Sea World's business strategy

Times are tough for Sea World. Attendance in 2014 fell 4.2% which is bad, but could've been worse. The question is whether this decline represents a long-term trend or a short term temporary fad. This article compares Sea World with Ringling Bros Barnum Baily Circus and argues that Ringling has a long-term strategy for survival (first step: retire the elephants) but Sea World is too stubborn to see the obvious writing on the wall.

My personal opinion is that society's views on keeping large intelligent animals in captivity for entertainment has shifted and this change is permanent. Just as views on race relations finally forced Mormons to allow blacks to enter their churches in 1978, the change is permanent and is a reflection of society's evolving values.

Here's my unsolicited advice to Sea World, that I'm certain they will ignore: remove the mammals from the parks. Don't delay. Do it immediately, the longer Sea World delays the inevitable, the more money they lose. In place of the animal attractions, add more roller coasters and thrill rides for the teenagers. Aside from Legoland (which is marketed to young children), San Diego has no other theme park, and the teens aren't too interested in Legoland anyway. For roller coasters, Knott's Berry Farm is 100 miles away, and Six Flags Magic Mountain (the roller coaster capital of the entire West Coast) is 150 miles away. The Southern California market is enormous: 22 million people, and San Diego gets tons of convention business. Roller coasters are expensive investements, but Sea World San Diego could do it and survive.

I don't know much about the San Antonio market, but it's such a smaller market, I doubt Sea World could viably compete with Six Flags. Sea World Orlando has tougher competition (Universal & Disney), but a lot more tourists than San Antonio, so I could see Sea World in Florida surviving.

To me, Sea World without Shamu would be like the Beijing zoo without a panda.

Times they are a changing.

I think they should continue to increase their "good" publicity, playing up education, research and conservation. Folks love to see the animals up close, and Sea World actually does a lot of good things for the local wildlife. The current controversy will pass.

The property in San Diego is landlocked, and there is not enough room at that location to make a serious play for the thrill ride crowd.

Quote: Wizard

To me, Sea World without Shamu would be like the Beijing zoo without a panda.

I agree. To replace the animal acts with thrill rides is to just make the place another Six Flags, which we already have. Instead of pulling the acts they IMHO would do better to show how the park has saved who knows how many dolphins, etc by bringing attention to them. Ringling Bros should have done the same with the elephants.

reno: I have always wondered why it is bad to keep a large mammal in a zoo but it is okay to keep a large shark or a small fish. Where is the line and who should decide. Cute animals definately have the advantage when it comes to how we think they want to be treated. We all want to play God now because we think we know what is best for the animals.

By your criteria everyone needs to give up their cats and dogs since they are intelligent mammals that we keep as slaves. Our pets mostly love their lives but that shouldn't matter, they need to be free. The same as the whales and dolphins that are happy in their environment but the do gooders feel sure they know what they want.

If the animals prefer a wild and tough life why do they graduate to the cities where life is easier if given the chance. Think urban deer, raccoons, coyotes and the bears that will always chose the easy meal.

Maybe you can send me a translated whale recording where he tells you he wants out of Sea World.

I think there is an intelligent middle ground to this issue, like most issues. Let's look at elephants for example. Yes, they are meant to roam all over huge areas. However, if born into a zoo I think they adapt to it. They give up a lot of freedom but they gain in living a long safe life with good food and medical care. However, I have issues with elephants in circuses. It seems cruel to keep them in cages much of the time and beat them in the process of teaching them tricks. I personally will not patronize circuses for this reason, although, to be honest, I probably wouldn't go anyway, because I'm just too old for circuses.

Rather than defusing the controversy, Sea World seems determined to escalate it. They are their own worst enemy. For example:

Quote: David E Johnson

the Orlando Business Journal posted an online poll asking readers if their opinion of SeaWorld had been affected by the controversy. Fifty-four percent of voters who voted no, were traced back to a SeaWorld ip address (note don’t try to rig a newspaper poll and use your ip address, the paper may become suspicious). The result more bad press and ongoing social media controversy.

SeaWorld is becoming the textbook case of what not to do in a crisis.

Did they think no one would notice?

Quote: AZDuffman

I agree. To replace the animal acts with thrill rides is to just make the place another Six Flags, which we already have. Instead of pulling the acts they IMHO would do better to show how the park has saved who knows how many dolphins, etc by bringing attention to them. Ringling Bros should have done the same with the elephants.

Seaworld makes various claims about how many Orcas they have saved and how important their research is. Most Marine Biologist think their numbers are hookum and balderdash.

Quote: reno

Here's my unsolicited advice to Sea World, that I'm certain they will ignore: remove the mammals from the parks.

The reason they won't follow your advice, aside from the fact they won't get to hear it <w>, is that to them this must sound like "Close the parks."