KI Comms

[Tr0y]

4 hours ago, DispatchMaster said:

Can you share an example?

By what metric have these campaigns "had a huge impact"?

Not trying to be argumentative, but these claims seem wildly vague.

What was the long term attendance and revenue boost KI enjoyed based on the campaign for Banshee, for example? CF is a public company, and their financials are therefore available. I know they don't always point to individual parks' results in quarterly and annual reports, but when there are exceptions - like gains due to a specific investment - they often do. Are there reports where they mention any modern (post-CF) era attraction's bottom line impact specifically from out-of-region visitors at KI?

Because that's the claim that's being made - that the park isn't doing a good enough job reaching these so-called lucrative distant guests. If it is such common knowledge that this claim is true, where is the supporting evidence?

Same can be said about spending money on IP’s. Does CF really see returns on money spent for the Peanuts IP? Or would families with kids still visit the park. Dollywood doesn’t have any IP for their kids area, and they’ve claimed best kids area for years now.

[DispatchMaster]

What does that have to do with the claims being made here with regard to marketing? If the claims being made here with regard to marketing are so self-evidently true, why isn't anyone able to provide anything so substantiate those claims? It's all "this is true because I say so", which isn't a convincing argument.

[SonofBaconator]

Regarding the lack of an in person announcement with Camp Snoopy, I’m actually happy they went with on online announcement. Too many “thoosies” would’ve killed the vibe with over speculations and SOB signs

[WoodVengeance]

46 minutes ago, SonofBaconator said:

Regarding the lack of an in person announcement with Camp Snoopy, I’m actually happy they went with on online announcement. Too many “thoosies” would’ve killed the vibe with over speculations and SOB signs

Given how some "thoosies" went to the Orion announcement just to boo at the park, yeah I don't blame Kings Island for not wanting to do in-person announcements.

[Cedar Fair Fanboy]

And you though that people got there dream coaster. Noooooooo! They wanted another one.

[BeeastFarmer]

17 minutes ago, WoodVengeance said:

Given how some "thoosies" went to the Orion announcement just to boo at the park, yeah I don't blame Kings Island for not wanting to do in-person announcements.

I was at the Orion announcement, and I don't recall anyone booing. As I recall, it was an electric atmosphere.  While there was chatter afterwards about how it wasn't Fury on steroids (in small groups), overall it went great .  The enthusiasts tore it apart in the time following, but it has proven to be a fan favorite.

[IndyGuy4KI]

Looks like the park got trending today on Brand X (my nickname for Twitter), and that is with me in Indy. Is anyone going to give KI Comms a pat on the back when deserved? 

[KI FANATIC 37]

Totally agree with you Brad. Thanks for posting this. I am a very average visitor compared to many on this site. I live in KY and visit about 4-6 times per year. I think the announcement today was great and great for the park. I think this vendetta certain people have has gotten a bit out of hand and excessive.

[BeeastFarmer]

30 minutes ago, IndyGuy4KI said:

Looks like the park got trending today on Brand X (my nickname for Twitter), and that is with me in Indy. Is anyone going to give KI Comms a pat on the back when deserved? 

That's because all the X traffic is routed via KIC servers as related to Kings Island  (sarcastic humor).

for my anecdotal observation, among my non coaster friends:

Good Gravy! Was mentioned to me 4 times today.

Fury 325 was mentioned to me twice today.

Kings Island was mentioned zero times. 

 

[gforce1994]

Look what’s trending on the front page of the Travel section of USAToday. Kudos to the park for a fantastic announcement.

[PKIDelirium]

I was seeing Planet Snoopy, Kings Island and Vekoma in my trending list this afternoon.

Edit: Seeing Kings Island in trending right now.

Edited August 11, 2023 by PKIDelirium

[BoddaH1994]

On 8/10/2023 at 9:01 AM, DispatchMaster said:

So, the short answer is "no, I can't provide evidence to support the claim". You claiming they have said as much isn't the same as showing examples of them saying this, and further, why would a person whose job it is to justify their job's value say anything that contradicts the argument that their job is valuable? It's like asking a police officer if their writing parking tickets has a positive effect on community safety and taking their word for it without asking for evidence to back up a self-serving claim.

