|
|
|
By Rob Gossard This is a great article that is actually a rebuttal to a statement I made in my article "Rebranding An Icon" about how I felt the animals were not really popular before the demise of Sea World. I'd like to thank Rob for his insight on this subject. In response to the article "Rebranding An Icon", Michael had asked the question if the animals were "really THAT popular". In my opinion, yes, and I agree with Cedar Fair's interpretation that the misjudgment of removing this attraction has cost them dearly at the gate with attendance. The animals were an attraction that set the park apart in an area that already has an abundance of amusement parks. Michael has stated a good point. If the animals were really that popular, then why did Busch sell off Sea World and since Cedar Fair now owns the park, would it have been in their best interest to have kept the animals since animals are not their business? Let me go ahead and address both of those questions from my standpoint. WHY THE SELL OFF BY ANHEUSER-BUSCH? Let's take a moment back to 2000 when there were two separate parks. On the south side of the lake was Sea World, in its thirtieth season and there was the newly branded Six Flags Ohio. Two parks that went in two very different directions for simply one reason. Six Flags was advertised as a new novelty. People were drawn in by the newness of what Six Flags offered that season, resulting in terrific attendance figures for 2000. Four new coasters and the Looney Tunes characters brought the crowds in droves. Meantime, at Sea World, the new attraction was Mission: Bermuda Triangle, an attempt by Anheuser-Busch to incorporate a ride into the park as well as a re-theming of the night time entertainment into a Mardi Gras-style festival "New Orleans Nights". Hardly enough to overcome the newness of Six Flags. As a season ticket holder for many years at Sea World, the shows which had already played for three years played before half empty stands.
|
|
|
|
