Why do the fans hate brands?

[Goofyernmost]

I'm somewhat confused at your post since I said I didn't have a problem with brands or sponsors if its done tastefully. I think that Coke, Edy's, Dole, Kodak are all done very well since there aren't billboards or huge signs everywhere advertising those items.

You are right...I misread your post, sorry! Sometimes the brain gets so used to seeing certain messages that it just decides that was just another. Again, I apologize.

 

[Tinkerbell 8]

@Goofyernmost np it happens!

 

[fosse76]

It's called Walt Disney World. That in and of itself is a brand. As has been mentioned in this thread, sponsorships have been an integral part of Disneyland and Disney World since the beginning. Just look at old photographs, park maps and other media...corporate sponsors were part of the official name of some attractions! I mean, how many people didn't know Test Track was sponsored by GM? How about the big Siemens sign at Spaceship Earth? The Starbucks will be less intrusive than those. This issue is only being argued because some people have a large disdain for Starbucks.

 

[ParentsOf4]

So how do you get past Coke, Edy's, Dole, Kodak and the hundreds of others that exist there? Starbucks is no different and I'm sure will not be any more obtrusive then the others.

Coke - Founded in 1886
Edy's - Founded in 1928
Dole - Founded in 1851
Kodak - Founded in 1889
Starbucks - Founded in 1971

The first 4 companies are "old" and feel like they belong in (for example) a place like Main Street USA. Starbucks is new. Walt could have enjoyed Coke, Edy's, Dole, or Kodak when he was young. They could have existed in a place like Main Street USA.

Walt was dead before Starbucks ever existed. Starbucks feels "new". Thematically, it doesn't belong in turn-of-the-century America and is more difficult to associate with Walt Disney.

Note that I don't necessary feel this way. I'm only responding to your question as to why Starbucks is different.

 

[mharrington]

Maybe I didn't clarify things: when I said "why do fans hate brands", I meant "why do they hate Disney-made brands?".

 

[JiminyandTink]

As long as the brands are successfully worked into the theming, it's not a huge problem, but it is definately a fine line that WDW has to walk when incorporating these outside brands.

It's nice to have products available that we know and trust, but it is also nice to have those special food items that are only available in the parks (For example, I like McDonalds, but I don't need it in MK when I can go to Pecos).

Anyway, like I said, it's fine line in making sure that WDW still feels like your escaping the real world and not just a regular vacation. In my opinion, the thoughfully constructed details and lack of visual intrusions in WDW is what separates a theme park from an amuesment park.

 

[rsoxguy]

Maybe I didn't clarify things: when I said "why do fans hate brands", I meant "why do they hate Disney-made brands?".

Are you trolling here? That is clearly not the intention of your original post, and you have allowed this thread to continue almost a full day before adding this little clarification. Where is it that you have read a complaint regarding "Disney made brands" ? I have recently read complaints against Starbucks, a non-Disney brand. Would you please clarify the intention and origin of your post?

 

[jlsHouston]

Does everyone forget that McD's was served @ Restaurantasaurus and other locations for quite some time???

And thanks for small favors I missed that, but not because I am not a McD patron but because I just really would have to say REALLY ?? REALLY ?? They couldn't figure out a way to sell burgers and fries without bring in McDonalds?

 

[dreamfinder]

I think hardcore fans actually acknowledge that in park branding and sponsor tie ins have been there from the beginning. The ones that scream and shout are ones that aren't fully aware of what is actually happening. Never since the initial announcement post, did Disney say that they would be plopping down modern trendy Starbucks in park. From the beginning they proclaimed that it would be done in a tasteful manner, keeping with the theming of the surrounding area. If anyone who got all up in a bunch looked at the pictures of the cafe in place at DCA, they would see that it's very minimal and understated, and that you don't know its Starbucks until you look for it. No large green neon, no baristas in kelly green aprons with SB logos on them, period authentic signage outside, with CMs wearing the same type of costume as those working next door at the ice cream stand.

Starbucks is too expensive outside the parks, much less inside.