So, again, where is some evidence to support the idea that out-of-market advertising has a substantial impact on revenue?

Someone else mentioned Banshee as an example of a "PR campaign that have had a huge impact", except CF attendance was down during Banshee's debut season...

Can you understand why I'm skeptical of this claim?

No, I totally understand your skepticism. It’s also appreciated. 
 

What you have to understand is that marketing is an art, not a science. 

So let me throw these question at you for context:

- How much revenue does a billboard generate?

- A TV spot?

- A radio live read?

Heck, even an internet ad campaign is VERY trackable, but flawed. Just because you didn’t click on that Kings Island banner doesn’t mean you didn’t make a purchasing decision because of the banner, or even the awareness created by the banner.

Essentially, the formulas I mentioned above attach a monetary value to PR. I think that’s self-evident. 

For a revenue-generating analysis, it’s actually much easier to observe the difference out of market. I mean, could KI have a really good spot WGN and sell zero tickets in the Chicagoland area? Sure. But historic data reflects otherwise. 

I don’t think it’s fair to say that anyone doing this is justifying their role. This is a real expectation of most companies (or clients).

A decent PR guy can get a reasonable story out to the locals in a snap. Those stations should be an e-mail away if your relationship is good. Stuff slightly out of market is critical: Indy, Chicago, Cleveland, etc as well as on the rim of the market: Lex, Louisville, Columbus, Huntington. These are markets that may not have the necessary ROI for a full advertising campaign, but a couple of good hits per year can sell a ton of tickets. 

But also, just look at what’s evident for what we see throughout the industry. When there is a BIG story (Knievel, new coaster, etc - that level) they rent a satellite truck. This allows you to broadcast live across the world. You know what those cost to rent? Well into the five figures in most cases. Why on earth would companies allow that expense if the value wasn’t proven?

Why do major publicity stunts like Knievel or Knievel Jr? You honestly think the tickets they sold those day covered the cost of those events? The success or failure of those events rocked entirely on how many eyes it reached in the lead up (and that the both survived the jump, I suppose!). Don’t you think things like that would never happen if it was just about a PR guy beating his own drum?

I know you are looking for a bit more of a clean-cut answer, but again - it’s an art not a science. Just remember: the more eyeballs you reach- good; the more fresh meat you reach - even better. 

 

[DispatchMaster]

So, again, the short answer is that you are unable to substantiate the claim that out-of-market advertising generates positive ROI, despite your claims that it is "evident" and that these things are "trackable". This begs the question that if there's no evidence to support a belief, why do you believe it so strongly?

And to be clear, reaching more eyeballs is a good thing only when the revenue gained from reaching those eyeballs exceeds the cost necessary to reach those eyeballs.

 

[disco2000]

2 hours ago, DispatchMaster said:

So, again, the short answer is that you are unable to substantiate the claim that out-of-market advertising generates positive ROI, despite your claims that it is "evident" and that these things are "trackable". This begs the question that if there's no evidence to support a belief, why do you believe it so strongly?

And to be clear, reaching more eyeballs is a good thing only when the revenue gained from reaching those eyeballs exceeds the cost necessary to reach those eyeballs.

 

While is it good you question these things, not everything is black/white and as straightforward as your mind works.

Very few marketing activities can assign an actual dollar amount tied back to it.  As @BoddaH1994point out, only items where EVERY purchase is done thru a code that the business can track back how the person heard of the business.

Unless KI asks EVERY SINGLE person that enters the park "Where did you hear about KI that made you come today", it is impossible to tie a dollar amount to which advertising/marketing effort it gets attributed to.

So since nobody can substantiate how much revenue is brought in from marketing, it appears in your mind that a company should spend ZERO amount on any marketing activities?  That is the flip side of your argument....

So you have to go with historical numbers, trends, and rely on those that have been there/done that on the effectiveness of such a program.

Does P&G and Coca-Cola and car manufacturers and any well known company have to advertise?  How do they tie back that the Xmillions they spend on advertising every year provides the return?

