Orlando Thrill Park proposes ride lineup

So, with the proposed lineup, what sort of daily take do you think they'd need? Between tbe seven existing parks, Orlando sees an average of almost 174,000 people daily. I guess the question is: is that existing base large enough that you can still make a go of it focusing only on the thrill-seekers? It *might* be. But, my guess is that the per-cap you can get out of that segment is smaller than you could from families, etc. which makes it an uphill climb.

Never understood the notion that thrill rides are somehow incompatible with families.

Thrill rides typically have taller height restrictions. No one said 'incompatible,' but not all families are able to ride the big rides.

Orlando has a ton of rides that infants can ride (certainly very short toddlers). So it seems to me that families with very young, or short or non-thrill-seeking kids are very well served in that area.

And I have seen a lot of posts on this board to the effect that thrill rides are not family rides. And specifically in this thread, Professor Noble seemed to indicate that thrill seekers were not families when he said that the per cap you could get from thrill seekers is smaller than you can get from families. But maybe I read it wrong.

I don't recall using the word "incompatible". But, you did read it right. I do think that this is a tough sell to most families in this market.

Take a look around your average "thrill" oriented park, especially in the lines for the headliner attractions. Your core audience is teens (typically without parents in line with them), and young (<30) adults. True, there are also some families in those lines (mine is), but they certainly aren't the majority. There are a lot of families that *go* to these parks, but they aren't there for these high-thrill attractions; at least, that's my take after looking at who is actually in line. Even the lines at, say, Rock-n-Roller Coaster or Tower of Terror have a much different demographic than the lines for Big Thunder or Soarin'. Already, you're starting to cut back on the bottom and top ends of the age range as you move up the "thrill scale".

Now, think about the potential Orlando-area audience. Generally, it's a "family vacation destination". In the US, the average age at which a woman has her first child is about 25 (source: here). So, by the time those kids are old enough to be gung-ho for the more aggressive attractions (figure around 10 plus or minus a few years) that woman (and her husband) are getting into their mid-30s. That's not the "core audience" of people in line for Millennium Force. In other words, by the time the kids are old enough, the parents are starting to age out of the window. And, while I don't have a ready source for this, I'm going to guess that higher household income is correlated with later commencement of childbirth. If that's true, it means that the more likely you are to be able to afford a nice long expensive vacation to Orlando, the less likely it is that both kids and parents are in the "thrill ride window" at the same time. The OCVB source I link to below lists the average age of adult visitors at 42. I'm 41. I don't feel entirely out of place in line for some of the coasters at Cedar Point, but I'm clearly the exception, not the rule, and I notice that I'm "older than average" even at something like Rock-n-Roller.

The length-of-stay for a leisure trip in Orlando is between four and five nights (source: here). Floridians stay for a shorter time (2-3 nights) and non-Floridians stay longer (5-6). Let's be generous and say that each family has six days worth of vacation time to spend on attractions. How many families will use one of those six days on this park, which probably caters only to half of the family, vs. something else that's more attractive to the entire family? The same family might go to Cedar Point, but the Magic Kingdom isn't 15 miles away, and they don't have to pick between them during a time-limited vacation. For those with kids who skew younger, Disney is clearly a better fit. For those with kids who skew older, Universal or Sea World might be---they aren't thrill-ride meccas, but they might have an adequate lineup to be worth a visit for the teens, and they still have enough for the parents to do while the kids are in line for Hulk, the Mummy, or Manta. In the warmer months, even a water park might have a better draw across two generations. And, if Mom and Dad are making the decision about where to go, they aren't going to pick a place where the two of them are just standing around watching their kids on coasters all day unless they are particularly selfless.

Add it all up, and "night business" might be the way this park makes a go of it---Mom and Dad go out to a nice dinner while the teens enjoy the evening at the park. But it will have to be priced carefully, and marketed well, because a lot of families will balk at paying two admissions on the same day. Worse, I'll wager that those teens are not going to spend a lot once they get in the gate, so it's even trickier.

I don't think this park will expand the Orlando market in any serious way---IMO, they will have to make a go of it by trying to capture people already likely to visit the area. If I'm right about that, then they have to hope that either there are enough young adults visiting anyway that would take a one-day detour, or families where the kids and adults are both still interested in a thrill-heavy experience. Perhaps there are. Time will tell.

(Edited for a few minor clarifications)

Brian Noble said:
Add it all up, and "night business" might be the way this park makes a go of it...

I don't think this park will expand the Orlando market in any serious way---IMO, they will have to make a go of it by trying to capture people already likely to visit the area.

I think this is exactly the key...and the plan. Kind of the thing Gator and I touched on earlier.

Don't think of it as a park necessarily. It's more similar to all of the other attractions in the area trying to capitalize on the people that Disney, Universal and SeaWorld bring in. They're not going to be competition to the parks and I don't think they're trying to be.

One other way this park can make it: if they join in the "non-Disney" combo-ticket marketing program, they might pick up guests that way who aren't paying a marginal cost to be there, because the barrier to visit becomes a lot lower. And, the other properties might see value in adding this park to the combo roster, because it allows them to market more to families with teens than they do already.

That is, as long as Universal continues to participate in that combo packaging deal; with their recent gate price increase, coupled with the big attendance bump they got from Harry, Uni might decide that they no longer need that combo ticket, or that it needs to increase in price significantly for them to continue to play along.