The in park price at DCA was a dime more than what I would pay at my normal Starbucks. And from all reports, this is well below prices in major cities like NYC. Comparing this to $2.79 for a soft drink or bottle of Dasani it's a steal.

And thanks for small favors I missed that, but not because I am not a McD patron but because I just really would have to say REALLY ?? REALLY ?? They couldn't figure out a way to sell burgers and fries without bring in McDonalds?

They had a marketing tie in at that point. Remember how McD's had happy meal toys for evey Disney movie? And tie ins for the 100th and other promotions? They had a massive contract in place with Disney at the time that was mutually beneficial until people started to have backlash against unhealthy foods. Then they chose not to renew the contract.

 

[mharrington]

Are you trolling here? That is clearly not the intention of your original post, and you have allowed this thread to continue almost a full day before adding this little clarification. Where is it that you have read a complaint regarding "Disney made brands" ? I have recently read complaints against Starbucks, a non-Disney brand. Would you please clarify the intention and origin of your post?

No, I'm not trolling. I was just too busy to respond immediately. The intention of my post was that Disney fans seem to dislike Disney-made brands being in the parks (i.e., Princesses, pirates, etc.), and I wanted to know why. Starbucks and Coca-Cola had nothing to do with this.

 

[rsoxguy]

No, I'm not trolling. I was just too busy to respond immediately. The intention of my post was that Disney fans seem to dislike Disney-made brands being in the parks (i.e., Princesses, pirates, etc.), and I wanted to know why. Starbucks and Coca-Cola had nothing to do with this.

Thank you for your clarification. I believe that this thread would have taken a completely different course, had you stated this in a way that communicated your exact thoughts. I wish you well.

 

[Goofyernmost]

Coke - Founded in 1886
Edy's - Founded in 1928
Dole - Founded in 1851
Kodak - Founded in 1889
Starbucks - Founded in 1971

The first 4 companies are "old" and feel like they belong in (for example) a place like Main Street USA. Starbucks is new. Walt could have enjoyed Coke, Edy's, Dole, or Kodak when he was young. They could have existed in a place like Main Street USA.

Walt was dead before Starbucks ever existed. Starbucks feels "new". Thematically, it doesn't belong in turn-of-the-century America and is more difficult to associate with Walt Disney.

Note that I don't necessary feel this way. I'm only responding to your question as to why Starbucks is different.

I, shamefully, didn't bother to look up dates, so thanks for that. However, if we are insisting on authenticity on Main Street, Coke would probably only have been found at the soda fountains of apothecary stores and then pretty much in Atlanta and the surrounding areas. Edy's would have been in business but since there was no way to ship frozen items long distances in all probability would have been available only locally. Dole...I don't know but since that was pretty much started in the islands of Hawaii, chances of having much of that in many stores in the turn of the century was also probably rare. Kodak...well I throw my hands up on that one...I have no idea how it was marketed in the early years. I doubt there was much in the line of retail though.

Anyway, it's a mute point. I want the outside to resemble the early nineteen hundreds. There is nothing about the goods that were available back then that I want to presently consume, so, to me, as long as the feel is there, it matters not what is inside the doors.

As for Walt...well, hang on here, Walt is dead and has been dead for 46 years. At what point do we draw the line and say there are literally thousands and thousands of things that didn't exist when Walt was alive. When do we make the decision that it really doesn't matter anymore as long as the external fantasy still is there. They didn't have computerized cash registers back then either...so why are they there?

 

[Zipadeelady]

I for one love brands. I will gladly carry my disney Dooney and Burke purse filled with Sephora's Disney brand lipstick and walk down Main Street USA swoonin over photos of Christian Loubouin's Disney Cinderella slipper that I look at on my apple iPhone after using it to check my Disney app all while drinking my Starbucks ( which has a white cup that will have some sort of Disneyesque logo on it).
I stopped seeing it as these brands taking over Disney but Disney taking over parts of these brands. Don't we all want a little more disney everywhere? What's so bad about the same stuff we buy outside the parks coming into the parks and being made just a bit more magical?

AMEN!