Coca-Cola spends $4 Billion, yes billion, every year in marketing, promotions, advertising, etc. Can they accurately say the revenue they received as a result of $4Billion in advertising is bringing in more revenue than the spend?  People are creatures of habit and Coca-Cola drinkers will continue to drink Coca-Cola whether ads run or not.  The ads are probably only to primarily drive new customers or steer the non-habit consumer - can they say new customers provided in excess of $4B in sales?  Of course they cannot.

Can every company that shelled out $7 Million for a 30 second commercial during the Super Bowl accurately provide numbers to justify the costs?

Speaking of the Super Bowl, the half-time performers do not get paid.  Most of the time these performers do not have a record coming out so their sales are relatively level.  However, after Rihanna's Super Bowl halftime show performance, her music the following week experienced a 211% increase in on-demand streams and a 390% increase in digital song sales overall, as the songs she performed saw a similar boost.  Was it 100% the result of the performance?  Nobody can say for certain, but most will say it was.

Staying on the football trend LOL, Kettering Health is the Official Healthcare Provider of the Cincinnati Bengals.  Who knows how much they spend annually on it, but when the unfortunate situation happened with Damar Hamlin last year, why was it that UC that took care of him?  UC Health got way more free advertising during that ordeal than the healthcare paying to be the "official" provider...  I haven't heard any rumblings of Kettering Health looking to terminate that agreement this year or ask for money back....so they must still see value in that partnership even though they didn't provide the healthcare when someone went into cardiac arrest on the field...

So a company like KI would look at the trends after an ad or marketing piece airs and like @BoddaH1994said, the uptick following the ad or promotion will be attributed to said ad but nobody can say 100% certainty that the increase is 100% directly related to it.

And that is why as soon as a company hits a rough patch or a downturn in the economy, marketing budgets and personnel are usually the first things cut because it is hard to black/white accurately account for their value and people start to see it as luxury spending instead of necessity spending when they are trying to keep the doors open.

[Orion-XL200]

52 minutes ago, disco2000 said:

While is it good you question these things, not everything is black/white and as straightforward as your mind works.

Very few marketing activities can assign an actual dollar amount tied back to it.  As @BoddaH1994point out, only items where EVERY purchase is done thru a code that the business can track back how the person heard of the business.

Unless KI asks EVERY SINGLE person that enters the park "Where did you hear about KI that made you come today", it is impossible to tie a dollar amount to which advertising/marketing effort it gets attributed to.

So since nobody can substantiate how much revenue is brought in from marketing, it appears in your mind that a company should spend ZERO amount on any marketing activities?  That is the flip side of your argument....

So you have to go with historical numbers, trends, and rely on those that have been there/done that on the effectiveness of such a program.

Does P&G and Coca-Cola and car manufacturers and any well known company have to advertise?  How do they tie back that the Xmillions they spend on advertising every year provides the return?

Coca-Cola spends $4 Billion, yes billion, every year in marketing, promotions, advertising, etc. Can they accurately say the revenue they received as a result of $4Billion in advertising is bringing in more revenue than the spend?  People are creatures of habit and Coca-Cola drinkers will continue to drink Coca-Cola whether ads run or not.  The ads are probably only to primarily drive new customers or steer the non-habit consumer - can they say new customers provided in excess of $4B in sales?  Of course they cannot.

Can every company that shelled out $7 Million for a 30 second commercial during the Super Bowl accurately provide numbers to justify the costs?

Speaking of the Super Bowl, the half-time performers do not get paid.  Most of the time these performers do not have a record coming out so their sales are relatively level.  However, after Rihanna's Super Bowl halftime show performance, her music the following week experienced a 211% increase in on-demand streams and a 390% increase in digital song sales overall, as the songs she performed saw a similar boost.  Was it 100% the result of the performance?  Nobody can say for certain.

Staying on the football trend LOL, Kettering Health is the Official Healthcare Provider of the Cincinnati Bengals.  Who knows how much they spend annually on it, but when the unfortunate situation happened with Damar Hamlin last year, why was it that UC that took care of him?  UC Health got way more free advertising during that ordeal than the healthcare paying to be the "official" provider...  I haven't heard any rumblings of Kettering Health looking to terminate that agreement this year or ask for money back.... 

So a company like KI would look at the trends after an ad or marketing piece airs and like @BoddaH1994said, the uptick following the ad or promotion will be attributed to said ad but nobody can say 100% certainty that the increase is 100% directly related to it.

