webslave

I found it interesting that they pick out that their major attraction count has been "right-sized for current demand" during a pandemic with international and domestic border restrictions, when we are talking about permanently closing attractions rather than mothballing them. I'd imagine some parks would enhance their major attraction count to generate demand (and, to be fair, they talk in those terms of Steel Taipan), but this just reads like Dreamworld-speak for "achieving the average by lowering the average". The document seems littered with examples of them talking out of both sides of their mouth.

The only one in a coin flip between the two portfolios? No, there's lots of people in that boat. For me, the tie-breaker was I had another reason to roll my eyes at Dreamworld this week which tipped it. Look around - lots of people visiting the GC ask which park they should visit. Who is the type of person in their social circle they usually ask? I'd suggest the type of person who frequents Parkz is often near the top of that list. How many people do you think will ask me which one they should go with, and which do you think I'll tell them? I'm sure you've been asked plenty of times by friends and family too. That's the trouble with stuff like this. When your business is on its knees it's usually best to try and make as many friends as possible, rather than actively looking for ways to piss off more people. What starts out as one person who looks at it and says "It's hardly the end of the world, but I'm already in a split decision so this may as well tip it", can then become four and potentially five figure revenue losses.

Doubt it, but when you're struggling for attendance as much as the parks are in general, and DW specifically you'd be a foolish businessperson to willingly forego any gate revenue. Often when making decisions like this as a business it's hard to quantify in dollars what your marketing decisions make or cost you at the gate. On my part it may only be ~$600 (which, technically is worse given that $600 not only doesn't go to you, but goes into your competition), but even if only one other family made the same decision as me you're already into a four-figure revenue loss for no benefit.

Well, allow me to send one of my own to Dreamworld. My family and I are attending the area reasonably soon. We have young children and have been trying to determine whether we give DW a run or go with VRTP. My message to Dreamworld; petty crap like this loses you revenue, and you can chalk mine up as a directly attributable loss. We're going to go with VRTP.

It's almost like chasing the international tourist dollar and forsaking your local market has a downside.

It also does not photograph spectacularly well these days...

I think he considers the treat to be the sum of the parts.

So you're saying Dreamworld should be looking for a concreting company that's also in the market for a slightly used thrill attraction?

Who gives a shit? You're not a party to either side of the NDA, so it's not up to you to enforce it. Kindly stfu and quit gate-keeping. If they want to talk and/or believe they can then that's on them and we are the beneficiaries.

"Due to Covid this", "Due to Covid that". I don't think the public is going to keep tolerating Covid being the excuse for providing a shit customer experience for too much longer. I especially think that Dreamworld telling guests about pushing back maintenance is not the smartest PR they could be doing.

Yeah, nah, sorry - if there's one thing these parks have taught us it's that you can't just give them benefit of the doubt that they will make an effort where that's all it takes. You also can't with a straight face justify such terrible customer experience as "claw back some profits after Covid" as if that's something people should just accept without scrutiny.

TBF, Shockwave's daily capacity is probably only around 80 riders anyway...

You're very right. Surely though they'd have some recourse against the manufacturer for a ride to live such a short life span?

Yeah, not a great ride. Precinct well done though.

You're quite right in most respects here. The UX does indeed suck. The pricing on it is indeed inflexible. The sad fact is Village is hardly what any of us would call a 'digital-first' (or second, or third) organisation, and this is ably reflected in things like their web presence over the last two decades. These guys will always be chasing the train, but talking like they are driving it. Their mates up the road are no better either, and that's a large part of why it doesn't get any better.

That's a lot of build-up for seven inversions.

It works fine in Chrome. I guess the sub-4% of people still stuck with Firefox are going to have to miss out.

If Dreamworld weren't negligent they wouldn't be paying anything...

Expensive given the current economy, but a perfect spoil if you're worried about the guys down the road opening a new coaster and soaking up business for a while.

LED is a bit of a godsend for theme parks.

It wouldn't say very good things for the people doing the contracting at Village in that case...

Have a read: https://www.mouseplanet.com/10382/Who_Disappeared_Roger_Rabbit_From_the_Disney_Parks

Oh yes, he's done that in spades... /s

It's design by committee and career-men rather than passionate individuals. Most businesses do great early on when the guy with the money, wisdom and passion is running the show with a supporting cast - it's when the suits move in afterward that nothing much good happens.

Jesus, isn't that a depressing watch...