ANALYSIS
attraction can vary from a simple ride- naming exercise to creating highly immersive, IP-branded experiences. The IP adds an extra ‘incentive to visit’
and/or supports the re-positioning of the attraction. Well-chosen IPs can increase the emotional connection with the visitor, taking the pressure off expensive ride hardware to deliver the experience, and support attendance growth. 3. IP Lands within attractions: Attractions and IPs increasingly recognise the benefi ts of going a step further and recreating the IP’s environment to truly immerse the visitor in the world of the IP. However, investment levels are
higher, with £6m to £9m ($9m to $14m, €8m to €12m) quoted for developments in the UK such as CBeebies at Alton Towers, Peppa Pig World, Thomas Land at Drayton Manor Park, and over $400 million (£262m, €353m) for Diagon Alley at Universal Studios Orlando, US. Other examples include the perennially popular Asian IP Hello Kitty. Hello Kitty Town already exists at Puteri Harbour in Malaysia and Hello Kitty IP lands are planned for Ancol Dreamland in Indonesia and Drusilla’s in the UK. PortAventura is adding to its existing IP-led areas with Ferrari Land in 2016. Returns on these investments can
be substantial, particularly for mid- scale attractions where the addition of an IP land can dramatically shift both attendance and income. However, the risks are also greater and the impact of choosing an inappropriate IP or failing to meet the expectations of the IP’s fans can be highly detrimental to the attraction.
Hello Kitty Town at Puteri Harbour in Malaysia taps into the IP’s popularity
SUCCESSFUL IP DEVELOPMENT My research identifi ed the following areas as being critical: 1. Have clear objectives, such as extending the offer to attract new audiences – for example, young families, as shown with the addition of CBeebies at Alton Towers or SésamoAventura at PortAventura – or shifting the image of the attraction. Have a clear view of the type of development – temporary or permanent – and the investment you can commit. 2. Identify best IPs to achieve these objectives. The right IPs rarely come to you but are the result of proactively
CASE STUDY: NATIONAL MEDIA MUSEUM, BRADFORD, UK
For the past three years the National Media Museum in Bradford has run temporary IP-branded events. IP partners have included Moshi Monsters, Horrible Histories and Horrid Henry. Entry to the events is free, with any charges for activities aimed at just covering costs. The museum aims to boost
visitor numbers and to use the IPs to increase engagement with its collection. Potential IP partners
have to have a close fi t with the collection – TV, fi lm or
62
game-related IPs fi t best – and appeal strongly to the museum’s audience. Critically, the IP has to
feel the association with the museum brand and its audience is worth the agreement as the museum is not in a position to pay licence fees for the events. The fact the event is temporary and the museum is free helps with this.
RESULTS ■ Including IPs in the advertising posters increases
cut through (up to 80 per cent recall compared to 25 to 30 per cent for generic posters) ■ Events have grown in
attendance an estimated 20 to 30 per cent
■ Events have helped broaden the area from which visitors travel and increased the number of fi rst time visitors ■ Income through
IP-branded merchandise sales
Moshi Monsters have proved a popular draw
looking for IPs which are the best fi t and which will survive long enough to warrant the investment being made. The higher the investment the more reassurance required that the IP will endure. Critically, ensure both parties’ ambitions are aligned. If you want to brand a small children’s ride, but the IP wants the equivalent of the Wizarding World of Harry Potter then walk away and fi nd a better fi t. Select an IP which can be successfully translated into an attraction environment in a way which will satisfy its fi ercest fans. 3. Allow time to build strong relationships
Read Attractions Management online
attractionsmanagement.com/digital
AM 1 2015 ©Cybertrek 2015
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 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104