• ℹ️ Heads up...

    This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.

Ride Sponsorship

DynamiteDaly

TS Member
I'm not sure if it is still the case, is The Flume still sponsored by Imperial Leather?

Was wondering what people thought about ride sponsorship?

What products would go with what ride?

How about:

Polo Oblivion; The Ride With The Hole
 
The Flume is no longer sponsored by Imperial Leather, I think it ended a couple of years ago. However the logos did stay on most of the boats for a while.
 
djtruefitt said:
The Flume is no longer sponsored by Imperial Leather, I think it ended a couple of years ago. However the logos did stay on most of the boats for a while.
Ditto with the waterpark!
 
I believe the only mentions of Imperial Leather now is in the photos - and waterpark have a massive logo still up for some reason.
 
4537683072_3c9f0fe7b3.jpg


229570_1961017355542_1546068144_2428541_6374038_n.jpg


4uucg9.jpg


"Shiver"
 
Some very subtle sponsorship is often very beneficial to both parties. The Mercedes sponsorship at Europa Park being one of the best examples I can think of.

Many enthusiasts believe that Alton Towers should be a land away of brands, it is a land to escape. I agree with this partially that the resort should be magical, brash sponsorship has no place in my eyes at least. The Oblivion fanta occasion truly highlighted this. At the same time, I wouldn't be offended by sponsorship which was well considered.

As far as companies I'd like to see sponsor rides, I'd like to see thorough deep thought into the matching of rides and brands well before the vinyls are printed. I personally wasn't offended by the Flume sponsorship because it worked; riding a bath round a forest is quirky enough for Alton Towers
and Imperial Lather logos didn't detract too much from the experience.

I just can't think of any rides which would benefit from sponsorship. Hmm.
 
Fanta sponsorship of Oblivion: Eww. Nuff sed.
I now no longer drink Fanta, as the attrocious "Looking down's the fun part!" Sign in the station made me feel sicker than the actual ride. Screw you Fanta! :mad:
 
Thomas said:
Many enthusiasts believe that Alton Towers should be a land away of brands, it is a land to escape. I agree with this partially that the resort should be magical, brash sponsorship has no place in my eyes at least. The Oblivion fanta occasion truly highlighted this. At the same time, I wouldn't be offended by sponsorship which was well considered.

See Oblivion is a very good example of how to and not to do sponsorship. The ride has always had sponsorship in one form or another, but the Coca Cola (and originally Mars as well) sponsorship was very subtle and blended to the area. But a quick shift of soft drink to Fanta (another coca cola brand drink) was extremely jarring and out of place and thus an unwelcome addition.

I think sponsorship is a very welcome addition to a ride so long as the sponsorship is subtle (as it was with Air and Cadbury's Heroes, or even Dargons Fury and Skips), but equally that you can actually see where the sponsorship money has been spent on the ride.

You should be able to see where the sponsorship money has been spent, more often then not through the level of theming. For example the excellent level of theming in the X-Sector was no doubt in part due to the revenue streams brought by sponsorship, which can be contrasted with the lacklustre addition of Dark Forest. Spinball also demonstrates this since, whilst the Sonic theming is somewhat jarring, you can at least see where the revenue generated was spent, as the ride's repaint was such made such a massive improvement to the look of the ride.

Alterntively you should be able to see that the money was spent on the ride itself. Large scale projects such as the Monorail or Skyride were only possibly due to sponsorship from Coca Cola on the Monorail and Kodak on the Skyride.

In fact I would go so far as to say that the park missed a trick by not getting a sponsor involved when they revamped the Skyride... I'm sure one of the big camera companies would have jumped at the chance to have been involved in that project and the revenues generated would have helped ease the strain of the ride's lrage running costs.
 
Squiggs said:
In fact I would go so far as to say that the park missed a trick by not getting a sponsor involved when they revamped the Skyride... I'm sure one of the big camera companies would have jumped at the chance to have been involved in that project and the revenues generated would have helped ease the strain of the ride's lrage running costs.
Agreed, however it is unfortunate that the only brand which has long associations with theme parks (and the general public) is Kodak. The state they are in (in fact do they even exist still?) is a shame as it would probably only be a company like that which would put in the money for such a ride.

