-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
is project gemini dead
- Thread starter coopdog
- Start date
CRO-Magnum
Active Member
Blame the economy if anything...
The answer is cost, ROI (return on investment) and association. In revese order, as Disney has gotten larger over the years and moved into the more radical side of the movie business (Miramax), the racier side of TV (ABC's NYPD Blue) and controversial business decisions (Disney's America), corporate America is leery of being guilty by association.
In terms of ROI, it's hard to justify the investment in sponsorship. GM is at one exterme under-writing loans for the original construction of Epcot and paying outright for TestTrack funding it with over $250MM of their money (and for those curious, much of it was designed without Disney Imagineering). Being a former GM'er I can tell you that company spends money like water because it's so large and takes a very long term view. More importantly, they like the association with Disney (apple pie, chevrolet, and Disney), and they use it as a showcase. At the other extreme is United Technologies who sponsored Living Seas yet they have little brand recognition to the consumer that goes to Epcot so the exposure was largely meaningless.
Cost is a huge factor. In the age of executive perks companies easily justified sponsorships to get the private meeting rooms. In today's business climate that's difficult to justify unless you make the pavillion a showcase like GM and HP (I'm assuming HP has a private suite). Sponsorship rides the economic wave at Disney; always has and always will. Sponsoring a pavillion over 10 years will cost you more than $100MM at the low end and significantly more if you want a great, high volume attraction. Consider that Space Mountain went from RCA for years to nothing to Fed Ex in the next economic boom. Expect new sponsors after the economy is in boom mode for 3 or more years.
Comparing tradeshows to Epcot is apples to oranges. Tradeshows provide a highly segmented audience to which companies deliver targeted messages. Epcot is more of a shotgun approach with no segmentation, no target. And if your audience isn't the American consumer, there's no reason (proven by UT). Consider there are more companies selling to other companies than to you. Kraft Foods for example sells only 40% of its products consumers - you can't buy Kraft ketchup at the store but you can get it through their Foodservice. There is very little risk of association with a tradeshow, definable ROI, and lower cost because there's no requirement to return year after year.
By the way...Disney has a long term IT relationship with HP. So HP isn't really sponsoring a pavillion so much as buying a customer. And Disney isn't so much buying IT equipment as gaining a pavillion sponsor. I wouldn't be surprised if the end result was a zero sum game.
The answer is cost, ROI (return on investment) and association. In revese order, as Disney has gotten larger over the years and moved into the more radical side of the movie business (Miramax), the racier side of TV (ABC's NYPD Blue) and controversial business decisions (Disney's America), corporate America is leery of being guilty by association.
In terms of ROI, it's hard to justify the investment in sponsorship. GM is at one exterme under-writing loans for the original construction of Epcot and paying outright for TestTrack funding it with over $250MM of their money (and for those curious, much of it was designed without Disney Imagineering). Being a former GM'er I can tell you that company spends money like water because it's so large and takes a very long term view. More importantly, they like the association with Disney (apple pie, chevrolet, and Disney), and they use it as a showcase. At the other extreme is United Technologies who sponsored Living Seas yet they have little brand recognition to the consumer that goes to Epcot so the exposure was largely meaningless.
Cost is a huge factor. In the age of executive perks companies easily justified sponsorships to get the private meeting rooms. In today's business climate that's difficult to justify unless you make the pavillion a showcase like GM and HP (I'm assuming HP has a private suite). Sponsorship rides the economic wave at Disney; always has and always will. Sponsoring a pavillion over 10 years will cost you more than $100MM at the low end and significantly more if you want a great, high volume attraction. Consider that Space Mountain went from RCA for years to nothing to Fed Ex in the next economic boom. Expect new sponsors after the economy is in boom mode for 3 or more years.
Comparing tradeshows to Epcot is apples to oranges. Tradeshows provide a highly segmented audience to which companies deliver targeted messages. Epcot is more of a shotgun approach with no segmentation, no target. And if your audience isn't the American consumer, there's no reason (proven by UT). Consider there are more companies selling to other companies than to you. Kraft Foods for example sells only 40% of its products consumers - you can't buy Kraft ketchup at the store but you can get it through their Foodservice. There is very little risk of association with a tradeshow, definable ROI, and lower cost because there's no requirement to return year after year.
By the way...Disney has a long term IT relationship with HP. So HP isn't really sponsoring a pavillion so much as buying a customer. And Disney isn't so much buying IT equipment as gaining a pavillion sponsor. I wouldn't be surprised if the end result was a zero sum game.
That's why i put in the bit about the %20 space for products. For example let's look at the old horizons. GE sponsored it, but the only thing they got was a chance to place their names in a few strategic spots. Nothing else. Now look at Test Track. At the end of the ride, you exit into a showroom for GM. It's a chance for them to show off their product to the consumer. Those are the types of sponsors needed - those who can justify the expense based on the fact that they will be getting marketing opportunities out of it.
Most of the sponsors have ironically been ones who havn't had a whole lot to get out of it. Sure you may get a oil company or service company that is desparately looking for some good name recognition, but there are few actual consumer companies out there.
And as much as people say Disney has become "dirty" in their movies, they still have one of the squeekiest clean reputations in the country.
