Why does Epcot need sponsors?

[michelle06]

This is not a complaint about Epcot as I love it the way it is. But I am confused about what I read here.

I have read many threads about dead space in Epcot and why they have gotten rid of so many attractions. It seems people always say they have lost the sponsors or haven't found a new sponsor. My question is since when does Disney need a sponsor? The new FL in MK doesn't have a sponsor do they? Why can't they put money into like they do the other parks? After all, it is a for profit park, right? So, I guess I'm confused why other parks get new rides and upgrades and Epcot, well, just doesn't have a sponsor.

 

[squirrel4569]

This is not a complaint about Epcot as I love it the way it is. But I am confused about what I read here.

I have read many threads about dead space in Epcot and why they have gotten rid of so many attractions. It seems people always say they have lost the sponsors or haven't found a new sponsor. My question is since when does Disney need a sponsor? The new FL in MK doesn't have a sponsor do they? Why can't they put money into like they do the other parks? After all, it is a for profit park, right? So, I guess I'm confused why other parks get new rides and upgrades and Epcot, well, just doesn't have a sponsor.

Same reason why ballparks and such have them. More money from the sponsors equals less money from us. Possibly because many of the EPCOT things have to do with education there may be some tax implications behind it. Grants and gifts/sponsorship from corporations may be tax breaks for either Disney or the sponsors if it can be classified as an educational experience.

 

[OKW Lover]

Disney loves to have sponsors in all their parks. Its a way for them to finance new attractions or defray costs on the existing ones.

Disney does put in a lot of their own money on new attractions. With sponsors they can do more.

 

[PSUGuy]

Same reason why ballparks and such have them. More money from the sponsors equals less money from us.

Nice if this were true, but I think the reality is, ' More money from the sponsors equals more money for Disney'. The only 'less' I've noticed over the last decade and a half is less (fewer actually) MK evening parades, fewer Fantasmics, fewer things for adults when the Adventurer's Club and the CW went away etc etc. I know the OP mentions Epcot specifically, but the notion that sponsor money is trickling into our pockets in any way is a dream.

Bill From PA

 

[katrina1122]

Epcot Center had sponsors the day it open. The original Journey into Imagination was sponsored by Kodak.

EPCOT continues to do so. It helps cover maitenenance costs etc.

 

[dwheaton]

EPCOT was a huge financial undertaking at the start for Disney, which wasn't such a large-scale operation at the time. Sponsors were crucial in opening the fall park with all of those attractions. This made it much different from parks like DHS, DCA, and DAK in the future that opened with limited attractions. It also fit with Walt's idea for EPCOT, which was to have industry leaders work with Disney on the community.

Admission prices were much lower for EPCOT then they are now, even when you consider inflation. Today, I agree with the others that Disney gets sponsors to keep more money for itself and doesn't need them as much at this point. Given the constant ticket price and dining price increases, they're definitely getting extra money from guests and don't need the sponsor to keep attractions in place.

 

[TJBerry]

Nice if this were true, but I think the reality is, ' More money from the sponsors equals more money for Disney'.
Bill From PA

Exactly.

 

[OKW Lover]

Sigh. People, people, people. Disney is a business. It needs funds to run its operations and make a profit for its shareholders. To do that it needs revenues from admission, merchandise sales and sponsors to offset its expenses and earn that profit.

If admission revenues aren't enough to Disney can raise prices, sell more merchandise or get new sponsors. OTOH, if a new sponsor comes in it can help Disney delay price increases or make them not as large as they would have been otherwise.

Profit is not a dirty word.

 

[bleeps]

Agreed that Disney is a for-profit company with shareholders to keep happy, and all that good stuff.

I think the reason the question gets asked in the first place is that it's not the norm -- most huge corporations don't have other huge corporations "sponsoring" elements of their own businesses. My guess is that the whole reason Disney went down this path was the connection in the very beginning between Walt's work and the New York World's Fair work that the company did (that is, WED built World's Fair attractions for major corporations, and Walt immediately saw that as a way to have those and other corporations "sponsor" his work in his own theme park(s)). So this was a business model that made sense and was attractive to everyone involved in the early days.

I think fewer companies now see a benefit in sponsoring elements at Disney parks -- does Hewlett Packard see any uptick in business because of Mission: Mars? (That is the current sponsor, right?) It's a very soft/PR *benefit,* and fewer companies are in a position to invest money that way. I think the model going forward will be more on businesses that can "partner" by running, say, more of the restaurants/food kiosks/gift shops, etc. -- saves Disney $$ (they charge the rent and take a percentage but don't have to supply the goods). [No need to flame if you disagree -- just putting an idea on the table.]

Bottom line is that Disney will do whatever it takes to keep feeding that bottom line, and they'll find ways to keep getting people to come to the parks and to make money from that; if major corporations won't pony up to build new attractions, Disney will do so only "as needed" (to bring in more guests) but not simply to give people more for their money. If their investment in Fantasy Land pays off, I imagine they'll turn their attention of Epcot eventually....

 

[OKW Lover]

I think the reason the question gets asked in the first place is that it's not the norm -- most huge corporations don't have other huge corporations "sponsoring" elements of their own businesses. My guess is that the whole reason Disney went down this path was the connection in the very beginning between Walt's work and the New York World's Fair work that the company did (that is, WED built World's Fair attractions for major corporations, and Walt immediately saw that as a way to have those and other corporations "sponsor" his work in his own theme park(s)). So this was a business model that made sense and was attractive to everyone involved in the early days.

Actually this business model existed before the New York World's Fair. Walt and Roy signed up sponsors for DL in 1995.

