Great Ideas for Institutional Patronships of Disneyland

[PragmaticIdealist]

I'm, again, breaking my rule about giving Disney free, unsolicited advice, but I really do not want to see the last decade repeated.

The most egregious error the Pressler and Harriss administrations made is not necessarily the most obvious. Pressler and Harriss virtually destroyed the institutional patronship/Operating Participant aspect of Disneyland's operation.

The new management needs to focus on improving the goodwill associated with Disneyland and on reestablishing relationships with institutions that wish to be associated with that goodwill.

I can think of all sorts of ways different companies can be matched with Disneyland Attractions and other features, and I am sure most other MiceChat users can think of several as well. So, where should Disney look for its next generation of strategic alliances and how should those alliances be represented at Disneyland?

[Piratefan75]

Disney needs to approach it from prestige and value. First, make sure that Disneyland is maintained to the highest quality standards to keep it's brand as a premium. Make it an honor to have your name on a Disney attraction.

Then you have to make sure you're showing the corporation the value of their sponsorship. Disney charged a lot of money for corporate sponsorships as I recall, and with wider opportunities for corporations to get their names out there to a lot more people for a lot less money, you have to give them the perks and show them they're getting a lot for their money. Maybe have perks they can offer their employees in the way of discounted admission, free tours, enhanced fastpass, lounges with free snacks and/or sodas.

I'm curious since I'm fairly new to the board and you've mentioned this twice in your posts. Do you work for Disney or are you a contractor for them? Because I don't think Ouimet, Rasulo or Iger have the time that we do to spend reading the message boards. That said, they do need to rekindle corporate sponsorships to defray the costs of building and running attractions.

[PragmaticIdealist]

The Matterhorn and Nestle seem like an ideal combination to me.

The Autopia could be paired with Archer Daniels Midland, so that its vehicles, as well as all the other Disneyland vehicles with Diesel engines, could run on bio-Diesel fuel, which is made from vegetable oil.

Arrowhead is a company that started in California but is now owned by Nestle. I can visualize something to the effect of: "Grizzly River Run, presented by Arrowhead Water".

The best patronships are those that match the Attraction with the brand, and its associations. Walt Disney's Enchanted Tiki Room, presented by Dole is a great example. The evocativeness of the Attraction enhances people's perception of the brand.

[PragmaticIdealist]

I think Disney and McDonald's missed a prime opportunity when they created Burger Invasion.

The restaurant in D.C.A. is derivative and unimaginative. The establishment has more to do with The Burger that Ate Los Angeles in Santa Monica than the original McDonald's Golden Arches restaurants that began near Route 66 in California.

[sediment]

The other half of the arrangement, though, is that Disneyland can't just point to the sign and say, "Well, that's your name on it; if you want it kept up nicely, you should pay for it." To which the response should be, "I AM PAYING FOR IT, WITH THAT CHECK I GAVE YOU IN ORDER TO PUT MY NAME ON IT!!!"
(That's my imaginary dialogue between Dole and Pressler.)

[sediment]

I think the general rule about posting ideas on the internet should be as follows: "Once you post it, it's in the public domain. You don't own the idea, and you can't expect payment or even a thank-you note for the idea."

[tbminnie]

I never liked the idea of companies sponsoring the rides. I want to ride Indiana Jones not Indiana Jones brought to you by AT&T. There is a place for advertising and rides are not the place.

[cellarhound]

Yes these strategic alliances have been problematic... Mostly because of sponsorships where used to build DCA, and look where that went...

I am all for putting a company's name on an attraction just so long as the arrangement is not intrusive... What I don't like is attractions that are basically ad campaigns... Like the Tortilla Factory and the Sourdough Bakery... Or if you place a filmed commercial at the beginning of a stage show, (tacky).

Sooner or later the Autopia will need to switch to Elecrical Cars... Because the opperating cost will be simply too much... I would imagine in 5 years the ride will be shut down for a 2 year referbishment to install an elecrified track...