Most of the sponsors have ironically been ones who havn't had a whole lot to get out of it. Sure you may get a oil company or service company that is desparately looking for some good name recognition, but there are few actual consumer companies out there.
And as much as people say Disney has become "dirty" in their movies, they still have one of the squeekiest clean reputations in the country.
I agree with all the sentiments, but what I'd really loved to have seen at EPCOT was a hotel that rung around World Showcase with the rooms overlooking the park (A very long hotel I know!). The rooms behind each pavilion would correspond to that country. Japanese rooms would be traditional ryokans, the mock-hotel in Canada would be real and have a lodge feel, and the German rooms would be like a quaint gasthof, etc. Thus, they could have built even more elaborate facades for each country but they would be revenue generating and not just for decoration.
DarkMeasures
New Member
There would then be a problem of adding a new land. And with the size of the hotel, it would be too expensive and really hard to fill unless you have to stay at a Disney hotel to go to a Disney park....
They couldn't do it now but it would have been a neat idea when the park was first built. Eleven countries with say 200 rooms each would only be 2,200 rooms or about the size of YC/BC, BWI combined. Those not staying could still enter a la Disneyland Paris and Tokyo Disney Sea. Anyway, it would be cool, but will never happen.
Hank Scorpio
New Member
World Showcase needs more attractions.
Don't get me wrong, its great to go round and see the sights and sample the delights of all these countries and I love doing it - but to the average joe its not got much repeat value.
One thing I love is the restaurants. Its the best part of the World Showcase - sampling different cuisine throughout the world. But how cool would Epcot be if in each country, there was a worthy attraction / ride to do with that nation? And I don't mean a 360 film... I mean a real attraction. Not necesarily thrill rides, but just think of the posibilites.
Don't get me wrong, its great to go round and see the sights and sample the delights of all these countries and I love doing it - but to the average joe its not got much repeat value.
One thing I love is the restaurants. Its the best part of the World Showcase - sampling different cuisine throughout the world. But how cool would Epcot be if in each country, there was a worthy attraction / ride to do with that nation? And I don't mean a 360 film... I mean a real attraction. Not necesarily thrill rides, but just think of the posibilites.
I heartily agree. However, I will pose the question: Who benefits? (other than the guests). I've never understood World Showcase completely. Take Japan for instance. It's run by the Mitsukoshi company. The store (which recently expanded) is always packed. It's amazing how busy it is. The three inside eating spots are always packed. So they're obviously raking in the cash and Disney is collecting their royalties. So what benefit is it to Mitsukoshi to fork out money for an attraction?
Do the stores and restaurants of the countries with attractions do better than the ones without? They don't seem to. I think people go there at night specifically to eat, shop and watch Illuminations. I'm not sure if more attractions would help fill the already packed restaurants.
While I could think of a thousand different things to do with a ride in Japan, that is probably the one that least needs it. Where they really need a ride is Morrocco, UK or Italy. Those pavillions tend not to have as much traffic and could use a draw.
As you said, a number of people look at World Showcase as simply a food court. I think that for those people an attraction would make Epcot a little more entertaining.
The other thing is simple name recognition - same way FedEx sponsors Space Mountain. It would work both for Americans for recognition of a foreign company, and for foreign visitors as well.
As you said, a number of people look at World Showcase as simply a food court. I think that for those people an attraction would make Epcot a little more entertaining.
The other thing is simple name recognition - same way FedEx sponsors Space Mountain. It would work both for Americans for recognition of a foreign company, and for foreign visitors as well.
jrriddle
Well-Known Member
There is also a reverse idea.
Taking the attractions out of World Showcase.
There was a rumour floating around earlier this year that Management was kicking around the idea of literally spliting Epcot in two (Project Gemini) Future World (Discoveryland) would still charge an entrance fee, but World showcase would be free or a small admission price and would contain only restaurants and entertainment like Downtown Disney.
Taking the attractions out of World Showcase.
There was a rumour floating around earlier this year that Management was kicking around the idea of literally spliting Epcot in two (Project Gemini) Future World (Discoveryland) would still charge an entrance fee, but World showcase would be free or a small admission price and would contain only restaurants and entertainment like Downtown Disney.
CRO-Magnum
Active Member
Sponsored. FedEx no longer sponsors Space Mountain; all references were removed from the attraction quite some time ago unless I missed something which is always possible.
Goofyfanatic
New Member
I for one would not want to see this happen...I like the idea of starting with future World in the morning and then heading towards World showcase latrer on. Besides what would become of Illuminations if that were to happen.
I don't see this happening anyway...at least it would not make good business sense..I have friends who go to Epcot in particular for the World Showcase..I even wonder if they would go if there was only future World
I think much like Animal Kingdom...people miss the point of World Showcase..it's not a place to run from attraction to attraction...it is a place to discover other cultures.
Agreed. And I love World Showcase but some of the restaurants are not that different from what you can get at home. I saw stuff I liked in the China stores but I thought I can go to Chinatown in Toronto and get the same stuff cheaper. I do love the recreations of the "ideal" country, talking to CMs, and eating and wandering around and watching the entertainment. But, I do lament that I always get to soar over the Great Wall and Frenches villages, but not over the medina of Fes or the towers of Tuscany.
I'd actually like to see one super movie that encompassed all the countries.