Parkz News Renaming Dreamworld would be a token and ultimately ineffective fix for the theme park's woes

[Parkz News]

Renaming Dreamworld would be a token and ultimately ineffective fix for the theme park's woes

Calls to rename Dreamworld so that they can start afresh are pointless without a real strategy to rebuild a damaged theme park.

Click here to continue reading

[MickeyD]

OK so what's the solution?

[pushbutton]

1 hour ago, MickeyD said:

OK so what's the solution?

Merlin entertainment. 

[webslave]

I only disagree with:

Quote

A shiny new name for Dreamworld doesn't change the fact that their competitors offer a vastly better product for every key demographic.

I firmly believe that if you have young children, Dreamworld is your best choice of a park to visit in terms of ride selection.

[joel]

People who live on the east coast of Australia will be still calling it dreamworld for at least the next 60 years

[Richard]

2 hours ago, webslave said:

I only disagree with:

I firmly believe that if you have young children, Dreamworld is your best choice of a park to visit in terms of ride selection.

I'll absolutely concede (and did in the article) that the sheer breadth of rides and hip IP in one place aimed at young children is unmatched. Quality and presentation is another matter, though hardly relevant to a four year old so long as they're on something that spins or hugging a character they recognise.

When looked at through the prism of a two-park (DW/WWW) versus three/four-park (MW, SW, WNW + PC) annual pass I do firmly believe the offering for every age bracket doesn't stack up in quantity nor quality and at the end of the day, but of course there's a lot to be said for for the geographical/all-in-one convenience of Dreamworld.

The main question is whether there's a sound business model for a theme park of the size of Dreamworld to only be pretty good with young kids' attractions. I think there's a misnomer that these are family attractions; in my view they appeal to young families and little else, and there's a reason you don't see Disney or other operators relying heavily on them... because they're not money spinners in the same way that true "3 to 93" family attractions are.

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

39 minutes ago, Richard said:

the sheer breadth of rides and hip IP in one place aimed at young children is unmatched.

Anything 'hip' shouldn't be aimed a children born after 1972.

#groovy

[New display name]

1 hour ago, Richard said:

I'll absolutely concede (and did in the article) that the sheer breadth of rides and hip IP in one place aimed at young children is unmatched. Quality and presentation is another matter, though hardly relevant to a four year old so long as they're on something that spins or hugging a character they recognise.

When looked at through the prism of a two-park (DW/WWW) versus three/four-park (MW, SW, WNW + PC) annual pass I do firmly believe the offering for every age bracket doesn't stack up in quantity nor quality and at the end of the day, but of course there's a lot to be said for for the geographical/all-in-one convenience of Dreamworld.

The main question is whether there's a sound business model for a theme park of the size of Dreamworld to only be pretty good with young kids' attractions. I think there's a misnomer that these are family attractions; in my view they appeal to young families and little else, and there's a reason you don't see Disney or other operators relying heavily on them... because they're not money spinners in the same way that true "3 to 93" family attractions are.

MW & SW do I'm too old for the baby rides but not ready for Scooby yet badly, which is the 4-5-6 -7 year old range of guest.  To add to that when a 6 to 8 -year-old if ready for Scooby it’s another big jump to GL or SM.

Considering once I was 15 I was to cool to go to DW with my parents who had the cash flow you are looking at 30% of children overlooked by Village.

Plus if you want to compare what is tied and rundown that would be Kids WB Fun Zone not Dreamworks. 

 

Edited August 2, 2018 by Skeeta

[Richard]

I'd argue that Sea World caters for ~4-8 very well between Nickelodeon Land, Castaway Bay/Reef and the animal exhibits/shows. Of course then there's many other shortcomings there. And their IP isn't as, ahem, "hip".

I'd also argue that $10 million spent at Movie World shoring up the 4-8 gap would be the best money they could spent. Had Doomsday been a few good family flat rides instead of one lacklustre thrill ride, this almost wouldn't be a discussion we'd be having.

This is the inherent flaw in the annual pass model and why it's perhaps been so easy for Dreamworld to coast: they're never in danger of competing with themselves. Sea World focusing on younger kids and Movie World on teens has left both parks lacking. Even though "95 rides and attractions" is a solid selling point for annual passes, it doesn't translate as an experience for anyone other than tourists visiting all within a short period of time.

It also highlights the dearth of family rides at all our parks. There's so little on offer anywhere that appeals to everyone.

[New display name]

1 hour ago, Richard said:

It also highlights the dearth of family rides at all our parks. There's so little on offer anywhere that appeals to everyone.

That is a true statement.

The problem I have is I'm at MW having a blast and my daughter wants to go home but If I took my daughter to SW besides getting to enjoy a flat beer I wouldn't last that long before I packed up the bags and left.

MW & SW using each other to fill the cap for their own short comings is the problem.  SW would be a better park if it competed with MW and vice versa.  Give me a reason to go to MW and give me a reason to go to SW.   Not this nice hogwash of this year you can have carnival.

I think it’s idiotic of Village to think for me and my daughter to both have a good time in the same day we must sit half an hour in traffic and travel between parks.  No! we should both enjoy ourselves at MW and we should both have a great day at SW.

My super problem is Village have 2 theme parks but treat them like one.  Back in the days we had 3 parks on the coast.  Now we have one theme park plus something that once represented a theme park called DW.

I understand Village cross sharing certain resources is a good way to save money but cross sharing attractions is shit.

 

Edited August 2, 2018 by Skeeta

[Mark Shaw]

On 01/08/2018 at 10:33 PM, pushbutton said:

Merlin entertainment. 

Merlin would not be a bad outcome. They know what they are doing, have a strong reputation and bucket loads of cash to splash.

The downside from what I know of my old company from colleagues either still working there or those that have recently left is that Merlin is not the company it once was. It is a huge global business that has seen rapid growth and that usually means a dilution of quality.... somewhere, and Oz is a long way from Poole, Dorset.

Dreamworld is a fantastic name for a theme park but sadly the dream has turned into a really horrible nightmare, not only because of the incident itself but the handling of it and the subsequent inquest and it would take a miracle to rescue the brand, regardless of a change in ownership (slightly helpful possibly).

A name change would not make a lot of difference and people would see straight through it.   To make this work someone needs to make Dreamworld appealing again in such a way that helps move everyone on from the tragedy and that would take a world first and brilliantly executed $50m+ attraction launch as phase 1.  That would be a gamble for an already bruised Ardent. 

I was not around during the period but it seems it took Luna Park Sydney decades to recover from the Ghost Train fire tragedy but it did...finally. The question is does anyone have the metal to take it on and see it through for the long term? I do hope so.  Australia needs to buck its game up in the Theme Park sector for the greater benefit of the tourism community and economy.  I find it frustrating that a country with such a great climate and reasonably strong tourism prospects (See Asia in particular who LOVE theme parks) does not have really great anchor tourism products other than the Opera House and amazing beaches/landscapes (and PLEASE, no one claim Flinders Street Railway station or anything in Melbourne has really strong tourism appeal to compete on a global scale?  Maybe for sports tourists/nuts)

The landscape in Australia is ripe right now for someone to be bold and build a fabulous theme park that would assist the resurrection of the entire industry.  All ships benefit from a rising tide. Is that tide coming from the direction of the South China sea I wonder?