News Avatar Experience coming to Disneyland

[celluloid]

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.

Man. That makes IOA seem even more like a masterpiece and Disney even further creatively bankrupt.

Islands of Adventure had the theme of adventures of a variety of properties. But most (all pre potter) were linked with nautical touches or facing/being an island or dealing with the water.

That being said. Rebranding a theme park name is not cheap and takes efforts. MGM to Hollywood Studios was a circumstance where that partnership was not relevant and would cause cost.

 

[Disney Irish]

They would still need to retheme Grizzly Peak since that whole area isn't tied to any IP or Franchise like the rest of the park. That's why I am all for turning Grizzly Peak into Pandora. Would I rather have the original goal of DCA? Yes. 100%. But since Disney has given up on that goal, then they just need to make Grizzly Peak fit the park they have now; a quasi-California-themed dumping ground for IPs.

I wouldn't be surprised if they announced an overhaul of DCA in general for the 25th as part of the DLForward project in a couple years. And use that opportunity to retheme the areas previously not IPified such as Grizzly Peak.

 

[Disney Irish]

Man. That makes IOA seem even more like a masterpiece and Disney even further creatively bankrupt.

Islands of Adventure had the theme of adventures of a variety of properties. But most (all pre potter) were linked with nautical touches or facing/being an island or dealing with the water.

That being said. Rebranding a theme park name is not cheap and takes efforts. MGM to Hollywood Studios was a circumstance where that partnership was not relevant and would cause cost.

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.

 

[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.