New Four Seasons Timeshare on Disney Property and Value Oriented West Side

[Another Voice]

And it would appear they have given up trying.

That's rather the history of Disney for the last fifteen years, isn't it.

The Grand Floridian failed to make five stars because budget cuts removed several elements that Mobil and AAA require in 5 star hotels - among these were 24 hour room service, beauty palor services and staff-to-guest ratios. Eisner assumed that the magic of Disney would compenstate for his cuts, he was wrong.

People judge hotels by what they are, not because they have a brand name glued to the sign out front. Disney could have made the GF a true first class resort, but they decided not to. Disney decides not to do a lot of things these days.

That's catching up to them.

 

[raidermatt]

There are some areas of expertise that should be conceded.

Disney's product is pixie-dust. That's what they sell and, IMO, their problems started when they decided they didn't want to sell pixie-dust. For some inexplicable reason, businesses do that all the time.

Then businesses make the 2nd great mistake in deluding themselves into thinking they can do anything and do it successfully.

That's Disney's problems in a nutshell.

OTOH, food and lodging are not pixie-dust. No amount of theming is going to make bad food and bad service better. So maybe the solution is to have Disney theme the hell out of the hotels, but leave the nuts and bolts to the professionals. Frankly, I have no problem with that. My problem is when I pay deluxe prices for a prettier Best Western.

Are they themeing the Four Seasons resort? There's nothing to indicate they are, and it would certainly be a radical departure for the Four Seasons model. There's even a fairly widely held belief that the Four Seasons market doesn't even want that themeing.

But that aside...

food and lodging are not pixie-dust.

Nothing is pixie-dust. It doesn't exist. Disney sells, or did sell, a show, an experience, entertainment. Food and lodging can very much be a part of that, as the Poly and Contemporary are.

Now, I agree that they have gotten away from that, but moving further away from it is not the answer.

 

[CanadianGuy]

Raider:

Thanks for pointing out that line in the press release. I somehow missed that. I think somehow when I read it I read it differently than it was obviously written. So yes.. I missed something! I figured that had to be the case. I missed the word lodging in that first line. (Doh!)

Since reading that more carefully.. I don't like what I'm reading about the W.D.

Jason71 and others in this thread suggested it sounds like another Florida strip mall .. and at first blush I gotta say that it certainly does. You know Jason, when I first saw Crossroads on this past trip.. I was thinking it was outside development because it was opposite the entrance to the DTD hotels. But it is technically Disney property over there right?

Frankly I'm far more concerned with that W.D. than I am at the Four Seasons Development. (FSD for short as I type on)

The FSD is 300 acres or so. It's out of the way. And probably -- I won't ever see it.

Even assuming that most of the remaining land in the Disney 27,000 acre parcel is non-developable for swampy or conservation reasons; I've looked at some aerials with suggestions of several areas that are prime for development and plenty big enough to accommodate up to two additional parks... at least.

I'm not concerned with that small land loss for the FSD. Especially given that HUGE number of those 300 acres are golf course that already exist and are being repurposed for the new project. That's worth noting. Yes it was a historic course designed by a big kahuna of golf.. Tom Fazio. But he ain't dead yet and he can have a hand in it's remodeling.. His firm does that too.

Perhaps I'm a little concerned with the precedent.. but more intrigued by the possibilities than turned off by the precedent at this point.. for this aspect. Themed or not this area will be lush and well landscaped and a top-notch resort. I've been to Four Seasons in Palm Springs and I had no complaints whatsoever. I doubt very much I'd want to repeat that feeling on Disney property but probably somebody must wanna do that.

But as I noted above and previously in this thread -- I'm absolutely no fan of Crossroads and another one of those is a bad idea.

The WD is on the edge of an entrance to the park on a busy thoroughfare .. which may be the first way many future guests 'enter' the Disney property. First impressions are important in my book and if this is another Crossroads.. Yuck.

If it's more like a DTD area.. which has branded restaurants and at least a modicum of theming... That's a better plan.

But with the value / budget wording noted in the press release.. I don't have warm fuzzies.

Knox

 

[DancingBear]

You know Jason, when I first saw Crossroads on this past trip.. I was thinking it was outside development because it was opposite the entrance to the DTD hotels. But it is technically Disney property over there right?

Used to be.

The FSD is 300 acres or so....I'm not concerned with that small land loss for the FSD. Especially given that HUGE number of those 300 acres are golf course that already exist and are being repurposed for the new project..

