News Disney CFO Christine McCarthy says Disney will continue to focus on existing intellectual property for new park investments

[Jrb1979]

Knott's has had a Camp Snoopy area since the early 1980s. If it was a matter of paying for two distinct IPs, it would make sense that Cedar Fair would pick one (Peanuts) and consolidate across the brand. But I am not at all familiar with what the other Cedar Fair parks had as their IP tie-ins.

They all use the Peanuts IP but it's mainly just for the kids area. Their parks aren't based on IP at all.

 

[Tha Realest]

They never were intended to have people fly in for 7 days and they know it.

I grew up at kennywood, dude. It’s a piece of American history with photos of Andrew Carnegie and Henry clay frick walking the grounds.

You really gotta stop trying to “zing”
Me. It doesn’t work

You’re telling me seasonal parks open four months a year aren’t apples :: apples comparison to WDW?

 

[LSLS]

Knott's has had a Camp Snoopy area since the early 1980s. If it was a matter of paying for two distinct IPs, it would make sense that Cedar Fair would pick one (Peanuts) and consolidate across the brand. But I am not at all familiar with what the other Cedar Fair parks had as their IP tie-ins.

Knott's didn't get bought by Cedar Fair til the late 90's. That could be when they got both rights, and realized Peanuts were a much larger draw at that point that Bernstein Bears.

 

[BlakeW39]

I don’t disagree…but realize that’s a kinda dumbed down business decision for fools like the bobs.

They justify the overhead and ops costs for things in parks because there’s automatic cross marketing - merch and media - with IP based rides.

It’s stupid…but also obvious

agreed.... but it would be preferable for the company to not be run by fools

I'm clear on why the IP mandate exists, and I understand that it's a marketing thing.

what I'm saying is it's stupid. It decreases the quality of WDW as a product by, as I have said, limiting creativity in the parks and compromising their themes. You don't reduce the quality of your hyper-expensive product for short term 'cross marketing appeal.'

 

[el_super]

They never were intended to have people fly in for 7 days and they know it.

Right... they never intended to be as popular or successful.... that's the reason.

 

[Andrew25]

I'd argue Disney has underutilized IPs in the park for the sake of forcing them quickly into the parks with no attention to detail just to market something.

Frozen should have been given its own proper area/land like at Hong Kong in Hollywood Studios or MK.
Moana should branch off of Adventureland.
IPs like Cars and Toy Story being restricted to cheap/rethemed attractions is an interesting decision.

I'm a fan of IP, but they haven't done a good job of integrating them into the parks seamlessly.

 

[el_super]

To the contrary, that contradicts what little data we do have

I think the broader point here is... we have no data. We have a lot of guesses and theories, but we don't have any data that proves anything one way or another. At all. We have a parks business that has seen it's revenue triple under Iger, and if Iger says that the parks need to be run a certain way, there is a really good case for him being right here.

The reason regional parks are not as big as Disney isn't because regional parks aren't based on movie franchises

OK... so why do you think Disney totally took over the amusement park space in the course of 30 years?

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Right... they never intended to be as popular or successful.... that's the reason.

…I think I hear mom calling, time for you to leave the playground

 

[el_super]

…I think I hear mom calling, time for you to leave the playground

Uh huh. Hey do you consider Dollywood a non-IP park or do you think that it trades off the success of Dolly Parton as the IP itself? Same question I guess for Hersheys. How are they doing?

 

[LittleBuford]

Disney IP is clearly and self-evidently a big part of what makes the Disney parks popular, and that’s been the case from the outset. Ironically, I think it’s only in hardcore fan circles such as this forum that there is any real controversy over the matter.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

OK... so why do you think Disney totally took over the amusement park space in the course of 30 years?

…and others

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Uh huh. Hey do you consider Dollywood a non-IP park or do you think that it trades off the success of Dolly Parton as the IP itself? Same question I guess for Hersheys. How are they doing?

AB parks, lego land, dolly and Hershey are the “middle” between the Orange County parks and the regionals

 

[el_super]

…and others

I don't understand. You think Walt threatened the regional operators all Tony Sporano style?

