Would the UK benefit from a lot less theme parks?

[Hixee]

^I'm not going to comment on your estimates, I couldn't even guess if that was in the right ballpark. I do seem to remember reading something about total takings in a day somewhere, but I can't remember any of it really!

However, don't forget that all the money the park makes doesn't just go straight to the coasters. They have to pay staff, buy food/merchandise, maintain the park and all sorts of other little costs. Also, it's not just the cost that holds up parks putting in loads of coasters, there's planning permission, need and space.

 

[Nemesis Inferno]

Would love to know what you used to work out an income of $1 million every day...

Quite frankly, I imagine only the most high end parks can do that with pure utter consistenty... And even then as Hixee said with them having to spend said money on hundreds of staff (at varying rates per person AND day), maintenance, etc., it would certainly not equate to that at all...

And then we look at the UK parks (as this is the topic of discussion), and the smaller ones certainly won't bring in £1 million a day...

 

[alexr]

In the 90's Pleasure Beach used to make over half a million a day on good days.
I don't think the Uk would benifit from alot less parks.
However Lack of investment and how good the food is ect adds to the parks reputation.
The cost all add up, maintance, running costs, employes ect.

 

[SaiyanHajime]

Well, Chessington claimed that they needed 500 people in the park to break even. But I don't know if that's based entirely on ticket sales or not.

Lets assume that, on average, people are spending £20 to get into Chessington (allowing for discount tickets of some customers). £10.000 a day to run the park, bare minimum. I suspect it's actually quite a bit more in reality because my estimate of £20 entry per person is likely off. I suspect more people than I realise pay full entry because mostpeoplearestupid.

Imagine how much a large park costs to run.

Regardless, it's merchandise and food where the real money is to be made. The problem with the smaller parks, I find, is that the cost v quality of their food is EXACTLY what the public expects and it's that reputation that causes people to bring their own food, which damages all parks in the long run. Merlin, on the other hand, have got the cost v quality ratio not far off perfect. It's still more than you'd pay outside the park, but not so much that it's offensive unlike at Lightwater Valley, for example, where I'm pretty sure they source their food from Ultimate rail kill.

 

[Mark]

Reputation means everything to the success of theme parks. I mean, duh, think about it.

But reputations aren't necessarily formed on FACTS. Certainly not up-to-date ones, that is, because once you've got a reputation... you'll be hard pressed to change it, for better or worse.

Did you even read my post? I even included an example of why this might not always be the case... It is not as black and white as simply saying it means everything.

The two are very highly linked but one does not always lead to the other!

Various parks have bad reputations for various things. Does this stop people going and therefore them being 'successful'... of course it doesn't.

Prime example Thorpe. It has a reputation for being a bit rough and for having a lot of things broken down a lot. Believe it or not, this viewpoint is NOT just restricted to enthusiasts. Nevertheless, does it stop people going? Or course not! People are still flocking to the park.

It is totally possible for parks to have reputations for being overly expensive. IE. Islands of Adventure is allready getting known for its excessively priced merchandise, particularly in the Harry Potter area. $26 for a ride photo for instance. However, does it stop people paying it. No, because they still want that reminder to take home with them. Therefore, the merchandise is a success because people are still buying it.

As I say, reputation and success level are linked but it really does depend on what the reputation is for. Things like high prices, bad food and long queues people will swallow and just put up with. Of course, if a park started having a spate of murders and had a reputation for many killer accidents then that would have a direct effect on the success level because people would stop going.

 

[Nemesis Inferno]

$26 for a ride photo for instance.

WHAT?!

Jesus that's actually stupid... I'd use that on something else (merch/food/etc) rather than a photo for THAT price...

 

[nealbie]

A simple - "No, stop being retarded" will suffice to the original post, but I won't say it because I feel it's already been adequately covered.

But then we move on to the argument(s) that have off-shot from there and devoured the rest of the topic (and not in a good way either! ); then it transpires that Slappy isn't being the slapstick as it were......

Now I love ranting and raving about how poorly Merlin treat us (their customers, NOT enthusiasts, let's make it clear that we're a VERY small part in a massive customer base), but when people start going on and on for either the sake of it, or because it clashes with their own personal preferences - it really ticks me off something rotten!

