wild places | wild happenings | wild news
make a difference for our wild places

home | links | search the site
  all articles latest | past | articles by topics | search wildnews
wild news on wildsingapore
  The Straits Times, 27 Feb 05
 Edutainment - that's one big secret of their success

THE theme parks that have been hits are quite different in both conceptualisation and execution.

First, not only is there no competition, but the Intellectual Property (IP) in the bird park, zoo and Underwater World - charismatic fauna - always evokes broad interest in any culture.

Secondly, the IP is transformed into captivating 'shows' where there is the union of educational and cultural activities with the commerce and technology of the entertainment world - 'edutain- ment'.

Thirdly, given that all three are well-managed, quality products that offer value for money, tour agents are favourably disposed towards them.

In Associate Professor Peggy Teo's survey, 95 per cent of tour agents promoted the bird park, 92 per cent the Underwater World and 75 per cent the zoo. This compared to 40 per cent for Tang Dynasty City and 27 per cent for Haw Par Villa. Underwater World, in particular, participates actively in consumer fairs and trade shows for travel agents. Its executives make an annual trip to Japan in September where they meet top travel agents one-on-one.

Although all three have had year-on-year declines in visitor numbers from 1993 through 1998, with tourist arrivals falling further by 13 per cent after 9/11 - and then Sars, Bali, Jakarta Marriott, Gulf War II - and now the tsunami - all have remained in the black: The business model matters.

The bird park, for example, was built by the Government for $3.5 million in 1971 and has no land costs to recover. Not in the business of making money, its parent company, Wildlife Reserves Singapore (WRS), mainly held by Temasek Holdings, seeks 'to preserve biodiversity and to undertake public education, research and collaboration'. It receives government subsidies and has paid-up individual supporters and corporate members, while tax-deductible donations and corporate adoption programmes help fill up its coffers. In FY 2002, for example, it received $1.2 million in donations and memberships, while expenses were about $6.8 million, mainly personnel costs, so its (unrevealed) total in corporate sponsorships and government subsidy must have exceeded $5.6 million. In 1994, it was known that it received $3.6 million in government subsidies.

Corporate sponsorships could easily run into millions as big firms like to 'adopt' charismatic fauna so they are seen as caring corporate citizens, knowing that people will come back to look at birds, animals and fishes. Not so with the Tang's terracotta figures or the Villa's ghoulish sculptures.

Much the same can be said of the zoo which is also WRS-owned except that, while the day zoo is subsidised, Night Safari isn't, so its ticket does cost slightly more. The oceanarium has also managed to stay afloat despite seven lean years. Given the safety net of a well-diversified, publicly-listed parent company, it could afford to keep on innovating - introducing the popular pink dolphins, for example - even as attendance dropped. This way, it could justify upping its prices while it managed to cut costs. In this manner, it has stayed in the black even though profits have not grown, which is remarkable considering that attendance had been falling - from a high of two million in the pre-crisis years down to 1.1 million in 2003. Last year, however, saw a rebound, with 1.5 million visitors. Keeping those numbers up will assure Underwater World's viability over the next seven years.
links
Related articles on Singapore's biodiversity
about the site | email ria
  News articles are reproduced for non-profit educational purposes.
 

website©ria tan 2003 www.wildsingapore.com