Originally Posted By Mr X >>>However I do fundamentally believe that the pace of innovation is now so quick that it is virtually impossible for Epcot to keep up<<< That is a very valid point. Walt Disney's "testing ground" idea would be hard pressed to remain relevant, no matter how much money was poured into it (how can you keep pace with corporate innovation).
Originally Posted By Mr X >>I totally disagree with this. Test Track is a family ride. The thrills aren't kid-unfriendly and it remains a pseudo-educational experience (even if you don't agree with the conceit).<< That wasn't actually "my" take on it, even though I agree that it's true (you have the right to disagree, of course). In fact, where I first heard it was at a speech from the WDW ambassador (really cute chick, by the way) way back when test track first broke ground. She said something along the lines of "test track is a new beginning for Epcot, an opportunity to finally appeal to the teen crowd that is usually bored with Disney, and an effort to directly compete with the more "teen friendly" Universal studios. Of course, she said it in a Disneyfied way, but that was the gist. I can't really comment on Seas, because I haven't seen it. But I have experienced Test Track, Soarin, and a video of mission space (sure, I don't know "the experience", but I got "the story" just fine)...so that's where I base my opinions on. Interesting that you seem to feel the same way on a lot of this though...that's cool to hear. I agree, it would take a big gamble and a lot of money (CONTINUOUS money, not just a one time "pitch"), and I can understand WHY they won't do it when it's test track and space that brings in the crowds... BUT, I can still miss the old stuff. It was glorious. *sigh*
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <MISSION: Space is the easiest fix. You simply build the rest of the pavillion. The thrill ride becomes ONE way to Mars. The rest of the pavillion, a couple of acres worth, becomes MARS. That alone, for a lot of kids, would be cooler than ANYTHING at HarryPotterland, if it was done well. < there's a whole empty building next to it that could be an exptension <I totally disagree with this. Test Track is a family ride. The thrills aren't kid-unfriendly and it remains a pseudo-educational experience (even if you don't agree with the conceit). The Seas with Nemo & Friends was an attempt to make a pavilion relevant again.< I agree with this as to me only Mission: Space was too 'thrill' based as opposed to family based. If more people liked the theming at Test Track it wouldnot be seen as a thrill ride which it really is not --( and a ride I actually like - but again I am a car guy) -- Soarin' is not to thrills either and I like it's placement. <There just isn't the stomach within the Company to sink $100-200m into a gamble and who can blame them? WDW is a tourist destination first and foremost.< yet they laid huge bucks into Mission Space - and let's face it - all things are a gamble....based on the previous incarnation of EPCOT, I think it would be less of a gamble than MS was. just IMHO <However I do fundamentally believe that the pace of innovation is now so quick that it is virtually impossible for Epcot to keep up. The Sperry exhibit remained relevant for a considerable time as home computers and robotics barely existed in the eyes of the average guest. The access we have to information now is the real problem that all museums and places like Epcot really come up against when trying to present a vision of the future. Someone raises a question and we can Google it on our BlackBerrys and iPhones. < while true - as a country we do not rank in the top 40 in the world as far as those ' connected ' - so a lot of this would still be interesing to many people. There needed to be more give and take with sponsors as I work for a company that had an exhibit also for a few years ( and a plum job that was within our job postings - one of the most sought after ) - yet whether it be the sponsors fault - or Disney's or more likely a combination of just not maximizing the allure of some of this- I believe it needed to be highlighted more -- and even as it was - there were always crowds of people in the exhibit - and we are the cutting edge in technology ( note: the supercomputer going into Fermilab) -- I just think somehow this could have been really popular - but I never saw people using their feet, to borrow one of your phrases - to stay out of these exhibits...don't know what happened behind the scenes - but a combination of : Apple IBM Dell Motorola etc should be able to keep interest up just based on the latest products they roll out every 90 days...
