Help! My company is considering a proposal to sponsor an Epcot pavillion.

[foofanella]

Do any of you Disney experts know where I can find information on Epcot visitor demographics, estimated investment or any articles about satisfaction levels from current sponsors?

Thanks!

 

[Cricket2]

Wouldn't Disney have to supply this sort of thing?

 

[michaelwilliammidd]

I wouldn't think Disney would hesitate to give out some demograpic material if it meant a serious intrest in sponsorship. Have you tried talking to anyone at Disney corporate about it?

 

[Bstanley]

Considering that an initial $100M buyin and annual support of $5M are in the ballpark of the opening bids for an Epcot presence I can't imagine that anyone serious about sponsorship is going to get their information from The DIS...

 

[Cricket2]

Considering that an initial $100M buyin and annual support of $5M are in the ballpark of the opening bids for an Epcot presence

Where did these #'s come from?

 

[DVCconvert]

Bstanley may be thinking of the development cost of 100Mn for M:S (paid by Disney) and HP is paying about 50Mn over 10years (5Mn per year) for "sponsorship".


Source: Orlando Sentinel, 10/10/03

 

[Bstanley]

Actually I was provided those numbers by an insider within the last year.

The numbers are quite flexible, but the impression I was given was that these numbers were close to a starting minimum. Basically anything is for sale - depends on how large your checkbook is.

 

[peter11435]

The “opening bid” is no-where near 100 million. The fact is Disney pays to build the attraction as in the 110 million it cost to built M:S. The sponsor pays annual fees that are pre-determined to get their name on the attraction. And Disney uses this money for some of the annual operation and upkeep. In the case of M:S HP only pays about 5 million a year over 10 years like DVC convert said.

No company would be foolish enough to spend 100 million on sponsorship think about. It would cost them well over 100 million to advertise to just about 10 million people over a year. One super bowl ad would cost only about 3 million and will be seen by 70 million people. Which would you choose?

 

[TheRustyScupper]

1) I think the OP posted this as a spoof.
2) No potential sponsor would be going outside for info.
3) The company would contact WDW directly for a proposal & support data.
4) After a conversation, the company marketing dept goes to work.
5) The demographics are established, a recommendation is formulated.
6) The recommendation is then acted upon, yea or nay.


NOTE: Such decisions are not quickly or easily made. There is a lot of research. There is a hot debate going whether WDW sponsorship is worthwhile. There are serious questions if the expense warrants the amount of people or key decision makers that are exposed to the sponsor's message.

 

[Bstanley]

It is certainly possible that what I was told was in error or an exaggeration - but I doubt it.

First - Disney does NOT pay the entire development cost out of their own pocket for a sponsored pavilion. Never has, never will. Compaq/HP did not cut a $100M purchase order for Disney - but the agreement the companies signed gives Disney hardware/services for years at hefty discounts. Why do you think 'go.com' said 'Powered by HP' for a couple of years after the deal was signed?

Second - you need to take into account that a sponsorship might last for a decade. Something like 45-50 million people visit WDW in a year - how many visit Epcot? hint - it's not the 10 million that gets published, those numbers are for the 'first' park entered that day. Anyone with a park hopper might show up for Illuminations.

Deciding that an Epcot sponsorship is 'overpriced' might be the reason why so many sponsors have left...ya think?

PS. Mission Space didn't cost $110, it cost way more.

 

[peter11435]

It is certainly possible that what I was told was in error or an exaggeration - but I doubt it.

First - Disney does NOT pay the entire development cost out of their own pocket for a sponsored pavilion. Never has, never will. Compaq/HP did not cut a $100M purchase order for Disney - but the agreement the companies signed gives Disney hardware/services for years at hefty discounts. Why do you think 'go.com' said 'Powered by HP' for a couple of years after the deal was signed?

Second - you need to take into account that a sponsorship might last for a decade. Something like 45-50 million people visit WDW in a year - how many visit Epcot? hint - it's not the 10 million that gets published, those numbers are for the 'first' park entered that day. Anyone with a park hopper might show up for Illuminations.

Deciding that an Epcot sponsorship is 'overpriced' might be the reason why so many sponsors have left...ya think?

PS. Mission Space didn't cost $110, it cost way more.

Mission Space actually cost $109 million. That’s a fact.

The point is while Disney does not pay the entire development cost they do pay the majority of it. Your original numbers show nearly the entire cost being paid by the sponsor, which is far from true.

And yes you are correct about attendance being higher then the 10 million. However even still, 100 million plus 5 million a year is 150 million of 15 million a year over a 10-year contract. Even if there are 20 million Epcot guests a year, which would you choose 15 million for a Disney attraction that 20 million will see or 3 million for a super bowl ad that 70 million will see.

And P.S. that 40-50 million people you speek of is not individual guests, check your facts.