Actually the story says it's 900 acres.

 

[raidermatt]

Whatever the meaning of "value-oriented...third-party branded lodging, retail and dining" (and that actually sounds more like McDonalds than even Applebees), it's definitely not the next Adventurer's Club or Once Upon a Toy. Rather than build something with a "wow" factor, Disney is content to be a landlord to the next inevitable central Florida strip mall.

I'm reasonably sure they will present it in a "nice" manner. The concept sketches did not look themed though. But there were only a couple of them. The overriding point though is still that either way, its closer in concept to a strip mall than it is to DTD.

Interesting point about the McDonalds. The DTD development is not a "value" development, yet it does have a McDonalds.

 

[raidermatt]

Raider:

Thanks for pointing out that line in the press release. I somehow missed that. I think somehow when I read it I read it differently than it was obviously written. So yes.. I missed something! I figured that had to be the case. I missed the word lodging in that first line. (Doh!)

Since reading that more carefully.. I don't like what I'm reading about the W.D.

...

Frankly I'm far more concerned with that W.D. than I am at the Four Seasons Development. (FSD for short as I type on)

The FSD is 300 acres or so. It's out of the way. And probably -- I won't ever see it.

...

Knox

No problem. That press release was quite a few pages and days ago.

I'm not sure which I like least. Obviously a luxury concept sounds more appealling than a strip mall. But I don't think its all that much out of the way, and apparently the property borders Bay Lake. If they actually build things visible from around Bay Lake, or from the Monorail, its going to visible to a lot of people. I don't imagine they will try to hide it.

The strip mall could obviously turn into a major eyesore, but I doubt they'll let it come to that. But it still is going to essentially be a strip mall from the outside brought right up to the gate.

I don't know... I think the FSD is more objectionable philosophically because of its proximity to the parks and other resorts, and the sale of land. But the WB has a bigger downside execution risk.

Bottom line is I'd like to see them doing other things instead of either of these.

 

[CanadianGuy]

Yah apparently if you think of the short of Bay Lake in clock terms.. this resort will be around 1 to 2 o clock position. Visible.. but probably not super prominent.

 

[CanadianGuy]

Used to be.

Actually the story says it's 900 acres.

Yah.. I picked up the 300 acres reading later in this thread.. So I'm not sure where I got that exactly.

But my point still applies on a larger scale.. The vast majority of the 900 acres is still golf course.

That said.. 900 acres is a much larger chunk of land than was discussed earlier in the thread. Still tho.. I'm more worried about WD than the FSD.

Like it or lump it.. I know that FSD will probably at least be done right.

WD -- not so much.

Knox

 

[ConcKahuna]

Well in all fairness the shopping area will be set back along Western Way. It will be behind CSR, and will probably help draw more traffic towards BB. If it draws more traffic away from Downtown Disney and towards 429 and that end of property for people comming to WDW, that will be a great thing too (traffic near DTD is horrid).

With the single-family homes going in at the same time, I see it as probably more of a Celebration clone than anything else.

 

[MassJester]

But then how can/should the Four Seasons be a 5 star? What will they do differently than Disney could have done on the same real estate?

They will apply their tried and true service delivery model which is directed toward a luxury experience.

There is a reason why Disney's offerings are similar across the parks when you control for the design of the "box"--they are all supported by the same service delivery model. They systems, processes, and people that provide the customer service in one location are the same as the others. Therefore the experience becomes very similar. How could it not?

Why can't Disney do it? I don't know that they couldn't, but I'm reasonably comfortable that they couldn't do it efficiently, and therefore competitively.

I'd rather they focus on what's inside the parks then trying to create new models that do not speak to their core service comeptencies.

 

[MassJester]

Disney sells, or did sell, a show, an experience, entertainment. Food and lodging can very much be a part of that, as the Poly and Contemporary are.

Now, I agree that they have gotten away from that, but moving further away from it is not the answer.

Why not?

 

[MassJester]

We both have to assume facts not in evidence, but based on the types of deals and arrangements that Disney has undertaken in the recent past it is much more reasonable to assume that this will be another distribution deal. Let Four Seasons have the land, take the risk, build the resort......while Disney gets a fee for allowing it to exist on the grounds of WDW, possibly having a hand in the marketing as well. There are no examples of Disney truely partnering with a firm in Joint Venture on much of anything, where Disney has a hand in the development and building (read: creation), contributes significant capital, assumes significant risks, and shares accordingly in the profits. Your assumption that that is going to be the case is far less grounded in the reality of Disney's business practices than my scenario.

