Maverick marketing: too apologetic?

Yes, they have to apologize to the enthusiasses who thought it was going to be a 500ft, inverted, flying, dualing coasters with top hats. ;)

CP had a hige marketing campaign for Skyhawk. A lot of Commercials, at least here in the Northwest Ohio and Southeast Michigan market.

---

coasterqueenTRN said:
While all you guys are debating about this coaster I will be in line.....still not giving a rat's ass about the specifics or any other trivial BS. ;)

---

If you have no interest in the topic at hand couldn't you just pass the thread up and go on with your business? It's not like you haven't expressed this same sentiment in numerous other threads...

Anyway, I agree with Brain up to a point. I think the marketing push has been pretty solid from CP on this one but they're stressing the height more than I personally would have. Honestly though being out of market I haven't personally seen any news coverage so I don't know what I see on the internet is being translated into people's living rooms.

---

Mike E said:
MF is absolutely boring after the tunnel.

---

If you mean the first tunnel, you're wrong. If you mean the second tunnel, you're still wrong.

I can definitely see the vibe that Brian sees in the interviews. Intended or not, the language used does offer the "this ride doesn't have" attitude.

But what I think is awesome about the interviews is that they seem unscripted. I certainly wouldn't be as interested in hearing the glossy, brochure-esque approach to the interviews.

So, it's a risk when things go unscripted. But I would much rather have off-the-cuff presence than a preconceived speech based on marketing.

I totally see what Brian is saying too. But I didn't watch the interviews until after I read this, so it may have been suggested a bit.

It does seem like a lot of "It's not this, but..." going on.

Other than that, Maverick IMO is their most solid addition since Magnum and Gemini, and I'm glad parks are getting that in today's jaded market, pure fun aces fear, intimidation and ego.

Amen brother...can I get a witness? ;)

The last time I was at Cedar Point was for Millie in 2000. Neither Wicked Twister nor Dragster was enough to make me want to travel from Los Angeles to Sandusky. But Maverick sure does!

Well, the day it was announced, it was all over TV here in Cleveland. They even called me for an interview. How could you not be interested? ;)

Seriously though, I think people read way into this stuff too much. Amusement parks typically do little more than plug the new ride on their Web site in the fall. The real marketing doesn't come until we get closer to spring.

---

Mamoosh said:
Neither Wicked Twister nor Dragster was enough to make me want to travel from Los Angeles to Sandusky.

---

Well, if we'd ever actually meet you'd have a friend 36 miles from the park. ;)

You'd think that would have happened by now....

"I think the marketing push has been pretty solid from CP on this one but they're stressing the height more than I personally would have."

I think this goes to the idea that the ride is something different. As mentioned above (by someone) it is not a fear machine, but a fun machine. Why not? The past few years have been geared to folks with strong stomachs. Sure a few inversions intimidate some, but nothing like 400+ feet or 100+mph. No swinging, no hurling, just fun.

Marketing is oh so much more than TV ads and press releases. It could be that FUN is working to change their image. Maybe they too learned from Six Flags that pushing thrill over fun gets you nowhere. With the addition of the Paramount Parks (known for family over thrill - PKI case in point), it is time to tune-up the message and go for the families. That's where the money is.

I really agree with Jeff. The reasoning behind is strictly because everyone has gotten used to parks going "bigger" and "faster". I fell victim to that the first time I watched the video of the ride. The second I realized how unique and fun it will be.

Maybe CP has realized something that I did playing Roller Coaster Tycoon. I love to build rides with huge hills, or lots of inversions. But I get longer lines when I build a well-paced ride with a couple of unique elements.

I'm really looking forward to making a trip back to Sandusky to ride Maverick.

Hey, I think CP is doing a pretty good job with the thing. Heck, how many other new coaster announcements come complete with animations for the iPod video?

Now I can take my Maverick on the go and show other people if I want.

---

Now I can take my Maverick on the go and show other people if I want.