 

[Bstanley]

Ah, I had no idea you had the invoices handy.

Facts indeed.

Ciao'

 

[SoCalKDG]

And yes you are correct about attendance being higher then the 10 million. However even still, 100 million plus 5 million a year is 150 million of 15 million a year over a 10-year contract. Even if there are 20 million Epcot guests a year, which would you choose 15 million for a Disney attraction that 20 million will see or 3 million for a super bowl ad that 70 million will see.

The 3 million for a super bowl ad doesn't actually reach 70 million since a much smaller pct. of people would actually see the commercial. Additionally we would only be talking about 1 minute of advertising for the superbowl, of which only about 15 seconds might actually mention the name of the company. Compare that with a sponsership where the name might be seen for a much longer time you can see where sponsership becomes a feasable option.

By the way, I'm staying out of this discussion on the cost of M.S. since I have 0 info on that.

 

[peter11435]

The 3 million for a super bowl ad doesn't actually reach 70 million since a much smaller pct. of people would actually see the commercial. Additionally we would only be talking about 1 minute of advertising for the superbowl, of which only about 15 seconds might actually mention the name of the company. Compare that with a sponsership where the name might be seen for a much longer time you can see where sponsership becomes a feasable option.

By the way, I'm staying out of this discussion on the cost of M.S. since I have 0 info on that.

You are correct about not reaching 100% of the audience however the point still stands that no company would spend 100 million plus millions more each year for attraction sponsorship. I'm not sure where Bstanley get his numbers but both his sponsorship numbers and M:S cost are way off.

Oh and I would like to know if "Mission Space didn't cost $110, it cost way more" then why does each and every media source claim the attraction cost around 100 million.

 

[mitros]

I'm going to agree with your points on this post. Hey foofanella, what say you?

 

[Mickmse2002]

What a hoot. There is no company in the world that would come to a discussion forum to get market demographics on a huge capital project such as this.

 

[eccflash]

yes no yes no yes no

ok 110 million. thats about correct and disney fronted much of the bill for this one, however that is not the case for all of them.

test track for instance was almost entirely paid for by gm. for years att paid millions a year for advertisement in spaceship earth which is why they pulled sponsership. Too expensive.

GE paid someything in the neighborhood of 70,000 a day for illuminations(they fronted the entire bill for all regular shows)

And dont forget that even the countries themselves are setup differently. Moracco for instance weas a gift from the country itself and was paid for, designed, and even mostly built, by the prince of morraco's own engineers with the sti[ulation that certain rules be followed at the pavillion.

Lastly, a smart company or marketing firm will use all means of gaining valuable information possible. As there are many insiders on these boards, as smart company looking for informatuion might pump us for information.

On the downside, ANYONE looking for insider secrets or information such as that as us Disney managers get at quarterly meetings and anual updates might also try to pump us for info.

I am neutral on this matter as I do not know if te request is genuine or not, however I acknowledge tht it may or may not be. In any case 100,000,000might be a real number. I dont think it is high or low so it is probably a reasonable number.



ps as for epcot numbers, i can say that 10,000,000 (10 million is a huge exageration) being the average day at epcot is about 20,000 give or take.

 

[C.Ann]

Considering that an initial $100M buyin and annual support of $5M are in the ballpark of the opening bids for an Epcot presence I can't imagine that anyone serious about sponsorship is going to get their information from The DIS...

--------------------

Is that your nice way of belittling and/or calling the OP a liar?

Sweet..

 

[GrimGhost]

1) I think the OP posted this as a spoof.
2) No potential sponsor would be going outside for info.
3) The company would contact WDW directly for a proposal & support data.
4) After a conversation, the company marketing dept goes to work.
5) The demographics are established, a recommendation is formulated.
6) The recommendation is then acted upon, yea or nay.


NOTE: Such decisions are not quickly or easily made. There is a lot of research. There is a hot debate going whether WDW sponsorship is worthwhile. There are serious questions if the expense warrants the amount of people or key decision makers that are exposed to the sponsor's message.

I am investigator, by nature and profession. The OP, does work as a HR director for a PR company in NYC and while she might not be functioning in a decision making capacity, probably heard something about a sponsorship possibility at work. I can understand why she has not responded once to this thread.

 

[Sarangel]

Is that your nice way of belittling and/or calling the OP a liar?

Sweet..

Since BStanley hasn't indulged in any name calling, the post has remained. We debate a lot of stuff on this board, and disagreement or questions are allowed as part of the discussion process. I read BStanley's post as more of a "wow, that seems a kinda strange..." kind of a post instead of a "Boy are you credulous..." type of post.

The types of posts that are removed are those that obviously attack another poster, or are completely off topic. There's a full list of the types of posts that aren't allowed on the DIS when you sign up.

Sarangel