Rumor Siemens is going to end their sponsorship with the parks - Spaceship Earth and IllumiNations

[HauntedMansionFLA]

And #1 on the reasons why is they got no money! GE is on the verge of being broken up and sold off.

They already sold off their appliance division.

 

[mikejs78]

Today, high-profile tech companies are some of the last ones who need this kind of exposure. Think about it. Who is an Apple or Google sponsorship actually going to help? Apple and Google or Disney?

I don't quite buy this. It doesn't have to be about exposure, but rather a way for a company to showcase their vision of the future and some of their cutting edge research projects that aren't consumer facing products yet. For example, at it's last couple of developer conferences, Google has outlined a vision of the future centered around Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning. Lets say Google sponsored SSE, and then Project Tomorrow/a revitalized Communicore was able to showcase their vision of AI as it relates to communication and what's possible? The level of engagement and reach of this goes well beyond net advertising, and could help many people think of Google as more of an AI company than a search company.

I think the sponsorship route still has a lot of potential, it just has to be sold the right way - and I don't know if this is or is not happening....

 

[rle4lunch]

I don't know why any current technology company would attach itself to SSE. It's become such a pathetic shell of the ride that it once used to be. Rode it last month for nostalgia's sake, and boy, the last third of the ride just makes me want to cry. So bad.

 

[mikejs78]

I don't know why any current technology company would attach itself to SSE. It's become such a pathetic shell of the ride that it once used to be. Rode it last month for nostalgia's sake, and boy, the last third of the ride just makes me want to cry. So bad.

The ride itself is still iconic and incredible in scope. And a sponsor has some input - if they can just fix the descent it will be awesome again. But although the descent is not great, the animatronics are better than they have ever been if you compare the current version to the previous ones.

 

[MrPromey]

I don't quite buy this. It doesn't have to be about exposure, but rather a way for a company to showcase their vision of the future and some of their cutting edge research projects that aren't consumer facing products yet. For example, at it's last couple of developer conferences, Google has outlined a vision of the future centered around Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning. Lets say Google sponsored SSE, and then Project Tomorrow/a revitalized Communicore was able to showcase their vision of AI as it relates to communication and what's possible? The level of engagement and reach of this goes well beyond net advertising, and could help many people think of Google as more of an AI company than a search company.

I think the sponsorship route still has a lot of potential, it just has to be sold the right way - and I don't know if this is or is not happening....

You don't have to buy it. Just look at what's happening with sponsorships in general at Disney World as a whole.

Are they going up or down?

It's obvious, most companies are deciding to spend their marketing dollars elsewhere and anyone with any exposure to marketing spaces can understand why.

It's not Disney's fault. The world has just changed.

There are so many reasons this wouldn't work for Google, starting with the pace at which that technology moves and how quickly the original presentation would become outdated but let me put it to you this way:

Let's say you're Google. You're mulling over becoming a major multi-million dollar a year sponsor of a major attraction at Epcot to promote your AI work like you mentioned and you're running the numbers.

In 2016 (latest year I could get an estimate for), Epcot saw about 11.7 million people in attendance, something under 100% of which might have exposure to your message as an attraction sponsor due to people somehow not noticing, lines being too long, people hurrying past to try getting to Test Track or Frozen or whatever.

Regardless, let's say that 95% of people (a very generous estimate) through turnstiles do experience the attraction and do get exposure to your message.

That translates to roughly 11.2 million impressions a year which is pretty damn good, right?

... But then you remember that you own Youtube and you consider that an investment in advertising on that platform is keeping most of the money in your own ecosystem.

Then you also remember that your YouTube platform receives over 30 million visitors each and every day and that you can make your inspiring video, which can appear before every single video people search for on your platform and require it be watched to completion before another video is played, link to a specially set up site or section of YouTube that you create to allow people to go deeper on.

There - for less money than a major multi-year sponsorship, you've just reached more people in one day than you could hope to reach in over two years going the Epcot route.

In addition to YouTube, you also own a platform called AdWords which is the most profitable online advertising space on the internet to date... as well as something called the Google Display Network - both of which can be used to target people interested in what you have to say and can be used for far more than just getting you to spend as a consumer.

... Now, why were you considering an Epcot sponsorship that would cost more and provide far less reach than the platforms you already own, again?

