Nickelodeon Negotiates Rights at MOA (almost)

Tuesday, January 30, 2007 6:14 PM
The article states that they're in the 'final stages' of negotiating.

Seems like the loss of Peanuts may have worked out for the better. :)

+0
Tuesday, January 30, 2007 6:31 PM
So what would an exclusive rights deal mean for the former Paramount Parks' kiddie areas? A Camp Snoopy downgrade?

Sorry. There's no other way to spin it if you ask me.

-'Playa

*** Edited 1/30/2007 11:32:10 PM UTC by CoastaPlaya***

+0
Tuesday, January 30, 2007 10:21 PM
^I would say that Nick will get taken over by Snoopy. It's not like CFECo would have to pay extra to use the dog some more. The problem with Nick characters is that other than Sponge Bob, there isn't too many that have longevity.

+0
Tuesday, January 30, 2007 10:39 PM

The problem with Nick characters is that other than Sponge Bob, there isn't too many that have longevity.

Seems that way but it's surprisingly not true.

Rugrats is on 16 years.
Blue's Clues is past 10 years.
Spongebob is almost 8 years.
Jimmy Neutron is 5 years.
Fairly Oddparents are up to 6 years.
Dora is going on 7 years.

That's just off the top of my head.

And while 6 or 7 years doesn't seem long, when you figure the age of the kids this appeals to, it amounts to pretty much all their lives.

Nick crushes Snoopy any day - especially in this context.

+0
Tuesday, January 30, 2007 10:48 PM
I'm not debating which is more popular but I do want to comment about longevity: Snoopy will celebrate his 58th year this October. That's more than the combined number of years from your "top of your head" list above. But Camp Snoopy is about the whole Peanuts gang, not just the dog.

Peanuts comic strip still appears in more than 2,600 newspapers around the world and in 21 languages generating an annual global revenue of more than $1 billion [yes, that's less than the Nick characters].

Just an FYI ;)

*** Edited 1/31/2007 3:49:15 AM UTC by Mamoosh***

+0
Tuesday, January 30, 2007 11:28 PM
Being around and being relevant are two different things. ;)
+0
Tuesday, January 30, 2007 11:37 PM
^How many characters from Nick Toons do you think will be around in 50 years? Not a **** one.

The only ones I see sticking around more than 10 more years is Dora and SB.

+0
Tuesday, January 30, 2007 11:47 PM
Probably not even those ones. Hell, I'd bet Peanuts are nothing more than a memory by 2057.

But here's the catch, Peanuts is Peanuts - end of list. Nickelodeon is a backlog of current and past cartoons and any future character that takes off.

Snoopy and the gang are only dying a slow death. There will never be anything new. It is what it is. A Peanuts license is a license for a specific set of characters stuck in time.

When Spongebob gets old and disappears, you'll still have the next big thing to slap on a few rides and call it a day. A Nickelodeon license is a license for countless past and future characters - any of which could be the next big thing (just like the current crop).

It's really the difference between licensing a set of characters and licensing a brand.

*** Edited 1/31/2007 4:48:36 AM UTC by Lord Gonchar***

+0
Tuesday, January 30, 2007 11:56 PM
Being around and being relevant are two different things.

Hey! I resemble that remark! ;)

+0
Wednesday, January 31, 2007 12:10 AM
Snoopy has one thing Nick CANNOT have when it comes to MoA specifically. A serious regional loyalty...

While I would agree with nearly EVERY other park switching to Nick....at MoA, Peanuts SHOULD be there. IMO, YMMV, etc.

+0
Wednesday, January 31, 2007 1:43 AM
rollergator said:
Snoopy has one thing Nick CANNOT have when it comes to MoA specifically. A serious regional loyalty...

While I would agree with nearly EVERY other park switching to Nick....at MoA, Peanuts SHOULD be there. IMO, YMMV, etc.

You're right Gator, Charles Schulz was born and raised in Mpls/St Paul. There is alot of affection for the Peanuts gang and him in this area. I think MOA screwed up big time when it lost that tie.