[PragmaticIdealist]

"tbminnie", Indiana Jones Adventure would not exist if AT&T was not involved. AT&T paid more than $100 million for the development and construction costs and paid for the entirety of the maintenance costs for ten years. After that period of time, AT&T could choose to renew the contract for even more money or Disney could shop for a better deal elsewhere.

I happen to think the fact that so many major institutions have clamored to be associated with Disneyland over the last fifty years enhances Disneyland's prestige.

There is a good way to allow institutions to be involved, and there is a bad way. For example, Energizer destroyed Star Tours, in my opinion. M&M's, the previous institutional patron for the Attraction, was much less intrusive.

[tbminnie]

"Prag" What is the difference between AT&T sponsorship of Indy and Energizer of Star Tours? Didn't they both fork out money towards the attraction?

Disney had rides before all this corporate sponsorship.

[Giant Panda]

The advertising I've seen at Disneyland has never been a distraction. It is almost always unique, and shows some imagineering. And it may mean a better quality attraction because more money is made available to build the ride. If Disney didn't have sponsors, we might be paying $75 for one day admissions (and $500 for PAPs, and $10 for churros).



It is a little known fact that Pete Wilson, when he was governor, contributed $60 million of State Highway Funds toward construction of the M&F parking structure and the roadways/bridges leading to it. At the time I was angered that "our money" (I work at Caltrans) was being given to a company that could have cut back on upper-management bonuses to come up with the money. There's no big blue "CT" logo on the bridge over Ball Road, or on M&F, we don't need to "advertise" like AT&T or ADM, but the State is reaping tax benefits from the expanded resort that M&F made possible .....

Anyway, the point I'm making is that sponsorship is a good thing....

Back OT:


I would rather see In 'N' Out sponsor burger invasion, or Tommy's

REI could sponsor TSI or RCCT (acronyms RULE!)

Larry H. Parker could sponsor California Screamin' .......

Boeing, or an airline should sponsor Soarin'

Expedia, Travelocity, or one of "those" companies could sponsor Jungle Cruise ......

[Neon Cactus]

I don't understand what Energizer did that was worse than M&Ms to Star Tours, at least at Disneyland. Granted I hate seeing the Energizer bunny where Darth Vader used to stand by the exit of the ride, but at least they don't have an audio animatronic bunny on the ride!

I'm not opposed to corporate sponsorhip, but I agree with cellarhound, don't make an attraction around the corporation...and then actually list it as an attraction. The truth is I may see the name on the ride, but I don't pay attention to it. And having the FedEx commercials running during the queue of Space Mountain was the best reason yet to use fastpass.

While it's true that some very big corporation have at one time or another sponsored Disney attractions in the past, the truth is a lot have dropped out. While Disney is definitely still the cream of theme parks, the corporations definitely haven't seen the benefit of sponsorship. I agree with Piratefan that Disney is going to have to get out and sell these companies, give their employees perks, to get that sponsorship back. But unless they guarantee that getting these corporations on board and absorbing some of their operational costs is going to freeze the ticket prices, I'm not going to be too concerned about it.

[PragmaticIdealist]

Star Tours is my favorite Disneyland Attraction.

Energizer totally undermines the fiction of Star Tours, and I have been boycotting the company because of the alterations it made to the Attraction.

The Energizer logogram is slapped onto the Star Tours video boarding announcement, and the Energizer Bunny replaced all the travel posters in the walk-through portion of the Attraction that follows the ride-through portion. Additionally, the announcement about the Starspeeder 3000's being "energized" is totally gratuitous and non-sensical.

M&M's was content with a much more tasteful and respectful approach that actually enhanced the goodwill of M&M's/Mars. Energizer makes more enemies than friends by its association with the Attraction.

[Neon Cactus]

I would rather see In 'N' Out sponsor burger invasion, or Tommy's

Now you're talking!!!

[Morrigoon]

Bolding mine

I can think of all sorts of ways different companies can be matched with Disneyland Attractions and other features, and I am sure most other MousePad users can think of several as well. So, where should Disney look for its next generation of strategic alliances and how should those alliances be represented at Disneyland?

????