How could Merlin make the two Southern Resort Theme Parks (Thorpe & Chessington) coexist in harmony?

[JAperson]

I thought about a giant rapids ride tbh - and a huge bench for spectators

What about a bench conveyer which take the guests who don't wish to get wet across?

 

[QTXAdsy]

As much as I do personally prefer Thorpe out of the 2, I do think it's the one Merlin would be more likely to sell. The park overall hasn't been as successful under Merlin's tenure as it was under Tussauds' (particularly since about 2012), and I get the outside impression that Merlin struggles a little with working out quite what to do with Thorpe Park, whereas Chessington seems to have been thriving and growing under Merlin, and don't quote me on this, but I actually remember hearing that it's one of their most valuable properties in terms of MAP sales and MAP visits, so I shouldn't think it's one they're too keen to let go of any time soon.

So while I'll confess that I have little to no idea about how Merlin's thought process would work in this regard, I feel like they'd have less to lose if they let go of Thorpe than if they let go of Chessington.

Interestingly, sacrificing the monopoly isn't an idea that has passed Tussauds/Merlin by, as Chessington was apparently very close to being offloaded during the late Tussauds era, under the tenure of DIC. The park was struggling visitors-wise (as I said in my opening post, Chessington only just scraped the 1 million mark in the mid-2000s), and the amount of investment required was sharply increasing due to the decay of much of the park's original theming and attraction lineup (I don't know for sure, but my hunch is that this is what eventually led to much of the original park getting some form of refurbishment, replacement or change during the 2010s; correct me if I'm wrong there); the cost was reaching a level that DIC didn't want to pay for a struggling park. The park was retained due to the Merlin takeover/the MAP increasing visitor figures by a fair amount and proving that a success could be made of it, but the thought was definitely there at some point, and that perhaps proves that maintaining the monopoly isn't as important to Tussauds/Merlin as you might expect.

Now in fairness to Tussauds, I do understand why they went for the full Southern monopoly in the first place; Thorpe Park was their main competitor to Chessington in the South, and with their much more free planning restrictions, Thorpe had far more growth potential. Chessington initially wanted to appeal to everyone, but they were kind of stuck in the thrill rides department after Vampire opened and the locals staunchly refused to let anything else of the same size get built again. As such, I can understand why they snapped up Thorpe, as that purchase allowed them to have a thrill park in the South and tackle a market that Chessington was simply unable to; having Thorpe in their arsenal allowed them to appeal to everybody in the South as they originally wanted Chessington to, albeit across 2 parks instead of having it all in 1 park like at Towers and like what was originally desired at Chessington.

However, in spite of that, I would personally have taken a slightly different route to the one Tussauds took. Controversially, I would have purchased Thorpe as Tussauds did. However, instead of selling PortAventura to fund the purchase as Tussauds did... I would actually have sold Chessington. Yes, you did hear me right. I know that idea might sound bonkers, but hear me out for a second.

Yes, this move would have sacrificed the monopoly, but from my outside perspective, I do think it could have benefitted Tussauds in other ways:

• Chessington in 1998 was still fairly new and getting fairly high visitor figures, so I can imagine its asset value would likely have been quite high, thus generating a not insignificant sum of money; certainly more than enough to fund the £15m they paid for Thorpe as well as some additions to Thorpe, anyway. When you're dealing with a fairly new park that's already been fully built, has already done the job of attracting guests and generating a reputation, and is still pulling in fair guest figures, who wouldn't want a piece of the pie?
• Having offloaded their existing Southern theme park, it would have given them a greater scope with which to develop Thorpe within; the worry of competing with themselves wouldn't have been there, and the park could have been developed to target all ages, from small children right up to thrillseeking teens and adults. Thorpe could have been an "Alton of the South" of sorts.
• In spite of them not having a monopoly, I personally feel that having Thorpe would have given Tussauds the upper hand over their competitors (whoever purchased Chessington). I say this because while Chessington are stifled by planning restrictions, thus unable to target the thrillseeker market beyond a certain extent, Thorpe would have effectively been a blank canvas for Tussauds to develop to target all ages. So Tussauds would have been able to boast "we target families just as much as Chessington, but we also target the thrillseeker market while Chessington doesn't" to give Thorpe the upper hand over Chessington and truly offer a day out for all the family. So that way, they could still have built thrill coasters that set them apart from Chessington, but they could also have targeted the same families as Chessington without worrying about treading on Chessington's toes; they wouldn't have been part of Tussauds, so the worry of competing with themselves wouldn't have been there.

Does this sound completely nuts, or do you think I'm onto something?

I do agree about the off loading of Thorpe for as you mentioned as without having to comply with Chessie then Thorpe could get away with putting in more family themed rides which have always proven to be what the GP always like; yes we all love a big thrilling coaster but all the same time it does prove to be a double edge sword as look at Swarm as its popularity somewhat dipped after opening.