---

Shouldn't that be in the "How to Spot a Coaster Enthusiast" thread? ;)

---

matt. said:

---

coasterqueenTRN said:
While all you guys are debating about this coaster I will be in line.....still not giving a rat's ass about the specifics or any other trivial BS.

---

If you have no interest in the topic at hand couldn't you just pass the thread up and go on with your business? It's not like you haven't expressed this same sentiment in numerous other threads...

---

Don't take it (or my sarcasm) so seriously, Matt. It's all good. :)

-Tina

*** Edited 9/13/2006 4:53:39 PM UTC by coasterqueenTRN***

---

kirkout321 said:

Maybe CP has realized something that I did playing Roller Coaster Tycoon. I love to build rides with huge hills, or lots of inversions. But I get longer lines when I build a well-paced ride with a couple of unique elements.

quote]

Funny. I noticed the same thing. I'd make a MF clone and it would do great for a while, but my old CLP BlueStreak clone w/skunk tunnel would always out-guest it.

---

Haha, Gonch :)

Or a new thread: "How to spot a high-tech coaster GEEK"

A little off-topic, but the reason for those tendencies in RCT is the way the game decides who will ride.

There's two factors in determining if a peep will ride - exceitement of the ride and intensity of the ride.

Exceitement would determine how 're-rideable' any given ride was. The higher the better, but with declining returns after a certain point (around 6 or so) - that is to say a peep isn't any more likely to re-ride a coaster with an 8.45 excitement than one with a 6.10 excitment ratng.

As far as intensity, each peep had a specified level of intensity that they could handle. As long as a ride had an intensity rating equal or lower to the peep in question, the peep would decide to ride.

See the formula coming together?

A 'successful' coaster in the RCT gameworld is one that attracts the most people then in turn attracts the most re-rides. Those are the coasters that have the longest lines.

So how do we attract riders? With the widest net possible using the intensity rating.

So the lower the better, right? Wrong.

Wrong because lower intensity rides have lower excitement ratings, thus killing the chance of re-rides. The line is made of first time riders only.

Ok, so not the lowest. How about we just attract re-ride peeps with a higher excitement rating? Not the best approach because higher exceitment usually comes at the expense of higher intensity and that drives away more first-time riders.

So what's left? Middle of the road. Do a coaster with a 5 or 6-ish intensity and you'll snare quite possibly the widest range of peeps and with that intensity you should easily get excitement up past 6 or so (which is the point of diminishing returns).

Conclusion - the best coasters for attracting peeps in RCT are the 'middle of the road' rides. You get the most first time riders with an intensity in the 5's or 6's and the most re-rides with an excitement above 6 or so. Anything bigger turns away many first time riders keeping the queue less full and anything smaller doesn't encourage re-rides and keeps the queue less full.

I wouldn't put too much stock in RCT's correlation with real-world trends. It's just an exploit of the game system.

^ I also wouldn't say that the RCT world is TOO far removed from the real world...there's a lot of benefit possible by *learning* in the RCT environment...just didn't have the *re-play-ability* quotient to keep me in line... ;)

Personally, I think inversions *do* scare more peeps away than enthusiasts might believe....then again, like HW and Voyage, you have to consider the LOCAL dempgraphic. At CP, you've already got a population *skewed* toward thrillseekers...so the KW inversion-free formula isn't necessarily the best approach for CP to take...

Confusing enough? ;)

You guys are killing me... pretty soon you will try to convince me that reality TV has no basis in reality, either. If that is the case, I will have to stop my random monologuing throughout the day where I try to explain to the cosmos why choosing to live with people I have nothing in common with was actually a good idea. smiles

Back on topic, I would say the interview portion of the Maverick media release was the only aspect that offered the tint of apology for what Maverick is not. But I really don't think it will affect Maverick's success in any way. People seems pretty jazzed about it.

I disagree with the notion that the media release announcing the coaster is not part of the marketing plan, though. Every aspect of publicity is marketing. Even though I agree that most full blown marketing will take place closer to opening day, given the announcement material is the primary thing we have to chat about all winter, I would say it better have a marketing plan behind it.