Why do the fans hate brands?

[bdearl41]

For me its just simply I like the originality and the different experience from normal city living. It's nice to feel like I have gone back 60 years, before franchises took over the world. One reason why Main Street is my favorite part of MK. I am disappointed Starbucks is being put in Main Street, it will make a difference in the feel.

 

[fosse76]

Because it'd look like Universal. I don't hate universal, but you walk in and you're bombarded with advertisements!!! With fast food, sodas, shops and billboards all over!! Totally ruins that.

That's only true for City Walk. Downtown Disney is an outdoor shopping mall.

 

[Goofyernmost]

What the problem is here is that everyone is trying to make coffee a part of the theme. It is not, it is only a drink that people seem to like and it is available in a themed location. If they changed the name to River Bottom Coffee, but it was still Starbucks would that make it better? Just as long as there wasn't any way of knowing where it came from or what to expect then it can remain fantasy?

 

[flynnibus]

I'm sorry, but I don't think I have ever read anything that was more incorrect then that one. Read up on Disney history and see the multitude of "brands" that were in the parks since it's opening

Either you didn't understand what I said - or didn't understand why those stores were there to start. Before you try to shut someone down, maybe consider you missed it?

From the start of DL - Disney *WANTED* to do it all - but he could not because he didn't have the resources or often the experience in the area. So he had to bring in the 3rd parties to run the shops, build things for them, etc. But as his finances turned and experience grew, he quickly bought out those people. As DL got established, he bought out all those outside vendors and did it themselves.

For attractions, DL would do it themselves (autopia, etc) vs buy off the shelf because he wanted HIS concepts, and wouldn't settle for someone else's. He partnered with companies like Arrow to help build what they could not. But as Disney's own expertise grew, they eventually replaced Arrow and others with their own people.

The same thing played out in Hotels. Disney didn't have the capacity or resources to be the hotelier at the start of DL.. and not really at the start of WDW either. So they contracted and partnered with others to bring that product in. But in all the cases, as Disney got their footing in the space, they bought out the 3rd party and became the operator themselves.

Lets look at other examples..
Film Distribution...
Construction...
etc

Disney all along wanted 'his' things (especially after the Oswald incident..) - but there are realities he had to face along the way and brought in the 3rd parties when they had to. But that was the 'fallback' not what they lead with. Disney history is filled with stories of Walt and his boys building it themselves in the face of standard elements being available.

They may, over time, have contracted some of those same brands to manufacture stuff for them and put a Disney label on it, but it was never a Disney product.

I suggest you look into Disney's Consumer Product division... it's not just licensing. No Disney doesn't have huge toy factories.. but no one does now. Contract manufacturing is how most things are done.. and why names like 'Foxconn' are known in the mainstream.

 

[Goofyernmost]

Either you didn't understand what I said - or didn't understand why those stores were there to start. Before you try to shut someone down, maybe consider you missed it?

From the start of DL - Disney *WANTED* to do it all - but he could not because he didn't have the resources or often the experience in the area. So he had to bring in the 3rd parties to run the shops, build things for them, etc. But as his finances turned and experience grew, he quickly bought out those people. As DL got established, he bought out all those outside vendors and did it themselves.

For attractions, DL would do it themselves (autopia, etc) vs buy off the shelf because he wanted HIS concepts, and wouldn't settle for someone else's. He partnered with companies like Arrow to help build what they could not. But as Disney's own expertise grew, they eventually replaced Arrow and others with their own people.

The same thing played out in Hotels. Disney didn't have the capacity or resources to be the hotelier at the start of DL.. and not really at the start of WDW either. So they contracted and partnered with others to bring that product in. But in all the cases, as Disney got their footing in the space, they bought out the 3rd party and became the operator themselves.

Lets look at other examples..
Film Distribution...
Construction...
etc

Disney all along wanted 'his' things (especially after the Oswald incident..) - but there are realities he had to face along the way and brought in the 3rd parties when they had to. But that was the 'fallback' not what they lead with. Disney history is filled with stories of Walt and his boys building it themselves in the face of standard elements being available.



I suggest you look into Disney's Consumer Product division... it's not just licensing. No Disney doesn't have huge toy factories.. but no one does now. Contract manufacturing is how most things are done.. and why names like 'Foxconn' are known in the mainstream.

No, I don't think that I missed any of that. In fact, it is the crux of my position on this. I'm not talking about a 3rd party coming in and running a business whatever way they please, I'm talking about a 3rd party supplier of items sold or offered in a Disney facility. Not only was it a lot more blatant and independant in the beginning but if you base it on Walt's core ideas it was almost sacrilegious. In the case of Starbucks, which let's face it was the disguised basis of this thread, if Starbucks gets to call the shots procedurally over Disney standards, it is because they are higher than Disney Standards, not lower. According to reports (true or not???) there will still be Disney Employees operating the locations, but to Starbucks standards, if they are higher than Disney's. This isn't a freelance 3rd party presence, it's a controlled 3rd party supplying an item or items for the location just as Edy's, Coke or whoever makes the Mickey shaped Ice Cream Bars for Disney. They have a training need due to specialized machinery needed to offer the public what they want for selection.

