Horizonsfan
Well-Known Member
Marni, can you give us any insight into why events prefers to takes spaces from Ops, rather than get their own spaces constructed? Never have understood that.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
What's going on with Epcot Future World?
- Thread starter Flswimmer
- Start date
Marni, can you give us any insight into why events prefers to takes spaces from Ops, rather than get their own spaces constructed? Never have understood that.
Monorail Lime
Well-Known Member
I still don't understand why the Wonders pavilion is even needed for events when Millennium Village exists expressly for that purpose. :shrug:
flynnibus
Premium Member
Why build something when you got this big place sitting empty?
Events did not displace wol. It was already not being used. It was so undesirable it was not even worth seasonal usage anymore.
These places have location and easy access from within the park. That isn't something you can just get on a whim
Horizonsfan
Well-Known Member
Clearly WOL was done with its usable life and of course Events didn't dictate it close. What I'm saying is, why do they hand over spaces like this over to events instead of renovating and keeping them to their original intentions. At the very least, if they demand new event space, why not include it along with a replacement for the [pavilion/restaurant/attraction/etc]
DL has events and a lot of them. Yet, the public/attraction space grab hasn't really occured there. (I can only really think of two places where that's occured)
There's plenty of plots that sit undeveloped with easy access in each of the parks. It would be naive to assume that if Events wants new, dedicated space then, TDO would just automatically commission new structures. However, let's also not be naive in thinking that Disney wouldn't allocate money to construct dedicated spaces for a profitable segment of their Parks & Resort segment (DVC:lookaroun). Heck the local amusement parks spend money constructing dedicated event spaces.
aladdin2007
Well-Known Member
Epcot use to be about attractions and grand pavilions big and small. Its now a mall to the powers that be, dining, merch, event space, convention space, (eventually dvc if the rumors pan out) and thats how TDO wants it. :brick:
flynnibus
Premium Member
Because they didn't have anyone willing to pay for it! No sponsor
If they find some new sugar daddy they can redevelop it. Don't misconstrue the fact events is using it now that itcould not be used again in the future. It just means events is responsible for it currently
Don't read so much into it
pmaljr
Well-Known Member
The sponsor argument gets really old, really quick for me because they are renovating DCA and they are adding onto the Magic Kingdom without any sponsors that I know of. Not to mention the DVC stuff that has been built during the time while Epcot just sits there, imo broken.
They need to start running the parks again like Walt would have and I can guarantee you that Tomorrowland and Epcot would not be in the shape they are in now.
But, maybe I am just clueless when it comes to all of this ...
They need to start running the parks again like Walt would have and I can guarantee you that Tomorrowland and Epcot would not be in the shape they are in now.
But, maybe I am just clueless when it comes to all of this ...
Brava Centauri
Member
I'm just guessing here, but wasn't the original purpose of having a sponsor for an attraction in EPCOT for a company to showcase their innovations? I don't understand Disney needing help with money to finance their own attractions, so why would EPCOT still need sponsors to keep an attraction open? 'Cause right now, sponsorship seems to do nothing more than provide billboard space for companies and allow Disney to pocket more profit. That's just my observation, though.
flynnibus
Premium Member
Simply put.. that was Disney's business model on how to finance the construction and ongoing costs of their attractions. Their finance model was predicated on having that income.
That model failed largely. And look what happened everywhere it did.
They need a new model... Like their own pockets. Or guest pockets as it were.
Horizonsfan
Well-Known Member
Agreed. It makes sense when you don't have the capital to do big things. Modern day Disney isn't suffering from that problem. I can't remember where I read it, but even Walt was leery of sponsors in the early days of Disneyland. However, they were needed since funds were far and few between for the park's construction.
You could argue that with a park like Epcot, they are still needed to get the base infrastructure in place, but it seems like a weak argument when it comes to updates and refurbishments.
marni1971 said:
Heresy! Where has that model worked? (Excluding: MK, DHS, AK, DL, DCA, TDL, TDS, DLP, WDS, & HKDL)
Brava Centauri
Member
If they use sponsorship like they did in the 80's, it would make sense. I'm sure GM is putting in some cash to remodel Test Track and will be more involved in the attraction as a whole? I wonder if Disney has even approached other companies as potential sponsors for the other pavilions. What about Apple or Google to bring back JII as it was? Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Florida for WOL? Or even multiple sponsors for one pavilion? Seems to me, if Disney is bemoaning putting life back in Future World on their own coin, they'd work harder on getting "somebody else" to help finance the much-needed fixes.
flynnibus
Premium Member
The problem is scale... at 100+ million dollars for an attraction.. when do you break even? If they assume the initial lifecycle for an attraction is 10 years (keep the numbers round..) that's 10 million a year in PROFIT the attraction needs to generate to even pay off the capital investment. Add on top of that the operating costs.. lets take another round number.. 4 million. That is 14million in NET gain the park must make to offset the investment. At a margin of about 20%.. that means that attraction needs to generate 70 million in additional revenue to just pay for itself. If the park has roughly 15 million guests.. that means an extra $5+ in spending per guest.
You can see how simply adding attractions every year or on a short cycle is would be a death knell for a company. They simply can't generate enough extra revenue to pay for the attraction.
That's why the company wants attractions to last longer, and get people to help foot the bill. Companies must pay for new capital with lending or profits.. profits only come after expenses.. which takes a lot of revenue to generate. This is why people begging for DL to just keep getting E-Tickets are just obtuse and why Disney builds new gates.. and not just build one-sized mega parks.
You can see how simply adding attractions every year or on a short cycle is would be a death knell for a company. They simply can't generate enough extra revenue to pay for the attraction.
That's why the company wants attractions to last longer, and get people to help foot the bill. Companies must pay for new capital with lending or profits.. profits only come after expenses.. which takes a lot of revenue to generate. This is why people begging for DL to just keep getting E-Tickets are just obtuse and why Disney builds new gates.. and not just build one-sized mega parks.
NoChesterHester
Well-Known Member
Augmented reality is probably the next phase, but the lack of VR adoption largely had to do with low computing power (at the time) and 15 lb uncomfortable head wear to make it work. It was introduced before it was ready.
Love your idea. A virtual version of alien encounter could have little ones leaving little puddles behind on the seat once again.
Imagineer6
Member
I say they drown them in World Showcase lagoon, in that case
HMF
Well-Known Member
Ah, My dream way of dying. (Kidding)
WDW1974
Well-Known Member
The model failed largely in the USA.
It works to huge success in TDR where every attraction (and I mean every) has a sponsor as does every dining location almost and even the parades and some of the shows.
Less so in HK and Paris (where a certain Spirit is headed soon!
) ... but they also have more sponsorship than in the USA.Part of that is the contraction of American companies. Part of that is the cache that used to be attached to Disney ended sometime in the last century. Part of that is the Mouse just isn't a good business partner.
~This conversation is getting a little awkward ...~