Why is it that thrill-focused parks struggle in comparison to parks aimed solely at families? What makes them different?

[Matt N]

Hi guys. In a Thorpe Park trip report thread I was just reading, @Serena made this really interesting post:

Okay, I'll bite

Families with young children who go to Thorpe Park simply don't do their research. It's not the parks fault if they have a disappointing day. It's like going to a vegan restaurant and moaning there's no meat options.

If you look at their marketing, Thorpe don't bill themselves as a family park. It's almost always groups of young adults / teens in their photos. That's their target demographic, clearly.

When talking about "what is there to do for families" at Thorpe - I also think we forget that many older kids love thrills. When I worked there last year, the majority of the best feedback was from 10 - 13 yr olds loving the big coasters. Again, families who do their research and bring thrillseeking kids over 1.4m in height will likely have a fantastic time.

So when we ask: what is there for families to do - the question is too broad. What type of families? Families with 4yr olds? 8yr olds? 11yr olds?

The southern UK Merlin park trajectory for families is clearly intended to be Legoland then Chessington then Thorpe. Thorpe isn't a massive cater-for-all place like Alton Towers, in the same way that Chessington and Legoland aren't there to cater for thrillseekers.

We don't criticise Chessington for having no thrilling rides. So why do we criticise Thorpe for having a small selection of tame rides? Parks that are only 30 miles apart are supposed to be different from each other and have contrasting ride offerings.

It's a bit like critising a horror movie for being too scary. Thrills are the purpose of Thorpe, that's why they're building the UKs tallest coaster. And families with thrillseeking 1.4m kids will LOVE it. As will the majority of their teenage / young adult / groups of mates clientele too. Celebrate it for it's purpose.

(Hope you don’t mind me name-dropping you, @Serena; if you do, I’ll happily remove the top section of my post)

Now I didn’t just cite Serena’s post for no reason. To a degree, I do agree with her, and her post did get me thinking; why is it that thrill parks often don’t seem as successful, and often receive a lot of stick compared to parks that go solely for young families, for instance? Why is it that enthusiasts constantly bemoan the fact that Thorpe lacks family rides, but never bemoan the fact that Legoland and Chessington lack thrill rides? And why is it that thrill parks often seem to struggle compared to solely family-focused parks? Why is it that thrill parks aren’t simply accepted as another genre of theme park with a different target market in the same way as children’s parks are, and are often told that they need to change and appeal to young families more?

I’ll admit I’m a bit stumped, and I’d be intrigued to know your thoughts. I’ve often heard it said that families have more disposable income and money to spend on park than thrill seekers, but the more I think about it and the more I hear, the less I agree with that statement.

As another poster in that same thread mentioned when I raised that point, a lot of families visiting the Southern Merlin parks are working off of a tight budget; many of them will be MAP holders who visit on a regular basis with their own packed lunches and don’t buy any merchandise or extra goodies, and even if they aren’t MAP holders, many families are on a tight budget, and whatever they buy on park will naturally cost more due to an increased group size, thus possibly deterring them from making the spend. The park gets no money at all from those MAP guests, and less money from those types of families even without MAPs.

With thrill seekers, on the other hand; while there are of course plenty of thrill seekers who fit the description of “MAP holder who visits every weekend and doesn’t spend any money”, this audience might have less of a tight budget for a theme park day, and things will naturally cost less for them due to them usually paying for less people than a family group, so they might be more inclined to spend that little bit of money on in-park food, for instance. Yes, I know that a big family group would generate more money per purchase than a smaller thrill seeker group or single thrill seeker, but if the families aren’t making those purchases and the thrill seekers are, then the smaller thrill seeker purchase is financially preferable to the non-existent family purchase.

As Serena also says, thrill seekers and families are not necessarily mutually exclusive groups, so that makes the struggle of the thrill park all the more interesting.

What do you guys think?
P.S. Here’s the thread I’m referring to, in case you’re interested: https://coasterforce.com/forums/threads/thorpe-park-how-crap-is-it.45495/

 

[Nicky Borrill]

They don’t in short…

Thorpe does very well - Thrill

Paultons do very well - Kids / family

Just different demographics.

Show me a single ‘Thrill only’ park who are without a doubt struggling to make ends meet? Can you give me some examples of ‘thrill only’ parks who are, or have, struggled?

I know I can think of plenty of examples of kiddy and family parks that have struggled, and some have even gone bust after moving more towards that market!

I think Merlin know what they’re doing better than your average CF enthusiast, considering they’re privy to the private accounts and visitor statistics. Do you think they’d be adding the biggest thrill coaster in the country if Thorpe was struggling under it’s ‘Thrill seeker’ target audience?

