Cedar Fair hires firm to manage marketing partnerships

Gonch, I'll agree with you that previews are nothing more than a form of advertising, but I never found them offensive because it made perfect sense to advertise upcoming movies to people watching movies. Furthermore, previews aren't random because they are targeted to specific audiences. See a Pixar movie and you'll see previews for animated stuff by Disney and Dreamworks, see a comedy and you'll see previews for a half dozen movies starring Will Farrell where he plays some kind of man-child and finds himself without a shirt at some point... and so on.

I'm with Mr. Gieszl because I find the amount of advertising offensive. It's not bad enough that going to the movies is a hideously expensive way to kill two hours, now people have to deal with more and more advertising. And for what? The cost of making movies has surely increased in recent years but the studios pay to make movies, not the movie theaters. Since inflation hasn't hit movie theaters any harder than it has hit other types of businesses (it's not as if theaters are suddenly employing doctors and lawyers to serve as ushers and janitors), the only thing that seems obvious to me is greed. I'm sitting in the theater with a soda in my hand, yet I have to sit through an advertisement for soda? Isn't it bad enough I had to pay something like $4.00 for a cup of soda that I could buy elsewhere for less than $2.00? All while the theater is likely buying in greater quantities and therefore paying less than I could ever hope to pay?

It is surprising that so many people are willing to just roll with the punches and accept this is the way things are going to be. If anything, a lot of advertising is insulting because it doesn't give people any credit. You mean to tell me that after going to the Prudential Center in Newark, I am going to switch to Prudential? Maybe because Ford sponsored an uninterrupted episode of CSI, I am now going to drive down to the local dealership and test drive a Fusion? I don't know... is it proven that these advertising assaults even work? Or are marketing people simply that good at making it seem like these techniques really work? ;)

---

I don't mind advertising on television because it pays for the cost of producing the show. However, advertising in cinemas DOES NOT pay for the cost of producing the movie. That comes from the price we pay at the box office.

---

Again, I'm hardly the go-to guy on the movie theatre business, but couldn't it be that the advertising is offseting the costs for the theatre - upkeep, maintenance, wages, ticket prices, whatever?

---

That's not necessarily true since there are still theaters out there who do not have on-screen advertising and many of those theaters have the same or lower ticket prices.

---

Too many variables to really make a call on that.

---

I don't pay to watch advertising and neither should you.

---

Don't tell me what to do. :) ;)

---

Based on the responses to this news piece I'm beginning to think that our society is being so dumbed down that I could actually start a business where I could charge you to watch advertising. That's retarded. Please tell you folks aren't going to start watering your plants with Gatorade in the near future.

---

Nah, the people who responded to this thread aren't dumbed down or retarded - they're realistic. There's probably already plenty of places that you're advertised to that you don't even notice.

On the subject of paying to watch advertising, I was skimming this week's copy of Entertainment Weekly (a magazine I paid for that is still filled with ads) and they have a whole article on product placement and advertising. Turns out CBS is doing a show this fall called "Jingles" where contestants will write songs to promote real products. In a direct quote from the article:

"Product placement - or, in the current parlance, product integration is the new norm, and Jingles could be the TV biz's ultimate stab at outsmarting DVR viewers who skip ads: Why not make a show that's one long commercial?"

So yeah, it's happening.

But back to the point:

---

Can you imagine sitting down for It's A Bugs Life at Disney only to be subjected to a couple of ads before the show?

---

A Bug's Life at Disney is a commercial - for the DVD's, toys, books, clothing, video games and other merchandise available based on the movie.

See what I mean about not even realizing that the entertainment you enjoy is actually an advertisement? Disney are the masters in that area. Their whole amusement park empire is one big interactive, real-life commercial...and we eat it up!

You're not taking into consideration the possible lost revenue for those who are offended by the advertising. I used to go to the movies two to three times per week and now I'm lucky to hit a cinema once per month. I'd go more often, but the advertising combined with high ticket prices is a turn off.

I wasn't calling the people here retarded. It was in reference to the business idea.

It's A Bug's Life is NOT a commercial. It is an attraction that is based on a Disney franchise that also has movies and products. There is no hard sale going on during the attraction and you know what I meant when I gave the example. Almost every attraction, at every park, has some product tie-in.

I've already said I don't mind the subtleness of marketing, like the use of logos or using a franchise to theme an attraction.

Yes, Disney is an expert at marketing their products in the various channels including their theme parks.

I'm well aware of this fact and they are experts in pushing their products in a themed environment without offending the customer. Cinemas however fail to accomplish that and the implementation of TV's in the queue to show generic advertising is another example of a failure to do the same. With Disney being the expert I don't understand why they aren't following their lead.