Originally Posted By leemac <<<There just isn't the stomach within the Company to sink $100-200m into a gamble and who can blame them? WDW is a tourist destination first and foremost.< yet they laid huge bucks into Mission Space - and let's face it - all things are a gamble....based on the previous incarnation of EPCOT, I think it would be less of a gamble than MS was. just IMHO>> Yup but much like the original Epcot the costs were defrayed by the pavilion's sponsors (and the true cost of Mission:SPACE was never as high as people suggested as a lot of the technology did already exist). Whereas sponsors were lining up to take part back in '82 only a handful of sponsors have signed on the last decade - some big like Siemens, others that could have been big but have fallen by the wayside due to changes in management (HP) and others that are smaller deals like Georgia-Pacific. There just isn't the stomach even amongst long-term Disney sponsors like Coke, Kodak and VISA to pump tens of millions of dollars into a new pavilion.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Walt Disney's "testing ground" idea would be hard pressed to remain relevant, no matter how much money was poured into it (how can you keep pace with corporate innovation).< simple - you have the corporations present it. Working 30 years for the world's largest computer company, yes I can tell you the items on the sehlf in the plants are already outdated before release -- but they do demo's all the time for customers etc -- having them maintain a display of the latest - and applications thereof would work. the vast majority of people in the US are not on the cutting edge...only us techno nerds
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <There just isn't the stomach even amongst long-term Disney sponsors like Coke, Kodak and VISA to pump tens of millions of dollars into a new pavilion.< yet one has to wonder - as that kind of money in an advertising budget for Coke for instance is spit in a bucket -- is it a marketing relationship issue ( on either side - not looking to blame Disney here) - or what ? For a company like IBM it is a gnat on an elephants behind on the ledger - so again why not a close enough relationship ? Somehow I feel there is more to this than just $$.....and again not pointing blame, just hoping to understand. When we pulled out of Innoventions from the original commitment we had, I tried hard to find out why - but that was closed up within that area and I could not get to. ( I would have loved a 1 year assignment at EPCOT ) - yet we sign one of the largest services support contracts out there w/ Disney -- Somehow I have to believe a deal could have been worked out - Siemen's is a lot smaller than us for instance yet they either have more vision than other companies or got something they really wanted in return.... I just wish IBM / Micosoft / Coke and a few of the other mega corps. would get more involved...maybe just wishful thinking on my part...
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <There just isn't the stomach even amongst long-term Disney sponsors like Coke, Kodak and VISA to pump tens of millions of dollars into a new pavilion.< yet one has to wonder - as that kind of money in an advertising budget for Coke for instance is spit in a bucket -- is it a marketing relationship issue ( on either side - not looking to blame Disney here) - or what ? For a company like IBM it is a gnat on an elephants behind on the ledger - so again why not a close enough relationship ? Somehow I feel there is more to this than just $$.....and again not pointing blame, just hoping to understand. When we pulled out of Innoventions from the original commitment we had, I tried hard to find out why - but that was closed up within that area and I could not get to. ( I would have loved a 1 year assignment at EPCOT ) - yet we sign one of the largest services support contracts out there w/ Disney -- Somehow I have to believe a deal could have been worked out - Siemen's is a lot smaller than us for instance yet they either have more vision than other companies or got something they really wanted in return.... I just wish IBM / Micosoft / Coke and a few of the other mega corps. would get more involved...maybe just wishful thinking on my part...
Originally Posted By leemac <<Siemen's is a lot smaller than us for instance yet they either have more vision than other companies or got something they really wanted in return....>> I don't know who you work for vbdad55 but Siemens has roughly the same market cap as IBM. HP is smaller. I think Siemens is something like a $140bn company. I think people just don't realize what a huge industrial conglomerate it is.
