Should Whitewater World have more of it's own identity?

[Sarm]

I was wondering about other people's opinions on whether or not WhiteWater World should have a bit more of it's own identity rather than just some add-on to Dreamworld.

WhiteWater World doesn't even have its own website, it's just a part of the Dreamworld website. On the home screen of the DreamWorld website WhiteWater World is just as prominent as Dream Works experience. The new WhiteWater World logo says "only at DreamWorld" at the bottom and currently day passes to only WhiteWater World cannot be purchased on the website. (I'm pretty sure you could before). Dreamworld ads also only feature little snippets of WhiteWater World.

In my opinion, WhiteWater World is actually a better water park than WnWGC, sure WhiteWater World's not as big and could do with a few things that WnW has, but the slides are far better at WhiteWater World. IMO Dreamworld should definitely put more effort into marketing WhiteWater World, and give it more of it's own identity.

[Reanimated35]

2006-2016 it had its own site and was only recently incorporated into Dreamworld. 

[Santa07]

For me, the slides at WnW are better, but I really appreciate the little things WWW does, like spraying paths with water during summer and conveyor belts on slides. I don't really mind whether it's incorporated into Dreamworld or not, I think the reason why it was incorporated is because since it's quite a bit smaller than WnW, those who wanted to go to a water park for the whole day generally chose WnW. I think a lot of people who were visiting WWW were also spending time at DW, so incorporating it into the park just made things a bit simpler.

[pushbutton]

Until a few months ago, Whitewater World had its own website, and to get between Dreamworld and WWW you had to show your ticket or pass. I completely agree it should still have its own identity, and I am finding it hard to understand why they've made this change.

However I disagree that it is better than Wet & Wild. For one thing it has no lazy river. It also has fewer slides and it's just smaller and not as well themed. Nevertheless, it is still a fantastic waterpark which deserves much more respect from its owners!

Edited May 9, 2017 by pushbutton

[Sarm]

Yeah, I probably should've noted that it's had its own website until recently, although the reality is it currently doesn't have one. @Santa07 made a good point that WnW would suit more for a day waterpark. One point you made I don't necessarily agree with is that because when people go to WWW they generally also spend a bit of time at DW and therefor its just easier to incorporate them, take away day passes and their website. To me that isn't really a reason to essentially advertise it as an add-on to DreamWorld. Admittedly WWW does need more attractions but it's still a great water park and far more than just an add-on, or section of a bigger park.

[pushbutton]

These changes, along with the $35 for 35 day passes they did recently, all smack of desperation.

I understand why given the reports on the drop in numbers, but I don't think their strategy is right at all. Time to sell to new owners who will show the parks (both of them) more respect!

[Slick]

Nope. 

[joz]

I think if it doesn't have it's own identity, they at least need to heavily advertise that they're the same park.

[themagician]

3 hours ago, pushbutton said:

However I disagree that it is better than Wet & Wild. For one thing it has no lazy river. It also has fewer slides and it's just smaller and not as well themed. Nevertheless, it is still a fantastic waterpark which deserves much more respect from its owners!

WnW is themed? Except for Calypso beach, I wouldn't say any rides, or the park in general is themed.

[pushbutton]

19 minutes ago, themagician said:

WnW is themed? Except for Calypso beach, I wouldn't say any rides, or the park in general is themed.

Not as well themed as some international waterparks, but a bit.

[elemist]

It's kind of an awkward teenager really. It's not yet a full adult park big enough that people will come and spend the day just at that park, yet its big enough that it really deserves more than being a foot note at Dreamworld.

I feel if they kept it separate they really needed to invest in stage 2 (or 3??? - call it the next stage), to bring it up to snuff to stand on its own. I suspect though with the current losses that's not going to happen anytime soon, except in the event of a sale. 

It's sad, cause its a great park and the rides they do have were pretty good too. It's just too small to really spend the best part of a day at. The last couple of times i've been, we've spent a couple of hours there and then headed to dreamworld. For what it's worth though, WnW we bailed around 2pm cos we had done everything.

[Slick]

For years, theme park fans have been going "you know what would be great? If WhiteWater World & Dreamworld merged." Now they're doing exactly that, and what do theme park fans say?

17 hours ago, Sarm said:

WhiteWater World should have a bit more of it's own identity rather than just some add-on to Dreamworld.

Do you want to go inside or outside? Make up your mind already so I can close the door.

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

^well... they do say the internet is primarily about cats.... so it suits.

[rappa]

17 minutes ago, Slick said:

For years, theme park fans have been going "you know what would be great? If WhiteWater World & Dreamworld merged." Now they're doing exactly that, and what do theme park fans say?

Do you want to go inside or outside? Make up your mind already so I can close the door.

Because Slick it's not VRTP. If it was you'd get the usual sort of mindless praise we've come to expect. 

[MickeyD]

16 hours ago, Slick said:

Nope. 

Diddo that.

[New display name]

19 hours ago, Sarm said:

I was wondering about other people's opinions on whether or not WhiteWater World should have a bit more of it's own identity rather than just some add-on to Dreamworld.

Why do peoples' opinions matter?  