I'm done discussing this. I've made my points and I've read your response. It doesn't change the fact that advertising is increasingly more annoying and especially so when poorly implemented in a paid environment.
*** This post was edited by egieszl 7/22/2008 3:36:45 PM ***

---

It doesn't change the fact that advertising is increasingly more annoying and especially so when poorly implemented in a paid environment.

---

It also doesn't change the fact that that's your opinion. I happen to find it increasingly easy to ignore. (or perceive as the case may be)

Eric... I think Gonch's point is that most people simply tune it out. It's the classic marketing problem everyone with a product faces now. People just don't pay attention.

And besides, in the movie business, you know it's more complicated than who is paying for what. You know the studio keeps the bulk of the box office receipt, so the expensive popcorn and soda is augmented by the marketing revenue to pay for that expensive shopping mall rent. Didn't Cinemark and Regal take a loss so far this year?

Cedar Fair has already cheapened the deal with those damn timeshare people. I'm not surprised they want to do more.

Yes, that was sort of the point. But I just don't buy into the idea that people are that offended and/or turned off by the advertising in the first place.

There's no evidence that people are visiting theatres less - for any reason. Even with higher prices. Even with advertising. Even with the home experience getting better and better with large screen, high end sound systems and movies available sooner and in more ways than ever. Even with Apple TV and Netflix and On Demand programming. People still visit the theatres pretty consistently.

To stay on topic, even the annual theme park attendance reports show a 4.1% increase in North America park attendance from 2005 - 2007.

It just feels like such a non-issue.

I also see a lot of the same cost/pricing struggles that come up so much when we talk industry business hidden in there too. In this (and those other) threads you'll see people simultaneously complain about the cost and the steps the business has taken to offset those costs. I guess what bugs me is that it's often written off as greed when the only greed I see is the consumer wanting everything for nothing.

Like I said, it doesn't faze me one bit. I see it more as the result of a world that increasingly expects more for less. Something has to give.

It's a fine line, I suppose.

[/rambling]

It doesn't faze me either. I was just giving Eric an idea to avoid it but apparently that isn't good enough. :)

As has been said, the majority of the ticket price goes to the studios. The concessions are expensive and that is where theatres make their money. If alot of people seeing a movie avoid buying refreshments, these big theatre chains have no choice but to find other forms of revenue.

It's not like you are watching a movie and every 20 minutes they break to a commercial. Now that would be crossing the line.

With a reply like that I can't resist to say something more. :-)

While I have many controversial opinions this is one where people usually agree with me, so I'm a little surprised you've taken the side you have, but you're welcome to your opinion.

---

But I just don't buy into the idea that people are that offended and/or turned off by the advertising in the first place

---

Come on! You yourself gave an excellent example by mentioning the new CBS show Jingles.

"Jingles could be the TV biz's ultimate stab at outsmarting DVR viewers who skip ads.."

If people aren't turned off by ads then why are they skipping them?

What about the devices like Tivo, DVRs, VCRs, and even the mute button on a remote control? All of those devices are designed to block advertising and because consumers don't like advertising.

I don't use my Tivo to watch my favorite shows a week later. I use it to skip ads by starting to watch the show about 20 minutes after the actual start time. That gives me enough of a lead to skip all the ads on an hour show.

The dislike continues on the Internet with "Ad Blocking" software. Users especially find intrusive ads like pop-ups, pop-unders and other creative that takes over the screen objectionable.

On-screen advertising? Here is an entire site with articles about how much people dislike it: http://www.captiveaudience.org/

People dislike on-screen movie advertising so much that legislators in three states introduced bills to potentially regulate it.

Source: http://www.commercialalert.org/issues/culture/movies/shhh-the-ads-are-about-to-start

"Earlier this year (2005), legislators in Connecticut, Illinois and New York City introduced bills that would require theaters to post the actual movie starting times, so patrons could decide whether to skip the deafening fizz of all those Pepsi spots. In response to those efforts, as well as what the company described as "consumer complaints," Loews Entertainment — the world's third-largest movie theater chain — did something surprising: It agreed. Last Friday, announcements that movies will start 10 to 15 minutes after their posted showtimes were slated to appear at the box office in Loews's Connecticut locations, as well as on the company's Web site and in newspaper listings. The notifications will come to Washington and the rest of the country by the end of May."

People dislike on-screen advertising because you cannot escape it and you actually paid an admission fee to get in. There is no fast-forward or mute button and there is rarely anything entertaining about it. The days of "showmanship" in movie theaters is over.

While box office revenue was up last year thanks to higher admission prices, the number of admissions was flat and cinema admissions are down significantly since the most recent high in 2000. When compared to historical figures the number of admissions is down even more.

There are many reasons for the decline in admissions and on-screen advertising turning off moviegoers is one of them. However, it's fair to note that there are other reasons for the decline that are more significant like VCRs/DVDs, higher admission prices and more entertainment options competiting for our time, but on-screen advertising is still a reason.

