Should VRTP sell Sea World?

[BringADecentParkToSydney]

Not sure if this has been discussed,

 

But does anyone else think that Village Roadshow should sell Sea World to 'Sea World Theme Parks & Resorts'? And if so, does anyone actually know the chances of it actually happening?

The park seems to have gotten worse over the years and it's honestly just sad, so I'm hoping that a decent company could make it 'good' again.

Plus if they did sell it, then it could help Village pay off debt. After all, they sold Wet'n'Wild Sydney, so what harm could selling Sea World do?

 

(By the way - if this has been discussed before then can someone please just link me to the thread?)

[pushbutton]

I'd hate it for two reasons. 

1. I'd no longer get access to Sea World with my Village membership card. I know it's nowhere near as good as it used to be but I still like to go occasionally if it doesn't cost me anything. 

2. The SeaWorld company you refer to is the reason why Sea World Australia gets so many idiots going on about Dolphins and Whales shouldn't be kept in captivity blah blah blah. I don't know the details, but I think that SeaWorld maybe actually did something that might sort of justify those sort of complaints to some extent.

[Brad2912]

I’m sure it has been discussed somewhere. 

Anyways, although SW has become a less atttactive prospect from a Rides perspective, it continues to be very popular on the animal attractions standpoint, especially with Asian in-bound tourism. Whilst I don’t know the specific finanicial figures, I would take a stab that SW remains highly profitable despite most of us detesting the lack of rides or replacements for those removed. 

I don’t envisage for one moment that “Sea World” as in the US operators would want to be involved, nor do I believe the general community here would want it. 

Edited October 14, 2018 by Brad2912

[BringADecentParkToSydney]

22 minutes ago, Brad2912 said:

I’m sure it has been discussed somewhere. 

Anyways, although SW has become a less atttactive prospect from a Rides perspective, it continues to be very popular on the animal attractions standpoint, especially with Asian in-bound tourism. Whilst I don’t know the specific finanicial figures, I would take a stab that SW remains highly profitable despite most of us detesting the lack of rides or replacements for those removed. 

I don’t envisage for one moment that “Sea World” as in the US operators would want to be involved, nor do I believe the general community here would want it. 

Ooh. Well if it’s making a profit then yeah keep it. 

 

If it is is indeed aiming to become more of an “Aquatic Park” and not so much a theme park then I understand.. but I just don’t think that it should continue to brand itself as one of it has barely any rides. 

[pushbutton]

It's not branded as a theme park anymore. It's a marine park.

[MickeyD]

The Seaworld's in the USA are also referred to as Marine Parks yet they still have loads of rides and themed attractions that are being added all the time!

 

 

[Slick]

Let's be clear firstly - the fact that Sea World isn't a badass theme park that can keep up with Dreamworld & Warner Bros. Movie World in terms of attractions (which it did very well for nearly twenty years) is 100% a management oversight. The shift from "excellent standalone park" to "an upsell for Movie World customers and a playground for resort customers" should've never happened, and the result of that choice is a park that in some aspects still can't hold a candle to the park that it was over a decade ago.

Will VRL sell Sea World? Last time I checked, the park, the resort and the resort's conference centre make great coin, so probably not. But should they be doing more instead of letting it cruise on autopilot like Wet 'n' Wild GC has done? Absolutely, VRTP has a lot to gain from the current CEO being less part time on-site nice guy & more like the Williams, Menzies and Longhursts of old, who were laser focussed and unabashed with their passion to get it right.

[red dragin]

Australia Zoo survives without Thrill rides.

Why compete against your own product (Movie World) when there is a sector of the market that no direct competition? Currumbin Sanctuary (not marine) and Paradise Country (again not marine) are the only things close competition in the "cute and cuddly animals" tourist market on the Gold Coast. 

[Slick]

4 hours ago, red dragin said:

Australia Zoo survives without Thrill rides.

Yeah, and? Hundreds of zoos don't have rides and seem to do great, just as much as there's other "SeaWorlds" that have a ton more rides and seem to do great, too.  There's no rule for what exactly to do here - not all hotels need to have pools to be successful just as much as not all cars need four doors to sell well. But keeping with the car analogy - if i'm going to build a 4WD, I expect it to have a 4WD engine, not something out of a Corolla that's underpowered and not what I expected or paid for.

That's Sea World's problem - from the perspective of either a day ticket (where you're paying the same as Dreamworld or Movie World) or as a season pass holder wanting to get a full day's worth of fun, it doesn't stack up compared to the other parks anymore, and it's compounded by the fact that for the longest time it did. So many things have been pulled out and either not replaced or have been filled in with cheap alternatives that hyper-focusses the product to such a specific age group that it alienates others.

Continuing on that thought, the mentality of "competing against your own product" is so, so fundamentally flawed that it's a big contributor to why Village are so far in the hole, in my mind. It's like saying you don't need Paradise Country because you have animals at Sea World, or you don't need AOS because there's a stunt show at Movie World, or Movie World's kids area is okay to be left half-arsed and shitty because Sea World's is a bit better so they should just go there. If your products can't stand on their own feet, they're probably shit.

It's how Dreamworld have managed to stay competitive - they've got a great full day product whilst every other park is still, at best, a solid half day product. It's not a hard thing to fix either - Village just needed to maintain what they had in the first place (cough, Skyway, cough Vikings).

If their products can't stand on their own two feet as diverse & quality day experiences worth revisiting then as a park owner you're going to fail on driving revenue because there's no reason for guests to come back, and that's where the money is. Funny... other theme park chains have figured this out and they seem to be do fine.

Edited October 15, 2018 by Slick

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

8 minutes ago, Slick said:

they've got a great full day product*

*Note: full day product must be experienced over several months, as not all rides, shows and experiences are open year round due to never ending maintenance extensions