I want to discuss how much weight people should give to theme park creators when those creators have relationships with the parks. Parks can provide access, early information and exclusive opportunities, but that also raises questions about independence, criticism and whether creators can influence or be influenced by the parks. Where is the line between being a fan, a promoter and an independent voice?

I try to stay away from social media because you only ever see the side of the story that someone chooses to show. You never really know what is happening behind the lens or what information might be missing. After all, even a duck looks calm floating on a pond, but underneath it’s paddling like it’s late for a date.

That’s one of the reasons I like forums. They give people a place to discuss things openly without having the same level of direct influence from the parks themselves. People can question, debate, disagree and look at things from different angles without feeling like they have to protect access or maintain a relationship.

It doesn’t mean forums are always right and social media is always wrong, because every source can have its own biases. But I like having a space where the discussion is driven by the community rather than by what fits into a a carefully planned video. Sometimes the messy conversations are where the most interesting ideas come from.

Probably why I sometimes clash with people on forums is because, when I know someone is also a creator, I’m not always sure what angle they are coming from. Are they sharing an opinion purely as a fan, or are they protecting their future opportunities?

Edited July 17Jul 17 by New display name

I do think it's really scummy to silence people over information that's already available on a public website anyone could access and find the info. A legally obtained leak like this would only help marketing at the end of day with the increased word of mouth that comes from any bit of info that proves new additions are coming sooner or later.

LOL, I get where you're coming from, but at the end of the day the parks do have the right to decide how and when they release their own information. Just because something appears out onto a public website doesn't necessarily mean they are ready for everyone to run with it.

For me, them asking me isn't really the issue. What I’d actually be interested to see is what would happen if all the creators simply said no to the parks. It would be interesting to see how much influence the parks really have, and whether the relationship works both ways. Social media is a powerful marketing tool.

Yesterday some creators were unleashing the news onto their communities, then suddenly it all got taken back. Makes you wonder, who owns the conversation? The creators who built the following, or the parks?

Edited July 17Jul 17 by New display name

When DW were re-working the Gold Coaster, didn't they apply for a couple of names?

WOW you are lost @Naazon 😂

Not naming names, but I can definitely say that some local creators do play it way too safe by focusing on positive aspects and skirting over the negatives. I found it particularly noticeable when Wizard of Oz land came out.

As for my own content, I personally try to maintain my honest opinions, good or bad, saying things as I see them, even if it does potentially put me on the naughty list. I'd like to think my content hold the balance well, pointing out both sides of the coin, especially the side that stands out most on the day.

This may seem contrary to the removal of my coverage of the Dreamworld trademark yesterday, I know. But that's more just being respectful and understanding to the request, and less due to the censoring of my opinions so I can keep the door open. You could say that I'm no longer inheritenty an independent voice due to this, and I guess that's true from some perspectives. One can have a fostered bias without being conscious of it. At least in my mind though, it won't stop me from critiquing the parks when they mess up!

This discussion isn't about targeting anyone. It's just something I've been thinking about for a while.

I've been wondering where the happy medium is before a creator becomes an extension of a park's marketing team. (I don't believe many if any creators start out because they want to market a park)

From what I've seen, one park has really embraced working with creators, and I think it's played a big role in improving public perception of that park. (just my view). Another park, on the other hand, hasn't really leaned into it, and the public perception of that park seems to have gone the other way. I'm not saying that's the only reason. The park has definitely made some decisions that haven't helped its own cause, and I completely agree with that. But I also don't think the shift from "good park" to "bad park" can't be explained in this case as purely by how the park is run. The waiting times on rides still not perfect but 100x better then what they were 2 years ago. The new show still doesn't meet my high standards but it's still better then what we had before. And don't forget Scooby is now open even though they f^&ked the disco room. ☹️

When a park is very proactive in building relationships with creators, it can be hard sometimes not to wonder where the line is. It doesn't mean anyone is doing anything wrong, but it can make you question whether opinions are completely independent or influenced by that relationship.

Again, this isn't aimed at anyone in particular. What you mentioned yesterday just brought the topic back to the front of my mind.

