I think when people talk about Tussauds vs. Merlin, it's actually a slightly more nuanced split than that, we're really talking about Tussauds pre-2000 (owned by Pearson), Tussauds 2000-2006 (the Charterhouse/DIC years) and Merlin (2007 onwards).
The current management of the company was brought in by Charterhouse at the turn of the millennium, with a new focus on increased profits and expansion. It took a few years for a new way of working to really kick in, but you are right that what happened in 2003 and 2004 was essentially the start of a lot of current practices.
You are probably right, that the company (as sold in 2007) would likely have followed the same trajectory either way, as there's been no significant change in management style since then. However, the real topic for debate is what would have happened if Tussauds had remained part of Pearson; a company who seemed to have a more healthy relationship with Tussauds that allowed for great levels of creativity and quality.
For example, to
@QTXAdsy's point - Alton Towers broadly had a policy of having four rides in each major area. If you ignore The Retro Squad and CBeebies, Merlin have reduced this to 2/3 per area. It is really notable that these days the park advertises 40+ rides and attractions, but it's only around 10 years ago where that number was 50+.
That’s an interesting question, but I would argue that elements of the current culture were creeping in even when Pearson owned the park, and part of me thinks that Alton Towers only got such heavy investment in the 1990s is because Pearson had a relatively blank canvas to work with, and the park, while undeniably successful, was nowhere near fully developed.
For instance; watching the Magic Factory documentary, filmed in 1997 when Pearson still owned Tussauds, suggests that there was a lot of discontent among staff at the time at how corporate the park had become, and it showed a surprisingly cynical picture of the mood among staff and those involved with the park. And I seem to remember John Wardley talking in a Q&A about wanting a wooden coaster as the follow up to Nemesis, but Pearson wouldn’t let him build one because… it wasn’t marketable enough. Sound familiar? I’ve heard many argue that Oblivion, built by Pearson, was the start of the current “USP above all else” culture that the park, and by extension Tussauds/Merlin, has had for many years.
Let me also cite what was happening at Pearson’s other major theme park, Chessington, while Alton Towers was booming. It could be argued that Pearson basically hung Chessington out to dry while Alton Towers got the lion’s share of investment; after Vampire in 1990, the park’s next ride investment that was even remotely major was Rameses Revenge in 1995… a flat ride that was considered a minor investment when installed at Alton Towers. After that, Rattlesnake in 1998… an off the shelf wild mouse model, which would again have been considered a minor investment at Alton Towers. While both of these were admittedly well themed, and the troubles with the locals could have in part caused the lack of investment, they don’t suggest a huge amount of investment into Chessington by Pearson (compared to what was going on at Alton Towers, at very least).
And when Alton Towers began to receive lower investment from the early 2000s onwards… Thorpe Park was going through a boom period very much akin to the 1990s at Alton Towers and the late 1980s at Chessington. Yes, this large investment manifested itself in rather different ways to how it did at Alton & Chessington, but that’s because Charterhouse/DIC had a very different vision for Thorpe Park; the magnitude of investment was arguably similar.
And even now, Merlin’s midways and Legolands are arguably going through a boom period. New ones are being built at a rate of knots, and even the existing Legoland parks are receiving fairly hefty levels of investment. For instance, Legoland Windsor has received 3 new dark rides in the last 5 years, as well as a fairly high-end kiddie coaster (as the kiddie coaster genre goes, anyway), a new hotel, and various improvements to Miniland. That level of investment can’t have been cheap; things like Triotech dark rides and flying theatres in particular are expensive bits of kit, and I can’t imagine Madhouses are cheap, either. Rightly or wrongly, Legolands and midways are arguably where Merlin sees their main growth priorities, and the Resort Theme Parks division is more of a cash cow to find this growth. Say what you want about Merlin, but history suggests that even Pearson and Charterhouse/DIC had distinct growth priorities and cash cows. The business methods aren’t that different, Merlin just has different priorities.
You're right about Tussauds and Merlin sharing a lot of similarities to one another, but I think they also equally share the same amount of vast differences.
