TO IP,

OR NOT TO IP Discussing the increasing application of

internationally famous intellectual properties

(IPs) in the European theme park industry

BY STEFAN VAN DER PUTTEN (120629)

Page 1 of 4

TO IP, OR NOT TO IP Discussing the increasing application of internationally famous

intellectual properties (IPs) in the European theme park industry

BY STEFAN VAN DER PUTTEN

INTRODUCTIONhe announcement of a Paramount Pictures theme park opening near London in 2020, Angry Birds Land in England’s Thorpe Park,

Ratatouille in France’s Walt Disney Studios park, the Raving Rabids in France’s Futuroscope, Arthur in the Minimoys Kingdom in Germany’s Europa-Park, the announced Ferrari Land in Spain’s Port Aventura and the recently-announced, long-waited addition of Captain Jack Sparrow in Disneyland Paris’ Pirates of the Caribbean. These are only a few examples of the increasing application of internationally famous IPs in both pre-existing and new attractions on the European continent. In the contemporary world of theme parks, various IPs are applied in order to make attractions even more compelling and appeal to new or larger markets. However, this was mostly limited to movie-based parks such as Parque Warner Madrid and Movie Park Germany in the past. In the previous ten years, there seems to be a global trend in the theme park industry of turning towards grand (third-party) properties. Such IPs are not solely limited to movies (e.g. Star Trek, Ratatouille & Arthur), but also include games (e.g. Angry Birds & Raving Rabbids), books (e.g. Arthur) and even car brands (e.g. Ferrari). European theme parks are slowly but surely following the example set by their colleagues in the United States. The very successful and internationally praised Wizarding World of Harry Potter area in Universal’s Orlando Resort, of which the first portion opened in 2010, might be the main cause of this development. Not for naught has this area been expanded with a second portion last year and has the concept been copied one-on-one in Universal’s parks in Hollywood and Japan. During the same time span, the Walt Disney Company bought various famous IPs, such as Pixar, Marvel, Star Wars and Avatar, which are all (announced to be) included in their Disney parks across the globe. Universal responded by recently partnering with famous game giant Nintendo. It looks like that the ‘IP rush’ has spread beyond the US and is currently taking over the Asian, Middle Eastern and European markets. Should European parks yield to this development or fight back by developing ‘IP-free’ attractions as in the past?

T

Image 1. From top to bottom: Star Trek area in Paramount

London (UK), Angry Birds Land in Thorpe Park (UK),

Ratatouille in Walt Disney Studios park (FR), Raving Rabbids

in Furutoscope (FR), Arthur in the Minimoys Kingdom in

Europa-Park (GE) & Ferrari Land in Port Aventura (SP).

Page 2 of 4

Image 2. Efteling’s Raveleijn (NL)

Image 3. Drayton Manor’s Thomas Land

(UK)

ASSERTION s mentioned in the previous introduction, there is an increasing application of internationally famous IPs in the world of theme parks. As it has proven to be very successful in the United States, the European parks are following their example. This will lead to a decreasing interest in

‘regular’, IP-free attractions and parks, leading to the (European) theme park industry becoming a showcase for intellectual properties of the family entertainment industry. European parks will become the tangible destinations where guests are able to dive into the immersive story worlds of their favourite brands (either bought from third-parties or self-made). DISCUSSION

he primary argument in advance of this statement, is the fact that the inclusion of a popular IP tends to lead to an increase in both attendance numbers and spending. Besides the aforementioned Wizarding World of Harry Potter, a good example closer to home is the Thomas

the Tank Engine area in Drayton Manor (UK) which was launched in 2008 and increased their business with 41% and led to 320.000 more visitors in that same year. Coincidentally, the park’s CEO got the idea for an IP-based expansion after visiting parks in Orlando, US (Giling, September 2014). Next to being a new investment, which always leads to an impulse of top-of-mind-awareness (or TOMA), using a well-known IP facilitates marketing even more and could save the park time and money.

