Retheming nickelodeon areas at Cedar Fair parks

LostKause said:
Snoopy sucks!

Just for the record, I don't think Snoopy or the Peanuts gang suck at all. I grew up enjoying them quite a bit and while we may have grown apart over the years, I still find myself smiling when in their company be it in person, by book or on television.

With that said, the license pales in comparison to the Nick license on every front other than (apparently) the financial terms and I still (after 11 full pages of discussion) fail to see how any potential licensee could think the Peanuts can outperform Nickelodeon over any significant period of time.

Snoopy doesn't need to outperform Nick anymore, because Nick is gone.

And I suppose I don't really think that Snoopy sucks by itself, but when compared to everything else, he does. If "It's a Super-d-duper Day, Charley Brown", or whatever, was on TV, and nothing else was on, I'd probably watch it, and enjoy it. If something else was on, like Spongebob or Avatar: The Last Airbender, and I had already seen "It's a Super-d-duper Day, Charley Brown" last year, I'd probably watch the Nick show.

Lord Gonchar said:

With that said, the license pales in comparison to the Nick license on every front other than (apparently) the financial terms and I still (after 11 full pages of discussion) fail to see how any potential licensee could think the Peanuts can outperform Nickelodeon over any significant period of time.

I'm with you, Gonch. And that seems to be the only place really where we are disconnected on this topic.

I don't think the Peanuts can outperform Nick. I guess I don't really believe CF thinks they will either (simply because it seems like such a self-evident fact), but I don't really know what they think.

It just seems to me that under the circumstances (financial and competitive) that it will be ok to lose Nick at this time. I fully understand that Nick would bring more success in revenues, but I don't think the loss in those potential revenues is really going to hurt CF in the bigger picture.

The question is, which license is better for Cedar Fair.

Personally, I think the Nickelodeon license is a great property, but in the end, it is more of a benefit to Nickelodeon than it is to Cedar Fair. Having the Nick property at the Cedar Fair park strengthens Nick's branding, but probably does little for Cedar Fair. So in the end, the real question is, which license is going to result in a higher *net income* for Cedar Fair. Clearly they have decided that the Peanuts license is going to make them more money, even though it will probably generate less in sales. The difference in license terms may mean the difference between higher gross revenue with lower net sales, and lower gross sales and higher net revenue with a more favorable license deal.

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

You captured the point I was trying to make far more eloquently than I was able to do, Dave.

Got it and agree entirely on that one front - merchandise sales. Hell, we all get that. Sell less at a higher profit per unit. It's Gonch's Business Plan in action. The thing is, there's more to thew whole thing than merch sales.

Aside from merch sales it's a backwards move in every way...even ones that over the long term could result in loss of revenue in countless indirect ways.

Short term on the most obvious and measurable of levels - great move.

Long term taking every last detail and aspect into consideration (even ones that are instinct or not directly measurable - those intangibles that seems to be the mystery pieces that differentiate between successful and more successful) for as long as they end up running with the Peanuts license instead of the Nick license - bad move.