And that is why as soon as a company hits a rough patch or a downturn in the economy, marketing budgets and personnel are usually the first things cut because it is hard to black/white accurately account for their value and people start to see it as luxury spending instead of necessity spending when they are trying to keep the doors open.

Extremely well stated. 

[Orion-XL200]

 

Not sure this is a good image to put out there, sure it's a typo, but really? They were harmed in the making of this video?

Why reuse a video from 3 years ago? Why not show a video of all the coasters and ask for feedback to get engagement?

 

[Taylor.B03]

35 minutes ago, Orion-XL200 said:

 

Not sure this is a good image to put out there, sure it's a typo, but really? They were harmed in the making of this video?

Why reuse a video from 3 years ago? Why not show a video of all the coasters and ask for feedback to get engagement?

 

That's a big whoopsie 

[BoddaH1994]

2 hours ago, Orion-XL200 said:

 

Not sure this is a good image to put out there, sure it's a typo, but really? They were harmed in the making of this video?

Why reuse a video from 3 years ago? Why not show a video of all the coasters and ask for feedback to get engagement?

 

I’ve always been torn about this. This got the promotion that they wanted to get out of it, so from a marketing/PR standpoint it was very successful. My concern is that they tell hundreds of angry parents and disappointed kids each day that they can’t ride the various rides because they’re too short. This is done in the name of safety. Demonstrating that an 18” plush that doesn’t have the correct body mass can safely ride could really throw gas on the fire of those confrontations. 

[Taylor.B03]

1 hour ago, BoddaH1994 said:

I’ve always been torn about this. This got the promotion that they wanted to get out of it, so from a marketing/PR standpoint it was very successful. My concern is that they tell hundreds of angry parents and disappointed kids each day that they can’t ride the various rides because they’re too short. This is done in the name of safety. Demonstrating that an 18” plush that doesn’t have the correct body mass can safely ride could really throw gas on the fire of those confrontations. 

From my thinking (and looking). When the video originally was posted, I watched it and saw that they were all zip tied to the lapbar. Some of the ones in the back were only hanging on because of the zip tie. It shows that they couldn't put something small on the ride without a proper way to secure it. 

[disco2000]

3 minutes ago, Taylor.B03 said:

From my thinking (and looking). When the video originally was posted, I watched it and saw that they were all zip tied to the lapbar. Some of the ones in the back were only hanging on because of the zip tie. It shows that they couldn't put something small on the ride without a proper way to secure it. 

Some parents would so zip tie their child if that meant they could ride Orion LOL

[SonofBaconator]

2 hours ago, BoddaH1994 said:

I’ve always been torn about this. This got the promotion that they wanted to get out of it, so from a marketing/PR standpoint it was very successful. My concern is that they tell hundreds of angry parents and disappointed kids each day that they can’t ride the various rides because they’re too short. This is done in the name of safety. Demonstrating that an 18” plush that doesn’t have the correct body mass can safely ride could really throw gas on the fire of those confrontations. 

I thought the exact same thing when rewatching this video. I think other parks did them with teddy bears but those were closer to 5ft in height. I would’ve liked to have seen a disclaimer at the bottom of the video.

With all that said however, if a parent tries to put their child in danger by trying to convince a ride attendant that a plush, 1lb, 2ft tall doll is proof that their child can ride, then they deserve to be turned away.

[Oldiesmann]

My only contribution to this thread is that I think it's odd how we got absolutely no hints/news from the park about possible 2024 plans besides a "we're announcing 2024 plans tomorrow" announcement at 6:30 the night before. I realize this isn't as big a deal as Orion, Mystic Timbers, etc., but a great and much-needed addition to the kids area that will appeal to most families deserves more than a "we're announcing something tomorrow" post. Something to get the kids excited about what's coming next, etc.

Meanwhile Holiday World gets everyone talking by confirming prior to the announcement that they're building a new coaster and even created a website for a fictitious company to go along with it. Add a quirky theme and name and suddenly everyone is talking about it. If a small park can pull that off, why can't a large one with a (probably) much larger marketing budget?