As far as it not being about exposure, what do you think sponsorships like this are for? Showing your vision of the future is all about exposure and making sure people leave your experience with the idea in their mind that your company will be a serious part of the future - that or that you're still a wonderful company, despite an oil spill that did major damage to an ecosystem.

For-profit companies don't spend money to talk about what they're doing unless they are trying to target someone - be it consumers, investors, or potential partners. That's the reality and I have yet to see anything shown by a sponsor of Epcot where they were not looking to promote either a product, a brand, a lifestyle... or their country of origin which would provide its own set of domestic benefits for them.

... Look, I get it. I'd love to see major businesses do sponsorships that put cool stuff in what was once my favorite park at Disney, too but for most companies, especially those that are already high-profile businesses in tech, I don't see how this would ever make sense anymore.

As someone else mentioned, you might get some large lower-profile companies like 3M that really do a lot but go mostly unnoticed from the consumer end interested if they ever decide that a direct-to-consumer marketing effort would support their business in some way but there are cheaper ways to reach more people around the world for them too other than expensive, long-term investment options that hide their marketing message behind a $100+ a day pay gate at a single location in central Florida.

Now, Bounty sponsoring bathrooms makes sense. It's probably a relatively cheap sponsorship and people are in the kind of environment where they'd be likely to use your product in their personal life so there's some serious reinforcement to be had there but an already high-profile major tech company?

Sad to say, I still can't see any way this would make sense unless they're looking to blow a ton of money on what would probably be a pretty poor investment for them.

I know you'd like it to make sense. I would too but it just doesn't.

 

[SteveAZee]

I think Google and Apple, even though they probably have the money to sponsor, are probably a wrong fit. Perhaps better are companies that are moving from R&D space to commercial space... Tesla and Boston Dynamics come to mind. Embed the concepts of the new tech in people's minds so when it's more available to the masses (i.e. the Disney crowd) it's already accepted because they saw it demo'ed in Future World.

 

[EpcotCenter82]

I always wondered how many cars GM sold as a result of people riding World of Motion and Test Track and if they thought investment in the pavilion was worthwhile.

 

[Goofyernmost]

I always wondered how many cars GM sold as a result of people riding World of Motion and Test Track and if they thought investment in the pavilion was worthwhile.

I would guess very few. At it's peak any of the transportation pavilions are singing to the choir. If you were a GM person you will leave a GM person and maybe, just maybe, as you are routed out through the auto show room you might see something you like and go to your dealer when you get home and ask for that vehicle. You may or may not mention that you saw it in WoM or TT at WDW. If you are a Ford or Chrysler person riding in the vehicles featured in the pavilion are not representative of any particular car type. You might glance at the autos on the way out, but, you will remain a Ford or Chrysler person.

It is good for public relations but unlike in the 80's it is now reaching a smaller audience then they can get in other ways. As stated before it is just not a good return on investment.

 

[JoeCamel]

I always wondered how many cars GM sold as a result of people riding World of Motion and Test Track and if they thought investment in the pavilion was worthwhile.

The people at the exhibit refer you to a dealer. GM's agreement with the dealers prohibit direct sales.

 

[mikejs78]

You don't have to buy it. Just look at what's happening with sponsorships in general at Disney World as a whole.

Are they going up or down?

It's obvious, most companies are deciding to spend their marketing dollars elsewhere and anyone with any exposure to marketing spaces can understand why.

It's not Disney's fault. The world has just changed.

The world has changed, and sponsorships are going down. Agree on both poonts. That may mean that sponsorship is dead. Or, it may mean that Disney just hasn't figured out a sponsorship model that works in the 21st century. Or, that they don't know how to sell it to modern companies. The fact that their declining doesn't *necessarily* mean that the idea won't work anymore.

Then you also remember that your YouTube platform receives over 30 million visitors each and every day and that you can make your inspiring video, which can appear before every single video people search for on your platform and require it be watched to completion before another video is played, link to a specially set up site or section of YouTube that you create to allow people to go deeper on.

There - for less money than a major multi-year sponsorship, you've just reached more people in one day than you could hope to reach in over two years going the Epcot route.

In addition to YouTube, you also own a platform called AdWords which is the most profitable online advertising space on the internet to date... as well as something called the Google Display Network - both of which can be used to target people interested in what you have to say and can be used for far more than just getting you to spend as a consumer.

... Now, why were you considering an Epcot sponsorship that would cost more and provide far less reach than the platforms you already own, again?

