Towers needing everything other than a new coaster has been mentioned about 54049754 times in this thread so far. I detect a theme here.
But we all know they'll just ignore this, spend millions building another one whilst the park around it continues to get worse and then scratch their heads after 2 years wondering why attendance has declined back to where it was before it was built.
We all know what thevpark really needs, but this has been the case through the last couple of SWs. Why presume they'll change the habit?
Regardless of what the park actually needs that's not how they have operated for a long time. Big ride, big marketing, to hell with the actual experience. I do hope that will change, but it's probably a bit optimistic to presume it will.
I know that’s what many enthusiasts think, but does the average guest think this, and is the current strategy failing as a business model? Personally, I’d say that I could provide numerous pieces of data and case studies to add to the notion that the average guest’s level of yearning for this is far lower than that of us enthusiasts, and the lack of a more varied lineup is not having much of an effect on the park’s overall success.
With regard to the point about guest figures “falling back to where they were 2 years after”; for the last 2 major coasters, attendance has gone up in the year directly after, and the 2nd year was only a decline because of pretty substantial extenuating circumstances (incident in the case of Smiler, COVID in the case of Wicker Man). While I can’t speak for 2020, 2015 was apparently trending towards another increase before the incident happened.
Using the recent installation of Wicker Man as a case study, the park got around 2.3 million in 2018 according to Merlin’s recently released attendance figures; although not back to pre-incident levels, Wicker Man bolstered attendance quite significantly. In 2019, attendance raised again to around 2.5 million.
For some perspective, this is on par with The Smiler’s opening year of 2013, when the park had experienced less cutbacks and had a more varied lineup, and looking at the chart, it’s not a whole lot lower than many of the park’s “golden years”. I know many like to claim that attendance is way lower than it was in the 90s, but in general, the 90s years were around 2.7 million, perhaps even slightly lower on the odd occasion, so very little higher than 2019. The only year during the “golden age” that the park got over 3 million was 1994, and given that 1995 saw a drastic attendance decrease and the feat was not repeated until 2010, I’m unsure if the state/variety of the park’s ride lineup necessarily had a lot to do with that year’s success.
Also, as another case study, my cousin, her parents and her best friend went to Alton Towers for the first time a couple of months back and absolutely loved it; all my cousin could talk about when they got back was how many coasters they got on and how they rode Galactica 17 times, and they’re already keen to go back, from what I can tell! Even from my aunt & uncle, who you may expect to be more cynical and noticing of flaws than the kids, I did not hear one complaint about the lack of non-coaster things to do; they all seemed very satisfied with their trip and very keen to return.
So my point is; even though many of us enthusiasts are keen to see more variety, does the average visitor really care about the lack of non-coaster things to do? And does the lack of a more varied lineup really have an impact on the park’s success (both in terms of attendance and profit)?