Does Every Kids Area Need An IP?

[Waffleman]

After the installation of Ice Age 4D: Experience at Alton Towers (obviously alongside Charlie), Nickelodeon land at BPB, Peppa Pig at Paulton's, Thomas and Ben 10 at Drayton Manor and Madagascar at Chessington, I can't help but feel that parks will feel like they can't compete without having an IP in any child oriented area. Do you think that a good kids area needs an IP, or do you think a kids area could stand on it's own with original characters and themes?

 

[nadroJ]

^As I've said a million times before (usually in regards to Disney) I MUCH prefer a stand alone theme with original characters and storylines that are unique to the park. Disney are the worst for just plonking already existing characters (and therefore, backgrounds and storylines) into areas. It's a massive shame, because they're so good at original concepts.

In regards to smaller parks, and even Merlin, I think it is a good idea as it is a quick moneyspinner, but you do have to factor in the fact that these things trend. I believe that if a park has unique characters with rides and areas themed around them then their lifespan is a LOT longer. It also adds to the excitement and nostalgia for when you're older. (RIP Thorpe Rangers).

It just doesn't seem like the done thing anymore, even Paultons Park seem to have gotten rid of their park mascot Percy (he used to be in the logo) =[.

 

[Lofty]

In one word, No.

I totally understand why they do this, it's tapping into the whole "Obvious Marketing" when they use a Production to promote their new Area/Ride etc. It's solely for the marketing reasoning which I believe parks go for it, it's a lot easier to say "CHARACTER A, will be at such a park in the dedicated area for this character", then just doing it off their own backs and having to build people up to what the new characters and story lines are.

Saying all this, I don't think they NEED to do this type of production value, it's not necessary, it just helps a long way to bring in the customer footfall.

 

[Pokemaniac]

It would be very nice if somebody actually spelled out the intended meaning IP for us non-English-speakers who don't use the abbreviation that often. I tried looking it up and found:

- Internet Protocol (well, a kids' area can do without a webpage).
- Instruction Pointer (I don't think processor chip machinery is required for kids to have fun. Might be wrong, though, hard to tell with today's kids).
- Immunoprecipitation (Biology stuff. No, it isn't neeeded).
- Incontinentia Pigmenti (Or Bloch-Siemens disease. It's not needed in a kids'a area, but we shouldn't discriminate kids with the disease).
- Indian Pharmacopoeia (Yep, kids areas do best without, I think).
- Infundibulopelvic ligament (It's a part of the female pelvis. I think it's somewhat needed, seeing as it's a crucial part of any girls who want to play in the area. When there's only boys there, though, it can be excluded).
- Interphalangeal joint (Parts of hands and feet. Again, a rather vital part of the kids who play there. Exception if the area is only used by amputees).
- Intraperitoneal injection (We can leave this out, unless somebody is bleeding massively).
- Imperial Police (Kids areas employing their own police departments... I enjoy the idea, but it's not needed).
- Insolvency Practitioner (Oh god, no. We have enough lawyers as it is).
- Intellectual property (Is this what you're meaning? If so, no. Shun!).
- Iraqi Police (It's understandable that Iraq wants to give something back after all those countries sent guys with guns to their country, but we should find other places for them than our kids' areas. Also, I think the world has more kids' areas than Iraq has policemen).
- Independence Party (now, THAT would be fun! Finally somebody working towards the sovereignity of Disneyland!).
- IP Code (Umm... yes, actually. Those are safety standards).
- Identified patient (I'll let Wikipedia do the talking: "a term used in a clinical setting to describe the person in a dysfunctional family who has been subconsciously selected to act out the family's inner conflicts in order to keep attention focused on an element that lies outside of the core conflict". No, I don't think it's required).
- Induced polarization (again, Wikipedia: "an electric current is induced into the subsurface through two electrodes, and voltage is monitored through two other electrodes". We don't always want to electrocute the kids, so no).
- Inflectional phrase (I'm no language expert, but I don't think it's needed).
- Integrated Programme (Let kids be kids. Academia can catch them later).


Largely inclined towards the "no" side of "maybe" here. Unless somebody can be more specific, I'll say no, it's not needed.

 

[Ian]

^ Poke - I'm guessing it means "unique selling point/recognised brand", loosely based on the military term "Identification Point". I hope so because that's what my following ramble is all about.

I don't think a good kids area necessarily needs an IP to be successful, although a general theme is. If it means that a park taps into something popular at the moment (Peppa Pig, Snoopy, Ben 10 etc) then so be it. They know they can make money from trading off the used brand name.

I agree with Waffleman that a park probably doesn't feel like it can compete without using a recognisable theme. Why bother dreaming up something else to bring in the bucks when you can bandwagon a brand? Some parks even bastardise big brands so they can associate their attractions with a big brand but not pay the license fee. I'm sure we've all gone to a park and thought "that's a a Disney rip off!"

I very much doubt Paultons Park would have doubled their gate figures if they put the eight Peppa Pig World rides in the park under their own theme, just like Blackpool wouldn't have got as much publicity if they hadn't jumped into bed with Nickelodeon.