Of all the rides on park to be given Fanta sponsorship - Oblivion was *not* the one to be. I'd say Rita would be the most suiting of an up-tempo sponsor but then this would jar against the backdrop of the dark forest... In fact, I'm struggling to think of a brand which could subtly sponsor anything in that area to be honest.
 
I believe the waterpark (at least the Master Blaster) is still sponsored by Imperial Leather as the logos were repainted inside the waterpark this year I believe. They definitely used to have a bigger presence though - it was nice having Foamburst in the Hotels! 8)
 
How about Berghaus GORE-TEX Jackets sponsoring Canyon River Rapids.

I am trying to think of a ride for tenna lady ;D
 
Ride sponsorship in general usually ruins any attempt of theming because they try to theme it around a brand and in that sense I don't like ride sponsorship.
 
M1ke said:
Ride sponsorship in general usually ruins any attempt of theming because they try to theme it around a brand and in that sense I don't like ride sponsorship.

I disagree to an extent, when they're done in the UK the theme parks have a bit of a panic attack over the theming since it's meant to create popularity for a ride and thus create a tendency to knock a ride down multiple pegs just because of that sponsorship. Outside the UK the theme park market are more lenient and have that particular sponsorship not take over what the ride stands for, several US parks have brands endorsing the ride but if anything they're merely mentioned in name and on occasion have their own standing attraction as such.
 
there are times when a theme can enhance a ride.

A trick was missed not giving Charlie a sweet/chocolate sponsorship with a little shop at the exit.

--
Disney have a MASSIVE amount of corporate sponsorship, and its funny that you rarely hear it mentioned. Subtlety is the key, a ride logo with a 'presented by brandX' looks so much better than 'LOGO' slapped left right and centre, and I should imagine encourages people to look further into the brand as to why they sponsor it.
 
I agree, when the park knows what it is doing with it then it does work. The fanta thing, was stupid and was hated by everyone even the public because it was that bad.

But the coca-cola one that did it in the first place was the good idea and worked with an air and flume worked as well.

I feel sometime it is rushed and does need to be given more thought.
 
Sponsorship works somewhere like Blackpool, because there is little to no theming in the first place. And that's not intended as a slur against BPB.
Amusement parks can sponsor everything, up to and including the toilet seats, for all I care. But a themepark should remain brand-free.
 
I don't recal who pointed this out to me, but an example of sponsorship that I think works really well was the Original Source stuff on Tidal Wave:

283649921_c745e8f6e9.jpg

p1010891_210.jpg

p1010898_128.jpg


But after the Original Source sponsorship ran out in 2010, Dr Pepper took its place:

25420_365854733978_550653978_3540516_1629305_n.jpg

78_23.jpg

063.JPG


I liked how the Original Source sponsorship blended in with the ride. Th signs for it were made to fit with the rest of the theming and the logos on the boxeds looked subtle; just how it should be (although none would be better).

One last pic:

33_82.jpg


NOT SURE IF PEOPLE CAN SEE THE SPONSORSHIP FAR AWAY ENOUGH!
 
I quite like the dr pepper sponsorship.
It gave the ride a good clean, and now the supports have been repaired (I think as they look clean and new).
The Dr pepper is only on that roof and the crates around the queueline, it's not as in your face as other sponsorships

I know Saw the ride is special, but that's the sort of franchise or sponsorship that works! I mean I always said Gears of War would have worked for The Swarm.
 
SamJ said:
I quite like the dr pepper sponsorship.
It gave the ride a good clean, and now the supports have been repaired (I think as they look clean and
But did they need to make Tidal Wave look newer with new sponsorship? I though that the whole are was designed to look like it was being destroyed by tropical storms and whatnot?

Although the X-Sector Fanta sponsorship will always be my least favourite form. It completely ruined the place and goes against the whole point of a theme park.

:)
 
It's a shame only mainstream brands in reality have the money or appeal to sponsor rides at the park due to the fact the interests of guests will vary massively.

I think a brand like DIESEL could sponsor Oblivion/Rita. The brand in itself is quite an aspirational brand and is known for its off the wall campaigns and its slogan 'only the brave'. Very much in the same way Diesel produced a model of the fiat 500, named '500 by Diesel', the brand could endorse a ride, e.g. 'Rita by Diesel'. Some quite interesting and immersive experiences could be produced as a result.

diesel-logo.jpg
 
Top