the problem is that it would now be construed as taxpayer dollars paying for the ride sponsorship. this is the problem with our government getting into private business with our taxpayer dollars. the rules change and everything is now subject to scrutiny. as much as i love WDW, i for one do not want to see a penny of my tax dollars going to it or any sponsors via the federal gov't. private industry should be just that, private.
I don't want to turn this into a political discussion which can easily happen but here's my two cents:
1. Companies "waste" money. At least that's the way it looks from the outside because they'll try new things that sometimes don't work or spend money on initiatives that a lay person does not understand. In reality they are trying to be as creative as possible and sometimes it doesn't pan out. This is not waste. Before the flames come out, I am not talking about $800,000 remodeling of the executive's office.
2. There's been a lot of discussion about incentive trips in the press. I spent time in sales and those "performers club" trips are a huge incentive. It costs the company an extra $8,000 or so for me to go to Vegas or Cancun or wherever and it's a big deal to make the grade. That competition/reward structre works very well in sales and I worked my behind off to make those trips resulting in higher revenues for my employer (and much more than the $8,000 they spent).
3. Having hospitality tents at golf tournaments and taking clients on "junkets" is a real, necessary component of relationship building and client development. Contrary to popular belief it is not bribery. I'll review the proposal and select the firm that works best for me an my company. But, those firms I have a good relationship with will be more likely to get the opportunity to bid. It's just human nature.
4. I worked with executives at GM in the late 90s. This is not a company given to lavish excess. The executive offices are quite nice but not outrageous. These guys work incredibly hard and, yes, the get handsomely rewarded for it. Do they make too much money? In my opinion, yes, but that's just my opinion. If they make it in stock I'm less concerned than if they make it in direct cash.
5. How many jobs does that $5MM mean? Tough to say. If it's a manufacturing job then probably 60 or so (salary, benefits, etc add up really quickly). If it's an admin job then closer to 100. You can't pull back on all advertising and say that we can save X number of jobs though. If you can't sell the product then there's no reason to employ those workers. You're just moving an expense from one line to another.
What we often see from Congress and the media is the worst sort of appeal to populism. When the auto execs drove to DC from Detroit (8+ hours) rather than flying (1 hour) it was a ridiculous publicity stunt that they were forced into by the firestorm about private jets. Can you honestly tell me it's not worth flying a highly paid execs (who will work on the plane, by the way) rather than sticking them in a car? And yes, they could have flown commercial, but that would have taken 3 times as long as a private jet (assuming the flight wasn't canceled) and there would have been no possibility of a private, confidential conversation.
Off my soapbox.
I'll drink to that! Have the same thought every time I visit Epcot.
We've owned several other brands of vehicles...always go back to GM.
Test Track is a really expensive ride to run and maintain, and last time I checked Disney wasn't doing too hot either. Especially if park attendance drops off, I could see this ride languishing in "seasonal" opperation.
