Back in Germany, Movie Park recently signed up the cast
of producer/director Steven Spielberg’s Shrek films as their newest ambassadors, a decision Nidal Sadeq says was justified because “in our assessment Shrek appeared as the next right step to go for, taking the strong popularity into account as well as the fact that a new movie release will take place in 2010 and revive the IP and of course our 4-D attraction again.” Was it an oddity or inevitability that Disney’s Pirates of
the Caribbean trilogy of hit movies was based on a ride? And what are we to make of the fact that some parks themselves have now become IPs in their own right? “The brand-name parks are looking to do whole park
projects with local developers, charging them a brand royalty,” remarks Ray Braun, senior vice-president of the Economics Practice at AECOM (formerly ERA). “Most of the deals proposed in Dubai are essentially a licence deal for the park brand name, such as LEGOLAND or Universal Studios.” For their part, the artists, authors, publishing companies
and film studios who own the IPs have proven only too happy to marry off their “creations of the mind” in exchange for another round of royalties. This is especially true of IPs that have passed their “Best Before” date. Long after a character or series goes off the air, out of print or leaves theatres, its residual star-power will draw crowds for years. Is it just coincidence or really good timing that The Wizarding World of Harry Potter opens the same summer that the last of the Potter novels hits the bookstands? International branding consultant Bill Whitfield credits
this type of multi-market branding of IPs for creating a niche theme parks are only too qualified and too happy to fill. “Once fans have read the books and seen the movies they want to have a ‘real world’ experience with their hero or heroes. That’s what parks do best,” he says. To be sure, there are many industry insiders who look at
IPs with a jaundiced eye. They warn that tarting up an off- the-shelf attraction with cosmetic theming that’s invariably more signage than experience will give ticket sales only a momentary boost at best. In their experience, true lasting
44
value of an IP comes first from having one that is unique – as opposed to yet another hero-of-the-week – and second, by expressing that IP with artful storytelling. Others claim that marrying into a good family doesn’t guarantee happiness. “We’ve seen many IPs dropped - including all of those
that the Paramount Parks used to licence - when renewal time came around and a true value proposition could be drawn against real capital expenditures,” observes Sally Corp.’s John Wood. “The expansion of IPs in foreign countries and new developments has yielded a mixed bag of results. Sometimes new customers grab an Intellectual Property just because it is an Intellectual Property and not because it is going to work in their market.” And that, cynics and advocates alike agree, is a no-no. “This is a question that’s asked all the time in emerging
markets in Asia: Should we get a big American IP for our park or should we use local characters?” says AECOM’s Ray Braun. “My answer is always the same - you have to analyse the cost- benefit of an IP/brand for your project, your market.” For Movie Park’s Sadeq, the most important question is
“What could be the added value and what is the expected incremental revenue stream in the coming years? This assessment should be backed up by implementing research activities and by using existing data.” Cedar Fair’s Lee Alexakos agrees. “Every park or chain
needs to evaluate what is best for them. Knowing your guests and what they enjoy is most important. Parks should understand what the specific brand can do for them and how it can change the image of their park. They must be fully aware of the additional costs, efforts and responsibilities that go with integrating and managing the brand in their park and evaluate if the trade-off is worth the cost.” That’s the magic word – cost. The licensing fee is just
the start. The park still has to fund the development of a ride or attraction based on that IP. Here’s where things can get pricey because if the good news is that brand name IPs come complete with their own pre-sold audiences, the bad news is those audiences come complete with their own pre-
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60