There is a big difference in click ads, 16 second bytes on YouTube, and the experiential sponsorship that could be possible at Epcot. The latter has the potential for a whole different kind of exposure than internet ads.

 

[GoofGoof]

There is a big difference in click ads, 16 second bytes on YouTube, and the experiential sponsorship that could be possible at Epcot. The latter has the potential for a whole different kind of exposure than internet ads.

This is the point that others are missing. When you sponsor something that has special meaning to people it’s a lot more lasting than an ad on a YouTube video. This is the same reason every major sports venue and team and athlete has sponsors or why NASCAR sells adds on the cars. It’s not just to try to blanket reach as many warm bodies as possible but rather to associate your company or product with a team/athlete that people have an attachment to. Same goes for a theme park ride.

 

[MrPromey]

This is the point that others are missing. When you sponsor something that has special meaning to people it’s a lot more lasting than an ad on a YouTube video. This is the same reason every major sports venue and team and athlete has sponsors or why NASCAR sells adds on the cars. It’s not just to try to blanket reach as many warm bodies as possible but rather to associate your company or product with a team/athlete that people have an attachment to. Same goes for a theme park ride.

I don’t think anyone is “missing” this, we just think you are highly overestimating the value this kind of thing would have to the tech companies being talked about.

For how many people, was their one-time ride on Test Track what pushed them over the edge in deciding to buy a Chevy?

I don’t know, you don’t know and my guess is, neither Disney nor Chevy know, either.
What we do know is that they potentially get exposure to just under 12 million people a year including Brazilian teen tour groups who could care less what US car company sponsors the attraction.

That’s a problem when Disney is competing with mediums that are both cheaper, able to be target directly at whatever demographic they’re after, and able to actually provide documented proven results in real-time.

... unless you think the solution is covering your time machine vehicle in sponsorship decals?

 

[HauntedMansionFLA]

The ride itself is still iconic and incredible in scope. And a sponsor has some input - if they can just fix the descent it will be awesome again. But although the descent is not great, the animatronics are better than they have ever been if you compare the current version to the previous ones.

Needs more screens

 

[mikejs78]

Needs more screens

I'm not nearly as anti-screen as some on these boards, but... no.

 

[HauntedMansionFLA]

I'm not nearly as anti-screen as some on these boardsz, but... no.

Screens can be updated quickly. That could have Ellen’s Energy

 

[mikejs78]

Screens can be updated quickly. That could have Ellen’s Energy

 

[MrPromey]

The world has changed, and sponsorships are going down. Agree on both poonts. That may mean that sponsorship is dead. Or, it may mean that Disney just hasn't figured out a sponsorship model that works in the 21st century. Or, that they don't know how to sell it to modern companies. The fact that their declining doesn't *necessarily* mean that the idea won't work anymore.


There is a big difference in click ads, 16 second bytes on YouTube, and the experiential sponsorship that could be possible at Epcot. The latter has the potential for a whole different kind of exposure than internet ads.

The world has changed, and sponsorships are going down. Agree on both poonts. That may mean that sponsorship is dead. Or, it may mean that Disney just hasn't figured out a sponsorship model that works in the 21st century. Or, that they don't know how to sell it to modern companies. The fact that their declining doesn't *necessarily* mean that the idea won't work anymore.


There is a big difference in click ads, 16 second bytes on YouTube, and the experiential sponsorship that could be possible at Epcot. The latter has the potential for a whole different kind of exposure than internet ads.

I agree that sponsorship overall as a concept isn’t going to completely die but it doesn’t hold the high value it once did and probably never will again.

Sponsorships might still make some financial sense in an Inoventions scale for some companies but it’s difficult to imagine any company getting positive results out of the kind of sponsorship needed to build and maintain major pavilions, today.

If I had to guess, GM’s Chevy has Test Trak today, more because they don’t want Ford or Toyota in there rather than because they think they’re getting a good deal.*

If they were to start over from scratch, I doubt they would ever pony up the dollars to build this from the old World of Motion building, today though.

In terms of that 16 second ad, I think you are GREATLY underestimating the power of online advertising. Not only are they able to target with in some cases, creepy precision, they can also continue to target you around the web with repeat exposure across multiple devices and then they can tell when you specifically respond to that targeting, sometimes even when the result doesn’t involve doing something online.

Trust me - as someone who works in the space, I can tell you that you would probably be shocked with what’s possible. I know I was when I first learned about some of it and it is only getting better - or worse, depending on your perspective - as time goes by.