So back to theme parks and advertising. Since you're endorsing it and saying you can turn it off so it doesn't bother you then you won't mind me suggesting the following:

I think Six Flags and Cedar Fair should put together a little pre-show before each of their rides like Test Track or Rock 'n' Roller Coaster. So just before you enter the station you'll be escorted into this little room and for the next two minutes you'll watch advertising on products like disapposable rasor blades, candy, soda, maybe an iPod product and of course the obligatory feminine product. After you're done watching those ads then you can enter the loading station and board your ride.

What do you think about that idea? Are you going to be able to ignore that and just turn it off?

I can't turn it off, but I sure as hell can ignore it. I go to parks with friends, family. I talk to them in line.

There's a theatre next to me that shows second run movies about a month or so before they come out on DVD. It's 99 cents admission, and on Tuesday it's BYOB night. I still don't pay attention to the ads, and cannot tell you one item advertised the last time I went.

I guess I'm half in each camp. I am annoyed by the ads, I just choose to thwart them instead of complaining about them.

If people are so annoyed by the ads in theaters, why did they just have the biggest box office weekend in history? Inflation, sure, but that says to me that people are still going, and the "hurt" from the ads isn't enough to trend the other way.

---

If people aren't turned off by ads then why are they skipping them?

---

Because 'not being turned off' doesn't equate to 'wanting to watch' - given the choice people pass on them. That's common sense. Not given a choice people accept that they're there.

---

I use it to skip ads by starting to watch the show about 20 minutes after the actual start time. That gives me enough of a lead to skip all the ads on an hour show.

---

Ha! I thought I was the only one. I do the same thing. No so much because I hate the ads, but because I like the extra time. If I can watch an hour-long broadcast in 40 minutes, then I'm have 20 more minutes in my day for other things that need attention.

I also time-shift and skip the ads there too. Again, because why wouldn't you?

But you know what? We paid (or pay) for our TIVO, DVR, VCR, etc. Ironically, someone still gets paid. Paying a premium to avoid the ads - that's all people are doing. We've turned free TV into a premium service if you really think about. But I digress...

Don't get my POV wrong, I'm not saying, "Oh, goody! The show went to a commercial - everyone gather 'round!"

Then again, I'm not turning my nose up saying, "I refuse to watch anything live because I refuse to have my eyes tainted by the foulness of advertising."

Then again (again), I'm reminded of the hoopla surrounding the Super Bowl ads. There are people who tune in just for the ads. Or the online viral video advertising that get passed around. Not to mention people that watch infomercials late at night. Or the home shopping channels. People do watch advertsing.

It is what it is. I wish I cared half as much as you (and certain segments of the public according to your links) seem to. I'm just wondering how tightly someone has to be wound to make a couple of spots at the theatre enough to skip something they want to see and do. I guess I'm just not there. Either that or any perceived hassle involved compared to what I get it still a value proportion in my favor for the things I enjoy. I can honestly say I never quit doing something because I had to look at advertising.

Maybe my mind is extra adept as sorting the substance from the crap or maybe as the father of two, I've learned how to turn off anything that doesn't matter to me? Maybe seeing the movie is more important than the ads that run before it? Maybe I'm part of the problem and not the solution?

---

What do you think about that idea? Are you going to be able to ignore that and just turn it off?

---

I know you're not going to believe this, but my initial thought is, "Whatever." I'd probably take the two minutes to scroll thought the pics on my camera or text my wife that we're almost on the ride. Or make sure my daughter remembers to take her glasses off before the ride.

Hell, I had to sit through that stupid 5 minute video thing about Led Zeppelin everytime I rode the coaster bearing their name at Hard Rock. By the third time, you just kind of tune out. Ditto on the monitors before that describe the loading procedure. Wouldn't be very different if either were showing commercials instead.

And speaking of Test Track, isn't the pre-show for test track already a product placement ad for GM? And the post show? And the ride itself?

Or is that another example of product tie-ins? :)

Would you rather go into that hypothetical room for two minutes and watch 4 or 5 spots or would you rather skip the room and get directly on the Schick Twizzlers Pepsi iPod Kotex Cyclone - complete with a corporate logo on each car and a graphic ad plastered onto the seat in front of you under the "please keep arms inside the ride at all times" sticker?

Yeah, both are equally silly.

But what if the pre-show for Test Track was brand neutral and just before you board your car, you watch a 30 second spot from GM?

I guess I can see how the delivery of the ad matters - even if I don't particularly find one method any more intrusive than the next. (in fact, isn't subjecting yourself to subtle GM product placement for the 40 minutes in line much more intrusive than a 30 second TV-style spot for the new Sierra just before you ride?)

Maybe the movie theatre should just put ads on the back of the seat in front of you and skip them on the screen?

