Case in point is Lincoln Park zoo in Chicago. It is one of the last remaining free zoos in the country. They rely on private contributions and corporate sponsors. Of course they also depend on what you buy inside the zoo but thats chump change compared to the donations.
The other up-front money of zoos are the memberships. While in the long run , they wouldnt make as much money off of someone that frequents quite often in a year paying each time, it increases their needs in the short-term. My daughter and I visit Brookfield zoo about 10 times a year with our yearly membership. I paid $50 for it and it gets me unlimited parking, admission, and 10% off food and merchandise for an entire year.
A great deal and Brookfield is a world-class zoo.
------------------
Arena football has arrived in the Windy City. Go "Chicago Rush"
Sea World was holding its own in a corporation that insists on growth. Could Sea World Ohio have continued to operate as it was? Yes. They were pulling in guests year after year.
Was Sea World Ohio going to grow as was its sister parks in Florida, Texas and California? No. That was the biggest problem.
I was just responding to all of the comments that the zoos and aquariums are "busy" year round thus implying some sort of econimic stability. If zoos and aquariums don't rely on gates (which i thought i made clear of believeing, but appearently didn't) then why bring up the "fact" that they're busy?
At any rate i think it's safe to say that zoos and other animal sanctuaries are not a part of this debate since they do not play by the same economic rules as say SW. Furthermore i think that they produce a similar yet substantially different product, and i wish i hadn't mentioned them in the first place. It was just a point that animal venues have difficulty in producing revenue and substantial attendance, that's all. Doesn't matter if it's SW or a zoo, the market isn't as big for animal driven parks or zoos/aquariums like there is for a theme/amusement park. Only the best of the best zoos or aquariums would ever look to gate money and really factor it as a major part of the budget, but i never claimed that they run a profit on this money at all. The difference in SW is that they offer shows and other attractions much more in line with an amusement park.
But on to other points
Both the Orlando park and the Texas park do the least attendance in their market. Their rates aren't bad, but i would expect more from nearly year round parks. Sea World Calif runs 4 mil. Again not a bad rate, but if the demand was there for the product like all of these people state then i would think that the California park would run much higher numbers. And they would if they could. SW Orlando does as well as it does because of the "rat".
Furthermore the SW parks also run with other types of attractions and they push them in the advertisment. As if to say hey there's more here than fish and a big mammel. It seems to me that it may be important to the company that people know that there is more than just animals.
I argue that interest in marine life parks is not as high as it once was. I also believe that there still is a market and will continue to be a market for them. But i also believe that unless something revolutionary comes along for marine parks people will continue to grow stale on the horse and pony show. Therefore i believe that you will continue to see more emphasis on rides and other amusement park type attractions in parks that are trying to grow both attendance and revenue. Little parks like Discovery Cove will continue to be unkown as long as they stick to the marine schtick. And you are already seeing the big players in the marine park genre turning into theme/anusement/marine parks that showcase more than just an orca.
And i ask you Jeff what proof that you have that SW is doing so well besides being in the park on one busy day? How can you prove that SW's numbers aren't maintaining or showing what little groth there is because of the added attractions? Shows have limited availability so you will always see a node of activity at these attarctions, the patronage to the rides should be a bit more even. But on the park patron stategies of show versus ride i merely speculate and think to myself that that would be a fine study to undertake. Anyway, a marine park should look crowded during the shows because there are only so many and that is part of the reason why people go, the midways ironically are kind of quiet at that same time.
All i can say is that the one park that couldn't build "traditional" amusement rides and attractions but couldn't (even though they so desperately wanted to) is the only one to fold up and sell out. And yes it was a failure. They couldn't evolve and change, it ran in the red, and the product was so exciting it couldn't fend off a zoo (or so Jeff claims, and while on that why isn't SWSD having rouble with argueably the best zoo in the country?). It wasn't competition because there is nothing like it anywhere near Ohio, it wasn't because it was seasonal because it would have folded much sooner. To me that leaves lack of interest or managerial incompetence. Either way there is no way to determine if i'm right or not because there is no large marine only park left that pulls close to 2 mil... or is there?
