Retheming nickelodeon areas at Cedar Fair parks

Friday, August 28, 2009 4:25 PM

Carrie,
I understand your point of veiw but you need to look at it this way as well.

My kids have been bugging me all summer to go see the Nick Toons, NOT Snoopy, They could care less about snoopy, if they can go see the Nick Toons. Now that the Nick Toons are gone what do it do?
Nick is a MUCH bigger draw then Snoopy.
Like stated previously Nick is seen my millions of kids every day in return will attract more familys in to the park.
Snoopy is seen what?.... three times a year? Holloween, Thanksgiving, and Christmas?
There will be a fallout from this i guarantee it. People that are planning on visiting KI next year for their kids will most likely change their minds...

Last edited by MaVeRiCk 'n MaGnUm XL, Friday, August 28, 2009 4:27 PM
+0
Friday, August 28, 2009 4:33 PM

Well Peanuts are coming so we have to accept it. My concern now is that the area is the best it can be. The only 2 rides that really have great theming are the rugrats coaster and the log flume but I think they could be rethemed and it will be OK.

I was more upset when the removed the Hanna Barbara themeing. They had been a part of Kings Island since they very beginning. By the time Nick showed up I really didn't watch much cartoons. In fact most of the nick shows I had never heard of before they came to Kings Island.

When I was a kid I was thrilled just to get to an amusement park. And even when I did I didn't pay much attention to the Kiddie areas. I couldn't wait to ride the big rides. In fact I pay more attention to kiddie rides now than when I was a child.

+0
Friday, August 28, 2009 4:43 PM

Carrie, while Crazy's kids may put up with Snoopy and gang you are completely (and I do mean completely) overlooking a big part of the equation, the number of visits. Not IF they will visit the park, but the NUMBER of visits, and subsequently, how much is spent on those reduced visits. It is rather clear to me from reading his posts that the result is more than likely going to be a decrease in visits all around, and likely a significant decrease in spending during each trip (that of course, is entirely dependent upon how much he let's his daughter influence his wallet, but I would be willing to bet its not an insignificant amount).

While the overall change may not really impact the bottom line immediately (or ever) because of the presumed offset of cost reduction by loosing Nick and going with Peanuts, there is sure to be fallout in some tangible form from the change that does affect the park. The best example I can think of right away is the example already given by Crazy with the family who would not have gone to the park had it not been for the kids' desire to see the Nick characters.

Also, your constant use of the "well then will you visit or not?" questions firmly plant you in an either/or position, as Gonch already said. But like I said above, the question is not whether or not they will visit like you continue to ask, but rather how much will they visit.

Last edited by maXairMike, Friday, August 28, 2009 4:46 PM

Original BlueStreak64

+0
Friday, August 28, 2009 4:49 PM

^^ BINGO!!!!
maXairMike hit the nail on the head with that statement!

+0
Friday, August 28, 2009 4:57 PM
crazy horse's avatar

^Well said.

You counden't have said it any better. We will continue to visit the park, just not as often as we have the past few summers. That means less skyline chili sold, no more nick stuffed animals being sold(my daughter collects sponge bob), no more scooby doo photos , but more importantly, not as many smiles from my daughter.

It's also a shame if they change out the dark ride. It's a great ride.

Now that cedarfair has nascar under there belt, they may swap out sponge bob at the action theater for something else. It's about time that they switch that out. If I remember correctly, they used to have a nascar movie in the theater years ago. I don't care for nascar, but it would be nice to see something new in there.


what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard.
Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it.
I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

+0
Friday, August 28, 2009 5:14 PM
Lord Gonchar's avatar

maXairMike said:
Also, your constant use of the "well then will you visit or not?" questions firmly plant you in an either/or position, as Gonch already said.

Exactly what I meant.

But like I said above, the question is not whether or not they will visit like you continue to ask, but rather how much will they visit.

I'm 50% on board for this. But I don't think the loss is something a formula or a piece of paper can tell you (such as quantity of visits or amount of purchases), I think the key lies in quality of visits and the long term effect of that.

Which leads to:

Carrie M. said:
A long term effect on what, though? If not admissions, then what?

I think a reduced quality of visit manifests itself in lots of subtle ways - maybe 1 less visit during the season, less interest in merchadise, leaving earlier during the vists you make, maybe even word of mouth. Stuff like that.

That's where I don't see it as either/or. People aren't going to quit visiting, but the quality of those visits will be reduced.


+0
Friday, August 28, 2009 5:18 PM
Jeff's avatar

Lord Gonchar said:
But I still say there's an intangible effect there. Sure it's nothing but the same rides in the end, but if the characters attached to those rides don't matter, then why attach one in the first place? Is Disney still Disney without the characters?

That's the bigger question, and probably the one that's hardest to answer. Have the parks conducted the research to determine this? I dunno. I don't know how robust the marketing research is outside of CP. I would assume they do a fair amount of surveying at all of the big parks.