And for what it's worth, you do get a few bonus points on the Skeet Trust Board. Owning up to it instead of quietly deleting the post and pretending it never existed was the better way to handle it. You could have removed it and I'd never have known.

2 hours ago, Ogre said:

Not naming names, but I can definitely say that some local creators do play it way too safe by focusing on positive aspects and skirting over the negatives. I found it particularly noticeable when Wizard of Oz land came out.

As for my own content, I personally try to maintain my honest opinions, good or bad, saying things as I see them, even if it does potentially put me on the naughty list. I'd like to think my content hold the balance well, pointing out both sides of the coin, especially the side that stands out most on the day.

This may seem contrary to the removal of my coverage of the Dreamworld trademark yesterday, I know. But that's more just being respectful and understanding to the request, and less due to the censoring of my opinions so I can keep the door open. You could say that I'm no longer inheritenty an independent voice due to this, and I guess that's true from some perspectives. One can have a fostered bias without being conscious of it. At least in my mind though, it won't stop me from critiquing the parks when they mess up!

This is rather contradictory though.

You have removed a publicly accessed document/item, based on the fear that you would lose the level of access & hospitality that you receive from the parks. Arguably the fact you have conformed to this, is far worse than holding the punches on additions that fall flat within the parks.

It shows that there are ill intentions with the reasons behind the way you operate your channels imo.

2 hours ago, New display name said:

WOW you are lost @Naazon 😂

More replying to @Smol bean about why name submissions might not mean anything and not actually a good "marketing tool"

You're a hard marker @ShakeShack 😂 As far as I'm concerned @Ogre has been upfront with us.

40 minutes ago, ShakeShack said:

This is rather contradictory though.

You have removed a publicly accessed document/item, based on the fear that you would lose the level of access & hospitality that you receive from the parks. Arguably the fact you have conformed to this, is far worse than holding the punches on additions that fall flat within the parks.

It shows that there are ill intentions with the reasons behind the way you operate your channels imo.

I conceded in my post that, by definition, as a creator, there of course would be varying levels of both conscious and unconscious bias due to the nature of creating content and what comes with it, the good and the bad. I'm sure somewhere in my head there's a subconscious voice trying to keep me "on the straight and narrow", so to speak.

However, as anyone who actually watches my content will hopefully attest to, my usual style is to not hold back when talking about issues, even if it could potentially sour relations with a park, which I do so anyway because I want the parks to be the best they can be. I know you may view this differently about me, but it's honestly how I approach deciding what to implement in my content. My "problem with Movie World" video is a good example of this, and from what people have told me, it did have some positive effects, even if small. (Wizard of Oz land benches)

As I mentioned in my post, the main reason I removed said content was simply being respectful and cordial to their request. Was it partly due to wanting to hold onto the possibility of perks? Again, not consciously, but I can't deny the desire is there, which naturally comes with the territory of being an enthusiast instead of a journalist. I'm just saying it isn't at the forefront of my mind when I post stuff or make videos.

If it came down to holding onto "perks" versus actually posting my honest opinions on something, I'd choose honesty every time, as much as I like perks. I personally don't believe this trademark situation falls under that category, though of course you're welcome to disagree. To me, it's closer to requests I sometimes get to remove people's faces that unintentionally appear in my videos.

I do find your suggestion that there are "ill intentions" behind how I operate a bit unfair, as I'd like to think I usually stay true to myself for the most part, and I feel that unfairly represents my motivations or implies they are sinister. But to each their own.

My relationship with the parks isn't as close as some of you may assume, at least compared to some other creators, and whether that is because of my more outspoken approach or simply circumstance, I couldn't say... maybe one day I'll be able to film a POV, but it hasn't happened yet!

Oh yeah, as far as being upfront, a similar situation to this happened during Rivertown's construction, where they requested my coverage of the Jungle Rush layout that was accidentally made public be removed. Again, my response was the same — respecting a request, rather than consciously trying to stay in the park's good books in exchange for the odd perk here and there. There are things more important than being able to ride a new attraction an hour early.