Don't like it? Don't go. Make your own theme park. Find a new hobby. Do SOMETHING that isn't petty and pointless. By ALL means, post the once on how you feel, make a lovely, well detailed argument covering all of your ideals on why you think 'x,y & z' is rubbish; what SHOULD have been done in your eyes; why you dislike what they have done (and vice versa l'obv). It would certainly improve the quality of the forums a lot more (admittedly, I realise that all I ever really do is go off-topic and spam, I grant you that, I'm not very serious and controversy is my bitch - but it's stuff like this that really grinds my gears).

It also means we IGNORE the massive BRAND that is LEGO. OF COURSE we bloody get less discount at their parks, it's a high-street brand. The products are no more expensive in a LEGOLAND than they are on the high-street, so be ****ing grateful that you've even been given your 10% discount on their products!

"Thorpe's full of chavs"..... "Chessie never gets anything"..... "Alton's stuck in the 90's"..... "Blackpool makes me cry"..... "I don't like LEGO"..... "Flamingos scare me"..... "I like my water dark"..... "I'm not a fountain enthusiast"..... Don't like it? Don't go! I could repeat this to the end of time and the point would still stand. Do you go to the customer service check-out in Tesco and tell them off for not selling the Sainsbury's basics Wine Gums that you love so much? Like hell do you. You go to Sainsbury's!

Yes, we'd all like to see the parks take more risks in ride selection and construction. We are (supposedly) "enthusiastic" about what gets put in these enclosed spaces around the world, new and exciting stuff would be lovely. But these places remain businesses, and a business' number one objective is to make money, NOT to please every single customer. If you can reach that point, then that's a bloody nice luxury to have and congratulations to ANYONE who's ever succeeded that, even BLOODY DISNEY doesn't please everyone. The supporters of Blackpool's football team would LOVE to win the Premier League, they know the chances are mightily slim, but they're happy to stay in the nation's top division because it means that their club can remain financially secure and enjoy some good, memorable moments in its history. If the people of Blackpool can understand this simple business concept, then the good, bright, educated people of CoasterForce shouldn't find it a problem at all.

Fact of the matter remains, Merlin pretty much have a monopoly on the top-end of Britain's theme parks right now. I don't like that this is the case, but that's how it is and I've accepted that it's the case and through very good business acumen have put themselves in the enviable position of being able to charge (within reason) whatever the hell they want to for the service that are providing you.

Like all companies around the world, for some money, the happiness of their customers is expendable. If the money keeps rolling in, which seemingly it is doing for them, then of course they're going to remove perks like free parking (it's not uncommon elsewhere to use a premium pass system for extra benefits). If it turns sour and impacts negatively on profits, then they'll put it back in a couple of years and advertise it as a brand-new perk as a selling point!

You all act like they are a bunch of thickos who don't know what they are doing. But they ARE a massively successful business giant, who must at least have a relatively decent reputation of their parks would be empty and I wouldn't see daily complaints about excessive queuelines and crowding. Just because it's not what you'd do on RCT or NoLimits is your lookout. Welcome to reality! Get to grips with it.

Much love xxx

 

[spicy]

I can't see why people think that its a bad thing for an extremely successful company like Merlin to run and own the best UK theme parks.

From an enthusiasts viewpoint surely this can be only viewed as a good thing? If it wasn't for Merlin/Tussauds we may never have had any B&M or Intamin £12 Million+ world class coasters in this country as the parks just simply wouldn't be able to afford them.

Where would Thorpe Park be without the Tussauds buy out? Probably a small family park with little there at all.


Also in response to the Merlin being second in the world they are so far away from Disney I don't think they will ever be number one. Disney in 2009 generated £7Billion from its parks, Merlin generated £769 Million. Disney had 100 Million visitors, Merlin had 38Million.

Keep dreaming Merlin, there never going to be No.1.

 

[spicy]

I can't see why people think that its a bad thing for an extremely successful company like Merlin to run and own the best UK theme parks.

From an enthusiasts viewpoint surely this can be only viewed as a good thing? If it wasn't for Merlin/Tussauds we may never have had any B&M or Intamin £12 Million+ world class coasters in this country as the parks just simply wouldn't be able to afford them.

Where would Thorpe Park be without the Tussauds buy out? Probably a small family park with little there at all.