 

[Goofyernmost]

You're confusing fact with fantasy. WDW and Main Street USA are not fact; they are fantasy. Main Street USA is located in Orlando, Florida but we want to pretend it's Small Town USA, never mind that Small Town USA never looked like that. We want to pretend that it's 1906, never mind that it's 2012.

WDW or Main Street USA is not intended to be authentic. It's intended to be our preconceived notions of what was authentic for circa 1900 with the modern conveniences added it. Nobody wants to go to the bathroom in an outhouse. Subconsciously, we accept running water and a flush toilet because we think circa 1900 Small Town USA was perfect and, therefore, accept that they had toilets that flush even if they didn't.

The same is true for any product that appears on Main Street USA. If it fits into our preconceived notion of what's "right" for Small Town USA circa 1900 then we accept it. If it doesn't, then we reject it. Starbucks is a modern brand. It is difficult to imagine Walt Disney drinking Starbucks even though he undoubtedly drank coffee. If it were Maxwell House (founded in 1892) being put on Main Street USA, then people might accept it more than Starbucks (1971). It's not something we're consciously doing. It's subliminal.

Walt Disney World is exactly that, Walt Disney's World. More specifically, it's our view of what was or at least should be Walt's world. If we, as consumers, can connect a product or technology subconsciously with Walt, then we accept it. Walt certainly never lived in a place like Tomorrowland but he dreamed about such a place. So, if something, anything, matches our idealized view of what we think Walt liked, we like it as well. It doesn't matter if Walt liked it. It doesn't matter if it existed when Walt was alive. What matters is, in our heads, we think Walt would have liked it.

Starbucks caused an uproar in part because it's the modern world interfering with our idealized view of Main Street USA. Main Street USA is run by one of the largest companies in the world but we like to pretend that it's run by our friendly next door neighbors Chuck and Vera. It's an illusion and it's important that WDW maintain the illusion.

OK, but the illusion is in ones mind, not in a store. I have never walked down Main Street and said to myself, wow, this is 1906, how quaint. How did I get here? I have looked at it and thought...what a great external representation of a time gone by. I have never once been able to walk inside any of those Main Street Facades and felt like I had just entered days gone by. Why? Because nothing inside resembles what a real or imagined turn of the century store would look like. The illusion is always blown as soon as one crosses the threshold and pays for stuff with todays dollars. It was never meant to extend beyond the facade in any real sense of the word. When you walked into them and saw someone wearing clothing from that era, did you say to yourself...gosh it's the early 1900's isn't it. No...you probably thought that it was a pretty good re-creation of something that someone might have worn back then, but there was no illusion that it was actually back then.

The signage would have reflected whatever was popular at that specific time. It might have changed the next day. Starbucks wasn't here in the early 1900's, but coffee was. And the brand was completely and totally unimportant to any other time frame.

I believe in suspension of disbelief and allowing myself to be drawn into an idea or fantasy, but, I also know that we live in today. We are part of today and with that knowledge I also know that it matters not what coffee is served as long as it is liked, or what item is sold as long as it is liked. The experience is overall, not specific.

And how do you know if Walt would have liked Starbucks or not? I'll bet he drank coffee! Personally I hate Starbucks and everything it stands for, but it is liked by many people so who am I to say it's a bad thing. In the end, it's just coffee!

 

[KCheatle]

I know this sounds tacky, but as a lawyer my first thought with your threat title was "objection - assumes facts not in evidence" - mainly, you assume that all fans hate brands, which is not true. I would consider myself a pretty big fan of all things Disney and have absolutely no issue with brands in the parks. In fact, I like the comfort of brand names in the parks. I think there's "escaping" the real world stresses and anxieites, where all the bad things are gone, but all of your favorite things (like a nice big coke) are still there. I don't think Disney wants people in Disney craving their favorite things and then not being able to find/have them. I think Disney is genius for taking one of the things most Americans splurge on (a $5 cup of coffee) and putting it in their parks when people would otherwise crave it and are in the mood to splurge.

 

[Hakunamatata]

But Starbucks wasn't around in the early 1900's and we all complain about milf being in tomorrowland and stuff like that

What is in tomorrow land?

