Test Track

[ChrisFL]

Yes, Toyota's profits fell but they still made a significant PROFIT, something the U.S. auto industry hasn't done in a longtime. A large part of the profit dropped was because of the strength of the yen. They also lost volume but not to the degree other auto companies have. This loss was mostly due to the world's economy not Toyota and they're certainly in a much better position than any American automotive company.

Right and Toyota is sitting on billions of dollars it isn't even using

 

[dinodak]

I would think they would just find a new sponsor or have it go sponsorless for a while until someone else is found to fund the attraction.

 

[c4a]

Condorman;26875554] said:"That's so funny. Can you imagine solar-powered cars? The moment you zoom out of the indoor facility and onto the track - if the sun is shrouded behind an overcast sky - your vehicle just slows to a crawl, CMs collect you, apologize, and give you a FastPass to Ellen's UoE"


Too funny!

 

[deej696]

To me, ride sponsorships are puzzling. We hear so much negative opinions on the Disney license craze at the parks, I have never really understood what makes sponsorships different. I mean, we complain that there are McDonalds fries in the parks, yet we are ok with "Test Track presented by General Motors."

Dont get me wrong, I have no problem with them and think its a smart way for Disney to push some of the cost burden elsewhere. I guess I just dont see the difference.....

 

[DC7800]

We hear so much negative opinions on the Disney license craze at the parks, I have never really understood what makes sponsorships different. I mean, we complain that there are McDonalds fries in the parks, yet we are ok with "Test Track presented by General Motors."

Simplistically stated, perhaps, General motors isn't selling cars at Test Track (or the World of Motion), while McDonald's is offering standard menu items for sale. They are not just sponsoring Conestoga Fries, for instance - Conestoga is selling McDonald's products under the McDonald's name. You couldn't find Kraft or Nestle products for sale in The Land, no General Electric light bulbs sold in Horizons, and no Exxon mini-mart (or gas) available over at Universe of Energy. Those are sponsors, 'selling' the corporate name or image maybe, and certainly benefiting from good publicity and promotion, but they don't have a store set up in the park.

McDonald's does have stores set up in the parks, even if it is only a fry cart. That crosses a line, from sponsor of a Disney establishment, to having an actual retail presence in the parks. I might not have a problem with McDonald's sponsoring a Disney counter-service restaurant, but it couldn't be a 'McDonald's' restaurant offering a McDonald's menu. For instance, if the only change made to Flame Tree BBQ was to add "sponsored by McDonald's" to the bottom of the sign - and the menu remained unchanged - that would probably constitute a sponsor arrangement, and might be completely appropriate.

 

[KYMickey]

Simplistically stated, perhaps, General motors isn't selling cars at Test Track (or the World of Motion), while McDonald's is offering standard menu items for sale. They are not just sponsoring Conestoga Fries, for instance - Conestoga is selling McDonald's products under the McDonald's name. You couldn't find Kraft or Nestle products for sale in The Land, no General Electric light bulbs sold in Horizons, and no Exxon mini-mart (or gas) available over at Universe of Energy. Those are sponsors, 'selling' the corporate name or image maybe, and certainly benefiting from good publicity and promotion, but they don't have a store set up in the park.

McDonald's does have stores set up in the parks, even if it is only a fry cart. That crosses a line, from sponsor of a Disney establishment, to having an actual retail presence in the parks. I might not have a problem with McDonald's sponsoring a Disney counter-service restaurant, but it couldn't be a 'McDonald's' restaurant offering a McDonald's menu. For instance, if the only change made to Flame Tree BBQ was to add "sponsored by McDonald's" to the bottom of the sign - and the menu remained unchanged - that would probably constitute a sponsor arrangement, and might be completely appropriate.

While you do demonstrate a difference between the two arrangements its extremely small at best. The only reason GM sponsors Test Track is to sell cars and having them on display certainly helps do that. Exxon has basically the same reasons for sponsoring World of Energy. Actually at one point in time Kraft Food Products were sold in The Land. I personally don't see anything wrong with either of these arrangements. Of course he didn't mention the Rainforest Cafe at Animal Kingdom which is even worse in my opinion because it's a completely "foreign" object for the park and it's the only true outside restaurant within the park.

If people didn't want McDonald's fries it would be one thing but they're definitely better than any of the other fries sold at CS restaurants!

 

[DC7800]

While you do demonstrate a difference between the two arrangements its extremely small at best. The only reason GM sponsors Test Track is to sell cars and having them on display certainly helps do that. Exxon has basically the same reasons for sponsoring World of Energy. Actually at one point in time Kraft Food Products were sold in The Land. I personally don't see anything wrong with either of these arrangements. Of course he didn't mention the Rainforest Cafe at Animal Kingdom which is even worse in my opinion because it's a completely "foreign" object for the park and it's the only true outside restaurant within the park.

If people didn't want McDonald's fries it would be one thing but they're definitely better than any of the other fries sold at CS restaurants!

I would have to contend that the differences between having an attraction (or restaurant, etc.) sponsor, versus an outside entity with an actual company presence within WDW or the parks, is substantial. Some arrangements, however, fall somewhat within a 'gray area' and likely make the difference between a sponsor and outside retail presence seem more negligible than it really is. The Disneyland Carnation Cafe actually carries the name of its sponsor, but it is exclusive to the park (no national chain of Carnation Cafe's in every town in America - such as with McDonald's) and is not just a store selling company products. Rainforest Cafe, however, is not a sponsor arrangement - instead it is an actual retail presence (for lack of a better term) within WDW, and yes, I have a problem with its (inappropriate) place at Disney. Still, RC is more distinctive than McDonald's, isn't found everywhere across the nation, and technically it isn't actually within the park itself. Hence, I'd have to hold McDonald's out as the worst offender, though I would definitely prefer to be rid of RC (at least at AK; Ideally in the Marketplace too).

Just to further confuse the issue, Kodak sponsored Journey into Imagination from the beginning and sells its products at a shop there (as well as across WDW). The difference, of course, is that it is not ostensibly a Kodak store - it is an attraction sponsored by Kodak, with an attached camera shop. Conestoga Fries, on the other hand, is instead a (themed) McDonald's retail establishment, not a sponsor of a counter-service eatery. Again, the differences can be murky.

 

[deej696]

Again, the differences can be murky.

Which I guess was my original point, because I dont see the difference. These companies provide sponsorships in an effort to earn customers in one form or another. Whether the dollars are made on WDW property, or the local grocery store, these companies do profit as a result of their presence in the parks. The argument by "purists" is usually "When we come to Disney we dont want to see other brands." Pure is "Disney's Contemporary Resort." "Test Track presented by General Motors" is not....

Sorry if I stirred up the pot, I was just trying to understand the point of view...