Amusement Park Advertisements with Roller Coasters Not Actually in Advertised Park

To further Carrie's point about details, in the case of the bigger parks, the coasters are part of the brand, in the literal sense. Many have very distinct looks. As an ad agency, do you want to build an image of your park or parks in general? Considering how you're talking about 30 minutes of billable work to customize an ad with the right ride, that hardly seems like a huge expense.

Lord Gonchar said:

Et tu, Carrie?

I have this weird visual image in my mind of Gonch being cut down on the steps of the Forum by a gang on unruly, knife-wielding babies. But since it never really happened, I'll keep it out of the ad. Goddam babies.

Jeff said:
To further Carrie's point about details, in the case of the bigger parks, the coasters are part of the brand, in the literal sense. Many have very distinct looks.

And that's not what's being sold. Most of the time in these ads (and I'm talking both print and TV spots) its tight shots of loops and corkscrews and stuff like that. It's literally nothing more than a visual element. It's one step away from complaining about a font choice.

You guys keep trying to make these ads something they're not and then criticizing them.

These ads are for specific amusement parks. You keep trying to make these ads something they're not and then defending them.

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."

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.

I think it's the equivalent of car and beer ads showing generic cars and unlabeled beer bottles. Maybe the idea works in an area where parks are few and far between, and there is little competition in the way of entertainment venues. Where you have parks located closer together, that kind of advertising won't fly. Parks in the northeast and mid-atlantic need to convince potential customers to come to "their" park with whatever special attractions it offers. They have to specify why you should go to their park as opposed to any others.

With Great Adventure renting a billboard on the Interstate just a few miles from Dorney, Cedar Fair can't rely on generic "we have coasters" advertising. They not only need to make sure they have bikini chicks (and dudes), they have to make sure they're hot.

Carrie J. said:

These ads are for specific amusement parks. You keep trying to make these ads something they're not and then defending them.

Exactly my point, they're advertising the park, not the ride. The ride is irrelevant, it's the equivalent of a font - it's a visual element like a color choice or graphic design decision. It's not what is being advertised or sold to the customer.

So does anyone have links to the outwardly misleading and deceptive ads? I have a feeling we're talking about hypothetical ads that don't exist.

In the context of this discussion I'm thinking of something like the Cedar Point TV ads that run pretty much constantly in the Dayton market:

Cedar Point Ad

So is this misleading? Do you guys honestly think this ad is deceptive or causes confusion because they show rides that aren't at Cedar Point?

Lord Gonchar said:

So is this misleading? Do you guys honestly think this ad is deceptive or causes confusion because they show rides that aren't at Cedar Point?

No. But again, that's never been my argument. I do think it supports my claim that it's crappy advertising by marketing folks who didn't care to go for the real sell.

And as for links, this thread began over a billboard for Kings Island with Cedar Point's Corkscrew on it. I have no idea if that's hypothetical. I took the poster at his/her word. I'm merely advocating that I think advertising details matter, in any industry.

You can bet that money isn't spent on advertisements, print or television, without a good deal of market research. So sometime last year, somewhere, focus groups were pulled out of the mall, or maybe a park, and asked to respond to commercials, print ads, and billboards. They didn't know who the client was, but if a majority said "yes, this particular happily exhausted family pictured here on the midway would make me want to go to your park" then the ad was a go. Never mind the family is clearly at Knott's, the researchers see a successful ad and that image goes to all markets. It's probably only clear to us, anyway, which supports the don't care theory.
I still don't like it.
On the other side of this, here in downtown Columbus we have a tall narrow billboard for Cedar Point on the side of a building that shows a shot of Millenium Force with copy indicating that a visit will bring families together, or something like that. If that same billboard message were to show up in Minneapolis or Kansas City, which seems likely if the same ad campaign is used throughout Cedar Fair Land, I would surely hope the ride pictured would be of an attraction that belongs to the park advertised. Otherwise it would certainly only be deemed deceptive laziness.
Slightly off, but get this. Last year we had a billboard for Windseeker that had both Cedar Point's and Kings Island's names at the bottom. Apparently they didn't care where the Columbus people got their Windseeker, but I bet the billboards in Cincinnati and Cleveland didn't read that way.

If you think that a park is implying that they have the specific coaster in their advertisement, and they don't have it, then it is false advertisement. Who is going to ultimately understand that the advertised park belongs to a chain, and the coaster seen in the advertisement represents the idea that the park probably has a roller coaster that may or may not be similar to the picture? That crazy talk.

Disclaimer - I am not losing sleep about this at all, but I do find the idea of advertising one thing and finding another after purchase kind of shady.

