Sam
TS Member
I hope this justifies its own thread, as I want to have a more in-depth conversation about Phantasialand's future and I'm interested in what you all make of this.
More than any other park in the world, when I go to Phantasialand or read about their developments I'm always left with the same question: what's the plan here?
With most other parks, there is a more-or-less obvious strategy that ties everything together - their past, their investments, their levels of spending, the frequency of additions and the diversification into other revenue streams (resort hotels, bars, golf courses, shopping or things like MackMedia).
It's pretty obvious what the long-term strategy is at Disney World, and all their decisions reflect this. The same is true of Europa-Park, whose patterns of spending and expansion have been consistent since opening day (and this has evidently been extremely successful). Both EP and Disney combine huge capacity with a quality product, giving them huge margins on accommodation and food and drink.
Other more regional and, I guess, more 'everyday' parks (like Alton Towers and Six Flags) evidently have a different strategy, with smaller margins but also lower (and therefore less risky) year-on-year investments - enough to keep the visitor numbers ticking over (in theory).
Phantasialand doesn't fit the pattern of any of the parks above, or any other for that matter. Every time I visit the place I think that commercial pressures will surely force them in one of these directions (to become a fully-fledged global resort or to make cheaper and more regular investments), but every time I think this they unveil another blockbuster ride even more ambitious and expensive than the last.
None of it makes any sense. Unlike EP, DLP or even Efteling, they're a regional theme park that mostly serves a local, multi-visit customer base in the Cologne urban area. You'd expect that type of park to invest less but invest every year (resorts like Disney World only need to add rides every few years as few people go annually, but they spend more money when they're there). But years go by without Phantasialand adding anything.
The TEA reports have long shown the park's guest figures almost flatlining - now at around the 2m mark. As you can see above they're sandwiched between two regional parks that follow the 'invest less but invest often' model (at least ostensibly).
They're miles behind Europa-Park (at 5.7m) and Efteling at (5.4m) despite arguably making much more impressive ride investments than either of those for the last two decades.
So what I find weird about Phantasialand is:
But it does not seem to have brought a significant increase in guest numbers, or a change in status from a regional theme park to a global or even European resort. Yet they plough on regardless, with longer and longer gaps between ever more eyewatering investments. What's the game plan here? Do they even have one?
Where will this park be in 10, 20, or 30 years time?
More than any other park in the world, when I go to Phantasialand or read about their developments I'm always left with the same question: what's the plan here?
With most other parks, there is a more-or-less obvious strategy that ties everything together - their past, their investments, their levels of spending, the frequency of additions and the diversification into other revenue streams (resort hotels, bars, golf courses, shopping or things like MackMedia).
It's pretty obvious what the long-term strategy is at Disney World, and all their decisions reflect this. The same is true of Europa-Park, whose patterns of spending and expansion have been consistent since opening day (and this has evidently been extremely successful). Both EP and Disney combine huge capacity with a quality product, giving them huge margins on accommodation and food and drink.
Other more regional and, I guess, more 'everyday' parks (like Alton Towers and Six Flags) evidently have a different strategy, with smaller margins but also lower (and therefore less risky) year-on-year investments - enough to keep the visitor numbers ticking over (in theory).
Phantasialand doesn't fit the pattern of any of the parks above, or any other for that matter. Every time I visit the place I think that commercial pressures will surely force them in one of these directions (to become a fully-fledged global resort or to make cheaper and more regular investments), but every time I think this they unveil another blockbuster ride even more ambitious and expensive than the last.
None of it makes any sense. Unlike EP, DLP or even Efteling, they're a regional theme park that mostly serves a local, multi-visit customer base in the Cologne urban area. You'd expect that type of park to invest less but invest every year (resorts like Disney World only need to add rides every few years as few people go annually, but they spend more money when they're there). But years go by without Phantasialand adding anything.
The TEA reports have long shown the park's guest figures almost flatlining - now at around the 2m mark. As you can see above they're sandwiched between two regional parks that follow the 'invest less but invest often' model (at least ostensibly).
They're miles behind Europa-Park (at 5.7m) and Efteling at (5.4m) despite arguably making much more impressive ride investments than either of those for the last two decades.
So what I find weird about Phantasialand is:
- They invest as if they're part of Universal Orlando, but they're a regional theme park.
- These enormous, Disney-quality investments have seemingly little impact on guest figures even though they increase in scale and ambition each time.
- The theming and world-building seems designed to turn the park into a real and expansive resort, yet they have shown no inclination towards doing this.
- Despite having these beautifully themed little worlds, they make no attempt to 'sweat the asset' with premium experiences in these environments, in the way that Disney and EP do extensively.
- The park is absolutely tiny and almost full, and there are seemingly no plans to address this. What happens when they've filled it up?
- They make almost no attempt to use their existing assets to seriously cash in on food and drink, which both Disney and EP make an absolute killing on. Instead, it's almost treated as an after-thought.
- Although they now have three hotels, they don't seem to have taken any of the (relatively easy) steps to properly monetise people staying in them by giving them more attractive nighttime options and hosting more year-round events (EP are obviously the masters at this).
But it does not seem to have brought a significant increase in guest numbers, or a change in status from a regional theme park to a global or even European resort. Yet they plough on regardless, with longer and longer gaps between ever more eyewatering investments. What's the game plan here? Do they even have one?
Where will this park be in 10, 20, or 30 years time?
