.

In terms of coffee shops and fast food chains, the Starbucks effect undoubtedly exists. Starbucks certainly isn’t noted for being inconspicuous, and along with McDonalds, Burger King and Subway embody Europeans’ fascination with American culture.

Yet, it seems what can be said of the high street can’t be said of the theme park. But why? Well, carrying out market research to ascertain the demand of a coffee shop is simple. So long as there’s a need, you can’t go wrong offering a choice selection of lattés, espressos and cappuccinos.

If you hear people complain about the size of the drinks, you buy new cups. If you hear people bemoan the cost of a regular choca-moca-whatever you can quickly react by charging less in the hope more people would buy off-setting the loss you would make.

Even the mighty Universal isn't immune from teething problems

Yet, a theme park is a different beast. The most successful parks and theme park operators have grown with the environment they cater for. They see needs come and go, tastes change and evolve with the times.

No amount of market research can take away the element of assumption when it comes to planning a theme park. Parks have to cater for the great unknown; how many will be visiting? Where will they be visiting from? How long will they be visiting for? How much money will be in their pockets?

For a new park, it is inevitable that there is going to be an awkward period of test and adjust. Even the best park in the world is likely to have an awkward first year, and will likely spend the first twelve months hurriedly reacting to visitor feedback.

Universal Studios in Orlando is a good example. Despite having a beefy portfolio of rides, shows and tours, visitors’ unfeigned interests laid in rides, not the movie ‘fluff’ that made up the very fabric of the sister Hollywood park. Soon after opening, the behind-the-scenes tour was shelved. And now, it is one of the most popular theme parks in the world.

The Millennium Exhibition in the Dome in Greenwich was another good example of failed market research. Sadly, though, in the twelve months it was open it never had a chance to morph into the tourist attraction people desired, and from the outset was always going to be a failure.

The Dome never had a chance to get on it's feet.

Six Flags buying Walibi was interesting, though. At the time, Walibi were one of the largest chains of theme parks in Europe, and as they had grew with the countries they were in, they were in touch with their visitors and at least had an established following.

Six Flags’ takeover was bittersweet. Many hoped that poor customer service would get lost in transit somewhere between Oklahoma City and Wavre, and that Six Flags (then Premier) would have the financial gusto to realise Eddie Meeùs’ dreams for Walibi.

Yet instead of building on the park they inherited, Six Flags virtually rebuilt Walibi Flevo and Walibi Wavre, which had an indelible effect on the park, and was ultimately a multi-million pound gamble.

This reliance on market research is quite unparalleled and was almost immediate. With Walibi Group attracting over 5 million visitors (noting that the French parks have very low attendance), it was genuinely surprising to see Six Flags not take the safer – and more to the point, cheaper – option of building on Walibi’s existing success as opposed to opting to start with a blank canvass.

The new look parks were far from failing, but were charmless and failed to embrace the sense of fun that Walibi always radiated. The reliance on rides, too, meant that the park had to up the ante in terms of adding massive attractions like Goliath to keep season pass holders faithful.

There I am going on about Goliath as if it is a bad thing. The bigger picture, though, meant that the basic fundamentals of a theme park – even down to places to sit – were woefully ignored.

With StarParks back in charge, they can learn from Six Flags’ mistakes, and – like Six Flags failed to do – build on the park they have inherited and mould to the contours of their clientele.

Author: MS Sunday, May 01, 2005 | Post a Comment