What are the confirmed superstars that zoos can build exhibit capital campaigns on?
- Thread starter DavidBrown
- Start date
I'm guessing it's because they are the only terrestrial megafauna left (along with some of South Asia). I think the main point of Elephant Odyssey at San Diego Zoo is to show people that the whole world looked like Africa not that long ago (in evolutionary time).
Actually Australia was possibly even weirder and cooler than Africa (not that it isn't still way cool, but in the Pleistocene it was hyper-cool).
Thanks for the great data snowleopard. I'm really surprised that monkeys aren't on the list. I was under the impression that everybody is crazy about monkeys.
I looked up the book and it does look good. It also is quite expensive. I'll put it on my Christmas list.
@DavidBrown: the book is a must buy for someone like me, as I feel that I've visited, studied and memorized most of the major North American and Australian zoos over the years and so over the past year or so I've turned my attention to Europe. I've been perusing websites, maps and books memorizing the major Euro zoos...even though the opportunity for another "Snowleopard Road Trip" on that continent won't happen unless there is a huge lottery win in my household!
The book is expensive because it is thick, packed with photos and glossy pages, and I have spent countless hours reading it and I've still not processed all of the information. Sheridan somewhat controversially ranks his 80 zoos in many categories, which does not go over well with some readers on this forum. Guys like myself adore the statistics, and Allen Nyhuis (author of "America's Best Zoos") and I have been emailing each other at least once a week and we've been dissecting the pros and cons of "What Zoos Can Do". The book is well worth the $40-45; there are 140 pages of facts, statistics and many lists; and there are another 240 pages that equal out to exactly 3 pages for each of the 80 best zoos in Europe. Each zoo has 3 pages of vital information, but the establishments are not reviewed but instead profiled.
The book is expensive because it is thick, packed with photos and glossy pages, and I have spent countless hours reading it and I've still not processed all of the information. Sheridan somewhat controversially ranks his 80 zoos in many categories, which does not go over well with some readers on this forum. Guys like myself adore the statistics, and Allen Nyhuis (author of "America's Best Zoos") and I have been emailing each other at least once a week and we've been dissecting the pros and cons of "What Zoos Can Do". The book is well worth the $40-45; there are 140 pages of facts, statistics and many lists; and there are another 240 pages that equal out to exactly 3 pages for each of the 80 best zoos in Europe. Each zoo has 3 pages of vital information, but the establishments are not reviewed but instead profiled.
For the few zoos that exhibit dolphins (of any species) or belugas, they are almost universally a top attraction (Brookfield, Indianapolis, Minnesota, Duisburg, formerly Tacoma, Oklahoma City).
Judging by recent investments in US zoos, elephants, polar bears and gorillas are the true superstars.
Do you think that zoos/aquariums have any ability to create potential superstar species through innovative and engaging exhibits?
I brought jellies into the discussion because the Monterey Aquarium created some fantastic exhibits for them (originally temporary, but then permanent with the 1996 expansion) and they seemed to then spread throughout the aquarium and zoo world to some extent. That doesn't mean that they are superstars, but does show that zoos/aquariums can popularize animals to some extent.
I think most people have no idea that there are family groups of human-sized otters living in the Amazon, but I can see the giant otters becoming popular, at least regionally, if zoos do a good job of showcasing them.
Okapis also strike me as a "celebrity" animal that has been introduced to the public mostly through zoos. There haven't been any okapis in popular culture that I'm aware of. I may be completely wrong about this and would really be interested in people's opinion on this...
While Zoochat types and crossword puzzle experts may salivate over okapis, I don't think they meet the "superstar" definition. I can't think of a zoo where a new okapi exhibit was developed with an expectation of driving attendance. They are great "supporting actors" for hippos (San Diego, San Antonio), gorillas (Bronx, Dallas), but never true headliners.
Likewise, jellies are quite magical but do not have the "inherent" public appeal of sharks, seals, dolphins or sea otters.
