More Wrapped Buses

[jakeman]

It's all transportation, keep up will you.

Just so you can stay ahead, we are next going to be comparing Tokyo Disney Sea to a can of tuna, then DVC to the number 12. Finally, we're going to yell at a wheel of cheese and argue about how it should have been cheddar instead of parmigiano reggiano.

 

[sshindel]

You're missing the distinction between something included because it was offered as a service/amenity of the property... vs something from the outside world simply being inside the borders. The stuff they brought inside initially was all for a purpose.. and meant to dovetail into the customer experience they were trying to build. Things brought in were done so in a calculated manner under strict controls. The whole thing was meant to be a manicured experience... all wrapped around your vacation experience.

Being reminded about what TV shows I should set on my DVR... is not part of the vacation experience.

And why not? Should I forget the outside world exists when on vacation? If so, Central Florida and Disney (a park built based on a pop culture mouse) is not where I'm going. Somewhere in Denali National Park maybe.
At a Disney Park, surrounded by Disney Products, rides based on Disney films, I have no issue being reminded of other Disney products that I might want to catch up on when I go home from my Disney vacation.

 

[arko]

Disneyland didn't have ads for ads or television shows.

no they named restaurants after their sponsors, because nothing says immersion more than Frito's and Chicken of the sea

 

[jakeman]

And why not? Should I forget the outside world exists when on vacation? If so, Central Florida and Disney (a park built based on a pop culture mouse) is not where I'm going. Somewhere in Denali National Park maybe.
At a Disney Park, surrounded by Disney Products, rides based on Disney films, I have no issue being reminded of other Disney products that I might want to catch up on when I go home from my Disney vacation.

I'm going to go ahead an give you the hyperbole response a head of time.

So you will be okay with it's a Small World telling you about shows ABC Family?

 

[lazyboy97o]

the argument is that a bus wrap somehow ruins the experience of being at WDW by bursting the resort bubble, which makes no sense because there have always been tons of things that have been there to burst the bubble from the day Walt opened Disneyland to today. Corporate sponsorships is just another example of that, and its been around since the beginning.

The goal is a bubble, so more needles is not an acceptable condition. The existence of other needles, the removal of which would be plussing a long held Disney belief, does not justify more.

 

[lazyboy97o]

no they named restaurants after their sponsors, because nothing says immersion more than Frito's and Chicken of the sea

And there were whole experiences tied to those names, not just a billboard. The bus ride doesn't change with a wrap.

 

[jakeman]

And there were whole experiences tied to those names, not just a billboard. The bus ride doesn't change with a wrap.

Just curious...do the Fritos change in the Casa de Fritos? Or do you still, like, know you're eating a Frito?

 

[flynnibus]

the argument is that a bus wrap somehow ruins the experience of being at WDW by bursting the resort bubble, which makes no sense because there have always been tons of things that have been there to burst the bubble from the day Walt opened Disneyland to today. Corporate sponsorships is just another example of that, and its been around since the beginning.

No, no one said it 'ruins' the experience - only that it doesn't belong and detracts. Then there was some people that argued once outside the parks.. no one cares.. which was another part of the discussion.

I also addressed before that there is a nature of 'practicality' when it comes to bringing in elements that you may not otherwise see as fitting into the vision for the project/space/experience. You can not live in a world where you hold a position those undesirable things to NOT exist and that you can exclude EVERYTHING.. and no one is holding Disney to that standard. It's about what you DO with those things and how you integrate them into the experience, or do it in a way that minimizes the negatives.

Sponsorships is an example of those practicalities - no one is holding a standard that says they should not exist, and no corporate presence should be there. But its about HOW it's done. Disney's success with avoiding 'over the top' with this of course has blemishes in its past (people's take on UoE's message for instance)... but it's not uncontrolled or glaring. You wouldn't find a FedEx truck parked in front of Space Mountain. People point to them existing from the start.. Yes, because Disney needed the money. And as soon as he had the money, he took control again and bought them out. Sponsorships were a means to an end for Disney... not simply "well they exist everywhere else, why not accept them here too?" justifications.