However, its success is obviously very dependent on the value fit between the park’s and the brand’s target audience. After all, if your park attracts mostly young adults, a toddler IP will not be very successful amongst that audience. On the other hand, the application of an IP could be a handy tool to tap into a new target group and broaden your audience as a whole. A good example is Efteling’s Raveleijn, a brand with superhero-like knights which was created to appeal more to children above the age of eight, especially boys. The Dutch IP is currently represented through e.g. a TV series, book, park show, park restaurant and

merchandise. Another argument is that guests have shown with their expenses that they would very much like to dive deeper into their favourite brands with their beloved characters. Besides the fact that such brands bring along their appurtenant fan-bases who would like to see ‘their’ characters in real-life (and thus increase attendance and spending), it also provides a large foundation for experiential storytelling. Firstly, characters and context are already provided, making it easier for theme parks to design attractions by tapping into previous knowledge of the target audience. Simultaneously, this eliminates the danger of ‘telling too much’ and making the attraction’s story too complicated for guests to understand. After all, the arena is set. Secondly, using beloved brands and characters, ‘lovemarks’ as you will, creates an experience which exceeds solely a physical experience by also touching guests on an emotional level. The latter of course, is the main criterion for experiences to become either memorable or even transformative (Hover, 2007). In short: applying IPs often leads to more immersive experiences and stronger storytelling. Obviously there are opponents claiming that the utilisation of such IPs would undermine or even diminish the creativity of theme park designers. Obviously, this objection is aimed at the facilitating function mentioned above. Buying licenses for internationally known IPs is not necessarily limiting designers. While they often have to work with fully described characters in pre-established worlds, it is still quite a task to come up with (new) adventures in a specific, technologically feasible, theme park outing. Such a translation from the symbolic world towards our real-life one can be as challenging as designing worlds and characters yourself and should therefore not be underestimated. Simultaneously, non-character IPs such as the aforementioned Ferrari make their way into the theme park industry as well, providing the challenge of turning those brands into family entertainment.

A

T

Page 3 of 4

Additionally, theme parks could also develop their own IPs and thus challenge designers even more. While most of these home grown IPs do not match the international appeal of some of the mentioned examples, they have a similar effect within their regional markets (TEA/AECOM, 2015). A good example is the Fairy Tale Tree brand of the Efteling, which is currently the park’s most popular IP in the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany. The brand is currently incorporated in the park through e.g. the actual speaking tree in the park’s Fairy Tale Forest, live entertainment and various forms of merchandise. Another example of an even smaller scale is Toverland’s Magic Valley. Instead of investing in some regular rides, the Dutch park decided to create an entire themed area including its own folk (called ‘Dwervels’, pictured on the right) and backstory. Additionally, the expansion led to over 100.000 more visitors in the year of its release, which was a growth of 23,6% (Gelissen Group, 2014). This once again supports the first argument, while refuting the objection concerning creativity. Furthermore, there are opponents claiming that there are enough examples of IP integrations that failed and costed more money than it produced. As with most aspects of the entertainment industry, timing is everything. Releasing an IP-themed attraction or area directly after the success of its primary source (e.g. a film, book or ride), tends to be more effective than releasing it years later, with faster and higher rewards (TEA/AECOM, 2015). Nonetheless, the timing is highly dependent on the particular IP in terms of popularity and longevity. Some IPs lend themselves to be introduced in a theme park years after their release, such as Ratatouille (film in 2007, attraction in 2014), whereas other IP-based attractions are already demolished or rebranded within that same time span, as is business-as-usual in Belgium’s Plopsaland de Panne (W. Wauters, personal communication, May 2013)1. Therefore, it might be less risky to invest in a longstanding and highly popular IP, than investing in a very fresh one which turns out to be a fad. However, this will likely come with a significant price tag. This brings us to the final and most-heard objection, claiming that such IPs are too expensive especially for smaller, more regional parks. Besides that most of these investments have the aforementioned relatively short return-on-investment period as its notoriety tends to increase the attendance numbers significantly, parks with no such budget or affiliation are able to successfully create their own IPs. Good examples are Europa-Park (e.g. Euromaus), the Efteling (e.g. Fairy Tale Tree & Raveleijn) and Tivoli Gardens, which are three out of the top five European parks based on attendance. Nonetheless, the complete top five (respectively Disneyland Paris, Europa-Park, Tivoli Gardens, Efteling, Walt Disney Studios park) and number six (Port Aventura in Spain) are parks ‘drenched’ with IPs, either bought or self-made (TEA/AECOM, 2015). This once again shows the importance of such properties in the (European) theme park world of today. CONCLUSION Looking at the current direction of the European theme park industry, one could say that it is likely to follow the trend set by the American market. I believe that the presence of intellectual properties within the European parks will definitely grow in the future, both by purchasing third-party rights and developing home-grown properties. Not only are IPs great means to effectively increase attendance and spending, they could even save the organisation resources. Additionally, it is an effective tool to appeal to new markets and huge groups of fans. Furthermore, it facilitates the storytelling process by tapping into guests’ psychological framework, while it touches them emotionally as well. Last but not least, guests are able to visit their most beloved worlds and characters in real-life, which is the most important factor of all. So, should European parks yield to the rise of the IP rush? Definitely, as it provides benefits for both the guest and the producer. My name is Stefan van der Putten, and I am a frontrunner of STIP:

Storytelling Through Intellectual Property

1 Wim Wauters, Park Manager at Plopsaland de Panne, was spoken at the backstage excursion on 21st May 2013.

Image 3. Toverland’s Magic Valley (NL)

Page 4 of 4

ABOUT THE AUTHOR tefan van der Putten is a 21-year-old Leisure Manager in the making, who is currently finishing his Bachelor of Business Administration in International Leisure Management at NHTV International University of Applied Sciences. After starting his academic career as a fast-track student in 2012, he

set his first professional step towards the visitor attraction industry by joining the Theme Park Management programme in the autumn of 2013. Subsequently, he developed a further understanding of imagineering attractions during his third year internship at P&P Projects B.V. in 2014. This company is specialised in creating turn-key projects for the entire leisure industry, e.g. theme parks and museums. It was here where he first encountered IPs in the field, from the perspective of a supplier. As an Assistant Project Manager, he worked with IPs such as Disney Pixar’s Ratatouille, Luc Besson’s Arthur and the Minimoys, Rovio Entertainment’s Angry Birds and others which cannot be mentioned due to confidentiality. After finishing his internship, he joined the Efteling Academy, minor in imagineering and storytelling, in August of that year. In this unique talent development programme, made possible by Efteling B.V. and NHTV’s Academy for Leisure, he participated in a challenging fourth year project which included story development, target group research, and strategy formulation for one of Efteling’s sub-brands: Raveleijn. It was here where he gained his first insights into IPs from the perspective of the producer/owner. While being one of the two Co-Producers in charge of producing a live entertainment production for this brand in the spring of 2015, he continued his path towards graduation by executing a scenario study for one of Efteling’s sub-brands. By executing this thesis, directly commissioned and guided by the brand’s creators, he gained an even bigger insight into the strategic side of intellectual properties in relation to the theme park industry. He finished both his Efteling Academy and thesis period in June of 2015.

REFERENCES Gelissen Group. (2014). Attractiepark toverland ontvangt recordaantal bezoekers. Retrieved on June 7, 2015, from Gelissen Group.com: http://www.gelissengroup.nl/attractiepark-toverland-ontvangt-recordaantal-bezoekers/ Giling, J. (September 2014). Full steam ahead. Retrieved on June 7, 2015, from IAAPA.org: http://www.iaapa.org/connect/europe/full-steam-ahead Hover, M. (2007). The staged experience versus the lived experience: An insight into experiences through

practice‐oriented research. NHTV Internal Publication, 1‐9. TEA/AECOM. (2015). Global attractions attendance report. Retrieved on June 7, 2015, from AECOM.com:

http://www.aecom.com/deployedfiles/Internet/Capabilities/Economics/_documents/Theme%20Index_2014_v1_4.PDF

S