Zoos can make previously obscure species better known (often with the help of Disney or Pixar): warthogs, meerkats, clownfish, jellies, fossa, lemurs, naked mole rats, for starters. But the enduring megafaunal superstars are the ones that have resonated in the human psyche for eons: the great predators, the pachyderms, the leviathans (whales), and the near-humans (apes and monkeys).
Not to say that great giant otter, okapi, coati, shoebill, aardvark, prairie dog etc. exhibits can't be popular; but I don't think they can ever compete with the big 5 (or 10).
Likewise, jellies are quite magical but do not have the "inherent" public appeal of sharks, seals, dolphins or sea otters.
Zoos can make previously obscure species better known (often with the help of Disney or Pixar): warthogs, meerkats, clownfish, jellies, fossa, lemurs, naked mole rats, for starters. But the enduring megafaunal superstars are the ones that have resonated in the human psyche for eons: the great predators, the pachyderms, the leviathans (whales), and the near-humans (apes and monkeys).
Not to say that great giant otter, okapi, coati, shoebill, aardvark, prairie dog etc. exhibits can't be popular; but I don't think they can ever compete with the big 5 (or 10).
Last edited:
Thanks for your thoughts. I like your summary of the okapi's core audience.
Until Disney makes an okapi movie I guess they are stuck as metaphorical character actors, but at least they're in the picture.
We do seem to be hard wired to love certain beasts.
Hopefully more synergies will develop between popular culture and the zoo world and stardom will continue to develop for a wider array of critters.
I now need to go work on my screenplay about giant otters...
zoogiraffe
Well-Known Member
I have a copy of this book,and have to say that for me quite a few of the collections in it wouldn't even get in my top 80 collections in Europe,I say this as somebody that has visited a mere 300 collections in Europe,for me there are many collections that are far better than some of the ones in the book,but they do not fit Anthonys warped criteria to be included in the book!
Exactly the same thread was around 1-2 years ago, so I wouldn't repeat the list of favorites. Generally, it is not important what animal, but if it is active and - especially - if visitors can interact with them.
Actually, there is a wonderful children book "Katurran Odyssey" which has only less popularized species: lemurs, golden monkeys, quaggas, okapis etc. 100% free of standard animals. It may be interesting for Zoochat readers, especially animal art is of highest quality.
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Katurran-Odyssey-David-Michael-Wieger/dp/0743225007]Amazon.com: The Katurran Odyssey (9780743225007): David Michael Wieger, Terryl Whitlatch: Books[/ame]
Actually, there is a wonderful children book "Katurran Odyssey" which has only less popularized species: lemurs, golden monkeys, quaggas, okapis etc. 100% free of standard animals. It may be interesting for Zoochat readers, especially animal art is of highest quality.
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Katurran-Odyssey-David-Michael-Wieger/dp/0743225007]Amazon.com: The Katurran Odyssey (9780743225007): David Michael Wieger, Terryl Whitlatch: Books[/ame]
I remember in the early 1990's a PR officer from San Diego Zoo told the AAZK Conference that if you wanted the new "in" species, the one that was generating a lot of publicity, that was easy to breed and that the public would remember and talk about, you didn't need koalas or meerkats or bears or elephants - you should get some Naked Mole-rats.
They didn't need expensive enclosures, and were not costly to feed. But because they were so damned ugly (and phrases like "penis with teeth" were sometimes used to describe them) the general public remembered them from news reports, would talk about them at work the next day, and went to see them at the zoo. There was a big marketing campaign, and they became quite popular.
Hix
They didn't need expensive enclosures, and were not costly to feed. But because they were so damned ugly (and phrases like "penis with teeth" were sometimes used to describe them) the general public remembered them from news reports, would talk about them at work the next day, and went to see them at the zoo. There was a big marketing campaign, and they became quite popular.
