Amusement Park Advertisements with Roller Coasters Not Actually in Advertised Park

I can understand not wanting to re-edit a commercial that has running footage (although as Mr. Althoff has pointed out, the Columbus area is known for seeing back-to-back CP and KI commercials that are exactly the same except for the park name).

But in the case of billboards and printed advertisements, how much money is it really saving? The park most certainly already has professional photography of their biggest rides, especially the coasters -- after all, they're used on websites, postcards, press releases, etc. The graphic designer could use the exact same page layout for every park and simply drop in a different picture for each. You're already going to the trouble of changing the logo image on each one, so we're talking 3 more clicks to place an image of a ride from that actual park instead of reusing the same for each one. Yes, what a vast time savings that must be.

For a slightly different point of view, I was all impressed that the park "skylines" they show in their mobile apps were really accurate in terms of the rides featured, minus the Vekoma flyer in Canada's Wonderland's.

This thread makes Baby Jesus cry.

...or maybe it's just me...and I'm not crying, I'm bashing my head against my desk.

Same difference.

I'm pretty sure I saw that same desk in a publicity photo for a different office.

I'm all for truth in advertising, and I've always thought this flies in the face. Don't tell me that people don't notice or care- the folks in Ohio, even the everyday ones, know their home parks. It's happened where me and my buddies are watching the game, ( ok, ok... Project Runway, or Here Comes Honey Boo Boo is more likely ) anyway, a park commercial comes on and it goes like this...
Him: Hey, since when does Cedar Point have one of those?
Me: Never.
Him: Really, I didn't think so. How can they do that?
Me: I don't know, they're just general clips they use, then distribute the same commercial to all areas of the country and call it a day, I guess.
I don't like it.

Personally, I take a good deal of smug satisfaction in being able to identify almost every coaster at every park flashed in TV commercials. I like to call them out to whomever I'm with at the time. It's important to display one's superiority in these sort of things.

Oh! Still annoying, I see. :-)

I remember seeing a Carowinds brochure years ago advertising their new coaster, Carolina Cyclone. I immediately recognized the photo -- it was of Cedar Point's Corkscrew. But it made sense to me, at the time brochure would have gone to press, the Carowinds coaster wouldn't have been ready for its close-up.

ThemeDesigner said:

I think we can agree there's a point where this crosses a line... for example, when a park advertises with a picture (or video) of a coaster but in fact has no coasters. When I was a kid I saw commercials for Wild World (now Six Flags America) that featured a big white coaster called Wild One. Begged my dad to go to the park, when we got there the coaster was nowhere to be found. Turned out the coaster was being built for the next season but hadn't even broken ground yet.

I remember those TV ads. I can also remember the old Wild World ad from the mid 80s that showed the park sporting this huge ferris wheel, however the park at the time didn't have one and as far as I know they still don't.

More/less forgotten now Wild World and later Adventure World back in those days would show two totally separate ads as in one for DC/Northern Virginia and another one for Baltimore. What makes this "odd" is that at the time many of the DC stations were available on cable in the Baltimore area while the Baltimore channels were available on cable ( and over the air ) in DC and Northern Virginia and as a result the Baltimore Wild World version would show up on DC TV and dittos with the DC ads on TV in Baltimore. Actually I think I still have on tape an ad for Wild World doing a promotion with B-106 ( then a Northern Virginia top 40 station ) and The Washington Post that was aired on WBAL-TV channel 11...a Baltimore station. Kinda odd considering that B-106's signal couldn't even be picked up in Baltimore.

Anyway once Six Flags America had came along the practice of separate ads for DC and Baltimore had stopped.

I don't like it.

Bet you didn't stop going did ya? Neither did anyone else. Cedar Fair spends less on advertising and people still go. Looks like a win/win.

Also, who really cares?

I care. Well sort of. I don't lose sleep over it or anything. I might not even notice actually. But as a general topic, it does annoy me.

Where's the integrity in advertising? If you want to use a visual, then I think the visual should represent what the client offers. It's just that simple. If you can't do that, then don't bother with the visual. Period. I don't buy the idea that they think a picture of a roller coaster merely enhances the description of "amusement park", but isn't meant to portray an exact example of what that amusement park offers. That's completely lame.

I get tired of all of the shortcuts...in just about every industry. Advertising and marketing just happens to be at the top of my list at the moment.

Carry on.