Ardent tried to run WWW as a separate park and they wouldn't incorporate it into DW if it was working.

WWW is a great water area but Ardent needed to expand it if they wanted people to keep coming back.

The last new attraction was 3 years ago, with Triple Vortex and 4 years before that with The Wedgie.  One new attraction every 3 to 4 years is not going to make customers want to return every year.

[Sarm]

@Slick I have never had the opinion that WWW and DW should merge, I'm clearly not in the majority. @Skeeta you are right in saying that 2 new attractions in 4 years is not enough although over at Dreamworld, Motocoaster, buzzsaw, pandemonium, shockwave, tailspin, motor sports experience and rethemes of nickelodeon land and cyclone have taken place I'm sure a lot more has happened at DreamWorld as well. Some of these rethemes and new attractions have been successes although many would say some have not. Surely all of this money spent at DreamWorld on these new attractions could've been spent making more slides at WWW and/or a lazy river? If WWW was given more respect, and Ardent realised it needed more attractions, I probably wouldn't have even started up this topic, offering my opinion that even now as a very small park that it needs it own identity.

[Slick]

17 hours ago, Sarm said:

@Slick I have never had the opinion that WWW and DW should merge, I'm clearly not in the majority.

Clearly i'm talking in generalities, otherwise I would've said "@Sarm thought this, then this" not "theme park fans thought this, then this."

[wikiverse]

WWW doesn't get enough attendance to justify it's own brand-presence.  Website maintenance, advertising, digital marketing and brand development are expensive exercises.

Also (according to the digital agency that runs DW's website and digital marketing that I work with occationally) DW is trying to compete with the VRTP VIP passes - which include MW and WnW.

Also, DW just lost two of their major family rides and their only two water-based rides (TRR and RHLR).  I suspect (and this is just my thoughts) that DW will continue to incorporate WWW into the DW branding at least until the entire Goldrush area is redeveloped - which could be 1-2 years. 

I'm not sure if that triggered their decision to join the branding, but it seems like a legitimate reason they will keep it that way for the foreseeable future.

[GoGoBoy]

39 minutes ago, wikiverse said:

Also (according to the digital agency that runs DW's website and digital marketing that I work with occationally) DW is trying to compete with the VRTP VIP passes - which include MW and WnW.

Which makes it strange to me that they appear to be abandoning the '2-park' strategy. One of the key reasons WWW was created was exactly as you suggest -- to compete with VRTP's multiple park offering. By developing a waterpark area with its own brand, DW could market its tickets as 2-park passes.

I agree that WWW never realised its full potential and this is a real shame. Waterslide attractions are much cheaper capex-wise than theme park rides. With the troubles DW is having, I would have thought a renewed focus on their waterpark would make even more sense.

Edited May 13, 2017 by GoGoBoy

[Sarm]

@wikiverse, that is a very good point that DreamWorld's missing 2 key family rides, and that could possibly be one of the reasons WWW and DW combined. Although joining them doesn't necessarily make them be more competitive with VRTP, in fact having them as 2 parks would probably do that better. I also 100% agree with @GoGoBoy that DW's troubles should've prompted more focus on WWW.

[Cactus_Matt]

Dreamworld and White Water World were combined some months before the TRR incident, so it's a hundred percent unlikely that was the reason for the combination of these two 'parks' on the one ticket price, unless of course your implying some sort of nefarious conspiracy!

Personally I had zero interest in White Water World prior to its amalgamation, but since (specifically in September '16) I would totally have visited that water park, not just because it was included in the ticket price but because it rustled some warm nostalgic feelings about Dreamworld's first water park Blue Lagoon.

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

On 13/05/2017 at 6:16 PM, wikiverse said:

Website maintenance, advertising, digital marketing and brand development are expensive exercises.

Maintaining site info on two domains, rather than on one isn't really that big of a difference though. (The same information is there still, just on one domain).

Most advertising and marketing already incorporated both parks anyway - so the only thing that has really changed is the brand.

[Slick]

TLDR (sorry @djrappa) - Ardent thought it could take on VRL. Turns out, it couldn't, for a myriad of reasons.

I'm super pro amalgamation and making it another world of Dreamworld's, and I also think the ticket price down the line should reflect that. For now, what VRL can't beat is the fact that you get a solid sampling of VRL's Paradise Country, Movie World & Wet 'n' Wild properties in the form of Corroboree, Dreamworld & WhiteWater World without the heinous walking or logistics of trying to smoosh that all into one day, which makes Dreamworld a very lucrative proposition for out of towners or value-focussed buyers.

[MickeyD]

Well put @Slick. The very fact that DW has an 'all under the one roof' feature certainly has it's benefits! Tbh, I usually spend longer on any given visit at DW than I do at the others for this very reason. 

Spending more time on property means you are more inclined to purchase food/drink during any given visit to DW.

VTPs on the other hand do not offer so much of a full day at any of their Parks so instead of handing my dollars over at MW, SW, WnW or PC, I am awarded with the convenience and affordability of a multitude of food outlets just off property!! Way to go VTPs!! 

Seems like a ridiculous missed opportunity to me when you consider the % of revenue should be closely associated - and marketed toward the demographic audience .