Was it possible that the ride signage changed and it was actually named Wild Maus after some time? Wild Izzy to Wilde Maus to Wild Maus to Gone?
Wilde Maus
- Thread starter Zachary
- Start date
If anyone can find more photos of the ride sign, I’d love to see them! I’ve been searching high and low and I’ve only seen two—they both say Wilde Maus.
As @Zachary said, I, too, have only seen the Wilde signage. But to add, I doubt they would have repainted the cars...
Getting pretty technical here, but old maps refer to Roto Baron as “Der Red Baron.” So maybe Oktoberfest was home to the only two Busch Gardens rides to be renamed?
How factual we'll never know, but BGWMemories adds this in the description-
The ride was meant to be a temporary attraction that was to be dismantled after the 1996 season but proved so popular it was left in the park and renamed Wild Maus to fit the theming of the Oktoberfest area it was located in.
Actually makes perfect sense to me.
The ride was meant to be a temporary attraction that was to be dismantled after the 1996 season but proved so popular it was left in the park and renamed Wild Maus to fit the theming of the Oktoberfest area it was located in.
Actually makes perfect sense to me.
I think this is one of those rumors that has slowly been turned into fact. I've never found anything authoritative to say that the coaster was meant to be a single year ride. In fact, it strikes me as fairly unlikely given the polish of the extended queue and the fact that BEC bought the coaster brand new from Mack. If BGW wanted a wild mouse for a single year, it would have been incredibly easy to rent one.
But then again AB era BGW wasn't nearly as concerned about budget vs. aesthetics. And again with the name change, why would a park commit to a ride name that they're going to have to rename in a year? Why associate their Olympics sponsorship with a ride at all, they could have done some sort of character meet and greet and or themed F&B items.
Unless I'm mistaken, aren't the rental versions more or less the same as the traveling carnival rides, meaning that the structure has a much flimsier looking structure?
So is it also possible that BG parks meant for it to be temporarily at BGW for it's debut then shipped to Florida for the permanent installation, but then decided to keep it in Virginia for a few more seasons based on popularity/whatever other KPIs?
Unless I'm mistaken, aren't the rental versions more or less the same as the traveling carnival rides, meaning that the structure has a much flimsier looking structure?
So is it also possible that BG parks meant for it to be temporarily at BGW for it's debut then shipped to Florida for the permanent installation, but then decided to keep it in Virginia for a few more seasons based on popularity/whatever other KPIs?
Marketing their Olympics partnership. This doesn't seem like a stretch to me at all.
Honestly, the idea of buying and installing a brand new semi-permanent roller coaster for it to operate for a single season seems far more far-fetched to me.
But then again per my previous post, it's also conceivable that it was only intended to be at BGW for a singular season and there were definitely other methods of promotion that don't have anything to do with naming rides.
Think about it if that were the case - Busch Gardens parks had already paid for the the ride, planned to pay for shipping and installation - basically the question became which year's budgets to work off of and when to hire contractors.
But still, who buys a brand new coaster just to operate it for one season? BEC wasn’t as concerned about maximizing profits as the park is today, but they weren’t idiots.
Good question - perhaps they were still working on figuring out all the details for Tampa while Williamsburg was ready to go; not sure what sort of Olympics promotions they had down there to offset since to my knowledge they didn't have a ride named for it.
Btw, I do want to mention that I'm not attempting to present any of this as fact since it could be construed that way. This is merely my opinion of plausibility.
I would say that it seems most likely is that they figured they could use a new ride, and with such a lackluster off the shelf ride like a wild mouse coaster, it could use the Olympics as a way to market its newest ride that they would fully intend to keep for many years later on.
To add to the historical perspective... it is difficult to comprehend today just how big the 1996 Atlanta Olympics were from an intra-US marketing standpoint, if you were not around to experience it at the time. It was nuts. A-B spent (depending on which article you believe) either $20M or $40M in 1996 dollars just to be able to say they were a top-tier Olympic sponsor, and to have Budweiser be the "official beer" of the Olympics.
I have no idea what A-B then spent on actual advertisement and promotion using the Olympics tie-in, but by all accounts companies can spend several times more to actually market with the paid Olympics tie-in than they do to get rights to the tie-in in the first place. It would have been a fascinating experience to be in the room with the execs who decided -- surely over several meetings, across several levels of leadership, and with tooth-and-nail territorial spats at every turn -- how to parcel out that dump truck full of dozens-of-millions-of-dollars in marketing cash for TV, radio, print, billboards, ... , theme parks, ...
They even got a bunch of American Olympic athletes to visit BGW in August of that year. In that simpler era, it was big news. Inside the Beltway, where I was living at the time, everybody knew about it. Like, even the far-west rural Maryland hill folk knew which weekend it would be. The power of monoculture marketing to invade all the cracks and crevasses was no joke, and association with the (then-) unassailable Olympics brand was a huge "get" for your consumer-oriented megaconglomerate.
Given how well A-B treated their parks, it's not too hard to imagine them dropping a million or so of that budget for some Olympics-tied capital improvements in W-burg, and deciding it didn't matter too much if they simply renamed the ride a year later, or whatever!, having already achieved all they wanted with the Izzy namesake, getting a modest additional semi-permanent attraction in the bargain.
Always get your capital improvement funding when the getting is good!
Here is my favorite Olympics marketing story. And it happened in '96, actually. Zero chance it was an accident:
theolympians.co
I have no idea what A-B then spent on actual advertisement and promotion using the Olympics tie-in, but by all accounts companies can spend several times more to actually market with the paid Olympics tie-in than they do to get rights to the tie-in in the first place. It would have been a fascinating experience to be in the room with the execs who decided -- surely over several meetings, across several levels of leadership, and with tooth-and-nail territorial spats at every turn -- how to parcel out that dump truck full of dozens-of-millions-of-dollars in marketing cash for TV, radio, print, billboards, ... , theme parks, ...
They even got a bunch of American Olympic athletes to visit BGW in August of that year. In that simpler era, it was big news. Inside the Beltway, where I was living at the time, everybody knew about it. Like, even the far-west rural Maryland hill folk knew which weekend it would be. The power of monoculture marketing to invade all the cracks and crevasses was no joke, and association with the (then-) unassailable Olympics brand was a huge "get" for your consumer-oriented megaconglomerate.
Given how well A-B treated their parks, it's not too hard to imagine them dropping a million or so of that budget for some Olympics-tied capital improvements in W-burg, and deciding it didn't matter too much if they simply renamed the ride a year later, or whatever!, having already achieved all they wanted with the Izzy namesake, getting a modest additional semi-permanent attraction in the bargain.
Always get your capital improvement funding when the getting is good!
Here is my favorite Olympics marketing story. And it happened in '96, actually. Zero chance it was an accident:
McDonald’s Guerilla Marketing at the 1996 Atlanta Olympic Games
For the International Olympic Committee, the “Clean Venue” policy has been inviolate. No advertisements or hint of commerce is allowed to be seen on or within the Olympic stadium…
theolympians.co
To add to @halfabee's post-
"Anheuser-Busch Cos., which will spend more than $100 million to be an Olympic sponsor and to advertise Budweiser, Bud Light and Bud Ice,..."
"Anheuser-Busch Cos., which will spend more than $100 million to be an Olympic sponsor and to advertise Budweiser, Bud Light and Bud Ice,..."
You knew Bud Dry was a flop when they couldn't even be bothered to hawk it during a worldwide high-end athletic competition.
Hey now, college kids need beer too. Not everyone can afford your fancy Bud Light.