I never suggested they would be involved in the design, creation or building--I can't imagine what they could bring to that. They've exhibited no facility for luxury development, and so their expertise is a bit light in that area. Let the experts do it, and therefore insure the highest quality offering.

But you missed the point. I didn't say the CR and Poly were luxury resorts. The point is that back in the late 60's and early 70's, if one were to say that Disney had the ability to offer a themed hotel in a highly desireable location, there would be nothing in the record to support it. Afterall, The Disneyland Hotel was not a Disney product. It was designed and built by someone else, with Disney getting a piece of the action. Since Disney didn't have the money to bring the Disneyland Hotel to fruition a deal was cut with Jack Wrather to build and operate the hotel. It wasn't until 1988, after Wrather died, that Disney was able to acquire ownership. So I suppose one could say that in the past Disney did farm out hotel developement to someone else. But that was the very first hotel, in a day and age when Disney didn't have the resources available to do it themselves (otherwise they would have).

That's just not accurate. Walt was opposed to getting into the hotel business--it had nothing to do with capability or financing. In fact, Walt wanted no part of the hotel business in FL.

Yes, they offered the Poly and Contemporary--but did they do it well? They were expensive, theme was hit or miss (the garden wings of the Poly hardly smacked of "Disney Magic"), and customer service has been bland. What they really offered that no one else could was proximity and character breakfasts.

This may be why Walt wasn't much interested in the business.

The entire point of the Florida Project was to have a do over, so as to avoid the mistakes made in California. What Disney is now doing doesn't hold true to that intent....and it isn't like Disney doesn't have the money to do it themselves these days. But back to my point, just like Disney had no experience in building themed hotels when WDW was conceived (any hotels, really), today they have a wealth of experience in owning an operating hotels, but are unwilling to take the risk themselves to create a true luxury resort on property. That risk averse posture can be seen so many places throughout Disney today, and while it does mitigate risk, it limits the opportunities for the company to develop things today that will add to the company's legacy and ability to make the same strides over the next 50 years as they have over the last 50.

We see the same situation and interpret it very differently. I'm not sure how to close the gap.

Sure, after overpaying an inflated price of $7 billion the leading animation unit falls under Disney. A seperate vertical silo within Dinsey that will have nothing to do with Disney Feature Animation. That, as opposed to having invested far less over time to have Disney Feature Animation maintain their position in the first place. You may be satisfied with all of that, but I'm not.

I would have rathered they accomplish it more effectively and efficiently. What magic the organization structure (separate silo--and this is bad because...) and whether or not it's named "Disney Animation" are paper issues to me. Disney owns the block--that works for me.

 

[Another Voice]

Let the experts do it, and therefore insure the highest quality offering.

Well - you say hotels aren't special, let someone else do it.
Food isn't "magical", let someone else do it.
Retail isn't special, let someone else do it.
Certainly there are more and cheaper experts out there on rides, so let someone else do it.

Which basically leaves Disney as nothing but a company that licenses out "Mickey Mouse".

There are people that look for quality, for something different. That's what Disney offered in many forms. Sure, the food wasn't Cordon Blu quality, but it's sometimes fun to eat in a castle. Disney used to sell imagination - something you don't seem to value at all.

I don't care about "luxury". Fancy ash hotels with marble floors and grovelling servants are nothing special. If that's what you're looking for there are lots of other places left where some guy spit polish your shoes.

I know people like you one day bulldoze over all that was great - you've already done a pretty good job. There's very little left of what made WDW great - the quircks, the charms, the irrationality, the joy, the fun. I know it will soon be given over to the bottom line, the bland and the efficent.

I just want to enjoy the last candle in the growing darkness for as long as it lasts.

 

[MassJester]

Well - you say hotels aren't special, let someone else do it.
Food isn't "magical", let someone else do it.
Retail isn't special, let someone else do it.
Certainly there are more and cheaper experts out there on rides, so let someone else do it.

Which basically leaves Disney as nothing but a company that licenses out "Mickey Mouse".

There are people that look for quality, for something different. That's what Disney offered in many forms. Sure, the food wasn't Cordon Blu quality, but it's sometimes fun to eat in a castle. Disney used to sell imagination - something you don't seem to value at all.

