What are you thoughts on DisneyWorld Lossing Sponsorships?

[Horizons_03]

Good Morning Fellow Disney lovers,
I was just wondering , what your views and opinions of Disneyworld loosing all of these sponsors recently? I was thinking that its ashame, that Disneyworld is loosing many of its sponsors, because the economy is not so good right now. Some companies, such as GE and ATT and any other companies that may be dropping there sponsorship after there contracts have expired, because they just can't afford to be spending the money and they need to be putting it back into there own companies. Hopefully Disney will be able to find some new Corporate Sponsors , so that they will be able to keep some of these classic rides such as spaceship earth open and not let it go downhill, like horizons did and have to demolish it and replace it with a new ride.

Horizons_03

 

[crazygirley]

It happens.

 

[WDWspider]

They should let fans invest in an attraction. In return they could give special attraction gifts or privilages. I'm sure we have plenty of members who would keep CoP running, likewise... I'm sure many fans would love to help Living Seas, or even invest in new research like Forbidden Mountain. It'd be sort of a shared ownership of the attraction, sorta like us giving $5 a month at WDWMagic, the Park for the fans could be part invested in by the fans. :lookaroun

 

[BRER STITCH]

:wave:

Well, the economic reality of these arrangements is this:

If it was a good deal for the sponsor company, they would still be doing it.

If the return on the investment has grown increasing smaller, to where it cannot be justified to employees and stockholders, it will not be done.

The first responsibility of these companies is to their stockholders. With economic reality being how it is currently, sponsorship money is better spent on trying to keep people in jobs or on research and development of new products, or even cost cutting in general.

A couple theories on this topic that many may not have addressed:

1) Perhaps Disney is trying to phase out sponsorship of attractions by these companies in hopes of attracting newer, more exciting companies.

2) Perhaps the companies themselves wish to associate their name with newer, more exciting products or attractions.

3) Perhaps in their quest to grab on to more free money, the suits in California have made turned sponsorship deals into one-sided, take-it-or-leave-it deals that, to their surprise, many companies are choosing to leave.

In any event, NO NEED TO WORRY! Park operations will not be affected by these departures. The attractions will continue to operate as usual.

Disney has a product/brand identity that is second to none. It is not that they NEEDED sponsors, but that they successfully gambled that sponsors would pay to associate themsleves with that identity.

They were right.......until now.

 

[GaryT977]

What's really a shame is that comes on todays announcement on earnings:

After the markets closed Thursday, Disney reported net income for the quarter ended Dec. 31 of $256 million, or 13 cents share, compared with net income of $438 million, or 21 cents, in the same quarter a year earlier.

Excluding the special items, profits improved to 17 cents per share, compared with 15 cents a share, the company said. Analysts at Thomson First Call had been expecting income of 15 cents a share.

Revenue in the most recent quarter grew 6% to $7.47 billion.

Disney has said it expects earnings per share growth of between 25% and 35% in 2003 as it profits from investments made in the past few years.

"Our most recent quarter's results, especially the strength of the Disney parks in the face of continued economic softness, are further evidence of the soundness of our strategic plan," Disney Chairman and Chief Executive Michael Eisner said in a statement.

Attendance and per capita spending at Disney's domestic theme parks rose during the past year, contributing to a 20% jump in operating income, to $225 million.

Disney said international visits grew 17% at Walt Disney World in Orlando, and even higher at the Disneyland Resort in Anaheim, Calif., although it did not provide specific numbers.

[From USA Today]

So, the parks are doing well, but the bigs corporation can't afford to sponsor anything in them. It's a shame.

 

[instidude]

Sponsorships come and go. ATT leaves, and everything I hear is that Microsoft is covering that one. AMEX leaves, Visa's there, FedEx goes, rumor is UPS is going to pick up the slack. If you look at the history of the park, sponsorships have always changed.

 

[TURKEY]

BUMP

 

[secretsquirrel]

Buy back the stock (DIS)

If President Bush gets a repeal on Dividend Taxation, then Disney should do a big stock buy-back.
Results would be:

1. Boost the stock price.
2. Capitalize in the tax deduction of the dividend (by paying one) and then capitalize on it as tax free income to the co.

That tax free dividend income would more than cover any sponsorship loss. The loss of other sponsors also would keep other brands out. When Disney comes out with a credit card it's going to be from Bank One, not American Express. Disney probably didn't get a great discount from Fed Ex, so now they can work out a better deal with UPS or the Postal Service and not be tied to what their sponsor may say. Seems too ironic that all the sponsors are fading at the same time. I think it has more to do with Disney not wanting them, then them wanting Disney.

 

[EchoOfOphelia]

I don't necessarily think that it is a reflection of Disney, I think its just that these companies can't afford it right now. You'd think FedEx would with the prices they charge! :lol: I just hope that doesn't mean that there will be changes at DisneyWorld because of it. Hopefully other corporate sponsers will come to the rescue.