webslave

Our theme park industry is under attack by the media and fringe groups. The media is misrepresenting normal procedures, generating alarmist content for the sake of clickbait. Fringe activist groups are spreading misinformation and pseudoscience in an irrational vendetta against world-class animal exhibits and facilities. The constant, dishonest media coverage and social campaigns are hurting our theme parks. Our theme parks are safe. They are responsible. Help us spread the truth!

Looks cool. Video could do with a bit of an audio/video sync though!

Agreed fellas, I'm just clutching at straws like most to try and understand the thinking on this.

Does it mitigate the risk of rollover?

Good find, Alex!

I was thinking the Geelong -> Melbourne -> Lakes Entrance day was... aspirational

Maybe something like Artvo (http://artvo.com.au/)?

It's interesting to see that a lot of the feedback on their social media accounts at this stage are about it being too expensive. I wonder if that's a function of the dollars, or because there's scant information on what there is to do in the park?

So, probably not the "main problem", then...

Quite true. But when you bought a Hyundai Excel in 1995, managed to drive it for ten years, and then parked it because the check engine light was on you probably shouldn't expect it to be a cheap fix in 2018. (preaching to the choir)

So the ride was pretty much fine before then?

I think he lost credibility with me last month on the "at this stage we believe it is" line. It defied belief.

For clarity, here was the release.

Draculas in Melbourne announced closure not long ago, citing lack of interest from the punters. They said in the release that the GC locations would remain open.

JDS was right up my kid's alley when I last visited, but there was simply no way known I was going to line up for something that was such poorly-done crap, when we could be just as happy on something else.

That's some fascinating profiling there, but the notion that the average consumer is asking for a higher price for an identical product is rather far-fetched, as is the assumption that a consumer that sees better value in a lower ticket price is somehow going to be more trouble than they are worth. If, on the other hand, this is an admission that the idea of charging a lower entry fee and ultimately generating more revenue through incremental selling has failed then that's something you could properly read into. Although, reading between the lines here it would seem like you're somehow hoping that this will price out those who you say are more pain than they were worth. That's an interesting one, because it would suggest that those with better financial resources would not be priced out. Do those of means not care about value or something? That would seem strange given in many cases they didn't become of means by not caring about value.

It tends to be, yes. In an environment where your customer has been conditioned at a particular price-point for many years it's indeed foolhardy to increase the price for no incremental benefit in the thought that any customer that doesn't want to go along with it is no longer the customer you want. It is suggestive of the idea that price in isolation is the only determinant of value - which anyone even passingly familiar with consumer behaviour knows is far from the case. There's plenty of models for this; ranging from the simple value = benefit/cost, through the functional/monetary/social/psychological value model, and beyond. There's an oft-repeated mantra in many businesses that when you start allowing the type of thinking that customer x is the not the type of customer you want you're letting the accountants run the show (and yes; there are some exceptions, and no; theme parks are not usually among them). I can see why you'd be inclined to believe this decision was made after exhaustive market research and external consultation - these are after all very large businesses presumably operated by "serious people" (my air-quotes). Is that really borne out in reality, though? After all, these very forums and wider site are littered with extensive documentation of the many ongoing pain points of the market; many of which are relatively trivial to rectify. We've seen these parks make countless missteps over the journey that even some of the most glass-half-full users here could see a mile off was poor business. I guess what I'm asking is; can we really take it as a given that these parks are relying heavily on exhaustive market research and external consultation? I wouldn't bet on it. At the very least you can make market research support practically any change you'd like to make...

It's a foolhardy business that allows that type of thinking to creep into the business.

Hmm... interesting. Faced with a trip up there soon, and I had thought the choice would be simply to go with VRTP over DW. This makes the decision a bit more interesting again it would seem.

So racist.

The thing that screams at me here is how often I am reading the words "short term". I would suggest that if he is hitching his wagon to a park full of low-brow simulators and upcharges coupled with crass and forgettable licensed brands then his line of thinking may not be the only thing that is likely to be "short term".

So, having read this now there's a couple of observations on my part; If the conscious decision has been to take a hit on the presentation of the park while attendance is down; what would the conscious decision have been had the events at TRR not transpired? Many restuarants when trade is down go into what I would term a 'death spiral' whereby they cut back on staff numbers and/or food quality to reduce operating costs until trade improves, but that trade never improves because poor service and food exacerbate the operating conditions. I would wonder whether Dreamworld is in the same condition - trade is down because of consumer confidence; so the strategy is to present a park that looks tired and unpolished? Yeah, I'm confused. The Mine Ride is something that has been talked about in earnest since 2015 - but somehow we don't yet know the state of the structure of the ride, nor what sort of lifespan or ROI it might offer? Sorry, that just doesn't sound reasonable. I keep hearing all of this "part of our history" talk at Dreamworld and am starting to wonder what the heck is going on. So far we have talked about the Mine Ride (1988), Log Ride (1981), Wipeout (1993) explicitly. Are we operating a museum or a theme park here? The 'Big 9' are now HWSW (1995), Buzzsaw (2011), MDMC (2007), Pandamonium (2012), Tail Spin (2014), The Claw (2004), The Giant Drop (1998), TOTII (1997), Wipeout (1993). Average year? 2003. How about we stop worrying about the history for just a moment and wonder about the future? What do we want it to look like? I doubt five years from now anybody is going to be heralding the resurrection of the Mine Ride (and little else since that time) as what's set the park up for success for the next decade. It's great that they will be looking at fixing up a mess of pathways and removing SBNO infrastructure - but what good is that when areas of the park are crying out for basics like lightbulbs and paint?

Spoke to Craig last Thursday? Approximately how many minutes elapsed between hitting the 'publish' button on the (spot-on) article and the phone ringing? One might think you struck a nerve.

I couldn't even hazard a guess at what my score would have been. I have no confidence that the gun and scoring equipment would have worked even remotely accurately. One of our guns certainly didn't work.

Although, in reality we are talking about a ride that is very low-thrills and limited in re-ride value. Rode it once about a year ago with zero line. Didn't bother doing it again.