 

[Matt N]

They don’t in short…

Thorpe does very well - Thrill

Paultons do very well - Kids / family

Just different demographics.

Show me a single ‘Thrill only’ park who are without a doubt struggling to make ends meet? Can you give me some examples of ‘thrill only’ parks who are, or have, struggled?

I know I can think of plenty of examples of kiddy and family parks that have struggled, and some have even gone bust after moving more towards that market!

I think Merlin know what they’re doing better than your average CF enthusiast, considering they’re privy to the private accounts and visitor statistics. Do you think they’d be adding the biggest thrill coaster in the country if Thorpe was struggling under it’s ‘Thrill seeker’ target audience?

With regard to the bolded, Merlin's official visitor statistics released during the consultations for Project Amazon and Project Exodus showed that Thorpe declined by over 500,000 between 2011 and 2019, and were even overtaken by Chessington in 2019. Exodus is being installed to try and stop guest figures from falling. The last 2 "thrill" investments (Swarm and DBGT) have also been perceived as corporate failures by Merlin, for what it's worth.

In terms of some examples; it's often been said that part of the reason 2000s Six Flags struggled was due to them overly focusing on thrill. Thomas Lands and Wiggles Lands were installed by the company towards the end of this era as a quick way to get families visiting.

Perhaps I wasn't meaning "why don't thrill parks do well?" as such. Perhaps I was more meaning "why do enthusiasts seemingly view them differently to theme parks aimed solely at families?". Like Serena said, you never see enthusiasts get anywhere near as critical towards the lack of thrills at family parks as they do towards the lack of family rides at Thorpe, and I was interested to know why this is. Apologies, I think I phrased the title badly.

 

[Nicky Borrill]

With regard to the bolded, Merlin's official visitor statistics released during the consultations for Project Amazon and Project Exodus showed that Thorpe declined by over 500,000 between 2011 and 2019, and were even overtaken by Chessington in 2019. Exodus is being installed to try and stop guest figures from falling.

In terms of some examples; it's often been said that part of the reason 2000s Six Flags struggled was due to them overly focusing on thrill. Thomas Lands and Wiggles Lands were installed by the company towards the end of this era as a quick way to get families visiting.

Perhaps I wasn't meaning "why don't thrill parks do well?" as such. Perhaps I was more meaning "why do enthusiasts seemingly view them differently to theme parks aimed solely at families?". You never see enthusiasts get anywhere near as critical towards the lack of thrills at family parks as they do towards the lack of family rides at Thorpe,

Thanks for the clarification.

It’s the assumption that ‘Thorpe are struggling’ that’s been bugging me throughout this evening’s discussions. We just have no way whatsoever to know that, and I very much doubt it’s true.

For balance, I do think it is fair to say that Thorpe have been through a period where, for whatever reason, they were giving confusing messages about their target market. It certainly seemed as though they were trying to become more family friendly. Their visitor numbers since the late noughties though, as you’ve highlighted, would suggest that this move in direction was a mistake.

It seems as though they’re now shifting back towards thrill, which I think is a positive for that park specifically, given it’s unique circumstances and local competition.

 

[Will]

I think Merlin know what they’re doing better than your average CF enthusiast, considering they’re privy to the private accounts and visitor statistics. Do you think they’d be adding the biggest thrill coaster in the country if Thorpe was struggling under it’s ‘Thrill seeker’ target audience?

Tallest, you mean. Don't get carried away
The best is in our neck of the woods and you know it.

 

[Matt N]

Thanks for the clarification.

It’s the assumption that ‘Thorpe are struggling’ that’s been bugging me throughout this evening’s discussions. We just have no way whatsoever to know that, and I very much doubt it’s true.

For balance, I do think it is fair to say that Thorpe have been through a period where, for whatever reason, they were giving confusing messages about their target market. It certainly seemed as though they were trying to become more family friendly. Their visitor numbers since the late noughties though, as you’ve highlighted, would suggest that this move in direction was a mistake.

It seems as though they’re now shifting back towards thrill, which I think is a positive for that park specifically, given it’s unique circumstances and local competition.

The assumption that "Thorpe are struggling" from my end very much came from hearsay from other people. I'd often heard it said that Thorpe was the least profitable of Merlin's Resort Theme Parks, and the decreasing guest figures since the turn of the 2010s didn't suggest that the park is/was exactly thriving; 2019 saw their lowest guest figures since around 2002.

Interestingly, the move to a more family-friendly image in 2014 was actually done off the back of Swarm's supposed failure. However, I actually feel that other factors contributed to Swarm's failure (Olympics, Jubilee, rainy summer, Thorpe being at its attendance ceiling after huge years in 2009, 2010 & 2011), so I reckon a coaster built in 2016 instead of DBGT could well have been more successful. As you allude to, I'm not sure that it was actually the thrill market in itself that caused Thorpe's decline throughout the 2010s as much as its identity crisis; the park seemed to change strategy every year or two for a fair few years, which left them a bit stuck investment-wise.

I agree that I feel thrills is the right direction for Thorpe, personally. Going too far down the family market would put them in immense competition with the likes of Chessington, Legoland and Paultons amongst others, whereas they're one of very few true thrill parks in Britain nowadays. They're also one of the few who have both the lenient planning restrictions and the money to properly make thrills work in the UK.

Tallest, you mean. Don't get carried away
The best is in our neck of the woods and you know it.

@Nicky Borrill did say biggest, in fairness, which I assumed to mean tallest.

Unless you mean something else, of course.

 

[Will]

Interestingly, the move to a more family-friendly image in 2014 was actually done off the back of Swarm's supposed failure. However, I actually feel that other factors contributed to Swarm's failure (Olympics, Jubilee, rainy summer, Thorpe being at its attendance ceiling after huge years in 2009, 2010 & 2011)

I've still never understood why large events that brought a lot of people into the park's catchment area proved a problem particularly when they'd just opened arguably the best coaster of the Merlin era, but there we go...

 

[Matt N]

I've still never understood why large events that brought a lot of people into the park's catchment area proved a problem particularly when they'd just opened arguably the best coaster of the Merlin era, but there we go...

It confused me as well, but I think it was because people were more interested in watching the Olympics than visiting theme parks, and it rained for the rest of the summer when the Olympics weren't on.

 

[MackMan]

I personally hold the belief that balance is EVERYTHING in parks. Even parks like Cedar Point have lands dedicated for family audiences, and coasters meant to bridge the gap for young people to start riding coasters! They also have added Snake River Expedition, they also offer shows.

I believe theme parks/amusement parks do best when they cater to a wide audience. Families are a very big market of people so i believe there needs to be a fair lineup of attractions to keep them happy. You can have a bunch of awesome coasters, but having a great family area is kind of essential.

I think with Thorpe, it had a niche and direction, then the Swarm under-performed and they decided to slowly steer towards families, before back-pedalling, and now their MIA with investing at all. it was an underlying issue as families are where the money is most of the time. Especially with hotels, extra attractions within a resort, ect.

I believe personally you can add amazing thrill coasters, you just have to balance it with family stuff. But to answer the question on the topic.

MONEY:
Teenagers do not usually book short breaks, they do not pay to play mini golf while staying at your onsite hotel, they probably won't buy a bunch of stuff from your gift shop. I know my nephews blow tons of money when we go to Chessington, kids and families are such a big MARKET that brings in a lot of money. When i go to Thorpe, their lucky if i even buy food there and not just pack a sandwich, nevermind even give a f*** about any merch (cos i'm student and barely get more than £6 a hour).

A park like Legoland shows the sheer power of being appealing to families and the money to be made with that target demographic. Legoland is a money mint cash cow. Amazing gate figures, probably a hell ton of cash from sales in shops, and tons of food and drink profit too.

 

[Jamesss]

Thorpe had the family/thrill balance just right in the early to mid-2000's in my opinion.

Back then the focus was still mainly on thrills, but they also had:

- That kiddie area where Storm Surge is now - Octopus garden I think it was called.
- Loggers Leap. Which was the best flume in the country imo. RIP.
- That car ride near the banana boat.
- The train going to the Thorpe farm.

Plus a more relaxed, fun atmosphere and better overall aesthetics.

Families with kids could visit the park and were catered for, as well as the thrill seekers.

As for whether they made more money during this period - I have no idea. But the park "felt" more successful back then.

 

[Nicky Borrill]

MONEY:
Teenagers do not usually book short breaks, they do not pay to play mini golf while staying at your onsite hotel, they probably won't buy a bunch of stuff from your gift shop. I know my nephews blow tons of money when we go to Chessington, kids and families are such a big MARKET that brings in a lot of money. When i go to Thorpe, their lucky if i even buy food there and not just pack a sandwich, nevermind even give a f*** about any merch (cos i'm student and barely get more than £6 a hour).

A park like Legoland shows the sheer power of being appealing to families and the money to be made with that target demographic. Legoland is a money mint cash cow. Amazing gate figures, probably a hell ton of cash from sales in shops, and tons of food and drink profit too.

I wonder how much of Thorpe's turnover comes from short breaks, considering it can actually, from time to time, be cheaper (per person) to stay on site than buy park tickets. And the hotel has 90 rooms with a park capacity of 15,000

To be fair, I also wonder the same for Alton Towers, with around 700 rooms and a park capacity of 28000. However I expect as a much larger, more complete resort, aimed at families, they do much better from on site accommodation and secondary attractions.