How can they say MOA will have an exclusive branding-rights deal with Nickelodeon when there are Nick areas popping up in most parks?

+0
Wednesday, January 31, 2007 3:02 AM
How can they say MOA will have an exclusive branding-rights deal with Nickelodeon when there are Nick areas popping up in most parks?

What parks, other than those previously owned by Paramount?

+0
Wednesday, January 31, 2007 3:10 AM
^ Also at Universal. It certainly would not be "exclusive" for MOA.
+0
Wednesday, January 31, 2007 9:31 AM
Gonch: Dead on about the 'relevance.' When my kids were younger, they'd much rather attend PKI than CP strictly on the strength of the Nick characters alone. Never mind the rides.

'Gator: I'd be shocked if VF didn't revamp their careworn Half Pint Park into another Camp Snoopy. It NEEDS it something horrible.

-'Playa

+0
Wednesday, January 31, 2007 10:33 AM
IIRC, which I'm not TOO sure of, since this was awhile ago...

CF/MoA split, then MoA went after the rights to Peanuts pretty hard...the *price* for the licensing of the Peanuts gang for JUST the Mall, however, skyrocketed. My thinking here is that it SEEMED like United Media was trying to hold Snoopy and Woodstock hostage, with a ridiculously high price for those rights, because UM thought MoA would simply "suck it up and pay". MoA wanted Peanuts, badly, but simply couldn't meet the UM price, and had to give up on the agreement. Everybody lost...

I guess what I'm getting at is that *I* hold UM responsible for MoA no longer having Peanuts (what about the kite-eating tree, though, LOL).

edit: Oh, and what VF! needs to do with their "Half Pint Park"...is to let adults ride that Herschell Little Dipper...LOL! ;)

*** Edited 1/31/2007 3:34:41 PM UTC by rollergator***

+0
Saturday, February 3, 2007 8:50 PM
A few years back when we went to six flags in New Jersey, they had a sponge bob theater just like the one at PKI.

I thought that was kind of weird that six flags had a sponge bob attraction due to the fact that six flags is marvel/ looney toons and paramount is nick.

+0
Saturday, February 3, 2007 9:40 PM
Everyone seems to be looking at exclusive rights as MOA would be the only ones who could use Nickelodeon theming.

Could they mean MOA wouldn't license any one else's characters, only the Nick ones? As opposed to SF which licenses both the Warner and DC sets?

+0
Saturday, February 3, 2007 10:05 PM
BogeyMon, Warner owns DC (and Cartoon Network which means Hanna Barbarra too) so the licenses are one in the same.
+0
Sunday, February 4, 2007 12:35 AM
Also, "exclusive rights" may have geographical limits. I doubt they would be foolish enough to market exclusive country- or worldwide rights to a mall in Minnesota. I'd imagine the exclusivity would be regional.

MOA signs this deal for Nick, and they're guaranteed that Cedar Fair, which now has licensing for these characters through the Paramount acquisition, doesn't decide to market them at a nearby park.

+0
Sunday, February 4, 2007 2:02 AM

crazy horse said:
A few years back when we went to six flags in New Jersey, they had a sponge bob theater just like the one at PKI.

I thought that was kind of weird that six flags had a sponge bob attraction due to the fact that six flags is marvel/ looney toons and paramount is nick.


Well, it wasn't always sponge bob. When it first opened it was The Right Stuff: The Mach 1 Adventure. Elaborately themed to an air force base with a queue the size of the entire action zone (or whatever they call it that takes up those go carts now), the movie was themed around the first jet flight that broke the sound barrier. Quite well done!

When the popularity died down, they changed the movie to a 3d show about trying to rescue a t-rex from "Dino Island". that lasted a couple years, and then it seemed that they switched between the 2 for a while until a couple years ago when they went with sponge bob because either of the other 2 were both walk-ons. along the way the queue chopped down for other attractions.

+0

You must be logged in to post

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