I own LostKause Arcade Corperation, a chain of uniquely named arcades in many large cities across the country. I buy some advertising from a newspaper group that has papers all over the country. I tell them I want each ad to have the logo of each arcade in each market, of which I supply, and any photo of an arcade game that they can find. They find a picture of a Mortal Kombat arcade game, which is one that I don't have at Cincin-arcade in Cincinnati, OH, and print the different ads, using that one game in all the papers, after my approval.

A Cincinnati customer sees the ad and falsely believes it to mean that my arcade in his city has a Mortal Kombat game, and for whatever reason, he wants to play it.

My hypothetical arcades are unique in that they charge admission before people can come in to see what games are offered. This guy comes to my arcade, pays the admission fee, and finds a few arcade games that he enjoys, but not Mortal Kombat. Did he just get duped by lazy advertisement? Is it unintentional bait and switch?

If I wanted to, I could have had my own marketing team work on individual advertisements for each arcade. They just sit at their desk all day and surf the internet anyways. They could keep the same color schemes and make a template to work with... I'm sure giving them a few quick ads to create, one unique logo and one unique photo to accompany it, wouldn't interrupt their workload too much. lol

Carrie J. said:

No. But again, that's never been my argument. I do think it supports my claim that it's crappy advertising by marketing folks who didn't care to go for the real sell.

I think it's a new, albeit simpler, approach that goes beyond "look at our cool new ride and come ride it" and into something more emotional and much less literal than the room here is expecting amusement park advertising to be. Let's leave the left brain for a while and enjoy the treasures the right brain holds for us.

And as for links, this thread began over a billboard for Kings Island with Cedar Point's Corkscrew on it. I have no idea if that's hypothetical. I took the poster at his/her word. I'm merely advocating that I think advertising details matter, in any industry.

I don't doubt it exists either, but I'm suspecting it's as inconspicuous and unmisleading as the CP example.

I mean if I told you CP is running TV spots that feature people on some teal and red inverted coaster and also a shot of a big yellow floorless it would sound equally misleading, but upon viewing the ad, even you agree it's not. Which is exactly why I'm asking to see an example of this blatantly misleading, confusing or decpetive advertisements. Quite simply, examples or GTFO.

---

Now with all of that said, you want even more f'd up and lazy advertising?

We also see this Kings Island Ad in the Dayton market. Often during the same program or at the very least somewhere in the lineup within the same hour. Go take a look, I'll still be here.

Yep, it's the same exact ad with different text/voiceover at the end.

But in a weird sort of way I think it plays to my point. The commercial stands on it's own. It doesn't matter what ride these people are on, it's about the experience. You could slap any parks logo and website at the end and I'm generally still ok with it.

Are they really supposed to film that scene on a coaster at every park in the chain for every market that runs that ad?

It may be a little cookie cutter, but outside of weird overlapping markets like Dayton, no one is ever going to know or care. I'm not sure I'd call it lazy as much as 'efficient' advertising. And it's certainly not misleading or deceptive in the slightest.

Solution. We see car ads with small type at the bottom of the screen like "professional driver on closed course" or "vehicle shown with additional options". So the parks could add sometime like "actual rides may vary".

Or "Objects on billboard/commercial may be further away than they appear."

Lord Gonchar said:

I think it's a new, albeit simpler, approach that goes beyond "look at our cool new ride and come ride it" and into something more emotional and much less literal than the room here is expecting amusement park advertising to be. Let's leave the left brain for a while and enjoy the treasures the right brain holds for us.

Really? The preacher of let's-not-over-complicate-things is now telling the choir it needs to reach into its right-side brain and follow the journey of emotional, non-literal, perhaps even symbolic messaging? That's plain and simply put, not what advertising is meant to do.

Some of the most creative, innovative, get-people-talking-about-it-the-next-day advertising completely misses the mark when folks talk about the concept and forget the product. "Oh, I saw a commercial last night that was hysterical. Loved it! I can't remember what it was for..."

Gonch said:

Which is exactly why I'm asking to see an example of this blatantly misleading, confusing or decpetive advertisements. Quite simply, examples or GTFO.

I'm sorry, are you asking someone to go snap a photo of the billboard that shows an ad for King's Island with a coaster from Cedar Point? You have the example. The problem is you perceive it differently than others have. So what? Perception is in the eye of the beholder. And GTFO? Really?

Gonch said:

Now with all of that said, you want even more f'd up and lazy advertising?

We also see this Kings Island Ad in the Dayton market. Often during the same program or at the very least somewhere in the lineup within the same hour. Go take a look, I'll still be here.

Yep, it's the same exact ad with different text/voiceover at the end.

