World" Kodak keeps their name on attractions so they can be the only film in the park, and they can sell lots of product. Coke is in a similar situation. Although most of the Kodak sponsor attractions have recently been redone (except Muppetvision) I think Disney would have an easier time negotiating with this type of sponsor, and can demand more from them....I am sure that if Kodak or Coke do not like the deals, Pepsi and Fuji are just a phone call away. (ExxonMobil pulled sponsorship from UoE, and within weeks, Amerada Hess took over the on-property gas stations and is sponsoring an expansion of Wide World of Sports)

The current lack of sponsorship is mainly due to the type 1 sponsors pulling out....How did United Technologies really benifit from sponsoring The Living Seas....How did MetLife (it was Metlife, right) benifit from sponsoring Wonders of Life? I think that Disney has a much harder time with these types of sponsors, and will have to do more in the future to keep them on board.

 

[DarkMeasures]

I know Imagination and WoM changed because in the contracts with the companies, it stated that a new ride would have to replace the current one in a certain number of years. I think it was 15 for it but I am not sure.

I know Kodak did not want Dream Finder and Figment in the new Imagination attractions and rising insurance costs killed the Imageworks. But the insurance thing has plagued more than just Disney. It has killed my amusment park and theme park attractions as well as several amusment parks all together.

 

[careship]

Do they really need the sponsors? I know it was began as a way for them to showcase new technologies and how these work, but what now? That really isn't the case for most. I don't know how these things work anymore so I am really uneducated in this other then what I think so please do not blast me.

 

[careship]

I know Imagination and WoM changed because in the contracts with the companies, it stated that a new ride would have to replace the current one in a certain number of years. I think it was 15 for it but I am not sure.

I know Kodak did not want Dream Finder and Figment in the new Imagination attractions and rising insurance costs killed the Imageworks. But the insurance thing has plagued more than just Disney. It has killed my amusment park and theme park attractions as well as several amusment parks all together.

You have me interested...can you elaborate?

 

[DarkMeasures]

Well I wish I knew more but I got this stuff from when there was a topic about how the current Imagination track is much shorter than the old one. Couple of years old. That is how I learnt about the contract thing but I am not sure about the Dreamfinder/figment thing.

But if it is a different attraction in 15 years, don't most of the newer attractions fit the bill?

 

[speck76]

But if it is a different attraction in 15 years, don't most of the newer attractions fit the bill?

From what I have read, JII had to be replaced per contract by 1999. Now, is this the fault of sponsors having too much control, or Disney just too desperate for sponsors while Epcot was on the drawing boards. (JII was a late add before Epcot began construction)

The only attractions not to be upgraded since their opening are WoL and TLS, and both are now sponsorless. TLS is getting upgraded now (phase 1 done, more phases to come) and it will be interesting to see if it can get another sponsor.

 

[DarkMeasures]

I wonder if an aquarium or zoo would be a good sponsor for the Living Seas. Maybe even Amheiser Bush... Even though they have a park a couple miles away.

 

[speck76]

I wonder if an aquarium or zoo would be a good sponsor for the Living Seas. Maybe even Amheiser Bush... Even though they have a park a couple miles away.

That will never happen.

I think that Disney could start "self-sponsoring" some attractions, like the Hall of Presidents would be a good attraction for The History Channel to sponsor, and Disney owns part of that channel....The American Adventure too, but that still has Coke as a sponsor I think.

 

[DarkMeasures]

That will never happen.

I think that Disney could start "self-sponsoring" some attractions, like the Hall of Presidents would be a good attraction for The History Channel to sponsor, and Disney owns part of that channel....The American Adventure too, but that still has Coke as a sponsor I think.

Usually when they self sponsor, Disney makes up a fake company like DASA.

 

[KevinPage]

I know Kodak did not want Dream Finder and Figment in the new Imagination attractions and rising insurance costs killed the Imageworks.

Disney would be responsible for the insurance. Kodak doesn't own or operate the pavillion. Granted, you'd have to see how the hold hamrless clause, if there was one in the contract, was worded. But I'd be shocked if Kodak has anything to do with that.

 

[cloudboy]

I don't really buy into that insurance bit. If it was a problem for Disney, you would not have another museum anywhere in the country.

Another problem with the sponsorship contracts is that they are particularly long term. Few companies want to go that long on an investment where there is not a ton of payback. That is why I think that the whole way pavilions are done has to change. Disney is trying to get the capital but doesn't want to give away any of the proceeds. They have to start letting companies show off their products and stuff. IF they want the sponsorship money. Back when Epcot first opened, Disney was pretty much a smaller company, and the name recognition was good. Now Disney is the big corporate giant, and having their name associated with them is not always so hot - it makes them look like part of the corporate machine.

Not to mention how heavy-handed Disney is with their contracts.

It's a hole they dug themselves into, and they have to give a little to get out of it. I think for World Showcase they should approach some of the retailers and such in the various countries to sponsor shops and rides, instead of thhe countries themselves. And they should let the pavilions have post shows like Test Track. I know it's not a favorite, but it is what makes sponsorship worth it for the companies.

 

[HennieBogan1966]

Having worked in the Nascar industry and now in a retail business that requires vendors to pay for footage in our stores, I really believe that these agreements are probably very similar in structure. In other words, Disney, for a price, agrees to give said sponsor a certain amount of "footage" in their parks. Now, instead of footage, they get to be the Official "lug nut glue" of Disney World. It doesn't mean that they have any control over, or say in, any of Disneys business practices. Now, if they don't like how their product is being marketed, then they either renegotiate, or don't renew their contract. So, inasmuch as sponsors seem very visible in the parks, it doesn't mean they have any say in park operations per se.

Just my opinion though.

 

[tigger248]

Sorry to be off subject, but I can't resist asking. What did you do in the NASCAR industry? I'm a huge fan. That's what the numbers in my name stand for. 24-Jeff Gordon 8-Dale Jr.