News Avatar Experience coming to Disneyland Resort

[Disney Analyst]

Rebranding in this case wouldn't be very expensive at all though, its just a name change. They've pretty much rebranded DCA as it is with all the changes they've made over the last 5-7 years. If they changed the name its really just the merch and maps that need to change, cheap by comparison.

The website and app would also require dev work, ticketing, merchandise, who knows what else all needs to be looked at.

It's a large and expensive task. Not sure it's necessary.

 

[Disney Irish]

The website and app would also require dev work, ticketing, merchandise, who knows what else all needs to be looked at.

It's a large and expensive task. Not sure it's necessary.

It’s not the park hasn’t already had a name change once when they just removed the ‘s from the name. So yeah it’s not as huge an expense as some think it is.

 

[celluloid]

Rebranding in this case wouldn't be very expensive at all though, its just a name change. They've pretty much rebranded DCA as it is with all the changes they've made over the last 5-7 years. If they changed the name its really just the merch and maps that need to change, cheap by comparison.

Cheap by comparison is more money than wanting to spend.

And it can cost you more in the long run.

 

[PizzaPlanet]

Maybe they’ll say the land was inspired by California’s beaches and call it a day.

 

[Disney Irish]

Cheap by comparison is more money than wanting to spend.

And it can cost you more in the long run.

As mentioned Disney has changed the name of this specific park once already anyways. And so its not like something they aren't willing to do if they find it warranted. So whatever expense is associated with it, whether cheap or expensive, is something Disney already knows if its something they choose to do again in the future.

 

[Professortango1]

I don't actually know if the name needs to change. They changed the meaning behind the name long ago.

It's Disney California Adventure, no longer Disney's California Adventure.


It's a park of Adventure, Disney adventures, in California.

They may draw some inspiration from California for theming and such, but it's simply a Disney park, in California.

Except that the park is still very much tethered to California and the theme. If they want to get away from that, they need to change the name and Grizzly Peak.

 

[celluloid]

As mentioned Disney has changed the name of this specific park once already anyways. And so its not like something they aren't willing to do if they find it warranted. So whatever expense is associated with it, whether cheap or expensive, is something Disney already knows if its something they choose to do again in the future.

And as mentioned, look at the great return on investment it was!

 

[Disney Irish]

And as mentioned, look at the great return on investment it was!

It’s unknown what the ROI is for a name change of a Park. Also I’m not sure why this is even an argument, if Disney wants to change the name of the Park they will do it no matter the expense.

 

[celluloid]

It’s unknown what the ROI is for a name change of a Park. Also I’m not sure why this is even an argument, if Disney wants to change the name of the Park they will do it no matter the expense.

Let's go ahead and be reasonable and presume, that if they were going to drastically change the name of this park(just dropping an apostrophe or such is nomenclature based) for a second time in its 23 years of existence, it was not worth it the first time.

They are a business; the expense always matters.

No argument.

 

[Disney Irish]

Let's go ahead and be reasonable and presume, that if they were going to drastically change the name of this park(just dropping an apostrophe or such is nomenclature based) for a second time in its 23 years of existence, it was not worth it the first time.

They are a business; the expense always matters.

No argument.

Or lets presume for a second that Disney was doing a company wide change at the time that required the removal of the 's for all their branding as such was deemed worth it the company. And then presume again that any decision involving a Park's name change for a second time no matter how old that Park is would also be deemed worth it to the company. They are a business, they make decisions based on many factors, expense only be one of them.

 

[Professortango1]

Let's go ahead and be reasonable and presume, that if they were going to drastically change the name of this park(just dropping an apostrophe or such is nomenclature based) for a second time in its 23 years of existence, it was not worth it the first time.

They are a business; the expense always matters.

No argument.

They do update the maps, website, and other physical materials on a pretty regular basis. Changing a name of their park is a blip. Something they plan with the next season of merch and advertising.

 

[celluloid]

They do update the maps, website, and other physical materials on a pretty regular basis. Changing a name of their park is a blip. Something they plan with the next season of merch and advertising.

Updating those things is not the same as rebranding an entire name change.

No one said impossible.

 

[celluloid]

Or lets presume for a second that Disney was doing a company wide change at the time that required the removal of the 's for all their branding as such was deemed worth it the company. And then presume again that any decision involving a Park's name change for a second time no matter how old that Park is would also be deemed worth it to the company. They are a business, they make decisions based on many factors, expense only be one of them.

I said cost when you responded. Not expense.
I see you confused the phrase cost with expense.

 

[Professortango1]

Updating those things is not the same as rebranding an entire name change.

No one said impossible.

It kind of is. The DCA logo has changed many times. New name or new logo, the process is the same. Get legal to approve it and secure it, have merchandizing and all departments update the artwork for the next rollout of manufacturing.
We just did it at my job. lol

 

[Disney Irish]

I said cost when you responded. Not expense.
I see you confused the phrase cost with expense.

No, the post I quoted said expense -

"They are a business; the expense always matters."

I just used those word back to you in a more appropriate way based on how businesses actually work.

 

[celluloid]

It kind of is. The DCA logo has changed many times. New name or new logo, the process is the same. Get legal to approve it and secure it, have merchandizing and all departments update the artwork for the next rollout of manufacturing.
We just did it at my job. lol

Yes. That is the point. (marketing past here so I get brand identity situations and the rebranding)

If a theme park is doing it frequently. It is a costly thing for the company compared to where those resources could be(and in the case of DCA for far too long) should be.

 

[celluloid]

No, the post I quoted said expense -

"They are a business; the expense always matters."

I just used those word back to you in a more appropriate way based on how businesses actually work.

This and your previous post is showing me you still don't understand the difference.

Yes, if they felt it was worth it, they would.

The name will not be a part of the 60 billion change anytime soon.

 

[Disney Irish]

This and your previous post is showing me you still don't understand the difference.

No, I understand the difference. This and your previous posts shows you don't understand how companies actually work.

If Disney decides to rename a park for whatever reason they know its cost, whether monetarily or to the brand or identity of the Park. Its not a decision they are just going to do for fun. They will do it for a reason if that is what they choose to do. And is something they've done now many times at various Parks around the world including this one being discussed.

 

[celluloid]

No, I understand the difference. This and your previous posts shows you don't understand how companies actually work.

If Disney decides to rename a park for whatever reason they know its cost, whether monetarily or to the brand or identity of the Park. Its not a decision they are just going to do for fun. They will do it for a reason if that is what they choose to do. And is something they've done now many times at various Parks around the world including this one being discussed.

Who said they would do it for fun?
The park that has been full of to this day, of bad and lackluster business decisions!

This park was altered and reinvented badly more than EPCOT!

Maybe it would have just been better as WESTCOT after all.

 

[Disney Irish]

Who said they would do it for fun?
The park that has been full of to this day, of bad and lackluster business decisions!

This park was altered and reinvented badly more than EPCOT!

Maybe it would have just been better as WESTCOT after all.

Well now you're trying to change the conversation. If Disney ever changes the name of DCA it'll be because they no longer want to tie it to the California theme they opened it with in 2001. And given the direction of the Park over the last decade I would welcome a name change, which is where the whole conversation started. And it wouldn't be the first time a Disney Park changed its name, even without changing its identity. Magic Kingdom has had slight name modifications multiple times over the years without losing its identity. So don't see why that can't be the same here.

As for WestCot, that would have been interesting overall. But that is a completely different discussion not related to the conversation at hand.