Carrie J. said:

Where's the integrity in advertising? If you want to use a visual, then I think the visual should represent what the client offers. It's just that simple. If you can't do that, then don't bother with the visual. Period. I don't buy the idea that they think a picture of a roller coaster merely enhances the description of "amusement park", but isn't meant to portray an exact example of what that amusement park offers. That's completely lame.

Et tu, Carrie?

Even if I bought that logic, I don't think the idea is outwardly deceptive in that they're not saying, "Come to Park X and ride Coaster That Doesn't Exist."

They're saying, "Come to Park X, we have roller coasters."

There's a big, fundamental difference there.

I think you guys are thinking too literally. It's the equivalent of bikini chicks in car and beer ads.

Yeah, that reminds me... I bought a car and a beer, now I want my bikini chick (I mean dude).

Lord Gonchar said:

Even if I bought that logic, I don't think the idea is outwardly deceptive in that they're not saying, "Come to Park X and ride Coaster That Doesn't Exist."

My argument has nothing to do with deception. It's laziness. Pure and simple. Details matter. That's all I'm saying.

It was stated the reason is cost effectiveness. Then don't put a picture on there at all. That will save a lot of money. If you think a picture is warranted, then make sure the picture matters.

But it does matter. It creates the excitement, the visual stimulation.

Again, the point isn't to say, "This is our coaster, come ride it."

The point is to say, "Roller coasters! Friggin' excellent! Roller coasters are a lot of fun! See? Come to Park X and ride roller coasters!"

It's not lazy, it's smart, it's basic advertising. Show exciting roller coasters. Get people excited about exciting roller coasters. Mention excitedly that you can ride roller coasters at Park X.

Isn't it all so exciting?

(My stated reason has nothing to do with cost effectiveness, for the record.)

I think that's a cop out on the part of the advertising agency. If you want to build excitement about riding roller coasters and you think a graphic picture will do the trick, why on earth don't you use the roller coasters at that park?

If the goal is to get people excited about riding roller coasters. And there a plethora of pictures available to that end. How can you consider picking the ones that have nothing to do with the park as smart? Why not just choose the roller coasters that pertain to the park?

Lord Gonchar said:
It's the equivalent of bikini chicks in car and beer ads.

No. If they advertised "Bikini Chicks & Miller Beer" for $X then I would want my bikini chicks. Since the bikini chicks are only holding/drinking the beer I only insist that it be less filling AND taste great.

If a park advertises a 5106 foot long coaster with a 194+ foot drop, 3 hills a pretzel and tunnels by showing pics of it, it better have a coaster that fits that description.

But, you can't get that much information out of a picture of a floorless train next to a park logo.

It's not like they're saying "COME HERE, WE HAVE MILLENNIUM FALCON FORCE!!@#" and when you arrive, you get a boomerang.

Carrie J. said:

Why not just choose the roller coasters that pertain to the park?

Because visually photo or video of another ride conveys the message of excitement (or whatever, feel free to fill in the blank) better.

They're not selling a specific coaster. They're selling the idea of a coaster.

Captain Hawkeye said:

If a park advertises a 5106 foot long coaster with a 194+ foot drop, 3 hills a pretzel and tunnels by showing pics of it, it better have a coaster that fits that description.

Agreed. And that's exactly what's not happening here.

They're not selling a specific coaster. They're selling the idea of a coaster.

...

And one more time for good measure...

They're not selling a specific coaster. They're selling the idea of a coaster.

Lord Gonchar said:

Because visually photo or video of another ride conveys the message of excitement (or whatever, feel free to fill in the blank) better.

Heh. So if the advertisers for Pepsi want to convey the message of refreshment and find that Pepsi doesn't cut it, they should just use a picture of Dr Pepper instead?

What you describe flirts with the concept of deception. We want to sell excitement. If our product is not exciting enough we'll just swap it out with one that is.

But in the end, I think you're giving them too much credit. I think when you see a picture of a coaster that doesn't exist at the park in question, it's because the marketing group got lazy and doesn't really believe that details matter. That's just my opinion, of course.

Lord Gonchar said: They're not selling a specific coaster. They're selling the idea of a coaster.

...

And one more time for good measure...

They're not selling a specific coaster. They're selling the idea of a coaster.

Just because I don't agree with you, doesn't mean that I don't get your point. No need to repeat yourself. :-)