Good example of case study on disneys america theme park: the third battle of bull pin ()

Question # 2. Where is Disney most vulnerable from communications standpoint?

The case study, dedicated to analyzing the idea of creating Disney historical theme park and its implications, aims at getting the insight into current debate on locating the theme park in Prince William County in Virginia, so that most vulnerable issues with regard to Disney’s position can be singled out. When discussing two possible locations of Disney’s America theme park, it is necessary to point out that the situation regarding creation of Disney’s theme park in Virginia is much more serious, than the one to be watched with respect to Washington, DC idea due to the fact that it had already been associated with large-scale public debate, including repercussions in the media. While on the one hand, getting media attention can be considered beneficial for Disney implementing its America historical park idea, it may also exert significant negative impact on its brand image and consumer-brand relationships.
In the globalized world establishing close ties between consumer and communications are as important as never before due to the fact that increasingly interchangeable products and services are being introduced (Burmann, Benz& Riley, 2009, p 390). Modern studies show that nowadays concentrating on “ emotional connections” with customers, rather than just providing functional solutions, can be a viable consideration in terms of management’s decision-making process (Hwang&Kandampully, 2012, p. 108).
Disney positions itself as the anti-real-life world, specifically designed for families and children, able to entertain children and offer parents temporary relief from their daily business. The fact that Disney is being involved in an intense debate, involving media, is likely to make potential customers associate the brand not with family rest, fun and relief, but public criticism, development-related debate and lawsuits. It can be claimed that children, most important target group of Disney theme parks ‘ venture, are not likely to be influenced by the debate under study due to the fact that their age does not allow them to become fully aware about its essence. Nevertheless, it is worth remembering that children are not independent decision-makers, mostly due to the fact that their rest and entertainment is being funded by their parents. The fact that current media debate can lead parents to perceiving Disney as large corporation, only willing to make money, can potentially prevent them from bringing their kids to Disney theme park. Furthermore, lowering level of customer loyalty is likely to exert negative influence on brand equity (Mathew, Thomas, Injodey, 2012, p. 80), thus making brand less attractive for potential customers too.
The important counterargument can be related to the fact that Disney can continue emphasizing its commitment to not only granting children and their parents good time, but contributing to their education, as well as conceptualizing the U. S. history, using the potential of theme parks. It can be argued that this argument is not strong enough as compared with the one of anti-Disney campaign members regarding village visiting. To make Disney less vulnerable with respect to this argument and simultaneously strengthen its position in terms of commitment to education and popularization of history, it is worth advising Disney to launch different-scale history-related initiatives in is ventures worldwide, so that its emphases on such commitment have substance.

References

Burmann, C., Jost-Benz, M., Riley, N. (2009). Towards an identity-based brand equity model. Journal of Business Research, 62, pp. 390-397
Hwang, J., and Kandampully, J. (2012) The Role Of Emotional Aspects In Younger Consumer-Brand Relationships. The Journal of Product & Brand Management, 21, (2), pp. 98-108.
Mathew, V., Thomas, S., Injodey, J. (2012). Direct and indirect effect of brand credibility, brand commitment and loyalty intentions on brand equity. Journal of Economics and Business, 10(2), pp. 73-82