Agreed, and dark rides fall right into the same boat of good in theory, but not in reality as they've had multiple whiffs with those. And when a company shows that something like a dark ride is not their forte, you're better off clamoring for something else.
SeaWorld Entertainment Corporate News (Old Leadership Thread)
- Thread starter Brian G.
- Start date
-
Signing up for a Premium Membership is a donation to help Inside Universal maintain costs and offers an ad-free experience on the forum. Learn more about it here.
Agreed, and dark rides fall right into the same boat of good in theory, but not in reality as they've had multiple whiffs with those. And when a company shows that something like a dark ride is not their forte, you're better off clamoring for something else.
Sounds like they’d need to load it to a visa prepaid debit card, which at least means they can use that outside the parks also.
SeaWorld Parks just trademarked the corporate name "United Parks and Resorts"-- looks like they could be taking on a new corporate name:
Interesting. Wonder if the waves going away is a whole re-brand. But that name is dumb.
Perfect timing for SeaWorld... officially confirmed the name change to United Parks & Resorts. Odd to have a similar name to one of your biggest competitors.Not that a name change is bad, just the name is so bland and similar.
- Jul 7, 2015
- 356
- 483
The problem is the Worlds of Discovery and Adventure Parks trademarks were held onto by AB/In-Bev for some reason.
- Jul 8, 2019
- 1,265
- 2,416
Nothing quite like flushing decades of brand equity down the toilet for what might be the most generic, bland name imaginable.
They are trying to get past the SeaWorld name and brand. It is a damaged brand, and the end of keeping marine mammals in captivity is in sight at this point. It's only a matter of time before the parks themselves are rebranded as well.
They may have found the SeaWorld name on the Sesame Parks was deterring some guests (young parents) from visiting, and they are looking to expand with that branding.
I agree, it's a lackluster name, but it sheds some of the baggage of the past. I follow news from many theme parks, and I have google alerts set for many park names. The "SeaWorld" alert goes off constantly with PETA press releases about how horrible the parks are, news of a helicopter crash that killed several people on Christmas at the SeaWorld park in Australia, and articles about every other marine life park with negative publicity mentioning SeaWorld and Blackfish as part of the story. They have a new vision for the SeaWorld Parks focusing less and less on the marine life, and as they shed the branding over time they needed to start with the company name.
They may have found the SeaWorld name on the Sesame Parks was deterring some guests (young parents) from visiting, and they are looking to expand with that branding.
I agree, it's a lackluster name, but it sheds some of the baggage of the past. I follow news from many theme parks, and I have google alerts set for many park names. The "SeaWorld" alert goes off constantly with PETA press releases about how horrible the parks are, news of a helicopter crash that killed several people on Christmas at the SeaWorld park in Australia, and articles about every other marine life park with negative publicity mentioning SeaWorld and Blackfish as part of the story. They have a new vision for the SeaWorld Parks focusing less and less on the marine life, and as they shed the branding over time they needed to start with the company name.
I understand the name changing, just was a bad name in my opinion.
- Jun 27, 2017
- 8,043
- 5,225
I mean, I guess it makes sense but at least at SD it doesn't seem like they are moving too far from animals because they are adding the Jellyfish
But for the brand maybe in like 10-20 years people will forget but I think the damage is just done the people who dont like SW, will never name change or not but we will see if it works
But for the brand maybe in like 10-20 years people will forget but I think the damage is just done the people who dont like SW, will never name change or not but we will see if it works
My understanding is they're not changing the names of the SeaWorld parks, so I'm not really sure how much this matters to regular guests attending the parks.
Probably just a nice way to "separate" the company from the park to avoid investors from freaking out over any future SeaWorld-related backlash? I don't know, all of this is coming in a weird time for the company. They're expanding to resorts... so probably thinking long-term for future additions. I just can't wrap my head around building a new hotel at SeaWorld that completely avoids the SeaWorld name... kind of the point of the hotel in the first place to market it as being an "in-park" hotel.
When the websites, brochures, merchandise bags, cups, etc. all have the name "SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment" on them there's some connection. PETA makes sure to point out that connection all the time, especially with the Sesame Place parks.
me, reading the headline: Well, they certainly can't blame the weather again, right?
narrator: they can
narrator: they can
