Thorpe Park | Angry Birds | 4D Cinema/area retheme

[Lofty]

^ It's also hard to market tarting up what you already have as opposed to having a new addition.

With the competition of all parks in the UK utilising their new additions, they have to try and out promote one another. This makes sense as a business move and nothing else.

 

[jj23w]

But my opinion of all this is why a 69p game like angry birds?

 

[SaiyanHajime]

^How?

They can't add something big and expensive every year. It's not like the park is falling apart and in need of major repairs (yes, people will disagree here, but to an infrequent visitor, there's nothing majorly wrong with it that needs immediately fixing), unlike another park just down the road. This isn't taking the place of anything decent and causing any damage. It's a cheap bit of crap that's been chucked up and that's easily removable in a couple of years.

Like Benin said, the new attraction additions are great (well, I think dodgems present an issue but nothing is perfect and its about minimising the issues not creating something perfect - this is a whole diff point though).

The problem is Angry Birds.

You really think that has longevity? I'm sure you don't. It'll need removing before too long, and that itself costs money. Not to mention IPs ain't cheap. This isn't the budget addition it seems. Why not actually create something that will not only attract people this season, but continue to entertain for decades? Something unique. Something that defines the brand of Thorpe for its future. Something that works towards a goal of unity of the product.

Instead, this flimsy IP is a side track that contributes to the parks disjointedness, fails to think ahead into the future and worst of all will look tacky and cheap alongside the rest of Thorpe's aesthetic.

 

[gavin]

^How?

They can't add something big and expensive every year. It's not like the park is falling apart and in need of major repairs (yes, people will disagree here, but to an infrequent visitor, there's nothing majorly wrong with it that needs immediately fixing), unlike another park just down the road. This isn't taking the place of anything decent and causing any damage. It's a cheap bit of crap that's been chucked up and that's easily removable in a couple of years.

You really think that has longevity? I'm sure you don't.

No, and I said as much in the last sentence of what you've just quoted.

Yes, it will need removing before long, clearly. It's more than obvious that it's not intended as a long term plan.

Compared to a major, long-term addition, it absolutely is a budget option.

If they'd removed something decent for this, or actually really created a new land, thereby showing the intention of it being a long term addition, I'd understand the overreaction. That hasn't happened though; it's (comparitively) cheap filler, trying to get something out of a dying IP while they're on a "down" year.

 

[jj23w]

Even people I know have said that you are going to hear the angry birds theme music like a sore thumb. what is the constructionl like so far haven`t really seen pictures and am going Thorpe Park in september.

 

[Robbie]

Even people I know have said that you are going to hear the angry birds theme music like a sore thumb.

I don't know about anyone else, but I bloody hate the sound of sore thumbs.

 

[jj23w]

I don't know about anyone else, but I bloody hate the sound of sore thumbs.

If you get what i mean like being on The Swarm you are going to hear angry birds theme music. I can just about last playing angry birds with the sounds.

 

[SaiyanHajime]

^How?

They can't add something big and expensive every year. It's not like the park is falling apart and in need of major repairs (yes, people will disagree here, but to an infrequent visitor, there's nothing majorly wrong with it that needs immediately fixing), unlike another park just down the road. This isn't taking the place of anything decent and causing any damage. It's a cheap bit of crap that's been chucked up and that's easily removable in a couple of years.

You really think that has longevity? I'm sure you don't.

No, and I said as much in the last sentence of what you've just quoted.

Yes, it will need removing before long, clearly. It's more than obvious that it's not intended as a long term plan.

Compared to a major, long-term addition, it absolutely is a budget option.

If they'd removed something decent for this, or actually really created a new land, thereby showing the intention of it being a long term addition, I'd understand the overreaction. That hasn't happened though; it's (comparitively) cheap filler, trying to get something out of a dying IP while they're on a "down" year.

My point is that it would have been cheaper and more productive in the long run had they gone with an original theme with some longevity or matched these attractions with Amity cove.

Using an IP is not budget. Ever.

The cost of the IP yearly licensing and removal of it further down the line makes this an expensive mistake, IMHO.

Have Bubble works and Flume had their licensing removed? And yet, they remain thematically the same and of detriment to their respective themed environments.

When Angry Birds goes, the branded theming will be stripped, but the ambiguous bits will remain.

