epcot wand....

[VillanovaBlue]

Bollox :-0

Quick, everyone...Google the word "Merkin"...I dare ya...but you might not want to do it at work...I'm just sayin'

:drevil::lol:

 

[juscet]

I'll be in the minority and say that I really liked it. I just went in April and really missed it.

 

[Spyne]

It was because the wand was meant to be temporary, but Disney tried to play it off as a permanent fixture.

While I liked the wand, I'm also very happy Spaceship Earth is back to it's original splendor.

 

[Legacy]

It was because the wand was meant to be temporary, but Disney tried to play it off as a permanent fixture.

See Festival of the Lion King and Mickey's Toontown Fair.

 

[Fun2BFree]

After seeing the Hong Kong version I agree!!!! A new and improved version should be built in Adventureland or Africa at AK that is on par with the one they just built in Hong Kong.

Then Joe can build something amazing after CMM is bulldozed. :sohappy:

I doubly agree. Let's see FotLK relocated to a better venue.

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

Then I guess it's time for fan-boys to start chanting for the removal of Festival of the Lion King. It was intended to be temporary.

And before you justify its stay with enclosing the theater, it was an attempt at permanency... like changing "2000" to "Epcot" with the wand. It still doesn't change the fact that it was originally intended to be temporary (EDIT).

FYI, Wand threads have been popping up and have been heated since I joined six years ago.

This one has actually been relatively civil.

Yes,this has been civil....SO far...:lookaroun


But honestly,FOTLK at least fits the theme and is entertaining.It's a pretty good attraction.The Wand on the other hand was brought in as something "extra" and just left there...I thought it was changed to EPCOT because they didn't have the funds to remove it...Not becaue it was a good thing.FOTLK was plussed bacasue it was popular regardless.

 

[wannab@dis]

The Wand on the other hand was brought in as something "extra" and just left there...I thought it was changed to EPCOT because they didn't have the funds to remove it...Not becaue it was a good thing.

There's that logic again... :lol:

The "didn't have funds" is not a fact that we can know for sure. Probably an urban (fanboy) myth.

If their surveys had shown it was a bad thing, they would have removed it earlier -- simple ROI. I would feel pretty good about a simple hypothesis... if a new sponsor had not asked for it to be removed, I bet it would still be standing today.

More than likely, their surveys/research showed that it was not a negative issue. Therefore, the wand was left. Once a VIABLE reason surfaced (request by sponsor) they removed it.

I think this particular issue is very illustrative of the fanboy logic fallacies. EVERY thing is measured in the business world. Decisions are based on those measurements, not the feelings of a minority group. When a trend shows a negative dip, a response is required. Further, positive trends usually necessitate continued investment to 1) keep the trend moving, or, more importantly, 2) to increase the trend variance. However, flat trends are usually studied for how much it will tend to change. If nothing is done, and the trend continue to be flat, then that's the best course of action, especially if investment does not show a positive variance.

Basically, it all comes down to ROI.

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

ROI?

And you bring up a wonderful issue:If the wand wasn't bad,then why did they ask for it's removal?Obviously they have some negative reason for it.:shrug:

 

[wannab@dis]

ROI?

And you bring up a wonderful issue:If the wand wasn't bad,then why did they ask for it's removal?Obviously they have some negative reason for it.:shrug:

ROI = Return on Investment

Why did it have to be a negative reason? Maybe Siemans just wanted pictures in their marketing material to not have a Mickey hand and "Epcot" showing up? It could easily be a trademark / IP (intellectual property) issue. I would be fairly certain that the name "Epcot" is trademarked. Any usage of that mark would have to be licensed if used within commercial marketing. Simple conclusion could be that Siemans did their own ROI calculation and the cost of removing the wand was less over the length of their sponsorship than paying for license fees everytime "Epcot" showed up somewhere in their material.

There you go... two simple reasons for removal that are not "negative."

Whatcha bet a roomful of lawyers from both sides could come up with dozens more?

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

Alright then...There are reasons of both sides.AT&T never had a problem with the wand...I wonder why SIEMENS did.I think the removal was more guest based for that reason.

 

[jakeman]

But honestly,FOTLK at least fits the theme and is entertaining.It's a pretty good attraction.The Wand on the other hand was brought in as something "extra" and just left there...I thought it was changed to EPCOT because they didn't have the funds to remove it...Not becaue it was a good thing.FOTLK was plussed bacasue it was popular regardless.

Festival of the Lion King doesn't fit the theme of Camp Minnie Mickey at all. How did an African talking lion and folk singers end up in a summer camp in the Adarondak (oh I mangled that)?

 

[krankenstein]

ROI = Return on Investment

Why did it have to be a negative reason? Maybe Siemans just wanted pictures in their marketing material to not have a Mickey hand and "Epcot" showing up? It could easily be a trademark / IP (intellectual property) issue. I would be fairly certain that the name "Epcot" is trademarked. Any usage of that mark would have to be licensed if used within commercial marketing. Simple conclusion could be that Siemans did their own ROI calculation and the cost of removing the wand was less over the length of their sponsorship than paying for license fees everytime "Epcot" showed up somewhere in their material.