I don't care about "luxury". Fancy ash hotels with marble floors and grovelling servants are nothing special. If that's what you're looking for there are lots of other places left where some guy spit polish your shoes.

I know people like you one day bulldoze over all that was great - you've already done a pretty good job. There's very little left of what made WDW great - the quircks, the charms, the irrationality, the joy, the fun. I know it will soon be given over to the bottom line, the bland and the efficent.

I just want to enjoy the last candle in the growing darkness for as long as it lasts.

Perhaps just the teensiest bit melodramatic?

Was this meant to be the ending post?

 

[CanadianGuy]

Food isn't "magical", let someone else do it.
Retail isn't special, let someone else do it.

Many "Disney" restaurants aren't really Disney restaurants at all.. many of them never ever have been. They are restaurants contracted by specialist suppliers. This has been a standing arrangement for years. Few know this or recognize it.

Some of the Epcot restaurants are great examples of this. If you work at Le Cellier in Epcot (or anywhere in the Canada pavillion); you don't work for Disney. You work for the company that has contracted to supply the retail and restaurant services to Disney standards.. for that pavilllion. It's been that way for YEARS. Long before Iger. Maybe even from opening if I recall correctly.

Certainly there are more and cheaper experts out there on rides, so let someone else do it.

As for the rides part.. Disney has been quietly buying rollercoasters on the "black market" for a while now. Rockin Roller Coaster is an off the shelf design from Europe.. just placed inside a building and themed to Disney standards. Disney won't admit that.. but it is. You can ride the same track layout .. outside.. at a park in Europe. The cars aren't themed .. there's no soundsystem for each rider .. no music back story.. etc. That storytelling and theming is the Disney touch.

The mechanicals and underlying gear for Expedition Everest come from yet another roller coaster company. Again - storytelling and theming done by Disney.

Despite knowing those two coasters aren't completely unique... I feel safe in saying there are no two other coasters in the world quite like them. (outside of Disney properties)

Dumbo, Aladdins Royal Carpets.. the core mechanicals were bought from an amusement ride company that supplies the same company that does your state fair.. and the product was themed to Disney standards.

Space Mountain? Disney didn't build it from scratch. They took core competencies from outside suppliers and melded them with their storytelling and theming abilities.

Soarin is a very unique ride .. even the concept for this attraction was completely designed by Disney. Awesome. The core mechanicals for this were very custom. But still supplied by outside sources to Disney specfications. Is it better than RnR or EE. I don't particularly think it's better or worse personally. It's another good Disney attraction. Altho I still find the queue area theming and storyline needs BIGTIME bolstering.

Incorporating the best of other suppliers into your product mix AND knowing what you can do yourself is smart business.

Well - you say hotels aren't special, let someone else do it.

Disney does what it does with their hotel line-up pretty well. To leave the extreme high-end and extreme low-end to others isn't giving up. It's recognizing your core competencies and limits. Same as not building a coaster from scratch .. except on a bigger scale.

The Four Seasons concept if attempted by Disney would require a COMPLETELY different service superstructure for the underlying requirements of the resort from everything else they have. For example, to meet 5 star standards, they would need a unique call center staff of five star resort specialists separate from their existing reservations staff. That staff would have to meet 5 star standards for answering calls, handling requests, time on hold.. everything that comes along with 5 star properties.

For one resort.

Four Seasons already has those people trained and meeting those standards ; AND already in place at various call centers around the country etc...

For Disney to build the five star resort.. would mean service duplication and inefficency. Four Seasons specializes in five star stand alone resort properties. That's what they do. They have the infrastructure, systems, suppliers, procedures, and policies, training programs .. the works.. already done and in the can to create this resort at the five star level on day one of opening..

Same goes probably for the budget suppliers on the Western Development on the 1.5 or 2 star level.

Disney couldn't build Rock N Roller Coaster on their own without TREMENDOUS expense. So they buy the track, mechanicals, computerized control systems and other underlying GEAR from a specialist supplier and customize it to their needs. Their core competency is how that attraction looks and feels and the storyline around it. I think they did alright on this one. But they didn't do it all from scratch.

Disney contracts with suppliers for everything. Those turkey legs? Disney didn't raise the turkeys. They bought the product from a supplier and cook it. In some cases, they dont' even cook them. A supplier does that too; to Disney specifications. That stuffed Mickey doll -- Made in China to Disney specifications by a supplier... It's been this way forever.

