Mainly because a lot of these companies don't have a pot to pee in and recognize that even an optimistic 15mm random people a year through EPCOT seeing their "showcase" is a heck of a lot less than they can reach for less money than a sponsorship by doing a TV ad. Oculus is owned by Facebook. Facebook does not need to advertise at Disney. Now if Disney were to pay for Oculus tech to work in one of their rides, you might have some kind of symbiotic partnership. But they don't need to advertise that way. All the other VR companies are essentially start ups, and they don't waste what capital they have to raise in private equity issuance by blowing it on a small advertising campaign.
Uber runs massively in the red. Google and Apple have no need to pay to have products in EPCOT. GM is doggedly hanging on as a sponsor but demands more advertising in every Test Track iteration. Nest is owned by Google, the others are start ups. See above. IBM needs Disney like they need a hole in the head. They have no consumer products any more. They are almost completely geared toward corporate needs, and corporations don't visit EPCOT. Cloud Tech is dominated by
Amazon, Google and Apple. Again, see above. They have no need to run a small advertising campaign costing them big bucks to have a sponsorship in EPCOT.
The model makes no sense. Disney has to pay for their own attractions. A 30 second Superbowl ad cost $5MM this year to air. A million or so to make it and you reach over 100,000,000 people. A sponsorship at EPCOT? GM paid about 10MM a year for their previous sponsorship contract that ran out in 2009. Not sure what they pay now, but it isn't worth it. Heck if you get rid of AP people who come through more than once a year? Less than 10,000,000 people, who are not at all focused on you the way they are on voting for the best SB commercial. Pick up a VR helmet, play for a few minutes, put it down and go on Soarin. Which one do they remember at the end of the day?