AB parks, lego land, dolly and Hershey are the “middle” between the Orange County parks and the regionals

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

Just to put this out there, the non-IP attractions are built on very popular tropes like a haunted houses and a pirate adventure are arguably IP-lite. You don't have to explain to someone what a Haunted House is. They are timeless because they are very good haunted houses.

The question is, out of the millions of people coming to WDW every year, what does a non-IP attraction get you that an IP attraction can't give you? You can give a personal opinion, but you really need to thinking of large amounts of people and not individually.

A non-IP attraction can help attract people that don't live and breathe Disney.

An attraction like Everest can draw in guests who want an interesting experience, and don't really care about meeting Mickey or whatever.

It's especially helpful if that person is say, a parent, who might be willing to take the kids to Disney once but not a second time if they don't feel there aren't things for them as well.

You don't lose the hardcore Disney fans by including some attractions that aren't based on a cartoon. You expand your audience.

I will say again, that Disney became the company it is today not by playing it safe and just regurgitating what people already know and love. Disney brought animation into the mainstream and used it for feature length films, something no one else thought to do. Disney redefined what an amusement park could be and created a cultural institution that has been consistently popular for decades.

 

[Jrb1979]

Disney IP is clearly and self-evidently a big part of what makes the Disney parks popular, and that’s been the case from the outset. Ironically, I think it’s only in hardcore fan circles such as this forum that there is any real controversy over the matter.

Most know IP is a big part of the parks and would say everyone is understands that. It's not that we don't want IP in the parks. At least for me I would like it implemented like it used to be and fit the theme of the park. Right now the only park that still has a theme is AK. The rest are slowly becoming extensions of MK. For me what set Disney apart was each park had its own theme and their amazing dark rides. Both of those have slowly been disappearing.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I don't understand. You think Walt threatened the regional operators all Tony Sporano style?

No you asked why Disney “dominated”. And you won’t accept the obvious reason that they built international “destination” parks…not regionals…so I moved on the backstory to help you out.

View attachment 720461

How many times you been?

I can meet you there in about 2.5? Flat if you want to go on the great bear with me

 

[Jrb1979]

I don't understand. You think Walt threatened the regional operators all Tony Sporano style?



View attachment 720461

What made Disney different is theming and family oriented attractions with IP. That's why regional parks don't do as well as Disney. Most regional parks aren't destination parks either. The majority draw from the area they are in. I would venture to guess most people know their local park, Disney and Universal.

 

[el_super]

An attraction like Everest can draw in guests who want an interesting experience, and don't really care about meeting Mickey or whatever.

That is an important point, that non-IP attractions can help draw in different audiences not attracted to your IP.

The larger problem here for Disney though is, the people that ARE attracted to their IP and want more of their brand, are generating far more demand than they need.

Eisner saw Disney as being capable of being all things to all people, and promoted the idea of having rides and attractions that weren't just themed to the movies or characters or studio content. That was the original thesis for California Adventure, that they could expand the brand by bringing more adult-oriented content as a counter to Disneyland. It didn't work. He was wrong. Disney isn't going to do that again.

 

[el_super]

No you asked why Disney “dominated”. And won’t accept the obvious reason that they built international “destination” parks…not regionals…so I moved on the backstory to help you out.

Your premise here is absolutely faulty. Explain what made Disneyland 1955 an international destination compared to Knott's Berry Farm in 1955.

How many times you been?

Not even once. Their IP scares me.

 

[LittleBuford]

Most know IP is a big part of the parks and would say everyone is understands that. It's not that we don't want IP in the parks. At least for me I would like it implemented like it used to be and fit the theme of the park. Right now the only park that still has a theme is AK. The rest are slowly becoming extensions of MK. For me what set Disney apart was each park had its own theme and their amazing dark rides. Both of those have slowly been disappearing.

My point has to do with something much more fundamental than that. I’m talking about the magic ingredient that gives the Disney parks an inimitable edge over all their rivals (the clue is in the thousands of guests wearing Mickey and Minnie ears).