Mick Doohan-Dreamworlds biggest blunder?

[sonic123488]

Well it seems to me from what I've seen people say about Mick Doohans Motocoaster, that nobody seems to enjoys it as much as they should be enjoying it. Has Dreamworld made their biggest mistake?

[Derwan]

Well it seems to me from what I've seen people say about Mick Doohans Motocoaster, that nobody seems to enjoys it as much as they should be enjoying it. Has Dreamworld made their biggest mistake?

Hi Sonic. Sorry to be picky, but.... 1. The poll question is different to the question in the subject and message body, making it necessary to tick the opposite to what you would if you were answering the subject or message body. This could be a bit confusing. 2. There's a big difference between "doing well" and making "their biggest mistake". People may not believe Dreamworld has "done well", but that doesn't mean they think Dreamworld has "made their biggest mistake". When posting polls, you should be clear on what you're asking people to vote on. 3. The poll has check boxes instead of radio buttons, meaning you can tick both yes and no. Again - sorry to be picky... but I don't think we'll get clear results with the current wording and options.

[Gazza]

I voted for both.

[dreamworld_rulz]

How about a "I don't know as I haven't ridden yet" option?

[Gazza]

What would be the point of that? It would add no value to the poll, and in fact would make it worse since the figures that actually matter (yes and no) would not add to 100%. If you haven't ridden or dont already have an opinion, then don't vote.

Edited November 11, 2007 by Gazza

[rosscoe]

So Sonic what did you think of the ride? But Gazza if you have never ridden, how can you vote if the ride was a blunder or not?

Edited November 11, 2007 by rosscoe

[lisalila]

Sorry to go a bit OT but Gazza have you ridden the ride at all?

[dreamworld_rulz]

What would be the point of that? It would add no value to the poll, and in fact would make it worse since the figures that actually matter (yes and no) would not add to 100%. If you haven't ridden or dont already have an opinion, then don't vote.

....This is coming from someone who "voted for both" but also someone who has not actually ridden it yet??? Talk about double standards. EDIT : You can't vote for both as well because it wouldn't add to 100%. Edited November 11, 2007 by dreamworld_rulz

[Derwan]

EDIT : You can't vote for both as well because it wouldn't add to 100%.

The percentage is based on the total number of boxes ticked in all votes. Add up the Yes and No votes (currently 4 and 8 respectively) and divide each one by that total (12). Currently the "Total Votes" is 11, but 4+8=12, which means that one person voted both yes and no (i.e. Gazza).

[Richard]

I see it more as a question of Dreamworld's overall strategy with this ride, rather than one asking whether you think the physical ride experience is a good one. In this case, I think it's perfectly alright to vote having not ridden as it's not hard to formulate an opinion, as the actual ride experience would only be one of many aspects. My answer would be that it's really too hard to tell right now. I think it's pretty widely accepted (certainly online) that it misses the mark as a pure thrill ride, but isn't bad if it were targeted exclusively at kids or families, which I believe makes their teen-centric advertising pretty unfocused. To see whether it's truly been a success or not, we'll need to wait six months or so and see how it's impacted Dreamworld's attendance, which up until now has been slightly declining. I've since removed the option to double-vote as this defeats the purpose of a black and white Yes/No poll. If you don't agree 100% with either answer then I'd say choose the closest and elaborate in a post.

[dreamworld_rulz]

From what I've read so far I'm disappointed. However as the saying goes "You can't judge a book by it's cover" So until I've ridden it I'll reserve my judgment.

[Gazza]

^ I voted for both for fun given the poll was probably going to be reset by a mod because of the double vote option. Id say its a pretty big blunder, as a thrill ride, yes it obviously misses the mark greatly, but as a family ride, its bad value for what they got, I mean $10 mil could go a lot further if it were directed into something other than an expensive prototype...I remember rumours from when this ride first started that they were once in talks to build a mine train coaster...this would have undoubtedly been a longer, more comfortable and enjoyable ride (if my prior experience on this type of ride are anything to go by) Even the current theme seems misdirected as a family ride, obviously its heavily biased towards males, and a lot of the younger set simply wouldn't know who Mick Doohan is.

Sorry to go a bit OT but Gazza have you ridden the ride at all?

Is that a rhetorical question?

[New display name]

It was my first time yesterday on this ride and I would have to say that this is a cheap attempt at creating a roller coaster. You would say that it total missed the mark. I took my son and his cousin on the moto-coaster who both rode the side carts. Richard you say that this ride is for the younger person but what parent would want their kids in pain from the restraints during the ride. Dreamworld did not impress me at all yesterday.

[lisalila]

Is that a rhetorical question?

I know I posted it 41 mnutes after rosscoe but I had it sitting on the reply screen for over an hour as I was doing something else so got distracted from posting it and never refreshed the page so when I asked the question I didn't know the answer. You'd be suprised at how many kids know who Mick Doohan is.

[Gazza]

It was my first time yesterday on this ride and I would have to say that this is a cheap attempt at creating a roller coaster. You would say that it total missed the mark. I took my son and his cousin on the moto-coaster who both rode the side carts. Richard you say that this ride is for the younger person but what parent would want their kids in pain from the restraints during the ride. Dreamworld did not impress me at all yesterday.

Maybe another point is "Is this Intamins biggest blunder?" I really don't know the situation, did DW go to Intamin and ask them to develop a new design, or did Intamin already have the product in their catalogue? While DW would most certainly have had input in the bland layout, I think the uncomfortable trains are Intamins fault.

You'd be suprised at how many kids know who Mick Doohan is.

Would I ? If I entered a class of year 3's, how many would know who Mick Doohan is? He stopped racing a few years ago, is rarely in the media, and doesn't do any child oriented TV work or advertising. The theme is only good if the majority of the target audience know something about it. Somehow, I think motoGP is a bit out of the scope of interests of a lot of young kids. Edited November 12, 2007 by Gazza

[rosscoe]

Having not ridden it either, from what i see i would have liked the orignal idea better as well, a well themed Mine Train Coaster would have been a longer ride and most likely a more enjoyable one. Lets just hope that what ever is planned for next year is the worth the wait! Theres always a good point, only 2 years to go before Universal opens. ( well it's in singapore, but with airfares the way there are. It could be cheaper to leave the country, than to go to the Gold Coast)

[New display name]

I would doubt if Dreamworld would have anything planed for next year. I think with their current CEO this type of addition is all we can expect for the future

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

Just remember though, international wise, that the advertised airfares do not include taxes, departure and arrival duties, visas, passport application costs, not to mention the ever fluctuating exchange rate. At least with a trip to the Gold Coast you know what the prices are going to be, and if you have prepaid flights and tickets, you know this won't change. I have not ridden MDMC yet. Depending on time, I may be up there at christmas, but having been to Dreamworld in July, and seeing the reviews on DW and the MDMC since then, I don't know if MDMC is big enough to bring me back so soon. The last time I went to DW pre-july was in the september after the opening of the claw. In that time, I have been to WnW once, SW twice, and WBMW about 5 times, which is pretty good considering I live in Sydney and I only ever spend 1 day at 1 park each time i'm in Brisbane. I'd like to look at the park experience as a whole. Is one coaster going to bring me back to DW only 5 months after I was last there? Considering the problems with the rest of the park at the moment, I don't think so. Rides are closing down or disappearing left right and center. Eureka is gone, Stingray is gone, Other rides are frequently running at low capacity or worse yet, under refurb, without anything firm to keep the numbers up. Wipeout is well overdue for replacement, cyclone's capacity is, was and always has been laughable. GD frequently runs only one side because of either mechanical problems or pure cost cutting. ToT frequently has shutdowns or rollbacks which further reduces the capacity of this low capacity attraction. None of the features of Dreamworld's attractions installed at launch continues - ToT queue has been (poorly) redesigned, the lifts aren't used, there are fewer staff, the speedometer\radar gun isn't working, and it breaks down more frequently GD only uses one side at a time, the cameras they so newly installed don't allow for the sun first thing in the morning or late in the afternoon, depending on the side you ride, and all the internal queue theming is gone. The whole atmosphere of the oil rig etc is diluted by this bright yellow coaster nearby. Cyclone's theming is stuffed, and the staffing levels are abominable, cycle time sucks, and the one ride that would actually benefit from 1 person operation (eg: just open the queue all the way to the load gates) and they don't do it. Wipeout needs more staff to make load and unload faster, and it is ridiculous that they dont bring the next group through while the ride is cycling. The claw removed the SRL, and by making all loose articles in one little storage bin, instead of around the ride like they used to means a bottle neck at the front of the queue every single time. Dreamworld has also removed the chairlift, stingray, mine ride (SBNO), and they seem to be doing nothing but to hype their latest stuff, without care for the older attractions that they built their reputation on. I don't think MDMC is dreamworld's biggest mistake. I think it is more likely yet another bad decision in a series of long-term bad decisions that is going to cost them market share. The few who do like the coaster will lose the novelty quick enough, and then they will be back to square one.

[Gazza]

I would doubt if Dreamworld would have anything planed for next year. I think with their current CEO this type of addition is all we can expect for the future

Definitely truth in that. i just spent half an hour trawling through the main topic for the article, couldn't find it, but from memory in an interview the CEO was talking about recent additions, he acknowledged that flowrider etc were smaller additions, but he said something like"every few years you need a big attraction to really drive long term attendance" when talking about the motocoaster. Clearly they see this as a big addition. Maybe Richo can answer this, they say 6 mil is their sustainable capex budget, but is there anything to say they will actually spend anywhere near to that per year in the long term...could they be cheaping out in this area to help the bottom line? Edited November 12, 2007 by Gazza

[New display name]

I think the money that was allocated for dreamworlds new attractions was used to create White Water World. This is how the meeting would have gone. Employee #1 “The water slides at the back of dreamworld are getting old maybe it is time to upgrade them.” CEO “ I am due for a pay rise, where do you think we can get that money from.” Employee #2 “How about we take some of the money we have aside to upgrade the slides.” CEO “ But the more money I have at the end of the year the bigger the pay rise” Employee #1 “Well what about a new coat of paint then”. CEO “OK OK OK I will add some new slide, Call it White Water World and charge the customer extra to go on them. Yes I think that will give me a better pay rise” Employee #2 that s not fair to the customer”. CEO “If you shut up I will make you CEO of white water world”. Employee #1 What about dreamworlds future”. CEO What about my third holiday house?. Look If I buy a shopping trolley and chuck on some paint then call it a roller coaster, will that make you happy”.

