Menu
What's new
By:
Filters

Is Seaworld Dying?

Antinos said:
Like how Harley-Davidson built pedal bicycles from 1917-1921 to attract new customers to its brand.
Click to expand...
.
So, basically they went from making bikes to making bikes? Yeah, I can see how that would confuse customers...

Or like how IHOP just performed a fake rebranding campaign to promote another section of their menu (because apparently people think they only serve pancakes).
Click to expand...
No idea what IHOP is but sounds like a name that can be easily adapted to anything. But what is "fake rebranding" anyway? Either it's a rebrand or not - does the waiter, after you've ordered Tuna Salad or whatever suddenly leap out with "surprise! we only sell pancakes! fooled you!"

Or like how Peugeot was a general manufacturing company that built products based on market demand up until they entered automotive manufacturing. Or how companies like Honda, Mitsubishi, and Bosch offer products from automobiles or automobile parts to household appliances to garden equipment to power tools...based on market demands.
Click to expand...
But these are all manufacturers manufacturing stuff, as they have done for all their lives. They're not suddenly pivoting into something they're not.

Look. I can go on and on about branding and how various brands have withstood market changes by having a fluid and adaptive brand. The point is that Sea World is up against a market that is driving the park to adapt to, at the very least, less animals or potentially no animals due to the Blackfish documentary and other external anti-captivity animal activist groups. Sea World is clearly reacting to these market changes by shifting the needle more towards a traditional amusement park to retain a significant portion of its customer base (the animal activists). In 20 years, if/when Sea World has long completed their campaign, very few people will be upset about the lack of animals because the market will be different. Fluid and adaptive brands survive.
Click to expand...
But as I say, the general worldwide trend for attendance to zoos and aquariums is on the up. The Blackfish effect has been overstated and, possibly, masks the more real and long-term issues with SeaWorld. Many of the public don't seem to have an issue with animals in captivity, but they do expect certain standards.

Plus I don't hear people bitching about how the magic at The Wizarding World of Harry Potter isn't real nor how it isn't actually located in Scotland. Sea World can have an immersive marine theme without animals and retain its brand just like how WWoHP can have immersive Harry Potter theme despite the non-existence of magic.
Click to expand...
This is just ridiculous. If WWoHP had opened with Actual Magic then dropped the magic you may have a fair comparison. But no-one's expecting something that doesn't exist and has never been available. Visitors to SeaWorld might, just might, expect to see animals based on 50 years of SeaWorld having animals.
 
Robbie, the problem is you're assuming time spans of a year or two or even half a decade. We're talking decades of phasing out/introducing new animals and/or getting rid of them. To change a brand takes time and effort and Seaworld has been devoted to changing that since the late 00's. Give it time and we will see what will happen.
 
Interesting topic! Interesting enough to warrant discussion without asking for it in the thread title, which I took the liberty to change.

As for how SeaWorld fares, I can see that it's in a bit of a cinch, especially in Orlando. It faces competition with Disney over theming, and with Universal over thrills. And even the animal niche is contested with Animal Kingdom not far away, not to mention other zoos and aquariums with a significantly lower ticket price than the $100 SeaWorld asks of its guests. It's a tough market to be in.

However, they've got a CF alumnus on board, so I'm confident they'll manage just fine.
 
Isnt Sea World already phasing out Orcas with the no longer breeding of them? Pretty sure I read that somewhere.

As for the whole "If they dump the animals then it wont be Sea World" - they can still house animals that they are rehabilitating and use that as the educational forefront as to why we really need to look at how we are treating our oceans (world really, but oceans for the sake of argument) and make the focus while still keeping up with a change into a more "theme park with a zoo attatched" chain instead of a zoo with some rides.

Also, IHOP (International House of Pancakes) recently did a fake rebranding by making a simple change to their name for a brief period of time (i do believe they even had some of their stores flip the P into a b to play along with it). They tweeted that they would be flipping all the P's in their name to a "b" and would henceforth be called "International House of Burgers" because they have more to offer than just pancakes.

It worked because a majority of peiple stateside went up in arms about it, Burger King even jumped onto the meme-stream about it and pooped out a "Pancake King" logo to mock them and O believe a few other memes popped into existence over this. It was eventually found out it was all a lie/marketing ploy, but it got their name onto everyones feed on social media.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 
It's not a "Blackfish" thing necessarily. Public appetite for animal-based entertainment has been dropping for a long time. Blackfish sure as hell didn't help things, but the discussion has been happening (including on these forums) since way before that was released.

Zoo attendance isn't suffering because they're a different thing, both in terms of experience and the way they're "sold". Sea World tried to go down the "conservation/rehabilitation/education" route years ago, but it's hard to sell that when your key attractions are still cetaceans performing tricks (sorry, "demonstrating natural behaviours").

Arguably, adding rides has worsened that problem since roller coasters don't exactly scream "educational day out".

Anyway, I don't think they're going anywhere. As has been mentioned, the changes in the parks will be gradual - they have to be since they can't just dump the animals - but visitor numbers, while dropping, are still pretty enviable compared to most parks.
 
Last edited:
So I was just at SeaWorld Orlando the other day and thought I'd share my thoughts on this whole 'rebranding' discussion. I feel like they're really in a bit of a limbo area where they're far enough away from being a show-based marine park, but don't have nearly enough rides to have it classify as one or the other. I can definitely see that they're really trying to push for that ride-based park themed around oceanic life, but it's going to require many more years of investments and new attractions to properly become one. Right now, most of the parks have a few massive thrill coasters, one or two family coasters, 2 water rides, a dark ride, their sky tower, and a kiddie area. There are some good rides there, but if they want to become a full-fledged ride park, they're going to need many more rides. But with the current financial state of the company, pulling it off is going to be tricky. It does seem like they've been on the rise this past year, so maybe they'll be fine, but it's still hard to tell.

I went to the Orlando park with my little brother after a few days at Disney. Coming from a place where he could ride and enjoy every possible ride to a park where the only real rides are B&Ms, it was a bit of a shock. Now obviously comparing SeaWorld to Disney World isn't exactly fair, but there was nothing for him. He's far too old for the kiddie area, but he's not tall enough to ride Mako and Manta. So having to spend the day there dealing with that really took away from the park for me. Add that to the seemingly lifeless pathways and areas of the park, and I didn't have that great of a time. If you're in an area with a lot of families coming in, you're gonna want quite a few family rides.

tl;dr: SeaWorld is in the grey area between show-based and ride-based park, slowly become ride-based. They're going to need quite a few more rides to fulfill that, but the financial state of the company is going to make that difficult.
 
^I'll toast to that. As you and Marcus have stressed, it'll take time to switch over but they already have a decent start. To be honest, I'm surprised Mako and Infinity Falls came as quickly as they did.
 
https://coasterbuzz.com/News/seawor...rly-5-in-second-quarter-compared-to-last-year

Attendance and revenue is looking quite positive for Sea World! They've been investing a ton so the net losses for the first half and previous year are not surprising, but based on their second quarter data it looks like the chain is trending in the right direction and building momentum as a business.

Is Sea World still doomed? Has science gone too far?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top