I'm not saying they should outsource everything. But outsourcing the extremes of the resort spectrum (below "Value" Level accommodations and above their "Deluxe" level)... or certain products, services and experiences at WDW isn't the end of "The World". It's been going on for years.. many years. Many people just weren't aware.

I fail to see other than the land de-annexation... how this deal differs significantly from the Starwood deal for the Swan and Dolphin; or the outright sale of Shades of Green... which was once a Disney owned resort... or the deals for the Downtown Disney hotels for that matter. The one way I see this is different than most of those properties.. is that this property really doesn't compete with Disney owned properties.

These projects are - I'm convinced - part of a larger plan that we are not yet privy to seeing the whole picture. Yes.. that's assuming facts not in evidence.. But only time will tell if that's true or not.

As with everything that any large organization does.. the devil will be in the details and implementation for these new plans. I can see how the Western Development and the Four Seasons Development COULD both turn out well and both be smart deals for Disney.

And yes.... I can see where they BOTH could go horribly wrong... although I doubt very much that the Four Seasons product will suffer that fate.

Epcot turned out ok with it's underlying suppliers. EE and RnR are ok in my book. DCA didn't turn out so well.. Disneyland Paris -- not so great initially.. but getting better. Disney Tokyo -- on the other hand seems to be doing fine.

I'm waiting to see how these new developments turn out... I don't think all is lost.

Knox

 

[DisneyKidds]

Similarly situated companies (like Disney & FS) enter into joint ventures quite regularly that are mutually beneficial and do not consititute surrender to a competitor.

You are the one that interjected the idea of a joint venture into the discussion, but this..........

Let the experts do it, and therefore insure the highest quality offering.

.......does not represent something done in joint venture. Joint venture by it's very definition is something undertaken together. More specifically....'A joint venture (often abbreviated JV) is an entity formed between two or more parties to undertake economic activity together. The parties agree to create a new entity by both contributing equity, and they then share in the revenues, expenses, and control of the enterprise.' Disney will be doing none of these things, as you seem to agree. So it plain and simply is not a joint venture. So don't make it out to be more than it is.....Disney punting to someone else, the experts, to provide the highest quality offering. Make arguments as to why that is okay, but dont try and pass it off as a joint venture.

That's just not accurate. Walt was opposed to getting into the hotel business--it had nothing to do with capability or financing. In fact, Walt wanted no part of the hotel business in FL.

Wow, those are quite the statements. I'm going to have to ask you to source your information. While your experience with, and view of, WDW only dates back the last 15 years, I assume you have a greater frame of reference on Walt Disney, Disneyland and WDW through reading and other reference material. I'd like to know in what materials you find support for your statements above. My reading and past research tells me that it was Walt that turned to Wrather to initiate the Disneyland Hotel. The fact that Disney didn't have deep pockets back when they spent over $17 million to build Disneyland was a factor in that. As for WDW and what Walt was or wasn't opposed to, or did or didn't want to get involved with, perhaps you can tell me what it is you have read about Walt's Master Plan for the Florida Project. Perhaps you can elaborate on what was represented on Walt's Seventh Preliminary Master Plot Plan. Maybe you can explain your take on Walt's concept paintings depicting the Asian Hotel, Contemporary Resort, Venetian Resort and Polynesian Resort. I believe books such as The Disneyland Hotel: The Early Years, Walt Disney: An American Original, and Since The World Began provide plenty of evidence that contradicts your beliefs about Walt Disney and resort hotels. If only Baron were around to talk about the CR and Poly in the early years, the relative pricing and extreme value, the unique overall experience. In all the reading and discsussion on WDW I've seen I haven't heard many take the position you have, so I'm interested in the basis for your opinions. I'm always willing to learn, so help me out if I've gotten it wrong.

We see the same situation and interpret it very differently. I'm not sure how to close the gap.

Maybe we can't close the gap. The frame of reference thing may be too much of a barrier. My frame of reference on Walt Disney dates back to the 1920's, my frame of reference on Disneyland the early 50's, and my frame of reference on WDW the mid 60's. But apparently I've missed something along the way, so I'm willing to keep at it for a little longer if you can elucidate me.

