Tuesday, October 9, 2007

Romance Presented by the Walt Disney Classics Collection

When the Cinderella and Prince Charming Cake Topper was unveiled as part of the 2006 Second Quarter announcement, it mentioned the following:

The Cinderella and Prince Charming Caketopper is a Walt Disney Classics Collection piece and features a WDCC logo and will be introduced to WDCC retailers in the traditional teal box. There will be a sub-brand, "Romance" introduced later in 2006 to both Walt Disney Classics Collection retailers and appropriate Wedding/Bridal and Department stores. It will feature elegant, high-quality items such as champagne flutes, porcelain wedding frames and related items, the Cinderella and Prince Caketopper will be the centerpiece of this collection. This broader collection will feature it's own unique packaging but will still feature the Walt Disney Classics Collection logo on the box.

Romance presented by Walt Disney Classics Collection launched at the recent Enesco Corporate Show and will start releasing to retailers shortly (approximately late Oct./early Nov.). The line is anchored by the existing WDCC Cinderella and Prince Cake Topper along with new functional keepsakes crafted of porcelain with mixed media depending upon the item. Romance presented by WDCC uses elegant understated Cinderella themes of the pumpkin coach and castle designs in relief.


KingHubert said...

Can't say I'm overly thrilled by this "sub-brand" of the WDCC line. It may look nice but this is giftware and a total corruption of the whole concept behind WDCC. I guess I'd better be prepared for some explosions elsewhere from an old friend - not that I can really blame her this time. I mean I understand what Enesco is doing but it has no business being called WDCC. I'm just kind of in shock.


Duckman said...

Hi Bob,

As I was putting together the presentation, I could see this sub-brand not phasing some and causing others to blow a gasket :)

It really shouldn't have no surprise to anyone, since when the Cinderella Cake Topper was announced last year, there was mention in the copy about this sub-brand and the specific items it would include. Can't recall reaction back then.

Personally, I see these items as an add-on to the cake topper and sure it will be said, "there goes the apologist again" :) but don't see it any different than the flutes, crystals, etc. done early in the line by Martine Millan that carried the WDCC Logo Branding used as either promotional items or purchase with purchase. JTDO.

KingHubert said...


LOL, who cares what "they" say, I've been accused of being an apologist as well. As we've discussed in the past, I've always been something of a "purist" and don't collect the Park or Small World pieces either. However it's their line, not mine so until I've got enough money to buy control (when frog have wings and pigs fly), they can do what they please and I'll continue to just purchase only what I want. When all is said and done, it's not a big deal - as long as they continue to make beautiful figurines as well. I'm just bracing for the reaction elsewhere. :-)


dugout said...

Yuck! This is exactly what was feared when Enesco took over the WDCC line.

Matthew said...

The presence of these items does NOTHING to diminish what other beautiful work is being done by the WDCC.

Like Bob, I buy what I like and ignore the rest. No one is forcing me to buy anything!

Thanks for allowing me to put in my two cents.

cuatrecess said...

I don't like the idea at all. I can think of a few other collections that veered off in this direction, and I always perceived it as a desperate measure because revenue was dropping. I doubt that's the case here, I'm just not fond of this marketing direction.

I feel differently toward the promo items. They seemed like "enhancers" vs. a sub-brand.

Very thought provoking though!

Hey Don, what does "JTDO" stand for? I know I'll regret asking....

Duckman said...

LOL! Totally understand Bob.

Ironically, the Romance sub-brand has been listed on the Enesco website since mid summer and only came to my attention this week, hence I followed up to get more information.

::This Duck leaves no stone unturned:: :)

When I received the images and information, was told it was available for preview in the Enesco Showroom a few weeks ago.

Like Bob and Matthew, I only purchase what I like (not to mention afford) so don't get concerned when something that's not my cup of tea is introduced into the line and agree with Matthew about not seeing this sub-brand as something that is going to diminish the line but totally understand both Dugout and Cheryl's concerns. I encourage people to make their thoughts known and here is a great opportunity to offer feedback and I like Cheryl's approach where it's constructive vs. seeing an opportunity to be negative.

The Caketopper seems a fitting release for these items (pardon the pun) and not a sculpture that probably many have in their collection anyway. Seeing both the sculpture and these items appealing to that girl who wants a Cinderella-themed wedding, having their own bit of that Disney Magic. There I go being an apologist again Bob .. LOL!

Cheryl, JTDO is my own little text code for Just This Ducks Opinion :)

Herc said...

When I first saw the sub-brand, I really didn't want them as part of the collection. Yes, I thought they were beautiful, but not belonging in WDCC. But thinking about it, I will probably purchase most of the items, not because they are WDCC, but because we used the original cake topper on our wedding cake and had little Disney touches at the wedding. The frames will definitely be used. I also like the flutes (I can actually put them with the other WDCC flutes that I have). Also, I have some photos of Ilene Woods and myself from the Cinderella 50th Anniversary event that I will try and fit into one of the frames (photo was taken horizontally and these frames are vertical). As Don said, I am thinking of them as enhancers or add-ons. I have the promotional WDCC frame so this is about the same type of thing.

You can't really blame Enesco for asking WDCC to create a line like this. The wedding business is HUGE for Disney and WDCC is part of "Disney". There are now wedding gowns/bridal party dresses inspired by the Disney Princesses, wedding packages inspired by your favoriate characters/movie, even a wedding pavilion. Heck, I remember someone who posted photos on the Scampy/Hubert forum of their Disney inspired Cinderella wedding. The photos were beautiful. The cake used WDCC Cinderella and Prince dancing, Castle, and Coach and it was beautiful.

I just feel that if this line is not to someone's liking, there will be a bride who will be buying a frame or trinket box for each of her attendants. And don't think this line won't be carried at the WDW Wedding Pavillion. The line is going to sell.

Herc said...

Looking at the photo above again, I didn't realize that the smaller frame is horizontal and the larger one is vertical. Now I will definitely get the smaller one for our photo with Ilene. What a great way to add her photo to my collection.

sparklingrose said...

I got to see these in Chicago last week and they are beautiful! We don't carry this type of thing in the store, but we always have someone come through that is doing a Cinderella theme wedding, so we're going to carry the line. There are some Disney themed wedding things out there already, but IMO, a lot of them are "cheesey". This new Romance line pieces are all done in the matte porcelain with opalescent touches and to me, look very high class/high quality. Given the fact they are from the WDCC, I would expect nothing less. I also love the subtle use of the pumpkin coach around the base of the vase and flutes.

From a business point of view, like someone else mentioned, Disney/Enesco would be fools not to tap into the wedding market... it's big business!

Duckman said...

Thanks Janeene!

Appreciate you sharing your thoughts on your impression after seeing them first-hand while in Chicago.

dugout said...

Sorry Duckman and Company. I didn't mean to sound so negative. Perhaps I take the collection too serious. In the future I will play the "glad game" before making any rash comments. Now who's the apologist? Thanks for letting me in.