If Thorpe were allowed to go independent of the Merlin chain and do whatever it wanted then yes I could see it being the 'Alton of the South' as you said above. So as I mentioned before, this new large coaster might be make or bust for them for if it ends up being another Swarm then no doubts thoughts will go into what to do with the place.

Now I know I'm sounding utterly hyperbolic here but if Thorpe was to be the one to get sold off, who'd take them? Would be utterly hilarious if it turns out the London Resort after know how utterly doomed they are get their own park off the ground end up biting the bullet and decide to take on Thorpe!

Anyway regarding Chessington I could see them getting more proper attention from Merlin as the sole Southern park as given they are aimed at families and that Merlin seem to prefer building family attractions as from the many Midway attractions being evident then you can see the park only being helped by this. Would that mean the park returns to its heyday? I highly doubt it though at least there would be hopefully more attention and I haven't mentioned how the cascade of one of the two parks would affect Towers but that is another topic.

 

[Matt N]

I do agree about the off loading of Thorpe for as you mentioned as without having to comply with Chessie then Thorpe could get away with putting in more family themed rides which have always proven to be what the GP always like; yes we all love a big thrilling coaster but all the same time it does prove to be a double edge sword as look at Swarm as its popularity somewhat dipped after opening.

If Thorpe were allowed to go independent of the Merlin chain and do whatever it wanted then yes I could see it being the 'Alton of the South' as you said above. So as I mentioned before, this new large coaster might be make or bust for them for if it ends up being another Swarm then no doubts thoughts will go into what to do with the place.

Now I know I'm sounding utterly hyperbolic here but if Thorpe was to be the one to get sold off, who'd take them? Would be utterly hilarious if it turns out the London Resort after know how utterly doomed they are get their own park off the ground end up biting the bullet and decide to take on Thorpe!

Anyway regarding Chessington I could see them getting more proper attention from Merlin as the sole Southern park as given they are aimed at families and that Merlin seem to prefer building family attractions as from the many Midway attractions being evident then you can see the park only being helped by this. Would that mean the park returns to its heyday? I highly doubt it though at least there would be hopefully more attention and I haven't mentioned how the cascade of one of the two parks would affect Towers but that is another topic.

I'm not sure thrill coasters are necessarily disliked by the general visitor by any means; Towers' recent ones have been very popular, and all of Thorpe's prior to Swarm were too.

Controversially, I'm also unsure if honing in on thrillseekers was necessarily the cause of Thorpe's present struggles, as they seemed to do fine taking this approach throughout the 2000s and up until about 2012. I'll admit that I think they could almost definitely yield greater returns by targeting a wider market (the more people you appeal to, the more people are likely to visit, surely?), but I'm not sure that thrills being targeted is necessarily an approach that's doomed to fail, personally, as it's certainly worked for them before.

I'm not really sure quite what the cause of Thorpe's present struggles is, actually... I know many cite the overly strong thrill emphasis, but I'm not sure it's that, because as I said, that approach seemed to serve them fine for a fair number of years before the current period of struggling.

In terms of offloading Thorpe; I'd personally say that seems like the more likely scenario at present, as well as the one that would probably make the most business sense... but if it were based purely on personal preference, I'd still offload Chessington and keep Thorpe. I think making Thorpe into a park with all-encompassing appeal would take a lot more money than it would at Chessington, but I think it would have such a lot of potential, and I think it could have the potential to yield greater rewards in the long term. Thorpe owns a surprising amount of land (around 500 acres all in all), and they have fairly minimal planning constraints... it's effectively a blank canvas! I think you could make really quite a brilliant Alton of the South from Thorpe, and with Thorpe's easier road access (it's essentially motorway the whole way) and more populous location, I dare say it could even have the potential to be more successful than Alton!

Me talking about offloading Chessington and making Thorpe into an Alton of the South was talking hypothetically about what I'd personally have done had I been in charge at Tussauds in 1998, but the past is the past and I trust that Tussauds had their valid reasons for offloading PortAventura instead of Chessington and holding the Southern monopoly. I'll admit that's still what I'd do now, though, even if offloading Thorpe and keeping Chessington might make more business sense.

 

[rob666]

Why on earth would they offload either park???
To create local competiton when they have a local complete monopoly?
Get real folks, the parks already exist in complete harmony, they have zero competitors, Chessington and Legoland cater for the little ones, Thorpe for the teens. They don't care for the enthusiast, they only seek easy profits with no competition...which is exactly where they are.
Nothing will change as they have the local markets stitched up.

 

[Skyscraper]

Why on earth would they offload either park???
To create local competiton when they have a local complete monopoly?
Get real folks, the parks already exist in complete harmony, they have zero competitors, Chessington and Legoland cater for the little ones, Thorpe for the teens. They don't care for the enthusiast, they only seek easy profits with no competition...which is exactly where they are.
Nothing will change as they have the local markets stitched up.

Spot on Rob. The reason Tussaud's bought Thorpe was so both parks could split the market between them instead of competing against each other.

 

[Matt N]

Why on earth would they offload either park???
To create local competiton when they have a local complete monopoly?
Get real folks, the parks already exist in complete harmony, they have zero competitors, Chessington and Legoland cater for the little ones, Thorpe for the teens. They don't care for the enthusiast, they only seek easy profits with no competition...which is exactly where they are.
Nothing will change as they have the local markets stitched up.

I know that that’s why Tussauds bought Thorpe initially; according to John Wardley, their whole mentality was “if you can’t beat them, join them”. And in fairness, I do get that rationale as it clearly worked for them.

We were just talking hypothetically; if one of the parks were to be sold, which one would it be? As I said, though, I’m not sure the idea of selling one of the parks necessarily sounds as bonkers to Tussauds/Merlin as you think it might if they were struggling with a particular park. I cite my example of Chessington supposedly being close to getting sold in the late Tussauds era.

 

[QTXAdsy]

Get real folks, the parks already exist in complete harmony, they have zero competitors, Chessington and Legoland cater for the little ones, Thorpe for the teens.

...If that's the case then what was the point of this thread if the question was if both could coexist?

Might as well lock this thread then.

 

[Matt N]

My question was more about how the two could coexist more effectively, as visitor trends would suggest that both Tussauds and Merlin have had issues with making it work over the last 24 years; it really does seem to be one or the other for them at present.

I know the two can coexist, as they’ve technically been coexisting for 24 years, but my point was more; how do they do it in a way that doesn’t continue the vicious cycle of one park cannibalising the attendance of the other?

 

[Skyscraper]

I know the two can coexist, as they’ve technically been coexisting for 24 years, but my point was more; how do they do it in a way that doesn’t continue the vicious cycle of one park cannibalising the attendance of the other?

The answer, as has already been mentioned above, is both parks cater for different target audiences. Chessy is aimed at families with younger children, whereas Thorpe is aimed at Teens and adults.

 

[Matt N]

The answer, as has already been mentioned above, is both parks cater for different target audiences. Chessy is aimed at families with younger children, whereas Thorpe is aimed at Teens and adults.

I know that’s what they do currently, and I don’t mean to sound ignorant to the posts above, but I think I phrased my question badly.

My question was more; why can they seemingly not make concurrent successes of both? Currently, it seems like whenever Thorpe prospers, Chessington struggles, and when Chessington prospers, Thorpe struggles. That’s a very vicious cycle to get yourself into, and my original question was more about how they could get themselves out of it and have both parks be successful at once.

Another point about this, and the Merlin buyout/monopoly more widely; if it created such a significant monopoly over the UK theme park industry, how did the Merlin buyout, as well as possibly Tussauds’ purchase of Thorpe, get past the Competition & Markets Authority? They rejected a Sainsbury’s-Asda merger just a few years ago on the grounds that it would create a significant monopoly within the UK supermarket industry (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48048596).

Does the CMA not consider the theme park industry to be significant enough for them to care about, or was Merlin only owning 4 parks not considered a monopoly?

 

[jon81uk]

Does the CMA not consider the theme park industry to be significant enough for them to care about, or was Merlin only owning 4 parks not considered a monopoly?

Tussauds already had the theme park monopoly with Alton, Chessington, Thorpe (and Warwick Castle). Merlin only added Legoland.
If anything Tussauds should have been blocked buying Thorpe Park, but it wasn't a national presence back then and it was the purchase of Thorpe which changed that anyway as Tussauds invested into the park. Without the purchase it wouldn't have been competition to Alton Towers anyway.

 

[Matt N]

Tussauds already had the theme park monopoly with Alton, Chessington, Thorpe (and Warwick Castle). Merlin only added Legoland.
If anything Tussauds should have been blocked buying Thorpe Park, but it wasn't a national presence back then and it was the purchase of Thorpe which changed that anyway as Tussauds invested into the park. Without the purchase it wouldn't have been competition to Alton Towers anyway.

So if Merlin tried to buy another UK park now (say, Blackpool Pleasure Beach) would the CMA likely block them from doing so?

 

[jon81uk]

So if Merlin tried to buy another UK park now (say, Blackpool Pleasure Beach) would the CMA likely block them from doing so?

Who knows?
Possibly, but I'm not sure BPB would be seen as "big" enough to be a concern. Yes Merlin have a monopoly, but relative to supermarkets the UK theme park market is tiny.

 

[QTXAdsy]

Who knows?
Possibly, but I'm not sure BPB would be seen as "big" enough to be a concern. Yes Merlin have a monopoly, but relative to supermarkets the UK theme park market is tiny.

Funny you mention about supermarkets there for whenever I speak to no enthusiasts about the UK theme park scene being that of the corner shops competing against the supermarkets, the latter ofc being the Merlin parks.

That said, I do wonder what if Thorpe had never been acquired in the first place by Tussands as how would it's future go and how this might affect both Chessie and Towers.

Love me alternate history, gotta do one regarding a not so crap M&D's which is not so far fetch as you might think...