Epcot's Test Track closed??

[DVC_Corrys]

Test Track, Presented by Pine Tree Air fresheners
Test Track, Presented the American Government (They are bailing everything else out)

Some Ideas.

 

[DebbieB]

I never understood the sponsor thing either. You shell out nearly $80 for a single day ticket and then you're supposed to be grateful to a sponsor for paying for the atttraction? What did my $80 pay for then?

I don't think you are supposed to be grateful to the sponsor. It's just an advertising strategy, name recognition.

 

[bradk]

I have to believe that the Seas is one of the most expensive pavilions to keep operating on a daily basis and they totally revamped it sans-sponsorship as it is.

And if they're willing to hold on to the Seas which even began on shaky ground, you never know what they're willing to support without sponsors.

No, Space Mountain (as I stated above) never replaced its sponsorship and neither did the Seas nor the Universe of Energy.

As far as admission goes, you aren't paying $80 a day (well, maybe you are), but with a 10 day ticket, you're paying about $25 a day. The ticket structure is priced for specific reasons, especially with being front-loaded. There are price points you have to maintain to keep the crowds where and how you want them. Admission is not how the park makes its money, merchandising and dining is.

 

[Elvistelth]

Economics lessons aside; it doesn't seem like they are hurting for cash. I've read money is funneled from the parks to pay for movies, ABC etc. They treat the parks like a cash cow.

 

[PAcpl]

I cant see them closing TT, imagine the Soarin' wait times if they did?!

I do see Disney running TT without a sponser and re-theming the back end of the attraction. I dont think Disney would pay out of pocket to advertise for a car company.

 

[Sorahana]

I cant see them closing TT, imagine the Soarin' wait times if they did?!

I do see Disney running TT without a sponser and re-theming the back end of the attraction. I dont think Disney would pay out of pocket to advertise for a car company.

They've run several things without a sponsor, to this day Universe of Energy doesn't have a sponsor and still runs. They would run Test Track until it needed to be refurbed most likely, even without a sponsor.

 

[Planogirl]

Wonders of Life... That closed pavilion is disturbing and the only thing that makes me question the Test Track situation.

 

[Elvistelth]

Wonders of Life... That closed pavilion is disturbing and the only thing that makes me question the Test Track situation.

I mentioned WoL back in the 14th post.

 

[Dominus]

Well the GM jerk in the showroom at the end blew off my questions of GM trouble with sponsorship. He said "GM just signed a new contract, and that they're retooling and will be stronger than ever". What a joke.

 

[TillyMarigold]

Economics lessons aside; it doesn't seem like they are hurting for cash.

You think they've laid off hundreds of Cast Members for fun?!

 

[doconeill]

Economics lessons aside; it doesn't seem like they are hurting for cash. I've read money is funneled from the parks to pay for movies, ABC etc. They treat the parks like a cash cow.

You think they've laid off hundreds of Cast Members for fun?!

I requoted the first quote's full post, which I believe contains part of the point.

Walt Disney World (or even DisneyParks), as a division of the Disney Corporation, might be wildly profitable. But that does not make Disney Corporation profitable. It is unfortunate but so long as its part of a larger whole it is not immune to the possibility of cutbacks in order to absorb losses in other divisions, especially if the suits (and please don't assume that I think they are right) think it would be harder to make cuts in the other divisions and keep them viable.

Well the GM jerk in the showroom at the end blew off my questions of GM trouble with sponsorship. He said "GM just signed a new contract, and that they're retooling and will be stronger than ever". What a joke.

The last person I'd have a conversation about regarding corporate decisions, bankruptcy, and sponsorship is someone working inside the parks, much less a salesdroid.

