I don't think it's entirely irrelevant to be considering the impact of this new protected class on either the project itself or the wider guest experience.
The external-facing (?) codename of a coaster pre-announcement has no "impact" on "the wider guest experience" and absolutely minimal impact on "the project itself."
I also think it's a little uncalled for to refer to the people on these tours as a "new protected class." I don't know what the qualifications for admittance to these tours has been, but the net does seem to have been cast very wide. I do think influencers should be disclosing any agreements they've made with the park—such as whether or not they've expressly agreed to the infamous, chain-wide,
deeply problematic "Content Creator Guidelines"—but that's on influencers acting ethically, not SFGAdv.
Perhaps some solace can be found in the fact that we have seen a number of influencers who have both previously and have recently continued to flaunt those published "Content Creator Guidelines" on these tours. Hopefully that indicates that, despite corporate's stance, Ryan has been able to sidestep Six Flags' Cedar Point-style insistence on constructing a propaganda machine and punishing anyone who does not wish to participate.
It's pretty telling if the influencer crowd is getting to define any aspect of this project at all
It's 2026. Influencer society has completely warped and distorted the very idea of marketing and corporate communications. Anything that occurs in the year 2026 has been impacted by our current environment.
I'm sure it's in part that Project Purple flows much better than Project 2027, given the number of syllables and word phonetics.
We've been using Project [Debut Year] 'round these parts since like 2010 across the industry to identify pre-announcement, in-development attractions. Unfortunately, the Heritage Foundation/the Republican party has done pretty grave harm to the Project [Debut Year] branding since 2025. The chance that the Project [Year] branding becomes a cyclical political issue is very real and, though I find it a very useful way to refer to projects in our industry, I do get wanting to find alternatives.
Ideally, I wish parks would just include a unique codename on the earliest filings relating to a project and/or file for a trademark early for a name to use during attraction development. Phantom Spire's existence, whether it becomes the final name or not, has been very useful in discussing the attraction and, if it isn't the final name, it will have been an absolutely sick codename for the ride.