Test Track

No Name

Well-Known Member
In the traditional EPCOT sense, I mean. Tron is something that Disney wanted to do regardless, and Enterprise was happy to pay to stick their logo on it. Plus, the focus remains promoting a Disney film rather than a 3rd party company's product. GM still had creative control in this last Test Track overhaul and has significant in-park space to sell their product that Enterprise does not have. I don't think that's something that the company in the state it's in today would be quick to do again.
I think that’s a bit of wiggling there… car companies are the last industry that’s decided those kind of theme park sponsorships are still viable. The others don’t exist anymore because they dropped out, not because Disney kicked them out.

Aside from the Splash Mountain thing, they haven’t announced a new ride in 6 years. The last thing they’re doing to do is stop taking GM’s money.
 

Cmdr_Crimson

Well-Known Member
In the traditional EPCOT sense, I mean. Tron is something that Disney wanted to do regardless, and Enterprise was happy to pay to stick their logo on it. Plus, the focus remains promoting a Disney film rather than a 3rd party company's product. GM still had creative control in this last Test Track overhaul and has significant in-park space to sell their product that Enterprise does not have. I don't think that's something that the company in the state it's in today would be quick to do again.
There was plans at one point to bring this to Communicore..
56974bc39e9b14d94d580b673be578db.jpg
 

Epcot82Guy

Well-Known Member
I think that’s a bit of wiggling there… car companies are the last industry that’s decided those kind of theme park sponsorships are still viable. The others don’t exist anymore because they dropped out, not because Disney kicked them out.

Aside from the Splash Mountain thing, they haven’t announced a new ride in 6 years. The last thing they’re doing to do is stop taking GM’s money.

That's not entirely true. While some did, many did because Disney jacked the price and the terms. Ask anyone who works in corporate America, especially at large companies, there are many ways to fire someone without firing them.

Don't get me wrong, the sponsors are big corporations too. But this wasn't all a simple exit from the model 100% on the sponsor's side, especially given the control Disney demands these days.
 

No Name

Well-Known Member
That's not entirely true. While some did, many did because Disney jacked the price and the terms. Ask anyone who works in corporate America, especially at large companies, there are many ways to fire someone without firing them.

Don't get me wrong, the sponsors are big corporations too. But this wasn't all a simple exit from the model 100% on the sponsor's side, especially given the control Disney demands these days.
Ask anyone for some facts to back up your idea that Disney raised the price and terms disproportionately more than the rest of their costs (or even disproportionately more than inflation). Until then, it sounds like you’re just guessing, and I’d guess it was the opposite.
 

Epcot82Guy

Well-Known Member
Ask anyone for some facts to back up your idea that Disney raised the price and terms disproportionately more than the rest of their costs (or even disproportionately more than inflation). Until then, it sounds like you’re just guessing, and I’d guess it was the opposite.

I'm going off conversations I had with people I met back in the mid-late 2000s. These were people in divisions who would know these things. But, you are correct. I was not privy to the confidential conversations directly. And none of that will be publicly posted (or will be sugar coated for mutual PR reasons) given the marketing and confidentiality clauses.

And, I would point out, where are your sources of you are attacking my position? By your own standard, why would your guess (originally stated as a fact) be any better than mine?
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom