Richard

I really don't get the fuss about these things. I've had a few in America and they're good, but they're just doughnuts. I certainly don't understand why there were so many people on my Sydney to Brisbane flight yesterday afternoon with two or three dozen of the things as they boarded. I guess snowglobes and teaspoons have made way for fried balls of dough coated in sugar.

I'm sure if you looked at the usage stats on Dreamworld's two year pass, the visits would become so infrequent by the end of the two years that the added costs of facilitating that extra year is outweighed by the revenue generated. You'd naturally have a spike around summer for WhiteWater World, but there'd be almost no visits to that park 6-9 months of the year; it'd all be Dreamworld. From the first year to the second year, I'm sure usage would on average drop by at least 50%, which is more or less the price difference between the one year and two year pass. I suspect market research would show there is a significant market of locals who buy a theme park annual pass each year and that many of those alternate parks each year for variety. This would be the main reason both companies offer discounts for buying your next pass at one of their parks. Dreamworld have managed here to lock in two years of business -- two years of food & beverage, arcade/upcharge and souvenirs. I think pricing it so close to the current annual pass and actually making it cheaper in the long run is a pretty clever tactic. They obviously have no real desire to maintain existing levels of single-year annual passes, and by pricing them so closely they'll manage to get an extra $70 out of many customers who only originally intended on getting the Dreamworld pass. WVTP seem to have approached it a bit like economy vs. business class on flights, whereby the price difference is so much that they are pitching it to an entirely different market than their single-park passes. Dreamworld on the other hand seem to be taking a sort of fast food approach whereby they get the customer to "upsize" even if they had no intention of originally, because the perception is that even though you're paying more, you're getting better value for money than you would otherwise. Granted, WVTP's three park pass does cost less than what three annual passes cost, but the reality is you're not getting three annual passes, you're getting three one-thirds of each annual pass based on the buyer's actual ability to use it. I'd be very surprised if such a pass would get twice as much use from anyone, which is roughly how many times you'd need to visit for the per-visit price to get down towards that of the single-park pass. By contrast the way MLT are pitching it is you get one year at Dreamworld followed by one year at WhiteWater World for less than what those two passes cost together, AND with the ability to use both parks for both years. The thing I find interesting is that Dreamworld now have this great illusion that their pass is half as expensive as WVTP's equivalent. I can't see too many families choosing WVTP over MLT if they're doing their research and want (perceived) value for money. As it stands I'm not totally convinced this'll be a big seller. As for the off-peak pass at Dreamworld, that died a quick death when they decided to go with the Platinum. It'll be interesting to see how this goes for WVTP and whether we see them do any flip-flopping as we saw with DW/WWW over the past year with their passes. As it stands I'm not convinced that this'll be too successful for WVTP.

Current RRP of a PS3 is $700 and the key difference I see is that you don't have to throw out a PS3 after a year and buy a new one. For brevity we can assume that the cost of new games would be more or less equivalent to that of transport and food & beverage at the parks. Assuming a five year life of the PS3, that's $140 per year or $35 per family member.

The pricing seems a bit misguided. Obviously they're in a tricky situation as they can't price it below the Super Pass for fear of impacting sales. To that end I'd like to see WVTP introduce an offpeak local residents pass for under the $200 mark for all three parks. With postcode and date restrictions, the effects it has on Super Pass sales would be negligible, and you could guarantee it'd have a huge impact on Dreamworld's Platinum, even if it's only a one year pass. Both passes should be two years for the prices they are. I'm really surprised WVTP didn't take that route, as the value is totally lost against Dreamworld's two year option for more or less the same amount. $299 for only a year's access is totally absurd and well out of the realm of most families -- 12 months costs around $1,100 for a family of four?!? Does that not seem crazy to anyone else? Obviously a payment plan will take a bit of the sting out, but then I see no reason anyone would pay up front unless discounts were offered. Food for thought -- a Walt Disney World four-park local residents pass (with blackout dates) is AUD$250. With that you're looking at many times more attractions than either WVTP or MLT offer. No blackout dates is AUD$380. These all include full use of WDW's transport network to get between parks in a given day.

All I can find out about Lagunasia's ride is that they allegedly once had an Indiana Jones style ride. I couldn't find out anymore than that, and the park's targeted attendance is 600,000 so I'm thinking something might have been lost in translation on this one. We've heard that Dreamworld has faced several-hour queues for Motocoaster in non-peak periods with both trains operating. I think that demonstrates more than anything the need for higher capacity rides. In the past five years or so attendance has grown at our parks at a greater rate than new attractions have brought added capacity. For a major family attraction, no less one that is indoors (i.e. airconditioned), I can't see any room for anything less than 1-1,200pph at peak. At the end of the day, if Intamin could offer a ride like this for a suitable budget (say $20 million), then I'd have no problems; as said I really like the concept. I however severely doubt that it would be possible, or else we'd see a lot more rides like it around the world rather than the handful that do exist. As for Black Mamba's theming costs, that seems about right given the extent of it and the fact that it's all outdoors and is largely self-standing structures. Indoor theming that is mostly paint, plastic and fibreglass, we'd be looking at costs that are more in the 5-6 figure mark tops, based on the sort of figures you see for television set building costs. sonic123488, you might be directing this more towards Gazza given this is his idea, but I've ridden both Indiana Jones at Disneyland and DINOSAUR at Disney's Animal Kingdom, and can say with 100% certainty that such a ride is infinitely better than a Volare. Our parks aren't about saving the good stuff for the future. What you see today is more or less representative of what the future will hold. We'll never be in the same league, attendance-wise, as a park like SFMM. That's a simple fact. I'd think again if you're under the impression that 10 or 20 years from now we'll be pulling 3+ million guests a year.

The Zamperla Volare is an eyesore and widely criticised for being uncomfortable and rough. I can think of dozens of better ways to spend $6.5 million, especially at a park like Movie World.

That's absolutely right, but I think this is one situation where the ride technology is the big limiter. Looking at Pharoah's Fury, with a budget of $60 million you couldn't realistically expect that theming would account for any more than a few per cent of the total cost. I think with an absolutely basic incarnation, we couldn't expect such an attraction to cost any less than $30 million for the ride system. WVTP have proven time and time again that they can be incredibly creative with a given budget, but at the same time they're not performing miracles. In this case it's really coming down to a very complex and expensive ride system. That said, the stunt driving concept is one I'm really liking. The opportunity for near-misses with other ride vehicles and that sort of thing would create for a really interesting and relevant ride experience. The more I think about it, the more perfect I think it is. Start off with a pre-ride showing a handful of famous car stunts from Warner Bros. movies, and throw in a storyline about how this is an audition for new Warner Bros. stunt drivers and that they'll have to recreate these stunts. Then hit the ride and do a few of them and throw in a mishap for the big finale where something unexpected happens. The only problem again is budget, namely to get a ride system that would do the concept justice. As you pointed out theming wouldn't be expensive, but I'm not convinced this technology would be within the range of our parks. As far as capacity goes, I really think that there is no room in Australian parks for major attractions with capacity any less than 1,000pph. We simply don't have the breadth of attractions to justify anything less.

I'd love nothing more to see an attraction of that style here. My only issue is the fact that to work at all it'd need to be properly developed and appropriately budgeted to deliver an experience that lives up to the technology. It's not a ride concept that works with half-baked story and theming. Realistically our parks are looking at $15-20 million budgets tops. By comparison Indiana Jones at Disneyland was $USD100 million. Granted a good chunk of that would have been R&D costs given it was new technology, but I can't see any way that the realities of Australian theme park budgets would result in a ride that does the technology any justice. The last thing I want to see is a repeat of Superman Escape where a great physical experience is let down by theming and storyline that falls short.

This is nothing new - it opened in 2000 and is relocated from Geauga Lake, which as of 2008 will be operating solely as a water park. Most of the park's rides are being relocated to other Cedar Fair parks around the country.

DisneySea was due for construction on the Gold Coast in the early-mid 1990s. In addition to a lack of full government support, I'd say the financial problems with Disneyland Paris (Eurodisney at the time) was more than responsible for a few of the nails in that proposal's coffin. Amount of land available to Disney has virtually no bearing on the size and quality of park that would be viable. Citing the amount of land available at Anaheim isn't the best comparion; Walt Disney knew in the 1950s and 60s that this land was terribly undersized. Even the tiny Hong Kong Disneyland sits on 125ha. Fact is, based on Australia's population and tourism, there is no way a Disneyland/Magic Kingdom style park could be successful here because of the cost needed would exceed possible revenue. Using that quoted figure of four million visitors per year, there would simply be no way a park larger than DCA could be built here and be anywhere near a financial success.

It'll all be arranged in due course. If it goes ahead it won't be for a good six months yet and in the near future we'll be sending out some more in-depth surveys etc. so that we can better plan the event. There's no hurry at this stage - the ball is rolling but there are more important things to do with the site that I'm concerned with for the immediate future. Rest assured that when we do start to lock dates etc. in there will be more than ample time given to everyone so that they can arrange their work commitments and travel/accommodation around the event.

The problem with Disney's California Adventure wasn't linked to its theme but rather the overall quality of the park. Hong King Disneyland has suffered the same attendance problems. The parks were built on minimal budgets, atypical to how Disney has built parks in the past, and this has strongly affected their performance. They seem to have learnt their lesson; the Shanghai Disneyland appears to have a budget of around 3x that of the Hong Kong park. Some of the (largely bogus) figures that have been quoted in articles in this topic have also suggested that such an Australian park would have a budget roughly the same (ignoring inflation) as the entire DCA/Downtown Disney/Grand Californian expansion; of which less than half went to the development and construction of DCA. The fact is the only way a Disney park could succeed in Australia is if it relied very heavily on international tourism. In addition, there is no way a Disneyland could be built in Australia to the standard of any of the current parks and be even close to financially viable. Our population, even combined with tourism figures, could not sustain the sort of attendance this type of park needs. It is highly likely that a Disney park in Australia would need to be a completely different genre of park, and you could expect that all the E-ticket attractions would be clones and at the cheaper end of the Disney spectrum.

Of course the statement is just Dreamworld putting a positive spin on it for the media. There's no great insight into how Dreamworld would actually respond to a genuine story about Disney coming here. My point was that by the simplistic nature of the statement -- regardless of how media friendly it was -- it is clear that they had underestimated Disney's ability to not compete, but to create a whole different product that separates itself entirely from competition.

Well that's more or less what WVTP said when Dreamworld announced WhiteWater World. I didn't say that they played the good guy; I said they're playing the good guy card. Compeltely different things. You've implied that I think Dreamworld are the bad guy in this situation, which isn't true. I was commenting on the fact that Dreamworld went with an overly optimistic statement that suggests they'd love nothing more than to have a Disney park in the neighbourhood. Of course Dreamworld are well within their rights to weigh in on such things. No one with any sense would suggest otherwise. If a Disney plan went ahead on the Gold Coast, there will be at least two companies that would object it. I'll give you two hints - I've mentioned them both in this post. Judging by Gregg's quote, I'm not so sure they grasp what a party such as Disney would bring. Disney's business model is in a whole different ballpark to any of our parks; it's a strategy that is built entirely around leveraging off the strongest brand in entertainment and creating a product that is so valuable that the customer can't afford not to make the most of it. They have been so successful because they build an experience that starts and ends with Mickey ears. No, there is nothing stopping their guests from visiting other nearby attractions, but they don't make it easy and the cost of doing an all-Disney holiday versus a mixed holiday is just so appealing.

They're different styles of rides, but it's hardly the same as not differentiating between a B&M standup coaster and an Intamin hyper (for instance) when talking about "steel coasters". All the major wooden coaster manufacturers build very high quality rides. I don't think anyone who'd like to see a wooden coaster at an Australian park would be opposed to anything built by any of these companies.

You've got to love them playing the "we're the good guys" card. I don't think that they realise that Disney's business strategy isn't to compete, it's to offer a flat-out superior product and then do everything possible to ensure that customers live and breathe Disney for their entire stay. Their entire pricing structure is designed about encouraging longer stays; the longer you're there, the cheaper it becomes (of course you're still paying more). You can guarantee Disney would demand their own transport network such that trains and buses to their property are direct and offer absolutely no chance for . You could, for instance, expect heavily themed buses to meet every incoming and outgoing flight at Coolangatta that take guests direct to their Disney hotel and vice versa at no charge. It seems a lot of you don't seem to realise that the hypothetical location that Ethan posted is a big hill, which is the only reason it is still forested and not redeveloped for farmland or housing. You also have to realise that Disney have been poking around here since the early 1990s. Serious discussions have always ended with governments here not prepared to meet the financial demands of Disney (they're after governments that'll bend over backwards to accommodate Disney -- see Hong Kong Disneyland). Don't think Disney are just looking here either. You'd expect that they are looking in dozens of other places around the world too.

OK, you've ridden three wooden coasters. One of which is nearing 100 years old and a whole different breed to what coasters are today. The Beastie is a 35 year old children's coaster design. Bush Beast is a 25 year old design and widely regarded as a rather poor example of a wooden coaster. None of these three rides were/are maintained the way that wooden coasters are meant to be. In the past decade or so wooden coaster technology has advanced tremendously. Wooden coasters pre- and post-1990 almost can't be compared because so much changed in the 90s. Your claims are totally baseless given that you have absolutely no experience with modern wooden coasters.

What wooden coasters have you ridden dreamworld_rulz?

Wooden coaster discussion has been moved here. This topic is for stunt show discussion.

I think you're mistaking reasonable critical discussion as "anti Dreamworld". If Dreamworld is painted in an overwhelmingly negative light on this site, have you possibly considered that it is, as Gazza pointed out, for a reason? This is a theme park website centred around the Gold Coast theme parks that has neither affiliations with nor loyalty to any park/s. What possible reason would there be for an unjustified anti-Dreamworld attitude? Do you also realise that you have to spend $200 on park food/merchandise at Dreamworld in order to make back how much more it costs than a Sea World/Movie World season pass?