 

[YoHo]

I never suggested they would be involved in the design, creation or building--I can't imagine what they could bring to that. They've exhibited no facility for luxury development, and so their expertise is a bit light in that area. Let the experts do it, and therefore insure the highest quality offering.




That's just not accurate. Walt was opposed to getting into the hotel business--it had nothing to do with capability or financing. In fact, Walt wanted no part of the hotel business in FL.

Yes, they offered the Poly and Contemporary--but did they do it well? They were expensive, theme was hit or miss (the garden wings of the Poly hardly smacked of "Disney Magic"), and customer service has been bland. What they really offered that no one else could was proximity and character breakfasts.

This may be why Walt wasn't much interested in the business.




We see the same situation and interpret it very differently. I'm not sure how to close the gap.





I would have rathered they accomplish it more effectively and efficiently. What magic the organization structure (separate silo--and this is bad because...) and whether or not it's named "Disney Animation" are paper issues to me. Disney owns the block--that works for me.

As Kidds said above, there is pretty much nothing in this post with respect to Disney History that is true. Nothing.

 

[MassJester]

You are the one that interjected the idea of a joint venture into the discussion, but this..........

.......does not represent something done in joint venture. Joint venture by it's very definition is something undertaken together. More specifically....'A joint venture (often abbreviated JV) is an entity formed between two or more parties to undertake economic activity together. The parties agree to create a new entity by both contributing equity, and they then share in the revenues, expenses, and control of the enterprise.' Disney will be doing none of these things, as you seem to agree. So it plain and simply is not a joint venture. So don't make it out to be more than it is.....Disney punting to someone else, the experts, to provide the highest quality offering. Make arguments as to why that is okay, but dont try and pass it off as a joint venture.

A JV that involved Disney offering up location in exchange for another parties execution is perfectly legitimate. No need for both hands to carry the bucket. One can own it, the other can carry it.

Wow, those are quite the statements. I'm going to have to ask you to source your information. While your experience with, and view of, WDW only dates back the last 15 years, I assume you have a greater frame of reference on Walt Disney, Disneyland and WDW through reading and other reference material. I'd like to know in what materials you find support for your statements above. My reading and past research tells me that it was Walt that turned to Wrather to initiate the Disneyland Hotel. The fact that Disney didn't have deep pockets back when they spent over $17 million to build Disneyland was a factor in that. As for WDW and what Walt was or wasn't opposed to, or did or didn't want to get involved with, perhaps you can tell me what it is you have read about Walt's Master Plan for the Florida Project. Perhaps you can elaborate on what was represented on Walt's Seventh Preliminary Master Plot Plan. Maybe you can explain your take on Walt's concept paintings depicting the Asian Hotel, Contemporary Resort, Venetian Resort and Polynesian Resort. I believe books such as The Disneyland Hotel: The Early Years, Walt Disney: An American Original, and Since The World Began provide plenty of evidence that contradicts your beliefs about Walt Disney and resort hotels. If only Baron were around to talk about the CR and Poly in the early years, the relative pricing and extreme value, the unique overall experience. In all the reading and discsussion on WDW I've seen I haven't heard many take the position you have, so I'm interested in the basis for your opinions. I'm always willing to learn, so help me out if I've gotten it wrong.

Disney Wars by James Stewart

Maybe we can't close the gap. The frame of reference thing may be too much of a barrier. My frame of reference on Walt Disney dates back to the 1920's, my frame of reference on Disneyland the early 50's, and my frame of reference on WDW the mid 60's. But apparently I've missed something along the way, so I'm willing to keep at it for a little longer if you can elucidate me.

You're up late for someone in their 90's.

 

[MassJester]

As Kidds said above, there is pretty much nothing in this post with respect to Disney History that is true. Nothing.

 

[ConcKahuna]

The Disney World Contempo Bay Resort and The Polynesian Village Resort (now known as Disney's Contemporary Resort and Disney's Polynesian Resort) were origionally owned by the US Steel. The first resort owned by Disney anywhere was...Fort Wilderness. Having "outsourced" hotels is not a new concept in Disney.

Many of the attractions in the parks are paid for by sponsors, even though they are staffed by Disney. The Tree of Life and "It's Tough to Be A Bug" were both paid for completely by McDonalds. From 1974 when it opened until just a few years ago, Space Mountain was paid for by FedEx.

Have you ever taken a ride on "Primeval Whirl"? Look in any amusment park supply catalong and it's called the "Wild Mouse."