The earlier examples I gave about safety are another example where Disney has worked to make these practicalities either minimize, blend, or disappear from the consciousnesses. The stories about how Disney has hidden fire safety systems in the parks are another great example of it's not an expectation that you EXCLUDE practicalities... its how you work with and around them to ensure they cause the least amount of disruption to the guest experience.

The very nature that parks aren't a hop skip and a jump away are another one of these practical aspects that Disney had to address. To do it in a Disney fashion, they built out their own transportation service that could operate to their standards of both customer service and show. Transportation is a practicality... but none of that says moving billboards are just part of transportation that can't be avoided or has a place in this experience.

 

[sshindel]

Yet you went on for two paragraphs about 'this is the way it is... live with it'.

Far be it for someone on these forums to go on and on about something I know. Since I'm such an outlier, I'll just mention that I didn't say "live with it". I said that Disney in no way is doing something to ruin the Disney experience, IMO, by putting marketing on their busses, and that it is a product of the world we live in.

And what do you say about my DCL example which debunks your 'this is the way it is everywhere' postulation?

I've not been on DCL, so I cannot speak objectively about what is and isn't offered on their ships. I didn't ignore the point, I just cannot speak from experience about the cruises, therefore I cannot respond to the argument. If I know that I cannot speak intelligently about a subject, I won't speak of it as if I do.

This is where my signature comes into play... "if you can't do the little things right..."

This is the sum of a thousand cuts. This is just another example where the company has been nipping away at the very design principles it used to get itself to where it is. And while you may not think it's a big deal... it's an indicator of the systematic problems and leadership that keep operating the business in the way that gives you those things you do think are issues. A business that keeps under delivering more often than not with it's forward movements.

They keep missing the mark because the core principles that built the empire are not as respected and adhered to as they used to be.

See, I agree with you on some of this. I'll jump on board with you to tear down the issues that Disney has brought upon itself by ignoring the core mission of Epcot Center when it updated Future World. I'll yell and gnash my teeth with the best of them that by ignoring it's core principles, they've ruined their product.
But, the busses? C'mon. Again, IMO (I keep saying IMO now so that people realize I speak only for myself), it's a non-issue. It's another form of advertising, not anywhere near the most blatant and in your face advertising, going back through the history of Disney theme parks. It's getting angry for the sake of getting angry. Advertising Disney products (and as above, non-Disney products) has always been a part of Disneyland / Disney World. It will always be a part of it. This is in no way new, nor IMO wrong of Disney to do.

 

[chiefs11]

Yes, calculated. Under strict control. With the utmost attention and dedication to immersion and theme.

Wait...what's that you say? Circus show at Epcot in 1987? Well hot diggity!

OMG that is amazing. I had never heard of or seen this before!

 

[Disneyhead'71]

The way I look at it, this is a recent addition to the resort environment. Does it improve my resort experience. No. No, it doesn't. It's visual noise. But it is slight less irritating than than the 5 year old that will kick the back of my seat in a Chinese water torture kind of way after I get on the city bus sized banner ad.

Are we having fun yet?

 

[sshindel]

Yes, because Disney needed the money. And as soon as he had the money, he took control again and bought them out. Sponsorships were a means to an end for Disney... not simply "well they exist everywhere else, why not accept them here too?" justifications.

Looking forward to seeing Chevrolet go away then! They don't need that money anymore!
I hate to break it to TCM as well that they may not be needed.

 

[DVCOwner]

no they named restaurants after their sponsors, because nothing says immersion more than Frito's and Chicken of the sea

This does not count for two reasons - First it is not a bus and second it is after prior bad management started in 1958. Got to keep moving that date back till we get to the Disney purity years.

 

[flynnibus]

And why not? Should I forget the outside world exists when on vacation?

It is a standard Disney set out with.. yes. The vacation kingdom was a getaway.. not just an alternative to the friday night movie.

At a Disney Park, surrounded by Disney Products, rides based on Disney films, I have no issue being reminded of other Disney products that I might want to catch up on when I go home from my Disney vacation.

