Epcot's Test Track closed??

[jepperson1]

Building the attraction is just part of the cost. You have to RUN it after you build it. I'm sure a lot of the sponsorship costs after the first couple years were for maintenance. It wasn't just "naming rights" like with a lot of sports venues.

I'm sure it cost plenty of money to build and costs plenty of money to run, my point is there is no way GM would have paid $100 Million. First of all, a sponsorship doesn't pay for what is sponsored, it HELPS differ costs. Second, $100 Million is the equivolant of ten 30 second superbowl ads for ten years. Something like 90 million people watch the Superbowl. According to the documentary on the Travel Channel, 30 Million people visit the Disneyworld each year, not Epcot, the whole world, this number might be inflated too. According to wikipedia (I know, not the most accurate information source, but still) Epcot had 10.9 million visits in 2007.

Other things that cost $100 Million -

Cybersecurity for the entire U.S. Defense department
Terminator 2: Judgement Day
Health Care for illegal aliens in the state of Florida
Ending deforestation in the Amazon
The world's fastest computer
Running for President

 

[Doc CW]

We were there during those dates and rode it without even knowing they were working on a deal.

 

[dirtnap101]

I assume Disney's #1 choice is to continue with GM even at a lesser amount of sponsorship money. Then they wouldn't have to remove all reference to GM and/or put another sponsor in there. That pre-show film mentions GM and uses GM cars. It's not as easy as taking down a few GM signs and replacing them with Toyota.

 

[MAH4546]

I assume Disney's #1 choice is to continue with GM even at a lesser amount of sponsorship money. Then they wouldn't have to remove all reference to GM and/or put another sponsor in there. That pre-show film mentions GM and uses GM cars. It's not as easy as taking down a few GM signs and replacing them with Toyota.

References to GM can be removed practically overnight, and simple editing will get references out of the film, even if GM vehicles are still shown.

Lot's of attractions used to have sponsors at Disney World and the references quickly went away overnight. FedEx used to sponsor Space Mountain and Mattel used to sponsor Buzz. You can still see some of the logos/colors from both companies at the attractions, with references to the company name removed.

 

[bicker]

Yeah, I agree. If they actually got a new sponsor, changing the labeling is the least of concerns. Disney can build incredible things, practically overnight, and signage is essentially superficial. I suspect editing the film would take more than changing signage.

 

[Buzz Litebeer]

The Epcot attraction remains uncertain as GM and Disney executives negotiate a possible contract extension.

Nonsense. Test Track isn't going anywhere.

Did Test Track actually result in any substantial business for the company? Does anyone leave Test Track absolutely DYING to buy a GM car??

Well, my father purchased his car after first seeing it at Test Track's post-ride showroom... and he's fairly conservative when it comes to spending money on big-ticket purchases. So the answer is "yes".

Disney could be in trouble. There are so many sponsors for Disney that could pull the plug.

Even if they find new sponsors or the old sponsors continue you can bet it won't be the same monies as before for whatever.

I think this is real scary when you think about it. Disney can't eat it all and continue, either.

Nonsense. Disney doesn't need sponsors to operate or maintain the rides. They help out a lot, certainly... but they're not necessary.

Posts like this one (and Sabi's original post) amount to nothing more than Chicken-Little-esque fearmongering.

I believe Nestle stepped out as well. and if The Land can survive without Sponsorship, so can...

- The (Living) Seas
- The Universe of Energy
- Space Mountain

and others I'm sure

There are quite a few attractions and restaurants that no longer have sponsors for various reasons (heck, Country Bear Jamboree still has an old ad slogan in the show from back when they were sponsored by Pepsi).

Space Mountain has been without sponsorship for quite some time now... one of the many things they're doing in the current refurbishment is finally removing the remaining vestiges of the FedEx references in the queue, attraction, and exit (I think there were still RCA products in there as well!).

 

[bicker]

Disney could be in trouble. There are so many sponsors for Disney that could pull the plug. Even if they find new sponsors or the old sponsors continue you can bet it won't be the same monies as before for whatever. I think this is real scary when you think about it. Disney can't eat it all and continue, either.

Nonsense. Disney doesn't need sponsors to operate or maintain the rides. They help out a lot, certainly... but they're not necessary.

The word "necessary" is perhaps a little vague. Without sponsors, some things will necessarily be different. So sponsors are probably "necessary" to foster some aspects of the status quo. However, I agree that Disney is not "in trouble" as Bete asserted. Rather, just some aspects of what Disney offers, that perhaps some guests especially appreciate, may change or go away.

Posts like this one (and Sabi's original post) amount to nothing more than Chicken-Little-esque fearmongering. There are quite a few attractions and restaurants that no longer have sponsors for various reasons (heck, Country Bear Jamboree still has an old ad slogan in the show from back when they were sponsored by Pepsi). Space Mountain has been without sponsorship for quite some time now... one of the many things they're doing in the current refurbishment is finally removing the remaining vestiges of the FedEx references in the queue, attraction, and exit (I think there were still RCA products in there as well!).

I think that Epcot is different from the other three parks. Epcot has always been operating as a substantially-sponsored venue. Most of the countries were, at least in part, heavily-sponsored either by the nations themselves or by tourist boards or similar entities interested in motivating tourism. And Future World started out almost completely sponsored. The prospect of that going away doesn't mean Epcot is in danger of closing, but it does mean that Epcot is in danger of changing.

You're right that concern about that is, in many cases, an over-reaction. Epcot is in danger of changing no matter what. Change is the standard mode of operation for life. The only question, here, is how much will a change in sponsorship situation affect the change that Epcot was going to incur anyway, driving change one way versus another, driving change to a small extent versus a large extent. I don't think anyone can ever know if the change in how much sponsorship money there is (if any) will have so much impact that it would be noticeable above the normal, routine changes that we would have seen anyway, due to other causes and motivations.

 

[Uncleromulus]

Buzz: The answer to my second question might be yes (as in your fathers case) that someone actually did by a GM car thanks to Test Track. When we leave Test Track there are a few people looking at the cars and maybe even buying a T-shirt, but the majority seem to be like us--walk as fast as you can to get out and on to the next attraction.
But my first question about getting substantial business from it is undoubtedly "no". After all, Test Track certainly didn't keep the company from going bankrupt