Originally Posted By WeirdJohn leemac. I think you are right about that. I think people outside of the medical field don't realize how big a player Siemens is in medical systems. They are the leader as far as MRI systems go I believe followed by GE and Philips.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <<<Siemen's is a lot smaller than us for instance yet they either have more vision than other companies or got something they really wanted in return....>> I don't know who you work for vbdad55 but Siemens has roughly the same market cap as IBM. HP is smaller. I think Siemens is something like a $140bn company. I think people just don't realize what a huge industrial conglomerate it is.< What I get for editing a post in transition - Siemens and IBM roughly the same size ( not half as that was another company I had in my original post before editing down) WW workforce and revenues
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <<<Siemen's is a lot smaller than us for instance yet they either have more vision than other companies or got something they really wanted in return....>> I don't know who you work for vbdad55 but Siemens has roughly the same market cap as IBM. HP is smaller. I think Siemens is something like a $140bn company. I think people just don't realize what a huge industrial conglomerate it is.< What I get for editing a post in transition - Siemens and IBM roughly the same size ( not half as that was another company I had in my original post before editing down) WW workforce and revenues
Originally Posted By WeirdJohn Ok, so I'm reading this and saw an earlier post saying the track was practically falling apart. Is this actually dangerous to ride now then? The last time I rode was in Sept. 2005 so I could use some advice. My fiance (wife when our trip in Dec. comes up...yay!) has a bad back. She can handle the smoother roller coasters, but too many bumps could be a problem. Any suggestions?
Originally Posted By plpeters70 "It would have always needed a huge investment to keep it fresh and up to date." But one of the side benefits of designing attractions that had a large history element should have been the ability to only update parts of the attractions - the history sections could have remained constant. (Look at Spaceship Earth as an example.) And really, when you look at the old EPCOT Center, the only areas that were truly out-of-date were the post-shows and Communicore. But these areas were designed from the beginning to be changed frequently - but for some reason Disney chose to go another route. I realize that this is all speculation at this point, but what I truly think was Disney's biggest mistake with EPCOT Center was the lack of any thrill rides. Had they added a roller coaster or two into World Showcase, and even added Test Track as a seperate attraction, then I don't think they would have needed so many drastic changes at EPCOT Center. While I personally could have cared less about thrill attractions at EPCOT - I had MK if I really wanted a roller coaster - I do think that the park was too heavily balanced towards shows and slow moving attractions. A few thrill attractions would have balanced out the park nicely, and then Disney could have focused on updating the post-shows and "futuristic" sections of attractions to keep them relevent.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 "There just isn't the stomach even amongst long-term Disney sponsors like Coke, Kodak and VISA to pump tens of millions of dollars into a new pavilion." What this says to me is that Disney has not done a proper job of proving to these companies that investing in the parks is worth their money. I don't know what happened, but I'm sure if these corporations felt that they were getting an adaquete return on their investments then Disney would have no trouble finding companies to sponser new attractions.
Originally Posted By leemac <<But one of the side benefits of designing attractions that had a large history element should have been the ability to only update parts of the attractions - the history sections could have remained constant. (Look at Spaceship Earth as an example.) And really, when you look at the old EPCOT Center, the only areas that were truly out-of-date were the post-shows and Communicore.>> I think that was the original plan. I guess they just didn't anticipate the park suffering attendance-wise in the early '90s. I guess the changes that came post Epcot '94 could be categorized as knee-jerk or unnecessary wholesale changes. Others might see it as a bold gamble to rip out World of Motion for Test Track and Horizons for Mission:SPACE. The irony is that the changes to SSE that are coming in early '08 have been designed entirely with the future in mind (ie. the new touchscreens on the ride vehicles) that will enable WDI to make changes easily. But then people will complain that there isn't much show in that. Personally I'm just delighted that they are finally making changes that will make the post-show relevant again by continuing the attraction beyond the unload.