Also in response to the Merlin being second in the world they are so far away from Disney I don't think they will ever be number one. Disney in 2009 generated £7Billion from its parks, Merlin generated £769 Million. Disney had 100 Million visitors, Merlin had 38Million.

Keep dreaming Merlin, there never going to be No.1.

 

[marc]

Yep hence why I will not be getting a pass this year Will they miss my money no not at all, is it a protest? no not at all. I just simply cannot be bothered throwing good money away.

The view I original spoke about was that of the public, people that I work with. Yes a I said what I think of the parks as well which I felt I was entitled to do. I was not having a go at Merlin for the sake of it, I was just going through things that was all. My post was not read by all the way it was meant to read, simple as that really. Assumptions were made and things were twisted. It was not even the view of a bloody coaster fan.

They were not moaning about the cost of Lego btw, but the price of entry how many rides they got on and the cost off food there. They are not pass holders but a family on a day out.

Alton for me is stuck in the 90's it used to be the place to go, now for me personally it is not which is why I said I do not go every year now. And yes I was going there before many people on here were even born lol.

People complain about the parks in private yet when it comes to the forums do not, I just do not get it at all.

Anyway I cannot asked with it, try and give views etc and get slated down what is the point. Not everyone agrees all the time that is life simple really. You only have to go on Thorpe or Altons FB pages to see people do complain and do not think its all roses, and yes these are people that have just gone for a day out.

I have had great days out at all the parks, laughing joking as you all know. I have also had bad service at Disneyland California and posted about it as well. GF the last 2 years has been fantastic as have private meet ups. But for me in hard times I would rather go to new parks I have not been to rather than pay for a pass and then more on top of that pass for well less or the same.

Tussauds for me seemed better, but many people do not remember the older days at Alton or Chessington. Fact there are less rides and attractions at Alton and Chessington than there used to be, yes not all Merlins fault but there are still less

And no Neal I am not having a go at you btw, I just cannot believe one post would cause all this. I can fully see your point btw.

So far I know of at least 20 people that are not getting a pass this year for the same reasons as me, but will they post it? nope

 

[Ben]

Neal, your post is without a doubt the most retarded thing I have ever seen you write.

If you were in charge I can guarentee the parks would last about a week. Companies like Ryanair which provide a "necessary" service for cheap can get away with being **** because it's worth it to get what you need for cheap. BUT, a theme park is a luxury excursion with no actual point besides entertainment, and as such they can NOT get away with treating people like **** or they WILL lose their repeat visitors. Look what happened to places like Southport when they started treating customers like dirt... It doesn't work!

It'll be fine in the short run, but, buisness is about the long term. You should know this basic concept from your time studying buisness.

 

[SaiyanHajime]

Reputation means everything to the success of theme parks. I mean, duh, think about it.

But reputations aren't necessarily formed on FACTS. Certainly not up-to-date ones, that is, because once you've got a reputation... you'll be hard pressed to change it, for better or worse.

Did you even read my post? I even included an example of why this might not always be the case... It is not as black and white as simply saying it means everything.

The two are very highly linked but one does not always lead to the other!

Various parks have bad reputations for various things. Does this stop people going and therefore them being 'successful'... of course it doesn't.

Prime example Thorpe. It has a reputation for being a bit rough and for having a lot of things broken down a lot. Believe it or not, this viewpoint is NOT just restricted to enthusiasts. Nevertheless, does it stop people going? Or course not! People are still flocking to the park.

It is totally possible for parks to have reputations for being overly expensive. IE. Islands of Adventure is allready getting known for its excessively priced merchandise, particularly in the Harry Potter area. $26 for a ride photo for instance. However, does it stop people paying it. No, because they still want that reminder to take home with them. Therefore, the merchandise is a success because people are still buying it.

As I say, reputation and success level are linked but it really does depend on what the reputation is for. Things like high prices, bad food and long queues people will swallow and just put up with. Of course, if a park started having a spate of murders and had a reputation for many killer accidents then that would have a direct effect on the success level because people would stop going.

Thorpe doesn't have a bad reputation to it's target audience. So it's irrelevant. None of my non-coastery friends thing Thorpe is ****. It's pointless saying that so-and-so park has a reputation for adhering to it's target audience. Thorpe Park has a reputation for being full of epic thrill rides. It's "negative" points aren't of interest to it's target audience.