But in a weird sort of way I think it plays to my point. The commercial stands on it's own. It doesn't matter what ride these people are on, it's about the experience. You could slap any parks logo and website at the end and I'm generally still ok with it.

Are they really supposed to film that scene on a coaster at every park in the chain for every market that runs that ad?

It may be a little cookie cutter, but outside of weird overlapping markets like Dayton, no one is ever going to know or care. I'm not sure I'd call it lazy as much as 'efficient' advertising. And it's certainly not misleading or deceptive in the slightest.

My same point applies from above. The advertising sucks. Period. It's lazy, short-cutting and I get tired of it. I'm glad you don't care. It doesn't change the experience for me. I don't find it deceptive. It just sucks. The ads you've linked to will never cause me to remember the parks they came from. That's just bad advertising.

I find taking the same ads and slapping a different logo on them to be the worst kind of advertising. It's not an enthusiast thing. It's not a deception thing. It's about wanting people to give a crap about the work they do and the crap they put in front of my face to view. It's not more complicated than that.

_______________________________________

Edited because I confused my left and right-side brain concepts. You see, I use them both so interchangeably that sometimes I get them mixed up. ;-)

If each park were offered the same experiences, than I say make one commercial for every park, kind of like McDonalds does. Everyone knows that a commercial for McDonald's is being filmed at some McDonald's restaurant somewhere in the world. Everyone know every McDonald's looks a little bit different.

But not everyone knows that Cedar Point is the same company who owns Dorney Park. They are not advertising "Come to your local business that we own", like McDonald's is advertising. They are advertising, "Come to this specific park that we own".

As far as the TV commercial that Gonch posted, while I see his point, I'm with Carrie. That's just crappy advertising. What is the message here? "Come to Kings Island because you may make friends with people who are much different than yourself"?

It's just lazy.

Carrie J. said:

That's plain and simply put, not what advertising is meant to do.

I disagree with that on every level. The best advertising hits an emotional, symbolic note. A laundry list of stats, facts, features and such is the definition of horrible, uncreative advertising.

I'm sorry, are you asking someone to go snap a photo of the billboard that shows an ad for King's Island with a coaster from Cedar Point?

No. I'm asking for someone to provide an example - any example from anywhere - of advertising that is misleading, confusing or outright deceptive based on the fact that a coaster pictured is not actually at the park being advertised.

I still think it doesn't exist beyond the hypothetical idea that it may be confusing.

My same point applies from above. The advertising sucks. Period. It's lazy, short-cutting and I get tired of it. I'm glad you don't care. It doesn't change the experience for me. I don't find it deceptive. It just sucks.

Well, that's a whole different monkey. Feel free to hate it.

I think I can't drop it because it makes perfect sense to me on all levels. I having a hard time understanding how people who's intelligence and opinion I generally respect don't seem to 'get' it. (and before you have to post it, yes, I know you can turn that one right around on me too...it's been the theme of the debate)

Since we seem to want the literal so badly, I'd love to know how the effectiveness is measured and how 'successful' this was for Cedar Fair. As far as I know this commercial ran for pretty much all of their parks.

There's also another one that's of the same style that runs for multiple parks/markets as well. Again, selling you on an idea about the experience rather than the specific rides/parks.

I guess I'm reminded of another park campaign that sold you on the idea and experience of a park visit that seemed to do rather well. (and no, the CF ads aren't on the same level - but, the selling approach is the same)

Honestly, I'm less interested in debating the merits or quality or effort of the work ad agencies do and more interested in why it's a problem to the consumer. And, admittedly, now that I just skimmed the thread - no one really explicitly says it causes confusion. It's more a 'truth in advertising' sort of gripe. But I still have a hard time with that when they're not advertising a coaster. At this point I'm not saying anything new.

I think I'm at the 'agree to disagree' point of going in circles.

emotional, non-literal, perhaps even symbolic messaging? That's plain and simply put, not what advertising is meant to do.

My understanding has always been that the whole point of an advertising campaign is precisely to create an emotional connection to the product. Yes, completely off-the-wall ads obscure what's really being sold. But, that doesn't seem to be the case here. It's still very clear they are advertising the "local" amusement park.

What's more, in at least this specific instance, Cedar Fair has already told you that that's exactly the approach they are taking. Go back and look at the FunForward presentation. Here are some of the key bullets:

* Regional identity is strong

* Memories across generations

* Leverage that existing, strong, emotional attachment

* Thrills Connect campaign: multigenerational/larger parties.

They've basically laid out their marketing strategy, and it explains exactly what you are seeing. Ignoring specific campaigns around new attractions (e.g. Luminosity) they aren't advertising the *rides*. They are advertising fun times across multiple family generations at your "local" park, whatever that happens to be.