There you go... two simple reasons for removal that are not "negative."

Whatcha bet a roomful of lawyers from both sides could come up with dozens more?

I agree, if they ran a simple cost benefit analysis they could probably determine that instead of having a positive impact on the bottom line, it would have a negative. It's obvious people are going to go to Disney if the wand was there or not. Thus, why spend money to remove it when you don't have to? Now when you are talking about the infusion of capital Siemans was going to bring, the cost benefit analysis probably showed a benefit to the company for its removal. Thus, the wand was removed.

 

[Poisoned-Apple]

Every time I've ever been to EPCOT, the wand has been there. I never really loved or hated it, but it will be nice to see how it originally looked!

 

[Legacy]

Alright then...There are reasons of both sides.AT&T never had a problem with the wand...I wonder why SIEMENS did.I think the removal was more guest based for that reason.

AT&T was in the tail end of its sponsorship term and probably had little intention of renewing when the wand went up. Furthermore, since nothing had really been done with the Spaceship Earth attraction itself, AT&T probably didn't see the removal of the wand as cost effective.

Siemens possibly did, especially when you consider the licensing fees that would be necessitated had it been seen in Siemens promotional material. The sphere can be anywhere... a sphere with a giant Mickey hand can be found in only one place. Licensing conflict arises because of that.

The guests would have had nothing to do with it.

 

[wannab@dis]

Just wanted to add that probably the main reason the wand stayed up wasn't ROI but it's removal wasn't beneficial to to company. If they ran a simple cost benefit analysis they could probably determine that instead of having a positive impact on the bottom line, it would have a negative. It's obvious people are going to go to Disney if the wand was there or not. Thus, why spend money to remove it when you don't have to? Now when you are talking about the infusion of capital Siemans was going to bring, the cost benefit analysis probably showed a benefit to the company for its removal. Thus, the wand was removed.

True, but the highlighted section is an ROI calculation.

Any capital expenditure is an investment. As you said, if a cost benefit analysis didn't show a positive OR negative outcome, the best course of action is status quo. My bet is that's the status it has been in since 2001. I don't think it's a coincidence that it was removed at the same time as a new sponsor showed up. I think a conclusion that the wand was neither positive nor negative is a fairly safe assumption.

 

[krankenstein]

True, but the highlighted section is an ROI calculation.

Any capital expenditure is an investment. As you said, if a cost benefit analysis didn't show a positive OR negative outcome, the best course of action is status quo. My bet is that's the status it has been in since 2001. I don't think it's a coincidence that it was removed at the same time as a new sponsor showed up. I think a conclusion that the wand was neither positive nor negative is a fairly safe assumption.

Yeah, I realized that after I posted it. I haven't been in business classes for about year b/c I am working on my Education Masters. My brain wasn't working right. :hammer:

 

[jonnyc]

I dunno.......it's kinda like the Wizard of Oz........there was this big tornado that whisked this big hat out of the sky and dropped it right in the middle of WDW.

That's what it looks like to me....a randomly placed sculpture. They could have dedicated some spacious area for it...maybe themed an outdoor restaurant around it.

You may think it is randomly placed sculpture, but if you look at an birds eye view picture of the park i came across on the picture of the day thread, you can see it is part of a huge hidden mickey.

Although i do agree it takes away from The Great Movie Ride's building. I think it should have been placed somewhere else in the park, and had something more significant inside it, as opposed to a pin station.

In reguards to the Epcot wand, this will actually be the first time i see it without it, as the first time i went to WDW was in 2000. So i am looking forward to seeing it in its intended form.

 

[krankenstein]

You may think it is randomly placed sculpture, but if you look at an birds eye view picture of the park i came across on the picture of the day thread, you can see it is part of a huge hidden mickey.

That hidden Mickey was messed up when they added Sunset Blvd. You can still make it out, but it is nothing like it was originally.

 

[jennc2001]

What about the people you weren't with?

If you are going with people who have been before, they have a preconcieved notion about the park. I bet if you had gone with someone who had never been before, or more importantly, observed someone outside of your circle, you may be surprised at how little people cared.

You say that because the wand is gone, it was a bad thing.

Well, I say that because Horizons is gone, it was a terrible attraction.

That's your logic.

well, i went back in 2006 and it was still up and i didn't understand why it said 2000....and i didn't know what the whole thing was about. and i didn't and don't go all the time...........

 

[MattyFresh]

I personally, and most of my family agree, the wand was great for the millenium, it really marked that Epcot was the place to be to ring in the year 2000, after that though its stay was no longer required.

yeah imagine if Times Square left the ball up year round instead of just dropping it at New Years. It kind of loses its magic.

Better analogy....please don't flame me...what if the birthday castle stayed that way for years and years???

I was indifferent about the wand, if it stayed then so be it, but now that it came down I do think it looks much better.