Lots of companies "sponsor" elements of other businesses - its just usually called advertising and I'm sure that's the budget it comes out of at the sponsoring company.

 

[ttintagel]

I love that the bathroom at the MK gate is sponsored by Angel Soft toilet paper.

 

[FortForever]

EPCOT was a huge financial undertaking at the start for Disney, which wasn't such a large-scale operation at the time. Sponsors were crucial in opening the fall park with all of those attractions. This made it much different from parks like DHS, DCA, and DAK in the future that opened with limited attractions. It also fit with Walt's idea for EPCOT, which was to have industry leaders work with Disney on the community.

Admission prices were much lower for EPCOT then they are now, even when you consider inflation. Today, I agree with the others that Disney gets sponsors to keep more money for itself and doesn't need them as much at this point. Given the constant ticket price and dining price increases, they're definitely getting extra money from guests and don't need the sponsor to keep attractions in place.

This answer sounds reasonable and makes sense. I'm going with it.

I always kind of wondered about the sponsor thing, especially at Epcot. I'm going to be on the look out for that MK bathroom next time. I never noticed.

 

[pachelbel9]

I miss the days when Fedex sponsored Space Mountain. You could flash your employee badge to get into a private lounge with drinks and snacks, and then have a guide take you to the front of the line. Or at least that's how I remember it. I, my dad, and my brother all worked for Fedex at one time or another, so we did this on a few trips back in the 90s and early 00s.

 

[StitchesGr8Fan]

The attractions at Epcot were always intended to be updated at regular intervals. Disney wanted the sponsors to pay for that, not themselves. There were some interesting discussions online when GM took the government bailout and Test Track's contract was up and Disney wanted a refurb. We all know it turned out ok, but the discussions were ... Interesting.

 

[michelle06]

OP here. I guess where I am still a bit confused is why things at Epcot can't be done due to no sponsors but things at the other parks can be done with Disney money. Why can Disney invest in a new FL at MK but not invest in projects at Epcot? Now I would understand if it was just a matter of priorities, but the vibe I get here on the DIS is that they have to find a sponsor. I don't sense that sponsors are needed at the other parks, but almost required for Epcot.

Overall, I understand what you all are saying regarding partnerships and how sponsors help (whether it be for profit, education or mutual beneficial relationships between he companies). But I don't see why they are more needed at one park than another.

 

[nansmama]

OP, just wanted to let you know you're not alone in your confusion. I especially don't really "get" the World Showcase partnerships with the different countries and how certain countries "missed out" by not sponsoring. Why wouldn't Disney just build whatever pavilions they wanted and hire independent consultants to advise for accuracy if needed? I guess it's over my puny little head, LOL.

 

[tjevans]

As another has pointed out, it's primarily Epcot now, but it hasn't always been that way.

In the past, there's been Space Mountain by RCA and later FedEx; If You Had Wings by Eastern Airlines, Mission to Mars by Rockwell Aerospace, Tropical Serenade by Florida Orange Growers, and Country Bear Jamboree by Pepsi/Frito-Lay.

Sent from my iPad using DISBoards

 

[OKW Lover]

OP here. I guess where I am still a bit confused is why things at Epcot can't be done due to no sponsors but things at the other parks can be done with Disney money. Why can Disney invest in a new FL at MK but not invest in projects at Epcot? Now I would understand if it was just a matter of priorities, but the vibe I get here on the DIS is that they have to find a sponsor. I don't sense that sponsors are needed at the other parks, but almost required for Epcot.

Overall, I understand what you all are saying regarding partnerships and how sponsors help (whether it be for profit, education or mutual beneficial relationships between he companies). But I don't see why they are more needed at one park than another.

Its simply a case of prioritization. Disney has plenty of plans for attractions "on the shelf". They prioritize construction projects based on their perception of what is needed in a particular park and how much money they have available to do it. To the extent they have available funds, the projects at the top of the prioritization list get built. If somebody comes along with money for a project further down the list, then it gets moved up.

 

[PeterPanic]

OP, just wanted to let you know you're not alone in your confusion. I especially don't really "get" the World Showcase partnerships with the different countries and how certain countries "missed out" by not sponsoring. Why wouldn't Disney just build whatever pavilions they wanted and hire independent consultants to advise for accuracy if needed? I guess it's over my puny little head, LOL.

World Showcase was sold to the countries as a permanent Worlds Fair. It is a promotional tool to interest people in visiting the real place. That is what World Fairs do and that is what Disney said would happen in EPCOT.

It is a "showcase" promoting the counties. Like a Worlds Fair, the nations represented were asked to pay for their own pavilions and then a rate for yearly maintenance of those buildings. Disney, of course, had a certain amount of creative control as to what the pavilions would look like, but they were for and about the countries. Sort of a huge advertisement. Even Future World was set up that way because, again, like a World's Fair businesses had exhibits as well that promoted their product. Energy = Exxon, Imagination=Kodak, Horizons=GE, WoM=GM, etc. Since Future World was supported by business and usually were themed to compliment those businesses, when they lost the sponsor then Disney would be paying full bore for someone else's promotion. When Horizons lost GE's support Disney went out to find someone willing to pay the bills again. They found Hewlett Packard but they wanted a different theme so..bye bye Horizons, hello Mission Space.

I know that it is more complex than that but as a simple explanation, that's the best I could do.

 

[rccllap]

I'm always looking for a great question to ask at GR and this looks like it!

Back in '87 when I first went to the World, they had kiosks where you could ask anything to the CM's and they would find out the answer if they didn't know it. For instance, I asked how many stairs there were inside SE. I had to go all the way to the main guest relations desk for that one