Your choice... but take that to it's logical conclusion. How far are you willing to accept that disjointed message being pushed into your vacation?

 

[Tod&BigMamaOdie]

Every time, I think of bacon...

 

[jakeman]

I'm going to go ahead an give you the hyperbole response a head of time.

So you will be okay with it's a Small World telling you about shows ABC Family?

Your choice... but take that to it's logical conclusion. How far are you willing to accept that disjointed message being pushed into your vacation?

I get partial credit right?

 

[flynnibus]

Looking forward to seeing Chevrolet go away then! They don't need that money anymore!
I hate to break it to TCM as well that they may not be needed.

Hyperboyle does you no favors - the topic was not about excluding sponsorship.

The examples being discussed were those of the original Disneyland, where DL flat out outsourced much of the park's features/services (and naming reflected it). The same happened in FL too with the hotels.. until Disney felt experienced enough to buy them out and do it themselves. Sponsorships still exist to this day because Disney capitalizes on their market exposure... and one can argue if they still have a place or not. And it's not just because "its like that everywhere else..."

 

[lazyboy97o]

And again, sponsorships are tied to an experience. The buses are just the same. If a bus somehow got entangled in Agent Carter's mission and completely looked the part it would be a different discussion.

 

[Disneyhead'71]

Far be it for someone on these forums to go on and on about something I know. Since I'm such an outlier, I'll just mention that I didn't say "live with it". I said that Disney in no way is doing something to ruin the Disney experience, IMO, by putting marketing on their busses, and that it is a product of the world we live in.


I've not been on DCL, so I cannot speak objectively about what is and isn't offered on their ships. I didn't ignore the point, I just cannot speak from experience about the cruises, therefore I cannot respond to the argument. If I know that I cannot speak intelligently about a subject, I won't speak of it as if I do.


See, I agree with you on some of this. I'll jump on board with you to tear down the issues that Disney has brought upon itself by ignoring the core mission of Epcot Center when it updated Future World. I'll yell and gnash my teeth with the best of them that by ignoring it's core principles, they've ruined their product.
But, the busses? C'mon. Again, IMO (I keep saying IMO now so that people realize I speak only for myself), it's a non-issue. It's another form of advertising, not anywhere near the most blatant and in your face advertising, going back through the history of Disney theme parks. It's getting angry for the sake of getting angry. Advertising Disney products (and as above, non-Disney products) has always been a part of Disneyland / Disney World. It will always be a part of it. This is in no way new, nor IMO wrong of Disney to do.

Of course you don't.

 

[sshindel]

Hyperboyle does you no favors - the topic was not about excluding sponsorship.

The examples being discussed were those of the original Disneyland, where DL flat out outsourced much of the park's features/services (and naming reflected it). The same happened in FL too with the hotels.. until Disney felt experienced enough to buy them out and do it themselves. Sponsorships still exist to this day because Disney capitalizes on their market exposure... and one can argue if they still have a place or not. And it's not just because "its like that everywhere else..."

I'll quote the entire section, not just a hand picked part.

Sponsorships is an example of those practicalities - no one is holding a standard that says they should not exist, and no corporate presence should be there. But its about HOW it's done. Disney's success with avoiding 'over the top' with this of course has blemishes in its past (people's take on UoE's message for instance)... but it's not uncontrolled or glaring. You wouldn't find a FedEx truck parked in front of Space Mountain. People point to them existing from the start.. Yes, because Disney needed the money. And as soon as he had the money, he took control again and bought them out. Sponsorships were a means to an end for Disney... not simply "well they exist everywhere else, why not accept them here too?" justifications.

No where in here is there speak of Disneyland. It's spoken as a present tense statement.

You wouldn't find a FedEx truck parked in front of Space Mountain.

No, but I can go visit the Coke Club Cool at Epcot, ride on the Test Track presented by Chevrolet. I can go to a Rainforest Cafe from inside of Animal Kingdom.
All of which are advertising products, within the parks themselves, not just on the roads between them.