Edited July 17Jul 17 by Ogre

3 hours ago, New display name said:

This discussion isn't about targeting anyone. It's just something I've been thinking about for a while.

I've been wondering where the happy medium is before a creator becomes an extension of a park's marketing team. (I don't believe many if any creators start out because they want to market a park)

From what I've seen, one park has really embraced working with creators, and I think it's played a big role in improving public perception of that park. (just my view). Another park, on the other hand, hasn't really leaned into it, and the public perception of that park seems to have gone the other way. I'm not saying that's the only reason. The park has definitely made some decisions that haven't helped its own cause, and I completely agree with that. But I also don't think the shift from "good park" to "bad park" can't be explained in this case as purely by how the park is run. The waiting times on rides still not perfect but 100x better then what they were 2 years ago. The new show still doesn't meet my high standards but it's still better then what we had before. And don't forget Scooby is now open even though they f^&ked the disco room. ☹️

When a park is very proactive in building relationships with creators, it can be hard sometimes not to wonder where the line is. It doesn't mean anyone is doing anything wrong, but it can make you question whether opinions are completely independent or influenced by that relationship.

Again, this isn't aimed at anyone in particular. What you mentioned yesterday just brought the topic back to the front of my mind.

And for what it's worth, you do get a few bonus points on the Skeet Trust Board. Owning up to it instead of quietly deleting the post and pretending it never existed was the better way to handle it. You could have removed it and I'd never have known.

I think almost nobody who posts on social media is completely free from being influenced in some way by their relationship with the parks. Ranging from the largest creators to the casual guest hoping their photos get reposted by the park, it's a spectrum; there's always something influencing what content they post and when, at least in some form, even if it's minuscule.

But yes, there is a line, though I couldn't say exactly where it is... I'd like to think I'm more on one side of it than the other, but I have probably crossed that line a few times during my Ogre time unintentionally...

and thanks!

Edited July 17Jul 17 by Ogre

So, has this request to remove the trademark effectively applied the "Streisand Effect" and confirmed this is the rides name?

I'm starting to think DW's marketing strategy is just "accidental comedy." They leaked enough station photos to feed the internet, then tried to stop us when we figured out the ride name. Congratulations, you've successfully invented a treasure hunt and then tried to ban maps.

DW: "Here's a pile of clues!"
Everyone: "We solved it."
DW: "How dare you!"

🤣

Edited July 20Jul 20 by New display name

For me, I want to say that this is all part of the plan. It is generating buzz, and drip-feeding the release to keep the conversation going - a few months back we got the screen caps from the ad showing the artists impressions, now we have the name registrations.

Dreamworld management must know by now that the second they lodge a trademark, we're going to know. From memory someone identified them on Parkz with both Taipan and Jungle Rush pretty quickly.

So either they file a few names at the same time to throw us off the scent or introduce a few red herrings to keep us guessing, or they do one, and then play it up... "whoopsie, we, the big multi-million dollar professional operation didn't mean to let that name slip! PLEASE don't tell anyone! Shhhhh!!!!!!"

If it's intentional, it's brilliant fucking marketing. And if it was accidental - they're very slow learners. You can't expect public records to stay secrets. You just need to manage them the right way.

As for 'social media influencers' or 'pages' - I know there's some independent operators out there that do not take any perks from parks and maintain their integrity, and speak freely. I know others that lap up everything a park offers them and won't say a negative word about them lest they damage the relationship. And I know others still that will maintain mostly independence but will take each situation case-by-case - which is I assume Ogre's situation here.

As long as a content producer is honest with their position, I don't see an issue with any of the above. I don't care if you're getting a freebie from a park - you've put the work in to get that sort of following, and it's not really any different to what a park provides mainstream media journalists to promote their products - so why shouldn't you be able to accept a few perks from the parks you cover if it fits with how you want to manage your following. As long as you disclose the quid pro quo.

If you wouldn't feel comfortable having your name published in a newspaper because of the expensive item you got from the park, and you would go so far as to petition a court to suppress your name from official proceedings, you probably shouldn't have taken the expensive item.