 

[bradk]

on that tangent, while the economy is probably a catalyst and as much as it sucks for anyone to lose a job, the layoffs were actually related to a decision to consolidate park operations for both coasts, whereas the resorts mostly acted independent of each other on a lot of ways.

yes, it's a cost saving measure, but it's not an act of desperation, just a way for the company to hopefully operate in a much more efficient manner. most that were laid off or knew someone that were, from reports that i read, understood the situation and acknowledged there was nothing they were doing that others couldn't absorb.

that said, i'm not a fan of the idea, but if the company chooses to eliminate positions because they're paying too many people to do something that could be done by less people for less money, that's capitalism.

 

[dalt01]

many companys have used the hysteria as an excuse to "lean" out. these are not temporary in most cases even though the party line may be, "when things get back to normal we will call you back to work" i suspect Brad is right and they just eliminated redundancy.

 

[doconeill]

on that tangent, while the economy is probably a catalyst and as much as it sucks for anyone to lose a job, the layoffs were actually related to a decision to consolidate park operations for both coasts, whereas the resorts mostly acted independent of each other on a lot of ways.

A lot of the backstage support CMs - those that support those that are visible, were reportedly let go as well. Those weren't redundant positions.

 

[bicker]

Disney could be in trouble.

Well, not Disney, per se, but Epcot, specifically, and even more specifically, the Futureworld section. While there are sponsorships all over the parks, The Futureworld section essentially is designed based on the premise that practically everything will be sponsored.

However, even beyond that, while there is no question that Disney (slash Epcot slash Futureworld) will be hurt by a massive pull-out of sponsors, they have several means to buffer the impact. First, I suspect Disney has been somewhat selective about sponsors, so far. I know they let the Met Life pavilion lapse, but I still think that they're turning away some sponsorships to avoid some measure of "ick factor". If losing sponsorships represents "three steps back", then I think that they could relax their standards a bit, taking "one more step back" but also moving "two steps forward". So while it is a net "two steps back" as compared to where they are today, since they don't have the luxury of freezing time, relaxing their sponsorship standards could leave them still "two steps forward" of where the massive pull-out of sponsors would have left them.

Another approach would be to do some significant cost-cutting at Futureworld, making the attractions less expensive to maintain.

 

[WDW1st-timers]

I personally think that the Test Track ride will still be up and running and Disney will look for another sponsor if needed.

 

[bicker]

I have to believe that the Seas is one of the most expensive pavilions to keep operating on a daily basis and they totally revamped it sans-sponsorship as it is.

Do keep in mind that there would be a much higher cost associated with shuttering The Living Seas. It is a certified zoological park, and as such Disney has both moral and legal obligations to relocate all the specimens the have collected, which could be a prodigiously expensive proposition.

 

[jepperson1]

If, as according to the Orlando Sentinal GM really did pay $100 million over 10 years (I don't really believe it) they got screwed royally, and no wonder they went bankrupt. It couldn't have cost that much to build the ride! Another Sentinal article says that when Epcot opened in '81 they recieved a TOTAL of $35 million in sponsorships. $100 million is like a tenth of what the whole park cost to build. United Airlines purchased the naming rights to the United Center, you know, where Michael Jordan won 6 titles, for 1.8 million a year, and it gets mentioned all over the media whenever the Bulls or Blackhawks play. I really doubt disney got anywhere near that much, and I really doubt they would close it just because they don't have someones name to put on it.

 

[bicker]

Remember, though, there are three aspects of cost: The cost of designing and building the attraction, the cost of operating the attraction, and the value of being associated with Disney and having the sponsor's logo presented to millions of people per year.

 

[doconeill]

If, as according to the Orlando Sentinal GM really did pay $100 million over 10 years (I don't really believe it) they got screwed royally, and no wonder they went bankrupt. It couldn't have cost that much to build the ride! Another Sentinal article says that when Epcot opened in '81 they recieved a TOTAL of $35 million in sponsorships. $100 million is like a tenth of what the whole park cost to build. United Airlines purchased the naming rights to the United Center, you know, where Michael Jordan won 6 titles, for 1.8 million a year, and it gets mentioned all over the media whenever the Bulls or Blackhawks play. I really doubt disney got anywhere near that much, and I really doubt they would close it just because they don't have someones name to put on it.

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.