Thorpe is not going to be a 'complete' resort like Alton Towers. It also has Legoland literally on it's doorstep. They're not going to be able to compete with the appeal of an IP like Legoland. And why would they want to compete with one of their own anyway?

To use an analogy, if you owned a company that operated Burger joints AND Pizza shops, you already have a very successful Burger Joint in the super-duper shopping centre down the road, and another unit becomes available. Would you put in another Burger Joint, or would you put in one of your Pizza shops?

I agree that it wouldn't 'hurt' Thorpe to provide a few more attractions that can be enjoyed by all age groups, especially ones that their core target market can also enjoy. But they need to focus on what satisfies their core target audience first, and stop the downward trend in gate figures that has been a feature of the years since they last began trying to focus more on families. Thankfully it seems that they too recognise this with Exodus.

Actually I would go as far as saying that their last attempt was poor, Angry Birds is NOT the one. I don't think it would be a bad idea to build a 'proper' kids area with a good ip, and a few small children's flats. The problem is where, they don't have a lot of space available.

Having said all of that, as much as we might like to think we are, we're not park operators, we don't have an ounce of the knowhow that the Merlin team will have. And we certainly do not have the insider knowledge of their private accounts and statistics. We do not know what has and hasn't worked in the past with any degree of certainty, they do. So perhaps we should trust them to run their parks, after all they've managed to do pretty well all on their own so far. And we can either visit if we like the product, or avoid if we don't.

 

[MackMan]

I wonder how much of Thorpe's turnover comes from short breaks, considering it can actually, from time to time, be cheaper (per person) to stay on site than buy park tickets. And the hotel has 90 rooms with a park capacity of 15,000

To be fair, I also wonder the same for Alton Towers, with around 700 rooms and a park capacity of 28000. However I expect as a much larger, more complete resort, aimed at families, they do much better from on site accommodation and secondary attractions.

Thorpe is not going to be a 'complete' resort like Alton Towers. It also has Legoland literally on it's doorstep. They're not going to be able to compete with the appeal of an IP like Legoland. And why would they want to compete with one of their own anyway?

To use an analogy, if you owned a company that operated Burger joints AND Pizza shops, you already have a very successful Burger Joint in the super-duper shopping centre down the road, and another unit becomes available. Would you put in another Burger Joint, or would you put in one of your Pizza shops?

I agree that it wouldn't 'hurt' Thorpe to provide a few more attractions that can be enjoyed by all age groups, especially ones that their core target market can also enjoy. But they need to focus on what satisfies their core target audience first, and stop the downward trend in gate figures that has been a feature of the years since they last began trying to focus more on families. Thankfully it seems that they too recognise this with Exodus.

Actually I would go as far as saying that their last attempt was poor, Angry Birds is NOT the one. I don't think it would be a bad idea to build a 'proper' kids area with a good ip, and a few small children's flats. The problem is where, they don't have a lot of space available.

Having said all of that, as much as we might like to think we are, we're not park operators, we don't have an ounce of the knowhow that the Merlin team will have. And we certainly do not have the insider knowledge of their private accounts and statistics. We do not know what has and hasn't worked in the past with any degree of certainty, they do. So perhaps we should trust them to run their parks, after all they've managed to do pretty well all on their own so far. And we can either visit if we like the product, or avoid if we don't.

I have been to Thorpe Shark, during the busy month of august. I am local to Thorpe so really about time really. Honestly its really an undeveloped 'resort', it probably doesn't make too much cash from what i saw. Their primary eatery has a small capacity and my visit seemed a little modest. Its honestly non comparable to the giant resort of Alton Towers, even Chessington has emerged as a shortbreak hotspot with two hotels, a signature resturant, a high ropes course, and glamping. Legoland also has its own resort thing going on. Thorpe Shark has nice views on the lake, but it really is barebones for a 'resort'

When it comes to the business side of it, i think Merlin should offers some kind of deal encouraging families to go Chessington one day, and then Thorpe the next for example. Do a combo ticket, they are not that far! Chessington sticks out from Legoland cos of its Animals, Legoland sticks out because it has its own IP. Thorpe park could stick out because of its coaster collection, give enough rides for the members of the family that are not ready/not into riding big coasters, and i think that would work really well! Chessington and Thorpe especially are really not two day parks IMO, Thorpe probably could be wholely swept through in less than a full day. Why not incentise visiting the other one on your shortbreak? Their VERY close to each other, so i think Merlin should actually try and use that to their advantage.

Legoland is also near but i don't even believe there is too much overlap with the audience. Legoland focuses on very young kids, so i would not say it is really targeting much of the same people. But Chessington, yep there probably is overlap, and always will be overlap. Especially when they build the wing coaster!