*** This post was edited by meangene 2/22/2003 1:11:27 AM ***
#2, If SW Ohio wasn't running in the red, wasn't on a downtrend and could have ran properly to this day, Busch wouldn't have sold the park and skipped town like rats escaping from a sinking ship. I can't speak to the fact of the other parks, Florida was a gorgeous park, but if I hadn't wrangled up some free passes I'm not so sure I would have spent my money. But that's me, I had a limited time down there and wanted to do a lot of things, and Sea World wasn't on my list of priorities, still it was a nice park. I don't think Busch falling over themselves to pack up and leave was a healthy sign though that the decision to sell was difficult, it had more of the feel of Doc Snooker selling his cure-all elixer and laughing all the way to the bank.
But since none of us our August Busch III, we'll probably never know.
------------------
- GeaugaDog
Ain't Nuthin but the Dog in me..
Meanwhile, they've built an incredible dolphin area (seven large lakes, with sandy bottoms, reefs and fish for the dolphins enjoyment only), which was either inspired by, or the inspiration for Discovery Cove in Florida. There's also a Polar Bears enclosure, that gives the bears and people unlimited entertainment (plus you can imagine the infrastructure to keep polar bears happy in the Aussie heat).
The current stories say that next up is a Crocodile exhibit, and a rebuilt seals enclosure, in this new wave of enviro-tainment, that seem to be one of the most successful ways of bringing in guests.
I wouldn't consider these marine parks regular zoos, by any means. With or without rides. I think the best proof of that, is as Jeff suggested, Discovery Cove. It is a park that charges high amounts AND has a limit on the number of guests per day. It costs about four times what the Sea Worlds do per day, but you're paying for that unique interactive experience. With the regular marine parks, you're getting more than you get at the local zoo I believe. There's always this element of exoticness and mystery about marine creatures, that has this fantastic appeal to families, that they can't get at a normal zoo, even with the biggest sleeping lion, or eating gorilla, or invisible armadillo.
------------------
So what if the best coaster in Australia is a second hand Arrow?
-www.totalthrills.com-
Australia's Premier Source for Thrills!
Again i want to reitterate that i don't think that the remaining Busch SW parks are going to go under. Well certainly not the Orlando or San Diego park.
It all started with my belief that SW is has been leaning toward other amusement park attractions as a way to increase their market share because of the declining general public interest in marine parks. And looking at what the SW chain has put into the parks over the previous decade (coasters, traditional rides, simulators, and movie theaters) i think that the trend to alternative amusement attractions is there for whatever the reason.
And after looking at what Discovery Cove has to offer, i can't see how it is at all like any product offered by any other "marine park". It is obviously the next level to observing animals. In fact i think it's more like a zoo since the animals don't seem to have to preform for thier lunches.
Also this Cove has to keep attendance down beacuse of the intamacy the guest has with the animals. Without this control it would be most troublesome for the animals i would think. Furthermore this is clearly a product for a very narrow segment of the SW market, not only does the induvidual have to have an interest in sea life greater than most (or a certain zest for life), but they also have to fit into the income range targeted. I can't think of to many families willing to pay the minimum 119 a head ( and this doesn't let them swim with the animals). This is for the select few, and they PAY for it.
Also i think it worth noting that if you do by a day package at the Cove you get.... a whole seven days at the Orlando SW!!! Interesing...
That being said this seems to be an incredible product. If i were the type of person into swimming and snorkeling i would be on the next plane. This park clearly fits into the BEC model of education and preservation and certainly seems to be a worthwhile endeavor. Furthermore i think it quite savy to market the product for more well off induviduals in a controled guest environment. If they max attendance every day and run 365 days they'll easlily clear at least 43.4 mil in gate revenue (assume everyone pays minimum to get in). I can't even guess as to the investment or running costs, but i would wager it looks worhtwhile if the park was built.
*** This post was edited by meangene 2/22/2003 1:56:32 PM ***
You must be logged in to post