It's not the same animal when you bring up film distribution. Why wouldn't Disney have their own, that's the primary business they are in. Construction...I have never seen a Disney Construction Co. yet. There are the Disney Imagineers that oversee and manage the construction, but all the work is jobbed out, based on bids, to outside construction organization. Who drives the nail is not important, it's the overseeing of the project that insures it looks like a Disney product. That to me is what is important. Whether it's Starbucks, Nescafe or Chock full of Nuts. The brand is only the identification of what is being used not the identity of the organization licensing that position.

Yet, here we still are arguing over the simple addition of a product line to a Disney Park as if it were a complete change of control and purpose of a Disney Park. I, personally am about done with it, because it is what it is and, in my opinion, will not have any affect on anything other than who likes the coffee.

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

Cause the greasy git cheated on Katy Perry

 

[flynnibus]

No, I don't think that I missed any of that. In fact, it is the crux of my position on this. I'm not talking about a 3rd party coming in and running a business whatever way they please, I'm talking about a 3rd party supplier of items sold or offered in a Disney facility.

Selling product created by others is a different subject than my post, or follow-on.. yet you felt it necessary to say "but I don't think I have ever read anything that was more incorrect then that one"

More like - you didn't understand it because you missed that part of Disney history it seems. Disney didn't just sell sponsorships or use other people's products - other people flat out ran the locations as leasees or in the case of the hotels.. contract arrangements.

Not only was it a lot more blatant and independant in the beginning but if you base it on Walt's core ideas it was almost sacrilegious

Disney brought in outside vendors (not brands.. full on independent vendors) because he couldn't do it himself. Not only could he not run it, he couldn't even afford to build it. But once that stretched-too-thin stage was past and DL was rolling in money.. he bought out those vendors and changed everything to Disney owned and operated. This is SEPARATE from the ideas of Branded products and Sponsorships. Branded products are always going to be there... no one wants to drink "Disney Cola". The savvy thing tho is Disney is not just a purchaser of those products, but turns around and sells the privileged to have your products sold within the parks.

The Starbucks situation is a bit different because they are so dominate, instead of Disney saying 'hey, wouldn't you like to be sold in the MK? Pay us and we'll buy your stuff...' - Starbucks was able to say 'No, we won't sell you our products unless you conform to these standards and then we'll let you sell our stuff..'. Disney is in effect acting very much like a franchise location for Starbucks - vs the traditional 'we'll sell and promote your products' deal they strike with companies.

In effect here.. Disney is conceding they can't beat them.. so they're joining them. If Disney thought they could do better on their own, they would have struck a deal with another bean company and productized their own drink. But Disney has shown a pattern of being willing to concede food service items and operations to outside companies more and more. Much like they've been willing to be a real estate developer rather than a retailer themselves in many of the WDW property deals. The company has retracted a bit and found it easier to just collect their take rather than be the operator. Hopefully this is a trend that will turn again back to Disney wanting to do it themselves because they think they can do BETTER.

But really that isn't the same discussion as simply saying 'selling Coke products' or 'Edy's ice cream bars'. Brands and operators are different discussions. My post was that Disney, as Walt himself, and the company, had a corporate culture of 'do it in house'.

It's not the same animal when you bring up film distribution. Why wouldn't Disney have their own, that's the primary business they are in

Because Film Distribution is very different from being a movie studio. You must go back to understand how theaters operated in those times and what it took to get your movies shown.

Construction...I have never seen a Disney Construction Co. yet

Well then you have some reading to do. Buena Vista Construction - go research it. Disney created their own construction firm to operate as the GC for it's projects such as WDW.

 

[Goofyernmost]

Selling product created by others is a different subject than my post, or follow-on.. yet you felt it necessary to say "but I don't think I have ever read anything that was more incorrect then that one"

Well then you have some reading to do. Buena Vista Construction - go research it. Disney created their own construction firm to operate as the GC for it's projects such as WDW.

Buena Vista Construction was a construction management firm. They didn't have their own equipment or hire its own day laborers, they just managed the construction, scheduled sub-contractors and made sure that they got what they were looking for. Big difference, but, anyway, this discussion has gotten too foolish to even bother with. Dislike whatever you want, just be truthful about why. As a final statement I would like to say that if something looks like a duck, acts like a duck and flies like a duck it is probably a duck. If you can somehow whitewash all the products (brands) that are currently in WDW that they buy just for the purpose of resale, and say that this is truly Disney and the rest is not, who am I to argue. Hiding my head in the sand is something that I'm not good at. The continued twisting of events to fit an imagined philosophy is really not worth arguing about.