But again, it would have to be significant enough to overcome the crappy deal they get from the license. It's easy for Bill to say they should just negotiate a better deal, but I suspect Cedar Fair is like a bug to Viacom. In the context of their revenue, is it even worth it? From Cedar Fair's view, sure, they can probably make the same revenue in merchandise from anything else on a fraction of the volume.


Jeff - Editor - CoasterBuzz.com - My Blog - Silly Nonsense

+0
Friday, August 28, 2009 5:59 PM
Carrie M.'s avatar

It wasn't my intention to suggest that people either attend or not at all. That's probably why I didn't get Gonch's point when he made it.

And I don't think I've constantly said anything, except that I don't think it will matter in the big picture. I stand by that.

Folks have been suggesting this was a bad move on CF's part because the kids are not interested in Snoopy and therefore will not be interested in the parks. I am countering that point. Nothing more.

I do not believe that attendance will be impacted by the change in the licensing. I am open to the idea that merchandise spending will be impacted, but I don't have any idea by how much.

I think the good will/warm fuzzy aspect of it will be a short-term issue only. People move on and I think they will in this case, too.

Last edited by Carrie M., Friday, August 28, 2009 6:29 PM

"If passion drives you, let reason hold the reins." --- Benjamin Franklin

+0
Friday, August 28, 2009 8:39 PM
OhioStater's avatar

Since when does a 5 year old decide where the family is going for a vacation trip?

That's where I don't see it as either/or. People aren't going to quit visiting, but the quality of those visits will be reduced.

Just because there's a snoopy dog where there used to be a Rugrat?

I do not believe that attendance will be impacted by the change in the licensing. I am open to the idea that merchandise spending will be impacted, but I don't have any idea by how much.

Very little. Kids will want the same amount of crap no matter where you take them. It doesnt matter if they are familiar with it or not...they just want something to take home with them.

Impact prediction: Zero.

+0
Friday, August 28, 2009 10:06 PM
crazy horse's avatar

"Since when does a 5 year old decide where the family is going for a vacation trip?"

When they are born. It's not just about you anymore.

"Just because there's a snoopy dog where there used to be a Rugrat?"

Yep....specialy when nick is seen on tv everyday, and knows it is at the park. Where is the dog?...Oh yea, I see him on 3 days out of the year.

"Very little. Kids will want the same amount of crap no matter where you take them. It doesnt matter if they are familiar with it or not...they just want something to take home with them."

Not true.

Do you have kids? My daughter would know if nick was gone. Kids are smarter than you think. She watches nick almost everyday. Try switching that with snoopy. There would be hell to pay.


what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard.
Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it.
I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

+0
Friday, August 28, 2009 11:19 PM
Carrie M.'s avatar

I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens and what kind of impact there might be.


"If passion drives you, let reason hold the reins." --- Benjamin Franklin

+0
Friday, August 28, 2009 11:28 PM
LostKause's avatar

Crazy horse answered just about the same way I was going to. Nick includes dozens of popular properties, and Peanuts is not popular at all (here in the US). Kids are very sensitive to characters that they invite into their living room each and every day.

Edited to add - I, for one, am not looking forward to seeing Snoopy at almost every park that I visit. It would be quite nice to not have every former Paramount Park turning into another Cedar Point.

Last edited by LostKause, Friday, August 28, 2009 11:36 PM
+0
Friday, August 28, 2009 11:32 PM
Carrie M.'s avatar

Nick's popularity is not in question. It's certainly not in question in comparison to the Peanuts. It's a question of how much that popularity matters to the amusement park experience. Particularly once the Nick option is gone at all of the local parks.


"If passion drives you, let reason hold the reins." --- Benjamin Franklin

+0
Friday, August 28, 2009 11:52 PM

Like Gonch, I am of the opinion that while there will likely be tangible impact (merch revenue specifically), the vast majority will be an intangible impact. As Gonch said, it is not easy to put down on paper, certainly not over the course of two seasons. I think you will really see the effects of this 3-5+ years out in various forms such as possibly eating away at the size of soon-to-be Planet Snoopy in favor of a different use for some of the land. Of course that's not the only way it could manifest itself, but I think the impact will be seen in more indirect ways than one would expect. And make no mistake, there will be impact.


Original BlueStreak64

+0
Friday, August 28, 2009 11:54 PM
Lord Gonchar's avatar

Carrie M. said:
Folks have been suggesting this was a bad move on CF's part because the kids are not interested in Snoopy and therefore will not be interested in the parks.

Change that to this:

"Folks have been suggesting this was a bad move on CF's part because the kids are not interested in Snoopy."

and you have what I'm trying to say. I'm not sure the impact will be immediate or even measurable or able to be correlated in any way, but read my edit of your line again.

That's exactly the problem.