Yes, Tussauds closing down 2 flat rides and not replacing them in 2004 was a bad move, but we have to remember during this time, Tussauds was having a lot of financial trouble behind the scenes, so they had to make radical changes and alterations to their parks to still operate them, but not on a scale that will make them go bankrupt. Yes, Ug Land saw the closure of 2 rides which was a bad choice to us enthusiasts, but in 2005 they added Rita to make up for it and to keep guests satisfied during the moment. I think they do care about Guests Satisfaction more than Merlin, even in their dark years.
I think this move by Tussauds is justified, they had no control over who they were being sold to, so radical changes to management, and financial support would obviously damage the company, and how they operate their parks.
My problem is that Merlin are in a brilliant position at the Moment, obviously the biggest Theme Park Chain outside of Disney and Universal. They get a LOT of income and dont have near to no trouble or problems, financial or not behind the scenes, yet they do the absolute minimum to their parks. Really, fair ground rides on the site of a much more ambitious flat ride, with no effort to keep its theme coherent to the area, not even painting it Black and slapping Oblivions font on it. They're not even trying to fix Enterprise. They can, and they know it, but theyre not bothered. They're trying to make profit, not tying to make great Theme Parks passionately whilst making it a success.
In short term. Tussauds had the same goal as Merlin, profit, but they were clearly very passionate and proud about their work, in result made great rides that made a lot of money for them. Merlin also want Profit, but they only touch their theme parks at the minimum when absolutely necessary. They see nothing wrong with the Retro Squad, the current state of Duel or the River Rapids, etc. If it makes them money, they're happy.
Fair enough; thank you for the detailed response!
However, there’s one key thing you are forgetting that Merlin faced which was on a scale far, far more catastrophic than anything Tussauds faced… the Smiler crash and the fallout from that. Yes, you could argue that Merlin as a whole never did too badly during this, but profits and attendance in the Resort Theme Parks division specifically fell sharply, and Alton Towers specifically faced an absolutely catastrophic hit. When
25% of your guests from the previous year do not return, and this level of downturn is sustained for multiple years (the park did not hit pre-incident attendance until 2019), something is seriously wrong, and cost-cutting action of some description needs to be taken. If the Smiler crash hadn’t happened, I’d wager that many of the closed filler rides would still be open in some capacity, or would have been replaced. And as much as you could argue that the closed rides did not help with this decline, the likes of Ripsaw and The Flume being removed did not cause the decline; it was because
a significant proportion of people viewed Alton Towers as fundamentally unsafe. Even if they had fired on all cylinders, those guest figures would still have been catastrophically low.
Also, you talk about Merlin doing incoherent, ill-fitting rides and neglecting things… it could be argued that Tussauds did the same.
As much as you cite Rita as positive, it was widely panned for the impact it had on Ug Land and how little theming it had, and it was said to have only happened because Tussauds got a reduced price deal on a second Intamin launch coaster alongside Stealth rather than because there was any drive to have such a ride at Alton Towers. Ditto with Spinball Whizzer; many reviews from the time panned it for its low capacity, garish appearance (I even heard references to “fairground ride” cited in a number of reviews), lack of theming and the impact it had on the view of the Towers. And once again, it was said to have only happened because Tussauds got a reduced price deal on a second Maurer spinning coaster alongside Dragon’s Fury rather than because there was any drive to have such a ride at Alton Towers.
And in terms of examples of where Tussauds didn’t maintain things… from what I can gather, Duel happened because the Haunted House had been allowed to fall into disrepair. CATCF happened because Toyland Tours had been allowed to fall into disrepair.
Merlin does refurbish things and maintain effects non-essentially, as well. The Nemesis retrack is a prime example of this, as are the rumours that Duel is receiving some kind of work in the near future. Wicker Man is also seeing very good effects maintenance, and a lot of the park has received a fair degree of sprucing up in the last few years.
Sorry if that seems like a bit of a long, confrontational rant, but my basic point is; I don’t think Tussauds were any better than Merlin are. They used the same methods, they simply manifested themselves in slightly different ways.