 

[Matt7187]

What is in tomorrow land?

Monsters inc. laugh floor

 

[Crazy Harry]

I think the ensuing discussion was much better than if the the original intension of the thread was understood. That being said I will field both topics.

I like branding in the parks to the minor extent they have been present thus far. I have no problem with sponsors and wish there would actually be more. In some ways for me, there is something magical about sponsership from certain companies. I think of the old carosel of progress narration and the references to general electric. I think that the ways companies were portrayed and how people thought about them years ago varies greatly with the same concepts now.

However, I am not thrilled about Starbucks coming into WDW. The issue is how commercialized is WDW going to get? I don't want it to look like a SIx Flags with advertisements on the ride vehicles.

In regard to disney brands in the parks, its all situational. I don't want to see Hannah Montana t-shirts for sale in Tomorrowland (I'm sure they are not anymore but were the last time I was there so it gives an example at least)and I would love to see non-property (Disney or otherwise) attractions again. Seriously, not every attraction has to a have an existing property associated with it. The practice by the powers that be is so counter intuitive. Either that or they have no original ideas to pool from in the first place.

 

[sweetpee_1993]

Coke - Founded in 1886
Edy's - Founded in 1928
Dole - Founded in 1851
Kodak - Founded in 1889
Starbucks - Founded in 1971

The first 4 companies are "old" and feel like they belong in (for example) a place like Main Street USA. Starbucks is new. Walt could have enjoyed Coke, Edy's, Dole, or Kodak when he was young. They could have existed in a place like Main Street USA.

Walt was dead before Starbucks ever existed. Starbucks feels "new". Thematically, it doesn't belong in turn-of-the-century America and is more difficult to associate with Walt Disney.

Note that I don't necessary feel this way. I'm only responding to your question as to why Starbucks is different.

What a coinkidink: WDW opened in 1971! Match made in heaven??? LOL!

 

[sweetpee_1993]

No, I'm not trolling. I was just too busy to respond immediately. The intention of my post was that Disney fans seem to dislike Disney-made brands being in the parks (i.e., Princesses, pirates, etc.), and I wanted to know why. Starbucks and Coca-Cola had nothing to do with this.

Ooooooh....okay. Well, that's easy. Disney latches onto whatever franchise is most profitable in that moment and they tend to flood every inch of every park with bits of that franchise. Hannah Montana is a great example. In the heyday of that show (you know, when Miley was touring and the little girls all wanted to be her) you couldn't take 2 steps anywhere on-property without something Hannah Montana in your face. Nevermind that they put the crap in places that made no sense whatsoever, it was all about that promo. It was very blatant that marketing was running the entire show. Marketing should be doing marketing and leave the "show" to those who are qualified for that job. It's just like anything else really. If something blows up in popularity and is overexposed there will always be a backlash. Disney creates the backlash when they overdo franchises to cash in. Think about the Kardashians. Same thing. Starbucks. Yep, same thing.

And how do you know if Walt would have liked Starbucks or not? I'll bet he drank coffee! Personally I hate Starbucks and everything it stands for, but it is liked by many people so who am I to say it's a bad thing. In the end, it's just coffee!

This highlighted bit is interesting to me so I just gotta ask: What is it that Starbucks "stands for" that arrouses negative emotion for you? Feel free to PM me with that since it's a bit off-topic. Honestly, I'm interested. I do enjoy my Starbucks and they make a great deal off me, I'm sure. I don't think I understand what it is that they "stand for" that is so bad. Whenever I'm in a Starbucks or reading about things their company is involved in it's often a pretty civic-minded, actively pro-community stuff. Not sure what you know that I don't that's so awful. They seem pretty okay to me. But, returning to the realigned topic, I could see how there would be a negative backlash of sorts against Starbucks since they are so prevalent. Just like when Disney overexposes one of their franchises and creates that backlash, I wonder if the Starbucks on every corner including across the street from each other was too much exposure which created the adverse emotions for some? Just curious. Not at all judging. I ask purely out of interest.