I am in my mid 40s. I grew up riding thrill rides with my grandparents. My dad is almost 80 and still rides every thrill ride out there with his grandchildren. I understand that he is in the minority. But seems to me there are enough folks like him (and me) to make a go of it with thrill rides. There are a lot of niche markets that do quite well. You don't need to appeal to the majority of folks to succeed. Particularly if you have the draw that Orlando has. I enjoyed Disney once but found almost all of the rides to be quite boring and uninteresting. Couldn't go back there without something else to do. I understand that puts me in the minority. But a park with thrill rides might be a reason for me to go back to Disney for a couple of days. Maybe there aren't enough folks who feel the same way.

^^ Can you get 2M annually on Disney leftovers? And can you get the per cap necessary to pay off and maintain all those shiny rides from a 3 hour afternoon visit?

To be honest, one giant red flag for me was the prominent mention of ride designers in the release. I can't think of a ride announcement from a major chain in which the designer was anything more than a footnote at the end of the press release. For some reason, listing the rides by designer first and type second screams real-life-RCT to me.

My skepticism comes mostly from the fact that this would be a side show, and the cost does not align with being a side show.

I think people travel to Orlando for theme parks. Let's be honest, if you want amusement rides, you probably have a standard decent-sized amusement park somewhere within driving distance (unless you live in Seattle). Why would I want to do that in Orlando?

That's a big assumption. I think that friggin' Ark Encounter in Kentucky has a better chance of actually being built.

I agree with Andy. The way it's stated is like a 13 year-old's dream. "ooh, ooh! And we'll have a B&M 4-D inverted woodie with 10 inversions!" Do you think any of these manufacturers have actually signed on or even been contacted?

I would go to Orlando just for this! I have always wanted to ride some of these types of rides such as the ZackSpin, the stingray, the mack Launching coaster, the fourth-dimension coaster, the motobike coaster, and the mega splash flume.... i know it sounds like most of the park but it is a combo of rides that you can only see in other countries and on the west coast. It is the perfect combo of rides to (what i think) could make the park a success. Although there won't be much room to grow unless they buy more land in the future.... o well... I'm SOLD ON A "ORLANDO THRILL PARK VACATION"

I don't think they would be able to open a hotel owned by the park but orlando has enough hotels anyway. It is close enough to the other parks that people will stop there. I will just have to wait to see if this place will be built or not before I book my next orlando vacation since I would stop here.

But seems to me there are enough folks like him (and me) to make a go of it with thrill rides.

There are two questions. One: are you (and I) representative of the "regular" Orlando visitor? Two: even if we are not, are there *enough* people in the "regular" Orlando visitor set like you (and me) for this park to work?

The answer to one is clearly and resoundingly "no". Just look at the lines for these sorts of rides in any regular amusement park.

The answer to two? Maybe. We'll see. I agree that niche marketing can make sense. And, if it can make sense *anywhere*, Orlando is the place. But, it will depend on pricing, promotion, and cross-property ticketing agreements/promotions.

kpjb said:
Do you think any of these manufacturers have actually signed on or even been contacted?

I thought that was obvious, based on the stock photos of existing coasters and the No Limits screenshot. What other evidence do you need?

Lord Gonchar said:

But I think that's exactly the point and exactly why this idea could exist in Orlando.

Yeah when that happens that when I make the hour long drive to Busch Gardens Africa. :)

Is there even such a thing as an inverted Accelerator coaster? I mean, like what they want. Where would the cable go?

GregLeg said:
A few of the proposals bother me -- why aim to beat out Top Thrill Dragster but NOT Kingda Ka? Why an SLC at all?

(Edit -- cleanup)

so many things wrong with this whole idea, and the first one you note is not edging out KK ? seriously?

As others have noted, but to recap:

Pros:
Orlando has A market for stand alone smaller attractions: i.e Fun N' Wheels, Med Times, Arabian nights, the various shopping outlets etc.

Most of those do a good business "evenings" only (think of it as the counterpart to a water park or pool day. Most families don't do parks every day of their Orlando trip, unless they are magic my way/magic express stuck on Disney property.

There is a HUGE concentration of visitors on the I-Drive corridor looking for things to do in the evenings. Especially in the off season when Sea World, AK, IOA, Univ close at 5 or 6 pm. The prior comment about Celebration City was dead on.

Cons:

This project is too capital intensive (even with second hand rides (SLC, towers) etc.

Even with good foot traffic, I can't come up with a reasonable number of patrons/per cap to make this thing viable.

(as others have noted) The limited target market lops off the low and high end of the age range, leaving the place to more likely be a baby sitting service for under 21's. Not famous for having large amounts of cash to spend on souvenirs/food/etc.

You're looking at an initial investment in the 150-200MM range, and after Wild West World, Celebration City (for which this models most closely) and HRP, what lender is going to do this deal without MASSIVE amounts of viability data that proves all of us armchair RCTycoons wrong?

Maybe it would help them if they decided to spread a few kiddie and family rides throughout the property as well?

At that point then you're just building a lame, run-of-the-mill theme park in the shadow of Disney, Universal and SeaWorld.

I say the whole key is to not look like weak competition to those parks, but an add-on to your vacation.