-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Test Track refurb???
- Thread starter NicNoc12
- Start date
NoChesterHester
Well-Known Member
Wonders of Life
JWG
Well-Known Member
I think Horizons would have gone this way as well had Compaq not stepped in to save it. While it operated seasonally, it was on it's way out once General Electric stepped out. Matter of fact, it did close until the WoM closure forced it back open.
montyz81
Well-Known Member
Any chance you can tell whoever told you to push them to May. I am going on April 21st and I have finally convinced my Son to go on this ride (he never used to like roller coasters). Just a few more weeks and I can get him on it.
I know you can't tell them to delay it, I am just trying to be funny.:ROFLOL:
Rob562
Well-Known Member
While that's true, the sponsors of Future World pavilions seem to have more pull in the overall attraction's themeing, message and design.
Alamo may "sponsor" the Peoplemover, and Mattel may "sponsor" small world, but they haven't exactly had a lot of say in how the attraction is designed.
Compare that to Siemens and Spaceship Earth, or GM and Test Track.
-Rob
devoy1701
Well-Known Member
I think it's purely based on how interested the sponsors are in the design of the attraction (and how willing/how much they are willing to sponsor).
Alamo SHOULD offer more say (be more strict) on the design of show elements of the TTA...IMO
HMF
Well-Known Member
That is not a change of perception, That is mostly true.
WDW1974
Well-Known Member
I've been wondering if sponsorship in TDR plays into what an amazing show the OLC puts on every day for guests.
Literally every attraction (even minor ones) ... every food location ... most every shop ... even all the parades and shows have sponsors. It's a level that DL and WDW never had even in their best days
Companies have long since decided the cache associated with being a sponsor for Disney just isn't what it once was ... and the economic collapse seemed to put the nail in the coffin. Now, it's a big deal when someone like Ocean Spray comes in. Anyone for crasins?
~GFC~
NoChesterHester
Well-Known Member
So why would the OLC be more successful in finding sponsorships then the WDC?
I do believe in park sponsorships have their place. The effectiveness of advertising is debatable anyway, but we all seem to remember the major attraction sponsors. I'm sure it has some sort of effect in the people they are actually reaching. Did I buy any GE or Seimens products because I saw their logos in Epcot as a child? I dont know, but I have always associated a positive memory with their products.
I'm surprised they haven't been more successful. My best guess is that there is plenty of interest, but the price is set too high.
Expo_Seeker40
Well-Known Member
I think it may have to do with perks and expansion rights with TDR. Getting their sponsorship dollars for "value" and not just in advertising. TDR doesn't do it cheap.
~GFC~
~GFC~
I feel the problem is cyclical. Companies want a high ROI with their sponsorship, they know they will receive that in TDR because of how quality the parks are. In order to get my sponsors at WDW, they need to better the show all throughout the resort. However, people inside the company feel that the only way to do that is with external fiscal support, ie. sponsors. But if the only way to get sponsor money is with better the parks and the only way to better the parks is with sponsor money...... something eventually has to give. Hopefully with the recent refurbishments and upcoming attraction additions, and example that this Test Track refurb will set, more companies will see the potential in sponsoring sections of WDW.
ChrisFL
Premium Member
Because OLC only has to worry about a 95% Japanese market, MUCH of which is relatively local....WDW has to worry about a broadly international market.
Monorail Silver
New Member
Does anyone know if there will be an on-line version of "Design a car and make a TV ad" thing as it's probably going to be a long time before I go again!
TropicalFig8
Active Member
I'm surprised we haven't seen any new concept art or news yet recently.
JEANYLASER
Well-Known Member
yes! I didn't see it either!
muteki
Well-Known Member
I understand how the sponsorship system works and why it was/is there and that is great and all, what I have trouble with today is the "we dont have/we can't get a sponsor so you don't get anything" mentality.
I understand that at one time Disney couldn't foot the bill alone for it's attractions, but that is no longer the case today. So to try to use the "sponsorship" excuse today doesn't seem all that believable to me. I may be wrong about this, but I don't think Carsland has a sponsor (or FLE for that matter). So holding Epcot attractions to this unique standard just because they used to seems silly.
I think it is great that Disney seeks out sponsorships (and I hope they continue to do so (even though some of their input is stupid)) but it shouldn't be a gating factor for building a new attraction, or the upkeep of an existing one.
I understand that at one time Disney couldn't foot the bill alone for it's attractions, but that is no longer the case today. So to try to use the "sponsorship" excuse today doesn't seem all that believable to me. I may be wrong about this, but I don't think Carsland has a sponsor (or FLE for that matter). So holding Epcot attractions to this unique standard just because they used to seems silly.
I think it is great that Disney seeks out sponsorships (and I hope they continue to do so (even though some of their input is stupid)) but it shouldn't be a gating factor for building a new attraction, or the upkeep of an existing one.
alphac2005
Well-Known Member
alphac2005
Well-Known Member
I'll have to dig up the book where I read in detail regarding this, but that's not why the company had sponsors of pavilions at EPCOT. It was cut and dry, Disney wanted additional revenue to offset costs. Several World Showcase pavilions were shelved because of a lack of funding from their host country and/or companies within that country.
A recent example is of Norway. When funding from Norway ceased, Disney started to run the pavilion bare bones and even removed the Viking ship playground. In reality, that money isn't really needed to operate the pavilion with top-notch quality, but in the way the company (based on what I've seen in many business structures) very possibly allocates funds per attractions (and zones so to speak in Epcot) it's very possible that without the corporate money, they cut back to save money. Not that there isn't a mountain of money available to them, let alone the near $100 single day ticket admission price that should keep the place shiny and clean, but accounting tricks most likely restricts funds available. Any further insight on this? It would be interesting to know their exact fuzzy math departmental business breakdown.
As another post mentioned, the company was much smaller and there was more of a need. Today, the company doesn't need sponsors to operate any part of their property. It's all about padding the bottom line. The idea that it can't upkeep a pavilion because it doesn't have a sponsor is downright laughable and simply another excuse.
Lori Nicklas
Member
Yes that is true! My travel agent who is a specialist in WDW old me that it is true also said that the Country bears Jamboree is also down. They will be down when I am there in 19 days...Sorry