Originally Posted By leemac <<What this says to me is that Disney has not done a proper job of proving to these companies that investing in the parks is worth their money. I don't know what happened, but I'm sure if these corporations felt that they were getting an adaquete return on their investments then Disney would have no trouble finding companies to sponser new attractions.>> How on earth could Disney do that? It just isn't commercially viable to sponsor an attraction and you can't justify ROI. Here's an example: CBS got up to $2.6m for a 30 second spot at the Super Bowl this past February. Neilsen ratings were in the low 90 millions. That is over 180 million eyeballs potentially looking at your commercial (and now millions more through YouTube! etc.). That $2.6m investment (excluding production costs) goes out before 1 in 3 adults in the US. So that corporation then can invest in a WDP&R sponsorship deal. I'm not going to talk specifics but a major deal can set a company back tens of millions of dollars over the life of the deal. Take Siemens. No more than 10 million people per annum are likely to see their logo attached to Spaceship Earth. Significantly less will ride the attraction and even less play in the post-show to learn about their company. Just taking Epcot's attendance it would take something like 9 years to reach the same number of people as a 30 second spot at the Super Bowl for an investment of several multiples. It just doesn't work any more unless you tie in other things (like the promo that Siemens did with WDW in NYC for Everest) or additional promotional activity. Or if you don't have a specific brand to promote (which is what attracted the likes of GE, UTC and GM to Epcot in the first place). Georgia-Pacific's deal was very clever as it brought Dixie cups/plates to the resort, saw G-P products used throughout and even messages in the bathroom.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 "I guess the changes that came post Epcot '94 could be categorized as knee-jerk or unnecessary wholesale changes. Others might see it as a bold gamble to rip out World of Motion for Test Track and Horizons for Mission:SPACE." I think it had more to do with the fact that the leadership at Disney lost interest in the EPCOT Center concept. I don't think they had any interest in continuing the vision of EPCOT Center, and were more interested on quick, and cheap, ways to turn attendance around. Plus, the focus shifted from just the MK and EPCOT to an expansion of the entire property with more hotels, Downtown Disney, the waterparks and the other two theme parks. I think Eisner, and his team, were more interested in growing the property than in making each individual theme park the most successful it could be. And that mentality seems to still be with us to this day - though I'm a little bit hopeful that we'll see somewhat of a reversal of this now that they aren't focusing on building new parks as much. "The irony is that the changes to SSE that are coming in early '08 have been designed entirely with the future in mind (ie. the new touchscreens on the ride vehicles) that will enable WDI to make changes easily." I am very hopeful that these changes will be good - and in the spirit of the original EPCOT Center. I just hope that the ride finale is not totally focused on these video screens - I'd like to see more than just video added to Spaceship Earth. But as of now, it does sound like the new ride will be great!
Originally Posted By plpeters70 "How on earth could Disney do that? It just isn't commercially viable to sponsor an attraction and you can't justify ROI." Well, after looking at your examples, it amazes me that Disney was able to get the sponserships that it did in the original EPCOT Center deals. I guess it was a different time, and these corporations wanted to be part of the next big thing. But if that's truly the case, then maybe Disney needs to be more realistic when trying to get sponsers. What about having Disney front their own money to build new attractions, and then let sponsers pay for upkeep and maintenance? (Or is that already done??) I agree that these sponserships really don't sound like a great deal for these companies, but I'm sure Disney could come up with some arrangement that is.
Originally Posted By pheneix >>>Just taking Epcot's attendance it would take something like 9 years to reach the same number of people as a 30 second spot at the Super Bowl for an investment of several multiples.<<< Yes, except that with a Super Bowl ad you've got 30 seconds to get your point across and hope that your audience didn't just mute the TV to go get another beer. Sponsoring a ride at Epcot enables you to spend some quality one on one time with the consumer so they really know what you're all about and what you have to offer. In the case of Siemens, I think their sponsorship deal at Epcot is going to do far more for getting their brand recognized in the USA than a year's worth of commercials ever will.
Originally Posted By pheneix And on a more personal note, they DID play a good role in getting the wand torn down. For that alone I will be buying Sylvania lightbulbs for life!