Detrimental.

 

[spicy]

^ You must appreciate that 'Angry Birds Land' sounds much better and is much easier to market and promote than 'New Amity Bumper cars'. Which is essentially (other than a lick of paint, the 4D Movie and some signs) all that is new here..

I agree this land has no longeivity and is nothing but a short term thing whilst the park has nothing substantial to promote. However the Angry Birds IP should still attract a lot more visitors than 'Amity bumper cars' ever would..

So basically what I am saying is I am certain that the attendance figures are going to be higher this year than they would have been without the Angry Birds IP. This itself will cover the cost of the IP and its eventual removal in 5 or so years when the Angry Birds brand is finally dead and buried. Therefore it isn't an 'expensive mistake'.

Personally I doubt the Angry Birds IP was even that expensive anyway, lets be honest the brand is on its way out and whoever owns Angry Birds must have been very happy when Thorpe approached them to use the brand. It benefits both parties here.

 

[Robbie]

It doesn't matter what the situation is in 5 years time - if it provides a reason for people to come in now, then it's job done.

 

[furie]

I can see both sides to be honest. I think Joey's point is that if you do it correctly in the first place, then you're not looking at five years down the line, you're looking at payback over maybe 20 years.

Look at Gloomy Wood at Alton. It's a "solid area" still and it adds constant value to the park.

It's a management/thought process that separates those who are professional from those who are looking for a quick buck. Disney, Universal, Busch, Phantasialand, Plopsa - their parks retain custom and attract new custom every year because they're stunning places. You don't need a new attraction every year because people are happy to return every year and just experience the parks. Okay, they need a little here and there, every few years, but the "core" is so good it never needs changing or improving - just looking after.

This is what Joey is on about, the fact that it's better to spend maybe a little more for a theme that will still be good in 15 years time, rather than go for a quick fix in numbers this year, down again next and then removed in five with a mess in ten that looks dreadful in 15 and is putting people off.

Obviously, if you're desperate for numbers now - it works though - it's just short sighted. We don't know the constraints or financials involved though, so it's not an easy thing to discuss to be honest.

 

[Ian]

If it's any help with your number crunching, furie, I can tell you that most theme park companies expect at 30% return on their investment within 3 years. Merlin expect 40% within 3.

 

[spicy]

I totally agree that this is a short sighted quick buck addition. That is its main purpose and what they want it to be. Attendance figures remain stable, managers remain happy and shareholders get their dividend for the year - everyone's happy. Even if it can be at detriment to the long term view of the park.

It's a shame but that's how it is and how the parks have to be operated in some years. At the end of the day the parks are a business.

It kind of resembles some of the late Tussaud's era when we saw Rita and Spinball plonked into areas that they have never really fit into, but they definately gave Alton a boost for those seasons. Alton have now paid the price as they had to try to make Rita fit with a re-theme into the dark forest and we have seen that they want to re-locate Spinball. But back in 04/05 the managers were happy.

This is what Joey is on about, the fact that it's better to spend maybe a little more for a theme that will still be good in 15 years time, rather than go for a quick fix in numbers this year, down again next and then removed in five with a mess in ten that looks dreadful in 15 and is putting people off.

I agree and arguably they have done this with Swarm's island- an original theme that should last for a long time. Look at Amity Cove the area is still looking good 14 years later. There is no doubt it pays off in the long run. However it seems they just wanted a quick fix for a season or two until the new coaster opens in 2016

 

[furie]

If it's any help with your number crunching, furie, I can tell you that most theme park companies expect at 30% return on their investment within 3 years. Merlin expect 40% within 3.

It doesn't help, but it's very interesting anyway

I'm quite shocked, I would have thought the ROI was expected over a much longer period. I'd like to do some numbers, but I've been doing accounts all week

It's a shame but that's how it is and how the parks have to be operated in some years. At the end of the day the parks are a business.

It kind of resembles some of the late Tussaud's era when we saw Rita and Spinball plonked into areas that they have never really fit into, but they definately gave Alton a boost for those seasons. Alton have now paid the price as they had to try to make Rita fit with a re-theme into the dark forest and we have seen that they want to re-locate Spinball. But back in 04/05 the managers were happy.