[DispatchMaster]

13 hours ago, disco2000 said:

So since nobody can substantiate how much revenue is brought in from marketing, it appears in your mind that a company should spend ZERO amount on any marketing activities?  That is the flip side of your argument....

This is a total straw man argument. I never suggested that marketing as a whole does not have positive ROI. I'm asking those that are so certain that out-of-market ad spend would bring positive ROI to substantiate their claims.

To that end, I'm pointing out that Cedar Fair (and Cedar Point before that) marketing folks have gone on record stating (read John Hildebrandt's book) that only a very small percentage of revenue comes from outside a regional park's region, and further that despite their efforts to expand their reach via marketing they have never been able to move that needle via additional spend. Or, as you yourself admit, "you have to go with historical numbers, trends, and rely on those that have been there/done that on the effectiveness of such a program". I've provided an example from someone who has "been there/done that" to demonstrate my point. 

Comparing Kings Island (or any other regional park) to Coca-Cola and Proctor & Gamble is absurd, given the latter two companies' annual revenue are ~28,500% and ~550,000%, respectively, higher than that of KI's estimated annual revenue.

And you're kind of making my point for me with regard to Super Bowl ads. An estimated 60% of SB ads don't boost sales, and these are ads for household names like Coca-Cola! And FYI those companies know that ad spend won't generate sales, but they're ok with those ads boosting or maintaining brand awareness.

So ask yourself this: If Coca-Cola, one of the most well-known brands on Earth, can't measurably boost sales (something they can track with pinpoint accuracy) with an ad on one of the most globally-watched TV events on Earth, why would it make sense that an out-of-market advertising blitz for KI would generate positive ROI?

[Orion-XL200]

7 hours ago, Oldiesmann said:

Meanwhile Holiday World gets everyone talking by confirming prior to the announcement that they're building a new coaster and even created a website for a fictitious company to go along with it. Add a quirky theme and name and suddenly everyone is talking about it. If a small park can pull that off, why can't a large one with a (probably) much larger marketing budget?

Exactly!!!! You get it! 

I mean Cedar Point (though I assume it's a much bigger investment) had a teaser campaign, basically to add 2 additional launches and a spike to an existing ride. People have been talking about it since the "reimagining of TTD" and there's been a buzz. 

As mentioned, Holiday World, a small regional park that is getting tons of coverage everywhere, had a teaser campaign, a website, etc. 

Silver Dollar City has been teasing their 2024 addition/ride replacement for a while, there was a campaign. Even though it's essentially going to be "the same ride" (disclaimer not exactly but concept and the like), they did something to hype up what was new for 2024.

Even lil ole Dorney (such an interesting place), had a teaser campaign to build hype for their new coaster such as video teasers, an in park display that kept getting added to, etc. 

KI had this at 6:36 the night before the "announcement": 

Quote

On Thursday morning Kings Island will announce what's being added to the park for the 2024 season. Make your best guess in the comments below!

It just seems lazy. It's clear that those in charge at KI Comms aren't enthusiastic about the park or getting the word out about anything. I'm not saying that they need to do an in person announcement, though those type of events do draw crowds, boost attendance the day of and if merch is available boost sales, but there should be some effort to sell a new offering. 

The park used to have pride in the kids area....why not have a teaser campaign using the Peanuts gang? I understand that the kids area is not necessarily worthy of a campaign such as Iron Menace or TT2. Why not get current/future guests excited to hear what's coming and keep that momentum going throughout opening? 

[SonofBaconator]

Here’s my take on Camp Snoopy’s 24 hour notice. How much money is spent on the concept rendering that is shown via social media posts?

The reason I ask is because stuff like that takes time, resources, and effort. If I was working on a project like that, I’d at least want the park to hype it up a little bit more.

[jsus]

1 hour ago, Orion-XL200 said:

I mean Cedar Point (though I assume it's a much bigger investment) had a teaser campaign, basically to add 2 additional launches and a spike to an existing ride. People have been talking about it since the "reimagining of TTD" and there's been a buzz. 

Cedar Point needs to sell TT2 as a new ride.  They need to convince the public it's not the same ride, it's not like Mantis > Rougarou which was little more than new trains.

