This is probably a stupid question, but I'll ask anyway. I am curious if anyone knows why the decision was made to replace the Nick characters with Planet Snoopy. The obvious answer was cost savings since Cedar Fair already owns the rights to the Peanuts characters. I was just wondering if anyone knew of anything else that might have factored into the decision.

I have to admit, I was disappointed when I first heard about the changeover. The Nick characters are a heck of a lot more relevant to my kids than the Peanuts. But now that we've experienced Planet Snoopy first hand, we're okay with the changeover.

As you said, Cedar Fair has the right to Peanuts, and it would cost them some money to renew the Nick contract. And with the financial state Cedar Fair is in, I dont think they wanted to spend that money.

One question I have is: What would cost more, redoing all the parks kids areas with no paints, signs, labor costs, or just renewing the contract for nick?

This is discussed in about one-hundred other places, but the basic decision was the licensing agreement was up, and Viacom wanted more money.

A lot more money...

Cedar Fair ultimately choose it would cost less for the park to go ahead and make the changes, rather than spend the amount Viacom wanted.

This is discussed in about one-hundred other places, but the basic decision was the licensing agreement was up, and Viacom wanted more money.

Do you have a link to some of the other discussions? I did a search and came up with nuthin'. I figured they must be out there, but try as I might I couldn't find anything. I'd love to read the original thread(s).

One place to start: http://www.KICentral.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=19385

That topic is the initial rumor that PS was coming and discussion of that idea.

And do not assume that extending the Peanuts franchise to the former Paramount Parks was allowed under the then existing Peanuts license granted to Cedar Fair...

One place to start: http://www.KICentral...showtopic=19385

That topic is the initial rumor that PS was coming and discussion of that idea.

Thanks for the link. I'm off to read now!

And do not assume that extending the Peanuts franchise to the former Paramount Parks was allowed under the then existing Peanuts license granted to Cedar Fair...

Yeah, that's the sort of thing I was interested in. I didn't figure there'd be a lot of details made public. But I wanted to see what if anything people had heard.

"The obvious answer was cost savings since Cedar Fair already owns the rights to the Peanuts characters."

This is a somewhat incorrect statement. Cedar Fair does not own the rights to Peanuts--they license it for use from another company. I know that sounds like being picky with semantics, but it's a huge difference when talking about intellectual property.

Cedar Fair (since the acquisition of Knotts in the 90s) had been licensing Peanuts through United Media Syndication (a subsidiary of the Scripps Co.). However, the rights to Peanuts (and a few other character franchises, like Ragedy Ann & Andy) were recently sold to Iconix Brand Group (they also own the apparel brands Joe Boxer and London Fog). So, Peanuts now has a new owner, and CF has a new licensor to work with.

Whose to say whether the relationship with the new licensor will be as beneficial to CF as the old licensor? Lots of changes can occur when ownership changes. It's very possible (if future license agreements aren't as "agreeable" to CF) that we may see Snoopy someday go the way of Nick at the parks... (Maybe dust off the old Berenstain Bears costumes? )

^^^

Good point. Thanks for clarifying.