Google knows this. Apple knows this. Facebook and Microsoft and Amazon know this, too.

The problem with old-style sponsorships is that Disney has a hard time trying to prove that they are worth anything.

That wasn’t a problem when all marketing mediums had a hard time doing this and Disney could just fall back on the prestige of being associated with their brand but today, web-based, as well as other interaction-based mediums, can provide tons of data to prove their value. You can see if the money you spend is paying off or not with compete accuracy and in real time.

Disney is going to have to charge a lot less than they want to and promote the sponsorship brand a lot more for this kind of deal to look attractive to third-party companies, especially tech companies that are already heavily data-driven.

I’m sure they’ve been trying. I’m sure they’ve had folks working their butts off over the last decade trying.

Magic Bands may have in part, even been intended as a way to somehow provide additional details to potential sponsors about guests experiencing their attractions (in aggregate) to provide the kind of analytic data other mediums are able to give them regarding spending data, household incomes, ages, etc.

... But trying to find ways to plug old media with new media value is tricky, expensive and far from well proven.




*Can you really imagine them fronting so much to sponsor the development costs (and all the delays and overruns) that went into Test Track's entirely new and incredibly complex ride system (as it was, at the time) today?..

 

[EpcotMark]

I actually don't mind Judy Dench...The problem with the current version is that ending. The lighthearted tone of the narration puts it as a solid second worst, but that gap between Irons/Cronkite/Dench and 82 is huge...Its far closer to the best versions than it is to the worst version.

I have been watching the Original Outer Limits show. Vic Perrin did the narrations or "voice of control." I just watched an episode called "The Sixth Finger." I was amazed at how I was hearing things from SSE 82 coming from the start of that episode. In fact, much of the whole episode's themes reminds me of that original SSE. Its on Hulu. Give it a watch.

 

[No Name]

I always wondered how many cars GM sold as a result of people riding World of Motion and Test Track and if they thought investment in the pavilion was worthwhile.

They're on their third contract and essentially third ride for the pavillion. The company went bankrupt during the recession, got bailed out by the government, and still renewed shortly after. And they now sponsor Shanghai's Tron Lightcycle Power Run. So there's the answer to your second question.

Car companies like the physical advertising.

 

[HauntedMansionFLA]

I agree that sponsorship overall as a concept isn’t going to completely die but it doesn’t hold the high value it once did and probably never will again.

Sponsorships might still make some financial sense in an Inoventions scale for some companies but it’s difficult to imagine any company getting positive results out of the kind of sponsorship needed to build and maintain major pavilions, today.

If I had to guess, GM’s Chevy has Test Trak today, more because they don’t want Ford or Toyota in there rather than because they think they’re getting a good deal.

If they were to start over from scratch, I doubt they would ever pony up the dollars to build this from the old World of Motion building, today though.

In terms of that 16 second ad, I think you are GREATLY underestimating the power of online advertising. Not only are they able to target with in some cases, creepy precision, they can also continue to target you around the web with repeat exposure across multiple devices and then they can tell when you specifically respond to that targeting, sometimes even when the result doesn’t involve doing something online.

Trust me - as someone who works in the space, I can tell you that you would probably be shocked with what’s possible. I know I was when I first learned about some of it and it is only getting better - or worse, depending on your perspective - as time goes by.

Google knows this. Apple knows this. Facebook and Microsoft and Amazon know this, too.

The problem with old-style sponsorships is that Disney has a hard time trying to prove that they are worth anything.

That wasn’t a problem when all marketing mediums had a hard time doing this and Disney could just fall back on the prestige of being associated with their brand but today, web based, as well as other interaction-bassed mediums, can provide tons of data to prove their value. You can see if the money you spend is paying off or not with compete accuracy and in real time.

Disney is going to have to charge a lot less than they want to and promote the sponsorship brand a lot more for this kind of deal to look attractive to third party companies, especially tech companies that are already heavily data-driven.

I’m sure they’ve been trying. I’m sure they’ve had folks working their butts off over the last decade trying. Magic Bands may have in part, even been intended as a way to somehow provide additional details to potential sponsors about guests experiencing their attractions (in aggregate) to provide the kind of analytic data other mediums are able to give them regarding spending data, household incomes, ages, etc.

... But trying to find ways to plug old media with new media value is tricky, expensive and far from well proven.

Great post.