I think that's exactly it and I understand that they're a business with budgets and targets to hit. It's just that it shows the difference between a professionally run enterprise with long term view, and one trying to make it from one season to the next with money in pocket.

 

[jj23w]

Thorpe are just making use of a non expensive year in the uk`s flagship parks.

 

[SaiyanHajime]

Whilst marketability matters, perhaps arguably more than anything else, if people turn up and find turds that does incredible amounts of damage to people's trust. A fantastic marketing scheme for a turd attraction might increase attendance to start with, but no one's coming back. Thorpe's problem at the moment seems to be that they've exhausted their targeted teen/adult audience, so to already off the bat begin by offering disappointment to the new audience of families is just bizarre?

Honestly, I think there's a reason that despite the years of stagnation and all that has happened, Chessington is still doing okay. It's incredible that between 1998 and 2004 they literally did NOTHING and didn't... die. And since '04, what of note have we had? Retheme, a disko and Zufari? Compare that to Thorpe's growth. Chessington's survival is because of those original late 80s/early 90s rides that are quality and still define the place.

 

[spicy]

Whilst marketability matters, perhaps arguably more than anything else, if people turn up and find turds that does incredible amounts of damage to people's trust. A fantastic marketing scheme for a turd attraction might increase attendance to start with, but no one's coming back. Thorpe's problem at the moment seems to be that they've exhausted their targeted teen/adult audience, so to already off the bat begin by offering disappointment to the new audience of families is just bizarre?

Very true, they simply aren't offering enough here for the new target audience for them to be completely satisfied. It will be interesting to see what they add for families in the next few years to get them back to visit as they have gone so far the other way towards thrill seekers up until now. Personally I can't see it working as the park is so small it will be hard to accommodate but we will see..

Honestly, I think there's a reason that despite the years of stagnation and all that has happened, Chessington is still doing okay. It's incredible that between 1998 and 2004 they literally did NOTHING and didn't... die. And since '04, what of note have we had? Retheme, a disko and Zufari? Compare that to Thorpe's growth. Chessington's survival is because of those original late 80s/early 90s rides that are quality and still define the place.

Great point and proves that longevity works and is the key for success. I still hear people even now talk about Chessington as the one with the 'big rides', which proves how good the park and it's marketing was back in the 90's. But above all else Chessington has always been a nice place just to visit and be in which makes people return. I just can't say the same for Thorpe. Obviously not on the same scale but it's the same reason why the Disney parks can go years without adding anything, they are just great places for people to visit, spend the day and enjoy themselves..

It's very interesting and deserves its own topic really.

 

[pitchnoir]

Been watching this topic for a while and personally been slowly but surely getting pissed off more and more at thorpe for this re theme?

why? because as stated previously it is a IP which is pretty much dead in the water, it can be very annoying to most and is truly diverting from what thorpe set out to do say 2 years ago. They were all up for being the teen park and allowing the towers to apeal to all generations and chessington to be the kiddie park so to speak, so why take this IP on? why not follow a IP which maybe dead (if you have to pick one) but one that appeals to the teens and all that but still fun? take futuroscope for example, they have just built a attraction around raving rabbids. Its an old IP granted, BUT is still fun and will hold the attention of the public.

I wouldn't say im a fan boy at all, but admittedly ive been to thorpe at least twice/3 times every year religiously for the past 17/18 years and with this addition it has pissed me off that much its sinking into severe dissapointment and questioning these so called religious trips I take.

I hope it works out for them, I really do but why couldnt they have placed a little play park in chessington based on angry birds instead of a retheme or pretty much a "land" within thorpe or just theme the 4d cinema as angry birds and leave 'det truly alone and just keep it merged with inferno and if needs be just change the q entrance so it faces inferno and bring those rides together?

sorry for the rant lol

 

[SaiyanHajime]

Saw this at Chessington today, and it illustrates what I was saying brilliantly...

Now stripped of the imperial leather brand, Bubbleworks remains identical. All that has changed is removal of logos. In the picture above, a logo on a printed board has been covered over with white paint. Its thus a textured, white surface that looks like some weird kind of vandalism.

When you take cheap, short term short cuts to creative problem solving, you're left with crap that's expensive to alter.

 

[Smithy]

Looks like, well, the one that won the race.

Should be pg enough for our younger members.