OhioStater said:
Since when does a 5 year old decide where the family is going for a vacation trip?

Since he saw the Nick characters on TV and hasn't shut up about them, about being them, about seeing them, about buying them, about what they last did, about everything they do. :)

Just because there's a snoopy dog where there used to be a Rugrat?


Absolutely. Do you prefer to be around things you like and care about or things that don't matter and mean nothing to you?

Believe it or not, kids feel the same way.

I have to go with crazy horse and LK on this one. I think you're underestimating the children of the world.

Carrie M. said:
It's a question of how much that popularity matters to the amusement park experience. Particularly once the Nick option is gone at all of the local parks.

Gotta go back to the old "parks compete against other forms of entertainment" defense. It's not a matter of another local park having Nick characters, it's a matter of something else that wasn't as fun as a day in the Nickelodeon universe now being more fun and relevant to a kid than a day in the Peanuts universe.

Last edited by Lord Gonchar, Friday, August 28, 2009 11:55 PM
+0
Saturday, August 29, 2009 12:01 AM
LostKause's avatar

Well, leaving destination like Disney parks out of it, I think that that would matter on an individual basis, determined by where one lives in approximation to which ever park we are talking about. I think that most non-enthusiast families will go to whatever park is closet to them, not taking into account which characters live in which park.

As far as merchandise goes, Snoopy dolls will not sell as well as Nick dolls because of popularity. People aren't just looking for just anything to spend their money on. They want the good stuff that they can relate to, and if it's not available, for a lot of people, the money will simply stay in their wallets.

Kinda what crazy horse said...

And I am also going to go with what crazy horse said way back on page 5. "This pisses me off." ...but not becasue I have kids to answer to. More for the reason that sometimes, when it comes to entertainment, I am like a kid. I like Nicktoons like Fairly Oddparents and Avatar: The Lst Airbender.

It would have been cool if they kept the license and updated the kid's area with more modern Nick characters.


+0
Saturday, August 29, 2009 12:03 AM
Carrie M.'s avatar

How does Kennywood compete? How does Idlewild compete? How does Holiday World compete? How does Hershey compete? How does Knoebels compete? How does Six Flags compete? How does Busch Gardens compete?

Of those parks that all do fine in terms of family draw, Kennywood, Idlewild, Knoebels, and Six Flags all have themes you could argure are less relevant than the Peanuts. They do fine against other forms of entertainment.


"If passion drives you, let reason hold the reins." --- Benjamin Franklin

+0
Saturday, August 29, 2009 12:07 AM
Lord Gonchar's avatar

Who's to say they wouldn't do better. (in whatever metric you're measuring as one of success)

Seems to me that line of logic always goes back to, "Why bother in the first place then?" Clearly the parks see some kind of benefit to having the licenses in their parks. If there's benefit, then there's most certainly degrees of benefit.


+0
Saturday, August 29, 2009 12:23 AM

Carrie M. said:
How does Kennywood compete? How does Idlewild compete? How does Holiday World compete? How does Hershey compete? How does Knoebels compete? How does Six Flags compete? How does Busch Gardens compete?

Of those parks that all do fine in terms of family draw, Kennywood, Idlewild, Knoebels, and Six Flags all have themes you could argure are less relevant than the Peanuts. They do fine against other forms of entertainment.

You lost my vote of confidence in this post when you mentioned Six Flags, as both DC Comics and Looney Toons are definitely more popular and relevant than the Peanuts gang. Batman, Superman, Bugs Bunny...

Take Six Flags out of that post and you have a much more valid point, but having one of the two major comic publishers and the Looney Toons and claiming they're less relevant than Peanuts took all validity away. And I'm not even a comic fan! ;)


Original BlueStreak64

+0
Saturday, August 29, 2009 12:39 AM
Carrie M.'s avatar

And that's where you keep losing me, Gonch. We know kids don't care about Snoopy as much as they care about Nick. But what does that mean really? You say it doesn't mean that they will stop caring about the park (at least that's what I take from your edit of my quote above.) So what's the point of the discussion?

Kids attend other parks that do not have the Nick license. Would their experience be enhanced if those parks had the Nick license? Absolutely. My park experience would be enhanced if they offered free massages in an adult lounge at the park. They don't. So what?

It's not unlike the freak out over Busch no longer offering beer gardens. People swore that was a terrible move. Does it matter? Not hardly.

And in this case, the Nick license apparently is costing more than the benefit. It only makes sense to do something about that.

MaXairMike, I think you're just kidding with me, but even still, it's been argued in the past that the Looney Tunes are a dying commodity in kids' lives, too. They aren't that relevant these days. But I will give you they probably rank higher than the Peanuts. :)

Last edited by Carrie M., Saturday, August 29, 2009 12:43 AM

"If passion drives you, let reason hold the reins." --- Benjamin Franklin

+0

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2022, POP World Media, LLC
Loading...