RingMaster Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 I'm waiting for the negative comments about CP's additions since most were from GL. It's Cedar frickin Point, America's Roller Coast. Nobody's gonna complain about a few hand-me-downs from another park when you've got the massive variety of rides (not to mention the fame and notoriety of being a world-class amusement park) like Cedar Point does. ....well, except maybe some ACEers or thrill junkies who were expecting another awesome thrill ride like SkyHawk or maXair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browntggrr Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 It is not just as simple as which is cheaper for Cedar Fair to renew, Nick or Peanuts. They would have to look at the value that each of these brands adds to their parks. I think (as has been discussed many other times in other threads), that the value the Nick brand offers is far superior to the value of the Peanuts. The question then becomes is the price right for the value that Cedar Fair is getting? No one is sure about that. Cedar Fair hasn`t mentioned much about the Nick licensing since they initially bought the Paramount Parks. Value is measured by how effective the product is with the cost. Since we have no idea on what the licensing costs are for either Peanuts or Nickelodeon true value cannot be measured accurately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browntggrr Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 It's Cedar frickin Point, America's Roller Coast. Nobody's gonna complain about a few hand-me-downs from another park when you've got the massive variety of rides (not to mention the fame and notoriety of being a world-class amusement park) like Cedar Point does. You would be shocked on how many people absolutely despise CP. They actually criticize CP for not cleaning up the seagull crap in the parking lot claiming it will spread disease. So yeah, there are many people that have complaints about CP installing "used" rides. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WooferBearATL Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 It's Cedar frickin Point, America's Roller Coast. Nobody's gonna complain about a few hand-me-downs from another park when you've got the massive variety of rides (not to mention the fame and notoriety of being a world-class amusement park) like Cedar Point does. You would be shocked on how many people absolutely despise CP. They actually criticize CP for not cleaning up the seagull crap in the parking lot claiming it will spread disease. So yeah, there are many people that have complaints about CP installing "used" rides. First question people ask me when they find out that I'm from Ohio is, "have you ever been to CP?" They then launch into what a great park it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outdoor Man Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 someone may have posted this already, i don't know i didn't read every comment. But to me it shows the long-term commitment that CF is "not" going to have iwth the Nick license. My guess is that they'll use it till it expires then we'll start seeing Penauts invade the hallowed HB/Nick areas. Nick is very much the "in" thing right now. Had CF intended to extend the license I'm guessing they would have invaded, at least in part, some of the area at the Point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KIBeast Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 ^Maybe. Maybe not. Could be that they want to have two very distinctively different kids' areas for the two parks in Ohio. Could be that they haven't even made a decision as to whether or not to extend the license considering it doesn't have to be renewed for a couple of years. Time is on their side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browntggrr Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 ^ And that could exactly be CF's purchasing point to those at Nickelodeon. Give us a good deal, and we will keep the Nick characters. Or you can make an offer that requires an extreme amount of money, and we will switch to something we already know and have. Now there is no doubt that Nick can survive without having themed rides in amusement parks, but they are also better off with those same themed rides. CF does not need Nick, and Nick does not need CF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jzarley Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 I still agree that having different characters at your two parks that pull from overlapping markets is a good idea. While I think it may be pretty safe to say that we won't see Nick characters at CP anytime soon, that doesn't necessarily mean they'll disappear from the former Paramount Parks. (Look at last year's CF Annual Report...where Nick characters were featured just as much as Peanuts characters...plus, on nearly conference call Kinzel has discussed the value of the Nick brands...) On the Nick side, I have to believe that if they believed a theme park presence was a crucial component for long-term franchise viability, Viacom would have simply kept the parks to begin with. The value in a theme park presence for a media brand is exposure and good will...keep in mind that with Nick Universe at MoA, more people will be exposed to Nick characters at that one venue then they would be at all the CF parks combined (even if Nick was expanded to all CF parks.) Finally, if CF would decline to renew the Nick licensing (for whatever reason), I have a feeling Mark Shapiro would be right there waiting. (After all, he was excited about landing the "Wuggles"...) And, it would certainly fit with SF's strategy of parks as an advertising vehicle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.