Things are about to deviate significantly from the topic if you'll bare with me. Now I may be biased in this sense (coming from a marketing background). But as a service and experience oriented business, a theme park's focus should NOT be on the dollar. This is an industry where emotion and experience make up customer value, NOT what they are paying. You cannot approach this industry with the end dollar in mind. A turnstile approach to theme parks is totally wrong and is exactly how companies like Six Flags have failed miserably in recent years. The most successful theme park business in the world, Disney, has not achieved the tremendous and unrivalled success they have by asking "how can we make money?". They reached this point by asking "how can we impress customers?". Look at absolutely any experience-based industry - tourism, film, music festivals, recreation, resorts etc. - without fail, ALL examples of success have come from companies who have focused on the experience, not those that have focused on the bottom dollar. The basic premise is that attendance and expenditure can be driven more successfully by creating an experience, not by milking customers for everything they've got while cutting costs however they can. If you honestly think Dreamworld are great at running a theme park, then how did Dreamworld achieve a downturn in attendance just a year after a major childrens/family attraction (Wiggles World) opened, despite launching two new attractions in the subsequent year? Every other attraction that has opened on the Gold Coast in the past decade or so has been followed by several years of positive attendance growth. That's alarming. There have been downturns in attendance at most parks in recent years, but never before so quickly after a new attraction has been added and never in the same year as new attractions were opened.Movie World had a small dip in 2001. Three years after Wild West Falls. Again in 2005, three years after Scooby-Doo Spooky Coaster. Sea World slumped in 2003. Three years after Polar Bear Shores. Again in 2006, almost three years after Shark Bay. Wet'n'Wild in 2005. No major attractions since 2000. There's a problem with the strategy used at Dreamworld. So far they've managed to offset it by cutting costs ("improving efficiency") so that their profits continue to skyrocket, but that is a strategy that can only achieve short-term gain and it will not last. This isn't to say that Wiggles World wasn't a good attraction, but it's clear that the gains it made did not offset losses in other market segments. Anyone that says that Dreamworld is a business, and such demands expect too much are evidently not looking at this from an industry perspective. Dreamworld is a theme park business. They'll only succeed if they operate it as such. Take the analogy of a hotel. Which hotel do you think would achieve greater long-term success: one which seeks to maximise the value to the customer, or one which disregards the notion of creating customer value and simply focuses on ways to minise expenses? Does anyone think it's a coincidence that Dreamworld is oft-criticised for its low capacity rides, and now is also being criticised for its low value food? What does that say about their focus as a business? (I can say with absolute certainty that my views on Dreamworld are 100% unbiased and objective; I'm calling it as I see it.)

I agree. I'll frequently pay $10 or $12 for lunch in town. I rarely get fast food because I'd rather pay a bit more for something that tastes good. Very basic marketing priciple. You create the illusion of value for money to the customer and it becomes very much real value in their eyes. It's the same way a five star hotel can charge 3 times as much as a three star for essentially the same product by adding in some fancier fixtures and a few smiles. Movie World gets it. Their food is overpriced, but they create value in it by making it taste good (better than any fast food chains), and making the proportions larger. Dreamworld simply overcharge without creating any value in it. Every burger I've ever had at Dreamworld has been terrible, their chips are small and their drinks are tiny and loaded with ice. They don't respect the customer enough to forgoe 5 or 10 cents of their huge markup on meals to make them reasonable value with a better quality burger, some more chips and a bigger drink. A nameless WVTP employee once told me that when a customer ordered a hotdog from them they'd load them with heaps of cheese etc. because even if the customer turned around five seconds later and scraped half of it into the bin, at least they feel like they're getting value for money. That to me is the best philosophy out there. That extra cheese costs what, 5c? Yet at the same time, last time I was eating at Dreamworld my thoughts were along the lines of "$13 for this?!?". Well one thing is for sure; I'd never buy fast food at Dreamworld.

Just about every theme park out there is guilty of overcharging for food. However, I have to say that in my experience Dreamworld's fast food is the most low-grade excuse I've ever had at a park. I have no problems with playing the theme park game and paying twice what I would at any other fast food restaurant, but only if it's of a decent quality. It costs the same at Movie World, but at least they've made an effort to come up with a decent quality menu and make the proportions at least roughly in-line with the ridiculous amounts you have to pay. If I had to choose between a meal from Dreamworld with a discount or full-priced at Movie World, I'd choose Movie World every time. My preference is always to eat at a sitdown restaurant however.

This topic was falling apart at the seams. Please direct discussion to the following topics: Hot Wheels stunt show discussion Unknown hippopotamus attraction discussion Theme park food

Expansion plans for Warner Village Theme Parks Tuesday 16 October 2007 - Warner Bros. Movie World After spending $13.4 million across their parks this year, Sea World and Warner Bros. Movie World are to become home to a new animal exhibit and stunt show respectively by 2009. Read On...