Edited November 12, 2007 by skeetafly

[dreamworld_rulz]

Having not ridden it either, from what i see i would have liked the orignal idea better as well, a well themed Mine Train Coaster would have been a longer ride and most likely a more enjoyable one. Lets just hope that what ever is planned for next year is the worth the wait! Theres always a good point, only 2 years to go before Universal opens. ( well it's in singapore, but with airfares the way there are. It could be cheaper to leave the country, than to go to the Gold Coast)

If you lived in Darwin it might be cheaper. But from other states no way.

[T-bone]

That is very funny skeetafly, and so very true. You know, I am actually wishing Macquarie would sell their Theme Park enterprise. That place is just going to the pits. However, my wishes are drowned when we all know Macquarie would never sell their parks.

Edited November 12, 2007 by T-bone

[Richard]

The purpose of an allocated annual capital expenditure budget is basically to make expenditure consistent from year to year so as to boost the park's short to mid-term prospects. The biggest flaw in the strategy is that the focus seems to be on "what can we build within this budget?", rather than "what do we need to maintain our position in the market, and how can we achieve it financially?". It puts emphasis on the bottom dollar and automatically creates a bias towards creating attractions along these lines. They're not going to come up with a $50 million idea and cut it back to meet their financial requirements. Rather they seem to be going out with their budget and seeing what they can get for it, which seems to go against the basic creative process as I get the feeling that they're backtracking, trying to thematically justify their attraction choices, rather than the other way around. On the other hand, would anyone believe Movie World went out, found the Mack Wild Mouse and then came up with the Scooby-Doo theme? The same goes for Superman Escape, Wild West Falls etc. Back to the budget, it's obviously in place for the purposes of creating year-to-year consistency that bodes well with stock exchange prices and unitholders given that its the Trust's major asset. I can't see it as being a strategy that'll work in the long run against a company like Village Roadshow, who have shown they're not afraid to spend big amounts on rides and upgrades at their parks in the interest of achieving strong results in the long-run. It seems with each passing year Movie World moves further and further ahead. As far as WhiteWater World goes, the $6 million per year capex budget was put in place a few years before WWW was announced, and if you look back over the decade or so that Macquarie Leisure have owned the park, you'll see it's more or less how they've always run the park. WWW was funded by Macquarie Leisure such that it is an independent investment from Dreamworld.

[Gazza]

If you lived in Darwin it might be cheaper. But from other states no way

The entry of Tiger Airways to the market could not come at a better time, I just had a peek.... airfares to Singapore from Perth are $166. To me, this is an absolute no brainer, me and a probably a lot of other members will definitely make trips over there, and would undoubtedly do it over the GC. Universal do fantastic parks, and while its not an Australian park like I hope Universal might do one day, Ill gladly spend a few hundred more on airfares for a better experience.

Back to the budget, it's obviously in place for the purposes of creating year-to-year consistency that bodes well with stock exchange prices and unitholders given that its the Trust's major asset. I can't see it as being a strategy that'll work in the long run against a company like Village Roadshow, who have shown they're not afraid to spend big amounts on rides and upgrades at their parks in the interest of achieving strong results in the long-run. It seems with each passing year Movie World moves further and further ahead.

Yes, and until this changes It could really hurt DW in the long run. For the attendance and profitably they have $6 mil a year over the long term is a joke. It's simply not enough in the competitive market they exist in, and in the wider amusement industry it does only really get bottom of the barrel stuff, I mean Claw for instance, while a great ride is pretty much a staple attraction at theme parks (what is more interesting is smaller parks Bobbejanland for instance seem to get bigger versions) It frustrates me (and others) so much that they have forgotten their roots, innovative and high quality attractions are what set the park apart (and ahead) Just where would the park be if the previous owners hadn't the foresight to build that 120m high thrill ride duo? WVTP do seem to be prepared to spend the big bucks (Except at SW it seems) and they are doing far better as a result. With MW, they seem to be on a cusp, it would take just one more KILLER coaster up to Superman's standards to really put DW in a bad spot, on one hand people who have just ridden Doohans will realize MW are in to providing better experiences, and at the same time DW would effectivley be 2 big coasters behind (considering MW are due for a new coaster after the stunt show opens I think this could happen)

[New display name]

I understand that Macquarie funded White Water World. What I am saying is by Macquarie putting a cap on dreamworld expences for the last few years and the next 10 years would cover the cost White Water World without affecting Macquarie bottom line. “Quote WWW was funded by Macquarie Leisure such that it is an independent investment from Dreamworld”. If Dreamworld was totally independent from WWW then Dreamworld would not have shut down their water slides. Dreamworld shut down their water slides so customers would go next door and pay WWW for water slides. giving a bigger return to Macquarie.