Starbucks on main street.......:/

[Disney_Princess83]

Ditto... never got to try the infamous cookie-wich with fresh/warm cookies.
and now Sleepy Hollow's are soft serve.

The Ice Cream parlour still have the ice cream sandwiches, warm cookies and all

 

[momoluvgd]

I don't think it's that bad! The bakery is still there and it still has the same theme as main street. The only thing that bothers me is that starbucks wasn't around in that time period, and Disney coffee is not THAT bad, but it's just a little shop, I really don't think it's a big deal. You can still get all the same stuff, even if it's at a different location.

 

[TabZ]

I LOVED being able to get a hand crafted caffeinated beverage (or how ever it is they describe them) in MK and Starbucks. To me - the old Disney coffee really is that bad - I tried one from Starring Rolls and it's too early in the morning to describe how I really felt about it

Was there this uproar when Disney decided to serve coke? It's the same thing - they have selected a well known popular brand then trained their own staff to serve it

 

[Marthasor]

And a pineapple frosty treat in Adventureland doesn't have to be called a Dole Whip. But it is. You haven't explained why the scorn is reserved for Starbucks while Nestle, Carnation, Coke and Dole get a free pass. As a Disney history buff, surely you know that the original Main Street Bakery was a Sara Lee outpost with large, prominent signage. Was that so different? It, and the other companies mentioned are/were also corporate sponsors who pay/paid Disney a lot of money. Casey's is every bit a commercial for Coke as the MSB is for Starbucks. But for years there has been crickets. Why is now the right time to take a stand?

I think you need to ask the people who have scorn against Starbucks on Main St. I have zero scorn and have stated that in my posts. My point is the same as yours. There is historical precedence for Disney bringing in corporate sponsors for restaurants, rides, etc. Based on that precedence, the Starbucks sponsorship makes sense in the Disney parks business model and shouldn't really be a surprise to anyone.

On a purely financial basis, Disney does not need to bring in sponsors the way they did in the early days of the parks.

I'm personally glad they are there. They are very good to their employees and we enjoy going there on our way in and out of the park.

 

[Allison]

I think you need to ask the people who have scorn against Starbucks on Main St. I have zero scorn and have stated that in my posts. My point is the same as yours. There is historical precedence for Disney bringing in corporate sponsors for restaurants, rides, etc. Based on that precedence, the Starbucks sponsorship makes sense in the Disney parks business model and shouldn't really be a surprise to anyone.

On a purely financial basis, Disney does not need to bring in sponsors the way they did in the early days of the parks.

I'm personally glad they are there. They are very good to their employees and we enjoy going there on our way in and out of the park.

On a purely financial basis, Disney needs to always be thinking about ways to generate revenues or be more efficient with spending to contribute to the bottom line. That's what sponsorships help do. Need goes beyond keeping the doors open.

 

[Chuck S]

On a purely financial basis, Disney does not need to bring in sponsors the way they did in the early days of the parks.

Perhaps, but as a Disney stockholder, I'm happy to see sponsorships to increase the bottom line. Remember, it wasn't too long ago that Disney stock prices were down, and there was a rumor Comcast was waiting in the wings to buy Disney. Everyone kind of pooh-poohed the idea that a cable company would want to get in the theme park business...but now Comcast owns Universal Studios.

 

[freshmanjs]

Perhaps, but as a Disney stockholder, I'm happy to see sponsorships to increase the bottom line. Remember, it wasn't too long ago that Disney stock prices were down, and there was a rumor Comcast was waiting in the wings to buy Disney. Everyone kind of pooh-poohed the idea that a cable company would want to get in the theme park business...but now Comcast owns Universal Studios.

theme parks are a pretty small component of disney stock performance.

 

[Chuck S]

theme parks are a pretty small component of disney stock performance.

True, but in the CEO battle a few years ago, many were using words like "lost the magic" as the reason for the stagnant performance and the parks surely contribute more to the bottom line than "magic" contributes.