Little parks using Nickelodeon licences

Wednesday, May 16, 2007 2:39 AM
I saw an add in a travel magazine for a Santa's Villiage in Bracebridge, Ontario (about 100 miles north of Canada's Wonderland). Even this small park has secured Sponge Bob Square Pants, Dora the Explorer, Go Diego Go!, and Bob the Builder. Nickelodeon is everywhere! Are any other cartoon licenses as widely distributed? (Scooby Doo might be close.)
+0
Wednesday, May 16, 2007 9:07 AM
Disney.
+0
Wednesday, May 16, 2007 9:30 AM
Disney licenses are all at parks owned by Disney. I think greatwhitenorth means a license that spans many owners.

And to answer that question I don't thinks so but I am not that versed in what parks have what licensing.

+0
Wednesday, May 16, 2007 10:22 AM
I don't know but I know I saw Disney stuff being sold at SFNE this past weekend. I couldn't figure out why??
+0
Wednesday, May 16, 2007 12:13 PM
^^^ Wow. That would be like seeing a Corvette for sale at a Ford dealer. Strange.....
+0
Wednesday, May 16, 2007 12:22 PM
I have also seen Disney items for sale at Great Adventure. They should be promotion Looney Tunes, not Disney (though I think Disney is a better brand it has no place in SF)

I think Wild Adventures has a Spongebob 4D Simulator

+0
Wednesday, May 16, 2007 12:26 PM
Hmmm. Looking at the Santa's Village site - there isn't much about the Nick characters other than a few of them slapped around the main page as decoration.

Then I found this page. It's the only place on the entire website that the characters are mentioned.

My guess? Rented costumes strolling the park on Tuesdays. I'm doubting any licensing agreement and probably the use of the characters for advertising purposes is questionable at best. (pure speculation on my part)

In what context were they used in the travel magazine?

+0
Wednesday, May 16, 2007 12:28 PM
I have no idea what's going on with Disney merchandise in SF parks. Either Disney is allowing it (making money off of it) or they have no idea. I remember the story of them suing a daycare center for painting Mickey and other characters on a mural of the playroom. Unless Disney authorizes it, you can't use their characters for anything.
+0
Wednesday, May 16, 2007 12:51 PM
Disney of course is huge in licensing. If dollars are there to make, they're going to license to 6Flags, or anyone they approve of for that matter. Pretty simple...Licensing = $$$$
+0
Wednesday, May 16, 2007 2:12 PM
Would Six Flags even need Disney's permission to seel their merchandise in the park? As long as it is official merchandise, they could have acquired it from a wholesaler or distributor and not even from Disney.
+0
Wednesday, May 16, 2007 2:29 PM
I think the short answer is Yes. Before offering up a license to the distributor for distribution, Disney would want to approve of who would recieve the final merchandise. Some 'final destinations' are more profitable than others.

This stuff is all negotiated out in pretty detailed ways, lots of paper-trails and whatnot. In other words Disney, by being "the brand" is completely aware of where their goods and merchandise are, as well as where & how they are making money. It's in their best financial interest to do so.

+0
Wednesday, May 16, 2007 3:54 PM
Well, they don't ALWAYS know. It took them a long time to discover the fake Disney park in China. :) I'm sure they don't know about all the little fairs and stuff "illegally" selling Disney merchandise. But, I would hope the Six Flags plush items are done with the correct approvals in place. I still find it VERY odd seeing Disney characters in a SF park. It just makes me want to go to a Disney park more. :)
+0
Wednesday, May 16, 2007 6:55 PM
Disney merchandise started appearing in Six Flags stores last season when Shapiro took over.

My guess is since he used to work for ESPN which is a brand of Disney, he got the licensing needed to sell Disney merchandise.

+0
Wednesday, May 16, 2007 7:22 PM
I think we need to remind some folks that "licensing" and *exclusive* rights are two VASTLY different concepts...and come with different pricetags.

I'm certain the park in China wasn't paying anything to Disney, and that Six Flags IS paying. As far as the Nick licensing, there's probably some sort of *tiered* system where the large chains pay more since they GET more out of the characters, and that smaller mom-and-pops pay less, but get less. (Hence the Tuesdays-only idea?)

It's really almost impossible to rip off someone like Disney (and probably Nickelodeon to a lesser extent). UF has a cadre of lawyers whose job is to put an end to unlicensed usage. Licensing fees really are a cost of doing business. Not paying them would almost certainly land an amusement park (even a small one) in court.

Not that SOME wouldn't TRY to get away with it... ;)

+0

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2018, POP World Media, LLC
Loading...