KI's Nickelodeon Universe VS MOA Nickelodeon Universe

[AintNutinElse2Do]

I wanted to bring up this topic. I for one think Nickelodeon has been great for Kings Island and it's sister parks. With Paramounts sale of the parks I do think it left some uncertainty as Nicks continued future with the park. I do think it would be wise to keep the licensing for Nick as long as feasibly possible. However, I think that feasibility may indeed run out sooner than later. With the park at Mall of America transitioning to Nickelodeon Universe it seems less feasible for the two parks to co-exist. In one hand they are trying to promote an entire theme park and on the other promoting a children's area of a much larger theme park. I don't think that we will see a change in the Nick theming for next year but I just have a feeling that Nick may very well raise their licensing prices once the current license runs out. It seems to me in the very least a name change will have to happen at KI's Nickelodeon Universe otherwise I think it will only cause confusion in the end not so much for KI but for MOA's park. Think about it, say you have a 12 yo and they ask "daddy daddy will you take me to Nickelodeon Universe?" Regular parent may reply "oh Tommy you know that's just the little kiddy area at Kings Island." Of course I see no problem for Kings Island in this situation as it seems like it can only create free advertising through mistaken identity but I would think that Nick might just have an eventual problem or at least keep jacking their prices.

What does everyone else think about this situation?

[The Interpreter]

I don't see much potential for confusion between Mall of America and the old Paramount Parks. I do agree that Viacom will almost certainly be asking a larger licensing fee than it did from its sister company, CBS...

Whether or not Cedar Fair and Viacom can come to a mutually agreeable settlement remains to be seen. I would have thought a deal would have been announced by now, if there were one. And I do think MOA's park is a very smart licensing move by Viacom, particularly since the MOA venue was once run by Cedar Fair (as Camp Snoopy) and Valleyfair is so very near to it.

[BoddaH1994]

I can assure you that Nickelodeon Universe at Kings Island is here to stay.

[CoastersRZ]

Ah. But here to stay for how long is the question. Cedar Fair`s license agreement with Viacom for the Nick franchise was only reported to be four years long at the time of their purchase of the Paramount Parks. Unless they Cedar Fair has decided upon a new licensing agreement with Viacom, it could be reasoned the the Nick licenses would be up sometime in the 2010 operating season.

The more telling issue, is that Cedar Fair (at least not yet anyway) does not appear to be spreading the Nick franchise to the legacy parks. This could be in part due to them trying to work out a new licensing agreement with Viacom to include the right to use these properties at more properties than the former Paramount Parks. But the rumor is that Cedar Point is revamping one of their children`s areas next year and it going to be themed to the lovable hound that has graced other kids areas at that park.

[RollerNut]

I read awhile back somewhere that Cedar Fair would be dropping the Nicktoons at all parks except for Carowinds. I wish I could find that link.

[AintNutinElse2Do]

Check out this article... it's Motley Fool pre-announcement of Nickelodeon Universe being called such and slightly after the PP purchase.

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2007...ck-of-time.aspx

[CoastersRZ]

I NEVER remember hearing anything about the Nick toons being dropped from all the Paramount Parks except Carowinds. That just would not make any sense. I would imagine it would be a take it or leave it type of thing. I can see all the Paramount Parks keeping the Nick characters, and them not being extended to the legacy Cedar Fair parks. I could also see the Nick characters packing up and vacating all the Paramount Parks. I cannot, however, see the characters vacating all but one or two of the parks that Cedar Fair owns. Just doesn`t make any sense, no matter how you slice it.

[WooferBearATL]

I can assure you that Nickelodeon Universe at Kings Island is here to stay.

We could go down a list of things that were "here to stay" at a variety of parks.

And then left...

[The Interpreter]

Not only that, but Viacom signing a licensing agreement with Cedar Fair is the type of investment information that has to be disclosed to ALL investors simultaneously, or it is insider trading information. Disclosure to a few insiders who then tell selective people, and ONLY selective people, would be a SERIOUS violation of the securities laws, or so I am told. Lying about this type of alleged disclosure (not the disclosure itself) is exactly what got Martha Stewart in trouble.

Renewal of that license would almost certainly be a source of great pride for Cedar Fair (and to a lesser extent, Viacom) and a press release would IMMEDIATELY be issued.

[JacksonPKI]

I can assure you that Nickelodeon Universe at Kings Island is here to stay.