Or instead of numbers each room in the theatre could have a corporate sponsor. Instead of seeing your movie in Theatre 3, you'd be directed to the Pepsi Theatre or the Rolaids Theatre or the Mazda Room!

Maybe the screen could be sponsored by someone too - right above it the could have a banner running the width of the screen reading, "This screen courtesy of McDonalds - I'm loving it!"

Hell, I'd put an ad on the back of your ticket as well. Two on the back of the seat, one on the threatre name, one on the screen name and one on your ticket. That's five ads. Now you can have those couple of minutes before the movie back - enjoy!

Jeff, theaters experienced the biggest weekend in box office history because of a big movie featuring a recently-deceased actor supposedly playing the role of his life (that may in fact be true- I have yet to see the movie- but I'm willing to bet a lot of that buzz was generated by Hollywood.) That does nothing to erase the theaters' claims that the industry has been in a slump for years. If revenue is down after all those additional ad dollars have rolled in, that tells me that people aren't going to theaters like they used to. DVDs and cable can be blamed for part of that, but not all of it. Something is keeping people out of the theaters, and I honestly do think that a certain group of customers are growing tired of the advertising assaults.

It's only my opinion, but I believe the cost of going to the movies has more of an effect on the decline in viewership than the ads shown before the movies.

I guess I'm just in the Gonch camp, where I can easily tune out stuff (consciously) that has no direct bearing on my life. I'm more about enjoying life, than worrying about how everyone is trying to screw me out of my money or time. Every minute, every second, I'm on this mortal coil is a blessing to me because life is way too short to sweat the small stuff, IMHO.

-Tambo

*** This post was edited by tambo 7/23/2008 11:16:46 AM ***

You're arguing a different point, Rob. I pointed out earlier that the big theater chains were taking a loss. My point was only that people are obviously not offended enough by ads to stop going to the theaters. The profitability of theaters is a different case from the revenue they generate. Revenue measures consumers buying the product, whereas profitability measures the companies' ability to keep expenses below that revenue.

"I also see a lot of the same cost/pricing struggles that come up so much when we talk industry business hidden in there too. In this (and those other) threads you'll see people simultaneously complain about the cost and the steps the business has taken to offset those costs. I guess what bugs me is that it's often written off as greed when the only greed I see is the consumer wanting everything for nothing."

So a customer wanting something for nothing is greed, but a company wanting to offer as little as possible in the way of product or service at the highest price possible is just doing business. Well, I consider myself a business too, and as Jeff defined above, I'd like to keep as large a margin between revenue and expenses. :)

I can deal with advertising in a park to a degree. I don't mind being told whether I'm in a Coke or Pepsi park, or whose hotdogs or ice cream is being sold. I don't care that Hersheypark is the ultimate product ad, as you once mentioned Gonch. But at least it can be argued that the park was originally built around the chocolate factory, so the two have been intertwined for a century. And I'd be willing to bet that as many, if not more individuals leave the park with chocolate than rode the coasters.

What I have a problem with are the ads that aren't intrinsic to the park experience. The timeshares I hear folks griping about in their TR's, in-queue advertising, or whose shingles are used on the roofs of the souvenir shops. Back to HP, I've never felt the need to purchase a Chevy or change my health care plan based on my park experience. (But I will admit to getting a free ticket to a Hershey Bears game by showing my Capital Blue Cross card. Again with the customer wanting something for nothing.) But since they've had Chevys on display in the park for a number of years, they must be getting some positive feedback on it.

We all buy into advertising to some degree. Even when we wear a T-shirt with the logo of our favorite team or favorite park, we're advertising that product (and we paid to do it). Still I think there's a distinction between wearing a shirt that says Kennywood or Phillies on it and a shirt that says AF, Hilfiger, or Aeropostale. All the latter says is I buy whatever brands are currently trendy.

---

So a customer wanting something for nothing is greed, but a company wanting to offer as little as possible in the way of product or service at the highest price possible is just doing business.

---

That's not quite what I said.

---

Well, I consider myself a business too, and as Jeff defined above, I'd like to keep as large a margin between revenue and expenses.

---

That's more along the lines of what I meant.

People do nothing but bitch about how greedy business is when their motives are exactly the same. The hypocrisy is where you lose me. When a business tries to put more money in their pocket people cry corporate greed and screwing the customer, but when the customer tries to do the same it's played as a good thing.

I think we discussed it before. All any purchase is is each side trying to get as much as they can for as little as possible - the transaction is the point of agreement on the terms. It's no more complicated than that on the most basic level. It's a tug-of-war. It just gets under my skin when someone pulls and then cries, "Foul!" when the other side pulls back.

A bit off topic, but definitely a subtext that weaves its way thought a lot of these discussions.

---

---

But since they've had Chevys on display in the park for a number of years, they must be getting some positive feedback on it.

---

Just for clairty do you mean Chevy or Hershey?