I think IOA is the same. It's target is holiday makers, and holiday makers are more willing to spend money than people just making a random trip to a theme park. The reputation of the Florida parks in general is so great that it overrides most negativity and parks like IOA and even BGT, despite being so out of the way, get guests for catering to a slightly different market to the majority of parks in the area.

Of course I read your post, was adding to it, not really disagreeing. But I think the two are interlinked more than you do, that's all. It was more addressed at Mike anyway.

EDIT: I actually have an interesting example of the reputation thing. I spent most of the summer last year in Virginia and I found that a hell of a lot of non-coaster people knew that SFA was crap. SFA has always interested me because you'd think it should be successful in the same way Thorpe is. It's right next to DC and Baltimore, two major cities, like Thorpe is close to London. But SFA only attracts absolute locals, it's ride selection is poor. People would rather travel up to Hershey, which has a fantastic reputation, than even try SFA because of it's atrocious one. I didn't think SFA was that bad. Yes, it's rides are almost all absolute crap, but it was not the horrendous environment I was warned about and the staff were nicer than I found at SFOG or SFGAdv. I couldn't help thinking that the only thing damaging the reputation of that place was good old fashioned American racism. It's a shame that a park in such a prime location is so... ****, really. I spent 2 hours there, and then we went shopping... Bought myself some flip flops at a Vans outlet, went to Ikea to admire the shop that's EXACTLY THE SAME EVERYWHERE. Was a good day.

 

[Mark]

To clarify what I am getting at... A 'bad' reputation does not automatically equal an unsuccessful park. Whether a reputation is relevant or not does not deny it's existence. Which is exactly why I raised the point about IoA merchandise and Disney queues. Despite negative aspects of their reputation the parks are massively successful because, as I said in my previous posts, people are quite willing to overlook certain negative opinions for varying reasons like being on holiday etc.

Essentially I am saying that it is not as cut and dry as simply saying a bad rep equals unsuccessful parks.

 

[T0M]

In response to the original question: No, it most certainly wouldn't.

I'm not feeling a huge essay type response here, but in a nutshell, there needs to be small, independent competition in virtually all areas of business.

 

[chessychase]

I personally think there is room for another big theme park in the UK.. in particular, staffordshire.

Slap bang in the middle of the country, lots of space and already 1 major park, a resort and a smaller park.

UK parks are making more and more money every year and for investors, that's gold. Merlin are breaking into the US market with Legoland Florida but think with another park in the midlands area they could turn their 3 day stay's at Alton Towers hotel into week long stays with another park. Some huge investment would be needed but would look great on any company's asset sheet.
Orlando does a great job of keeping people there for extended periods of time for parks, it'd be awesome if europe had the same sort of town/area with varied parks to visit.

 

[Hixee]

^So you think they next best place to put a big theme parks in the UK is next door Alton Towers?! Unless it was SERIOUSLY good, it's not going to stand a chance. Frankly I think that's a terrible idea.

 

[chessychase]

Don't get me wrong, the park would have to be good and with a Middle Aastern investment strategy as opposed to a British one. (make it big, awesome off the bat)
Alton Towers would benefit from the park, even better if merlin owned part/all of it. It means longer stays for people at their hotels that wouldn't be there otherwise (if it's done correctly) and will entice more people to holiday in the UK.

 

[Jake]

I actually think having more parks is better.

If there were only one or two parks, there's no competition so they don't have to invest as much. Whereas, if theres another park down the road, they're more likely to pump money into new stuff to pull the people in.

Just look at countries that only have a few parks... they're dumps!

 

[marc]

^So you think they next best place to put a big theme parks in the UK is next door Alton Towers?! Unless it was SERIOUSLY good, it's not going to stand a chance. Frankly I think that's a terrible idea.

American Adventure being a good example lol

 

[Enicomb]

I actually think that if anywhere in the UK needs a new/major park it's somewhere around northern England/Scottish border, what with there being practically nothing (certainly nothing major) even close.

However that wouldn't increase competition as there simply wouldn't be much competition in that area and of course competition is the best thing for 'enthusiasts' even if it' snot for whomever owns the parks.