Would it possibly be more effective to re-do the ad for each specific park, using a ride from that park? Maybe. It would also be more expensive. So, the question is: do you generate enough additional turnstile clicks to justify the expense of doing it?

It is possible that the answer to that question is "yes, it is worth it." But, if that's the case that means that every single park operator I can think of---Cedar Fair, Six Flags, and even Disney---doesn't actually know how to market their own product, because every single one of them does this. The Disney fanboys spend no end kvetching about the "Disney Parks" marketing campaigns, but they seem to be working just fine.

Occam's Razor suggests that if we enthusiasts---professional marketers none, IIRC---disagree with all the people whose jobs depend on marketing well, then it is likely that we are the ones who are wrong.

I'm actually a Marketing Director. Just not for an amusement park.

Where's the integrity in advertising?

The billboard in question probably showed a corkscrew element with a train going thru. The element happened to be from Corkscrew at Cedar Point instead of Vortex at Kings Island. Whoopee. Do both parks not feater a coaster with the same element? Just like showing off the vertical loop for Flight Deck in NorCal on the Carowinds website. Do both parks not have a B&M invert with a loop? That's not a lack of integrity to me.

Many {coasters} have very distinct looks

Yeah, but typically you see an element, or a train in part of an element when the park has a similar ride or clone or whatever.

If you think that a park is implying that they have the specific coaster in their advertisement, and they don't have it, then it is false advertisement

It's not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_advertising]false advertising. The parks aren't trying to be deceptive. In most cases they're showing off something that they have or something similar to what they have. Only enthusiasts notice that it's not exactly right, becasue everyone else is just happy to be at a frikkin amusement park.

Is it wrong for parks to use stock footage of similar rides that aren't built yet to advertise the next new coaster? Is it wrong if someone mistakenly doesn't pay attention and goes to the park early before the new ride is even built? Should Keith stop making his CGI so lifelike?

The ads you've linked to will never cause me to remember the parks they came from.

But you're speaking from bias. I guarantee you that if someone drives down the highway and sees the words Cedar Point and a random coaster train on a random coaster track, be it real, from another park, drawn on, CGI, whatever, and they have a hankerin for a coaster, they're going suddenly start thinking about heading to Cedar Point. What they're not thinking is "They better have that specific color on that specific ride or I'm TOTALLY not having any fun when I go!!!"

Speaking purely on the subject of print advertising (as opposed to video), I guess I'm just confused as to why they'd take high-quality photographs of their rides for things like merchandise and press releases, but then not use those same pictures for a billboard. In the time it takes to dream up a philosophical excuse for not swapping in different images, the designer could have made ads for all eleven Cedar Fair parks, exported the PDFs, and sent them to the printer with time to spare. Seriously: click the image container; click "relink"; select file. Done.

And again, the designer doesn't even have the extra step of opening the layout document, because he'll already need it open to change the logo. I don't buy the "it's more expensive" argument for a second, unless they're paying royalties to each photographer for each one. It's not like they can print them in bulk for the entire chain, since the logos are in color and can't be overprinted.

Or maybe the idea is that this one specific Corkscrew photo was just that good -- with just the right angle and crop and color tone to evoke happy feelings in the consumer -- it works so well that we just had to reuse it for other parks.

Everyone knows that a commercial for McDonald's is being filmed at some McDonald's restaurant somewhere in the world.

And before I became an enthusiast, I thought parks built their own rides from scratch. Perception is reality. People see a roller coaster shot or 2 and think of their closest park, it's not like they're showing off a layout. Usually you don't get any sense of a layout from a random park commercial.

But I bet McDonald's enthusiasts know which store that was shot at and get just as angry that there aren't specific ads for specific McDonald's.

The ads you've linked to will never cause me to remember the parks they came from.

I guarantee you that if someone drives down the highway and sees the words Cedar Point and a random coaster train on a random coaster track, be it real, from another park, drawn on, CGI, whatever, and they have a hankerin for a coaster, they're going suddenly start thinking about heading to Cedar Point.

I don't think I made this point clearly in my other post. But, the point is not to advertise "a specific park". The point is to advertise *the park local to the viewer*. Ignoring Dayton, everyone knows what "their local park" is. 

So, if that person driving down the highway is actually from, say, Charlotte taking a road trip through Ohio for a summer vacation, they probably won't have a hankerin' for Cedar Point. But, they might have a hankerin' for Carowinds!

Likewise, the people to whom those video ads are targeted don't really need to be told that their local amusement park is Cedar Point, or Carowinds, or Kings Island, or whatever (again ignoring Dayton)---they know that, that's that notion of "strong regional identity." The ad focuses instead on the "fun times".