Cranes are expensive, especially the big ones with hoist heights of 374 feet, like the one they brought in to start new vertical construction.  Except, they weren't actually planning on building the new tower during daily operations with Iron Dragon still in operation.  No, they brought in the big, impressive crane (albeit not big enough to finish the 420 ft structure) so that the media could see, clear as day, that they are "building a new ride".  They didn't even install more than the 3 base support segments.  The crane appears to have been returned to Capital City Group.

Why would they take the time and expense to bring in a big crane only to install what a much smaller, cheaper crane could've handled?  The only logical reason is that it was a ceremonial installation.  They want the media, the public, to see that they are "building a whole new ride here".

And in reality, it will by and large be a new ride, even if it shares the base concept and the top hat with its spiritual predecessor.  Even the launch and brake track appears to be brand new, fabricated by Zamperla to match the original INTAMIN specs.  The trains, mechanical systems, control systems, and pretty much all the steel short of some of the top hat and launch/brake supports are all brand new.

The last thing the park wants after all of this is for guests to think that it might be the same ride with the same safety risks as TTD, after all of the money they are throwing at reimagining the ride.  Different trains, different control system.  Everything that led to the tragic incident back in 2021 is gone.  Everything that led to pretty much every major injury-causing incident with TTD is gone, particularly the steel cables snapping and the issues with the chewed up brake fins on the launch.

Tony & co may not come out and directly say "we rebuilt the ride to make it safer", but they need you to know that anyway.  As much as it may seem like a pretty minor project to some, it's pretty major for the park.

[Orion-XL200]

8 minutes ago, jsus said:

Cedar Point needs to sell TT2 as a new ride.  They need to convince the public it's not the same ride, it's not like Mantis > Rougarou which was little more than new trains.

Cranes are expensive, especially the big ones with hoist heights of 374 feet, like the one they brought in to start new vertical construction.  Except, they weren't actually planning on building the new tower during daily operations with Iron Dragon still in operation.  No, they brought in the big, impressive crane (albeit not big enough to finish the 420 ft structure) so that the media could see, clear as day, that they are "building a new ride".  They didn't even install more than the 3 base support segments.  The crane appears to have been returned to Capital City Group.

Why would they take the time and expense to bring in a big crane only to install what a much smaller, cheaper crane could've handled?  The only logical reason is that it was a ceremonial installation.  They want the media, the public, to see that they are "building a whole new ride here".

And in reality, it will by and large be a new ride, even if it shares the base concept and the top hat with its spiritual predecessor.  Even the launch and brake track appears to be brand new, fabricated by Zamperla to match the original INTAMIN specs.  The trains, mechanical systems, control systems, and pretty much all the steel short of some of the top hat and launch/brake supports are all brand new.

The last thing the park wants after all of this is for guests to think that it might be the same ride with the same safety risks as TTD, after all of the money they are throwing at reimagining the ride.  Different trains, different control system.  Everything that led to the tragic incident back in 2021 is gone.  Everything that led to pretty much every major injury-causing incident with TTD is gone, particularly the steel cables snapping and the issues with the chewed up brake fins on the launch.

Tony & co may not come out and directly say "we rebuilt the ride to make it safer", but they need you to know that anyway.  As much as it may seem like a pretty minor project to some, it's pretty major for the park.

Totally understand that....most guests I can imagine won't see it as a major project. I mean, when I was at the park last (before the announcement) someone stated "oh they're reopening the Dragster on the 1st!" The enthusiast community cares more about the project than the GP. GP needs to be teased to, to get interested in coming back. Enthusiasts typically don't need convincing to come back for a new ride.

[SonofBaconator]

What’s the context of this AE post?

https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cv-eUVzARso/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

[Orion-XL200]

13 minutes ago, SonofBaconator said:

What’s the context of this AE post?

https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cv-eUVzARso/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

Looks to be just content featuring theming in and around AE.

[SonofBaconator]

2 minutes ago, Orion-XL200 said:

Looks to be just content featuring theming in and around AE.

Weird that they’re posting something about that now. It’s a shame because it looks great and would’ve been an awesome teaser for Adventure Express’ updated theming. It seems like a missed opportunity. Now everyone’s on Instagram saying sOb 2.0 Is CoMiNg.