For the time being,

Mind you, To Continuely renew the naming rights, Cedar Fair will have to continue to give money to Viacom. Each time they do, Viacom will want MORE money.

Raincheck!

Cedar Fair is Debt up to it's Chin!

[The Interpreter]

See the answer to #8 in this document:

http://www.secinfo.com/dXXG3.v1p.d.htm

Note the date of the document. Note the passage of time since. Note the absence of an announcement of an extension of the agreement. Note that this agreement was so material that Cedar Fair chose to cover it in its answers to questions about the acquisition. It is positively beyond me how anyone can publicly state other than in a simultaneous release to all investors (or a public press release that in effect is the same thing) that Nick is here to stay. Perhaps it is. Perhaps it isn't. Stay tuned.

[AintNutinElse2Do]

So hmm, if Nick was only for four years, and Paramount (with exclusions) was for 10 years. I wonder why the bigger hurry to get rid of especially the newer Paramount ride names. I think it's really gonna come down to who has the better price for inclusion at all their parks. There's been some rumors that Carowinds would be the only one remaining with Nick. Which doesn't make a lot of sense unless Viacom gave them a really good deal for one park licensing. If that's the case I could see Viacom not wanting another Nick U in close proximity to their new premier location at MOA. So, and I'm really not wanting to add to the Carowinds only rumor but from Viacom's standpoint I could see them wanting it to be further away which Carowinds is. This type of stuff does happen often with businesses. A good example is with car dealerships, a lot of car companies will only allow 1 dealership with their brand within a certain proximity. Or okay and now I know I'm asking for it kinda like how Cedar Fair didn't want Geauga Lake so close to it's flagship.

[AintNutinElse2Do]

just to add a little bit first that was dated 6-6-6 kinda scary huh..... but lets say that the licensing started then... in that case Nick would expire in 6/6/10 which would be right in the middle of the season... that said I would think it would be likely that 2009 would be the final year of Nick because I doubt they would change it midseason.... not saying it will... not saying it won't... just a lot to think about

[Avatar]

If I remember right Cedar Fair fad to pay for the licensing rights for the name of the rides and other Paramount names used within the park for many years to come, but if Cedar Fair changed those names in a certain amount of time then they were due a credit /refund in some way.

So could it be possible for Cedar Fair to say in essence that because they are due that credit/refund for the paramount naming rights that they would like to use that credit /refund to be used for extending the use of the Nickelodeon naming rights?

Then because Paramount would want to keep the money, they would be more inclined to bargain a fair price with Cedar Fair.

[The Interpreter]

Time for me to wryly state I bet the Nick rights are worth a lot more than the Paramount naming license for the park. Ride names were licensed separately on a ride by ride basis, or so we have been told on numerous occasions.

[jzarley]

^ yeah, my understanding of the 10 year Paramount license was that it was precisely that--a Paramount license (Paramount's Kings Island, Paramount's This, Paramount's That, etc.), and that the individual franchises were separate licensing agreements.

Sometimes I think we tend to over-simplify the complicated legalities of intellectual property... Over the past ten years or so, it has become much more common for theme park rights to a franchise to be separately negotiated, with the original author, creator, producer, developing (or distributing) studio holding onto those rights (Lucas and Spielberg were the pioneers in that area...) In other words, just because Paramount's name is on a movie, doesn't mean they own the theme park rights. However, they may have negotiated those rights with their owner to put them into the parks. Hence, the reason why all the individual movie licenses are separate.

It's been rumored that potentially up to 50% of the costs of Universal's new "Potter Land" is actually going just to license the franchise from JK Rowling!

I also always find it interesting that it will be assumed CF will not relicense Nick becuase of the cost, but as I'll point out (for like the millionth time <g>), the rights to Peanuts isn't free either. Does Nick cost more to license than Peanuts? My guess (as everyone else's) would be yes. But, you also have to calculate the value earned on the franchise. For instance if it costs $1 a year to license Peanuts and it costs $3 a year to license Nick, but Peanuts brings in $2 in revenue and Nick brings in $5--what's the better value for CF? There's just too much information that's not public to really know anything for sure.

I read an article in Variety a while ago that said that the ratings for Peanuts holiday specials on TV have been steadily declining for five years...especially with younger viewers (they still tend to do well with Gen X). I have to think that's the kind of data that CF looks at when establishing a "brand value" for their licensed characters...

[BoddaH1994]

I'm willing to bet a 2010 season pass that it'll be back that year (that should be 4 years, right?). Any takers?