Sponsorship of attractions

[Wizzard419]

Has anyone ever dug up any figures on what it costs a corp. to sponsor? I'm asking because GM just announced the other day they were going to stop buying ad space on Facebook since the cost did not have any direct link to increased sales. They were sinking 40 Million a year into FB, which makes me wonder if they are seeing similar lacking results from TT?

[lonepalm]

Has anyone ever dug up any figures on what it costs a corp. to sponsor? I'm asking because GM just announced the other day they were going to stop buying ad space on Facebook since the cost did not have any direct link to increased sales. They were sinking 40 Million a year into FB, which makes me wonder if they are seeing similar lacking results from TT?

I haven't seen figures, but I'm guessing that FB advertising is a bit different than at WDW. I am not expert, so I may be totally wrong, but at least with TT, they can have their products in the area at the end where people can actually look, touch, etc, instead of on FB where people can only read or see pics.

[Amy]

Has anyone ever dug up any figures on what it costs a corp. to sponsor? I'm asking because GM just announced the other day they were going to stop buying ad space on Facebook since the cost did not have any direct link to increased sales. They were sinking 40 Million a year into FB, which makes me wonder if they are seeing similar lacking results from TT?

I haven't seen figures, but I'm guessing that FB advertising is a bit different than at WDW. I am not expert, so I may be totally wrong, but at least with TT, they can have their products in the area at the end where people can actually look, touch, etc, instead of on FB where people can only read or see pics.

That's what I would think too lonepalm. Although I would guess the sponsorship at WDW would probably be considerably more than a sponsorship on Facebook. At least I would hope so!

[lonepalm]

See, I would think it is less than FB. $40 mill/year sounds a lot to sponsor an attraction, but maybe not! My logic would be that, while there are a lot of people who visit WDW and ride TT and see the GM (or soon to be Chevy) logo and branding, there is a world full of FB users who never have the pleasure of going to WDW, whether by choice or not. Plus, on FB, most users log on multiple times per day, whereas someone might go to TT a couple times on their vacations.

Then again, I am no marketing expert (or anything like that), so I could be totally wrong (and probably am)!

[Wizzard419]

I would guess it's cheaper since, I think someone explained it before, sponsorship is basically having you pay a portion of the costs for upkeep and sometimes they also will stick you with the bill for major re-designs. The only problems are that you can't change stuff as swiftly and your audience is smaller.

At DLR, for example, new attractions aren't really getting any sponsorship. There is a slight blurb at the exit of star tours for Dolby Digital 3D, but no big sponsorship. So far, in Car's land, the only sponsor has been for the flying tire ride.

[NaCler]

I agree with Amy and lonepalm regarding the FB ads vs TT effectiveness. TT is a whole ride and experience that thousands of people choose to ride every day while FB ads simply get ignored by millions each day. I hate FB ads and simply don't look at any of them if I can help it. I am certain there are many who do the same. Younger TT riders may ride and see one of the cars at the end and start dreaming that one day they will own that car, or if old enough, even go purchase one. I know I remember the old World of Motion and the cars of the future they had in the exit area. But I couldn't tell you about an ad I saw on FB this morning.

[Sharonofwindham]

Lately I've been thinking about the attractions that are sponsered by Kodak, what will become of those attractions...and always see so many Kodak references around " the world". I love the new digital technology, but Kodak as been such a part of our lives for so long...it just seems sad to me

[Amy]

Lately I've been thinking about the attractions that are sponsered by Kodak, what will become of those attractions...and always see so many Kodak references around " the world". I love the new digital technology, but Kodak as been such a part of our lives for so long...it just seems sad to me

Is Kodak gone completely as a company now??

[Sharonofwindham]

They still have something to hold onto...I just can't remember what that is

[Wizzard419]

They are selling off their enriched plutonium (yes, they had it in a secret vault) and the company is selling at 26 cents a share. If I recall, there was a moment a few months back where it literally was at 0 cents a share. That being said, share prices don't always equate to company health but in this case it did.

I do wonder what impact they will have on sales (though this summer might tell since they are going to be closed)? I've never wanted to own a GM car and the ride didn't change the view of that.

[cy1229]

It's so hard to imagine a USA without Kodak. It just seems wrong. But I guess that's what happens in the business world when one fails to adapt fast enough or well enough. The EasyShare camera turned out to be a big flop (kinda like betamax, wasn't it?) and only staunch, stubborn, artsy-fartsy types insist on still shooting film. I can't say I'm sorry to see film go because of all the chemicals and heavy-metal waste all that processing led to. But I digress...

THE POINT is that sponsorship of an attraction is a nice thing, but it clearly doesn't guarantee success in the marketplace. For a long time we've equated pretty photographs with Kodak, but now I think it's more Canon, Nikon, or some other camera company. Once upon a time, fast cars were equated with Mustangs or Corvettes, but as we saw with GM in general, their sponsorship of TT didn't guarantee anything either. It looks like sponsorship is a nice thing, but not a very good marketing scheme. I mean, it's nice to see companies sponsoring stuff like that to promote fun, or beauty, or whatever, but it probably has little to no effect on how people shop, I mean, really, who looked at a Pontiac and said "Oh yeah! They sponsored Test Track! That's the car I want because of that!"

[Wizzard419]

I think part of their demise is that even though they did go to new tech, they were left holding the bag on the old stuff, so as hard as they tried (too late, as you pointed out) all that old process was like an anchor.

In the past, the sponsors were really in there. For example the aluminum exhibit, the RCA themesong, GE's massive presence in the show portion of CoP, etc. Now, the presence seems to be scaled back either by force or by choice. There are people out there that will buy stuff simply because another place uses it.

[Sharonofwindham]

The sponsorships on the attractions never influenced my purchase habits (that I am aware of), but Kodak was, well, just Kodak...an American institution so to speak. My thoughts were kind of selfish in a way because those sponsorships help Disney to fund these massive attractions, and when the company behind an attraction has trouble, or goes under, I was concerned that without sponsorship the attraction would have to be closed

[Thumper1]

I don't think Kodak will completely go away,I think they have the bankruptcy where you can stay open and regenerate.I'm not 100% on that though.I'm hoping that it will not effect attractions!! who knows though!!

[Wizzard419]

They have the option to recover but for now they have stopped production on consumer goods and are focusing on making equipment for corporate goods and selling nuke materials to Iran.