Completely agree here. I support all of the communication and openness with the media/influencers, but the park also needs to do their own work establishing unfiltered ground truth. It's good that the park is using all of this free/earned publicity and they should continue doing so, but the park also needs to have a channel through which they can tell their own story on their own terms and, right now, it doesn't really feel like we have that.
I'm all for offering media/influencers first-run info and access, but I don't think it should be a replacement for the park presenting their own shit as well. If I were at the wheel, I'd run these events just as they have been, but then, after each one, I'd quickly scroll through what was said, what was shared, and what people are talking about in order to put out a short blog post or similar recapping that content in the park's voice and with the park's authoritative position as a business/entity, not just the words of one employee talking informally to an influencer.
Right now it feels like we're constantly in this loop where we're relying on content from influencers to hear what the park wants out there. Influencers who, to be clear, do have their own vested interest in pursuing clicks, views, and engagement—motivations which will not always align with the park's own priorities. Because of this, we have no way to fact check those influencers, get real, substantive explanations for points of potential confusion, know what is or is not the park's actual, official position, etc.
Don't think I've forgotten about this, Great Adventure:
The park is doing a great job overall, but there have been some minor communication missteps that feel like they could have been avoided if the park were also speaking for themselves in a more formalized, refined way. I get that Ryan and Co. are out there speaking off the cuff as hype men for the ride and the park—I think that is a good thing and should continue—and I accept that, in that setting, not every detail will always be relayed with bulletproof accuracy—in the context of the interaction, I think that is understandable and okay—should be avoided whenever possible of course, but it will happen. Because it is inevitable that mistakes will be made, in my opinion, to plot this course responsibility, I do think the park needs a way to present more grounded, very-strictly-factual information about their projects as well—in a setting where the park can collaborate on, read over, refine, and really strictly fact-check information with the experts who know the actual facts.