On the other side of the coin, Lightwater Valley's Skeleton Cove - as well themed as it is - failed to really pull in the punters last year. If it used a (for example) Pirates of the Caribbean theme, it probably would have attracted more people.

Everybody associates something with something else. If little Jimmy can lose himself in a replica of Knapford from Thomas The Tank Engine, he, and his entry-paying parents, would rather go there than Skeleton Cove.

 

[Ben]

IP stands for intellectual property and it basically means a creation of the mind - songs, books, films etc.

Or in this case, the branding of TV shows/cartoons/etc.

It's what the IP in those Protect IP acts meant.

 

[SaiyanHajime]

I think it's a lazy way to create a theme. I think it's throwing money out the window. And I wish places would stop bloody doing it and hire people who have imagination and design skills to come up with quality attractions without the need to leech off someone else's work.

[/bitter]

 

[Mark]

I think it's a lazy way to create a theme. I think it's throwing money out the window. And I wish places would stop bloody doing it and hire people who have imagination and design skills to come up with quality attractions without the need to leech off someone else's work.

[/bitter]

I shall join you in your bitterness, because I agree 100%.

And before anyone starts with the 'but its good business sense and a money maker' arguement. Quite frankly I don't care and I don't like it. It really does reek of laziness and what makes it even worse, is a large amount of the time, they still manage to do it wrong!

For me, if you are going to have an 'IP' then you have to do it nigh on perfectly and not just 'good'. Why do I feel that way? Because in my eyes, if you are working from an existing brand you actually have far less work to do. The design and style is all there for you, its just about copying it. Ok, so budget may dictate otherwise I admit, but that would be a very poor excuse. I also think when you use an IP you are also tapping into something that already exists in the public consciousness. This is particularly apparent with childrens areas. Children know these 'worlds' very well. They have a very clear image of what it should look like etc. If things are wrong, they know it.

Unfortunately, its not just childrens areas either. There are other attractions that have used more adult IPs and completely missed the mark. When they miss the mark it just feels (for me of course) like a cheap attempt and I find it very hard to find an excuse for it. Like I say, they have a whole barrage of source material to work from. If they can't copy that... then well... its a massive failure.

Overall, I think IPs can be a massive risk too. For the most part there is no guarantee that the IP is going to remain popular. Six months down the road, the IP in question could be all but forgotten because Kids, or even adults, in a time where people are more fickle than ever, have moved onto the next big thing. The park is then stuck with a brand that simply doesn't have the popularity it back in the planning stages. SAW: The Ride always confused me for this reason. It was brought in as the series was tailing off and rounding off towards the end. Now that the films have all dried up, people have moved on etc... It seems really daft.

The only places where IPs truly work is where money is no object at all. Disney and Universal for instance. Because it is their own IP that they are recreating in parks and they have the money to get it spot on... and they do. (Granted, maybe not 100% of the time, but for the most part)

 

[Waffleman]

I hate to pull apart enthusiasts from the general public, because we all know what's good and what's bad really. But as enthusiasts we see theme parks as an art form (or at the very least I do), so seeing somebody use an IP is kind of like a band doing a cover or an artist painting something that has already been painted, it's unoriginal, and no matter how well you pull it off it misses something. However, kids see the world in a completely different way to us, and they become truly dedicated to a fictional world of any kind. So, as previously stated, they know what's spot on and what's wrong. This means that your new IP-based land may be financially successful, but kids could be disappointed, which I think is terrible, in both the business world or not. As much as I may disagree with the use of IPs it is unfair to destroy the fictional worlds that children have embedded in their minds by huge TV production companies. Whether or not the TV companies are in the right or wrong, I find it unfair for a company who has been assigned the task of turning a fictional world into a reality to get it wrong. If you're gonna put the investment into it you can nail it, but I know people personally who have gone to The Wizarding World of Harry Potter and cried because it wasn't as good as they expected, so if a multi-million investment can't pull it off properly, how can we expect Merlin's half-arsed efforts to pay off, nevermind smaller parks like Paulton's or even Drayton Manor.

 

[Brookes]

I know people personally who have gone to The Wizarding World of Harry Potter and cried because it wasn't as good as they expected

But in this case everything isn't necessarily there to "copy". As Mark said above, when you are just taking something that is already there it's easy; take Thomas Land as an example. You have the Fat Controller and Thomas the Tank Engine along with some others - you can't go wrong. You're just copying something that is easily recognised. With Harry Potter, things are more interpretation. It's all books and only then are things subjectively interpreted into film. Parts of Hogwarts you see in the film weren't actually built in real life so in attempting to recreate this world, I would allow some artistic license.

As for the subject of the topic itself, I personally don't believe an area needs a brand to be good - but it certainly helps to bring people in.

 

[Gazza]

One thing that hasn't really been mentioned is that its not so much the IP drawing people in, but the potential merchandise sales generated, based on the IP.

I love unique themes too, but I doubt a kid is going to go for a plush toy of a park designed character over one from a known film or cartoon.

The strongest example of this in action I reckon is the Transformers store at the exit of the ride at USS...it was just full of every Transformer toy you could think of, plus lego kits (well, it was one of those knock off lego brands) of transformers.
They'd make a mint!