Hix
Zooplantman
Well-Known Member
I don't know if we are "hard wired" to get excited over specific species, but this thread has brought up several points worth pulling out:
1. "Superstars" as DavidBrown puts it are the Lady Gaga's of the zoo community, not the latest American Idol winner: there are many animals the public lingers to see, but there are few the public makes a point of visiting the zoo for year after year. Okapi are an example (Please Dad can we go to the zoo this weekend to see the okapi again? I don't think so. I've donated $1million towards the new squirrel exhibit. Won't you join me? For a squirrel?)
2. The animals with which we are familiar from childhood storybooks, film, etc. have a certain charisma for us that other inherently fascinating or active animals lack. It's about what's already in our internal map. That will differ by nationality and culture and a new cultural phenomenon (Nemo) can add a new candidate. Zoos themselves probably cannot create such a SuperStar out of nothing. It's not that snub nose monkeys can't be an advertisable feature of this season, but they are probably not going to be the SuperStars around which to build a Capital Campaign.
3. A lesser ranked species requires a novel visitor experience to elevate it to Capital Campaign status. (Ride the okapi! Hand feed the aardwolf!) Whereas gorillas only need to show up.
1. "Superstars" as DavidBrown puts it are the Lady Gaga's of the zoo community, not the latest American Idol winner: there are many animals the public lingers to see, but there are few the public makes a point of visiting the zoo for year after year. Okapi are an example (Please Dad can we go to the zoo this weekend to see the okapi again? I don't think so. I've donated $1million towards the new squirrel exhibit. Won't you join me? For a squirrel?)
2. The animals with which we are familiar from childhood storybooks, film, etc. have a certain charisma for us that other inherently fascinating or active animals lack. It's about what's already in our internal map. That will differ by nationality and culture and a new cultural phenomenon (Nemo) can add a new candidate. Zoos themselves probably cannot create such a SuperStar out of nothing. It's not that snub nose monkeys can't be an advertisable feature of this season, but they are probably not going to be the SuperStars around which to build a Capital Campaign.
3. A lesser ranked species requires a novel visitor experience to elevate it to Capital Campaign status. (Ride the okapi! Hand feed the aardwolf!) Whereas gorillas only need to show up.
Zooplantman
Well-Known Member
So all the species any 5 year-old can name
@DavidBrown, now we know who could best answer your inquiry!
Yes, but without some very expensive market research studies to confirm this, it won't be official. (This was an attempt at a joke).
Last edited:
@Zooplantman:
Zooplantman, has there ever been or are there any ongoing attempts by zoos/botanical gardens to create "stars" out of specific plant species? One example that may qualify is the media attention that the corpse flowers get whenever they bloom.
Do botanical gardens do what zoos do in terms of presenting plant species that visitors know, love, and expect to see (i.e., do they use "superstars" to)?
Zooplantman, has there ever been or are there any ongoing attempts by zoos/botanical gardens to create "stars" out of specific plant species? One example that may qualify is the media attention that the corpse flowers get whenever they bloom.
Do botanical gardens do what zoos do in terms of presenting plant species that visitors know, love, and expect to see (i.e., do they use "superstars" to)?
Zooplantman
Well-Known Member
The media interest in blooming corpse flowers is a fine -- if odd -- example.
Orchids and roses come to mind in the category of "know, love, and expect to see."
Think of the various municipal rose gardens around the USA that exist independent of any botanical garden.
Brooklyn Botanical Garden has been famous for it's cherry blossoms and the associated festival for 75 years. Cherry Blossom Season - Brooklyn Botanic Garden
Arnold Arboretum for its lilac season. Arnold Arboretum Lilac Sunday
When I was at the Cincinnati Zoo & Botanical Garden, the Spring Floral Festival was created around the million or so daffodils and tulips (and other spring bulbs) that bloomed. The festival actually raised annual attendance considerably.
When the giant Victoria water lily was first brought back to England, Kew built a special greenhouse to display it. Waterlily House at Kew Gardens - YouTube
Longwood Gardens in the USA still features it.
So, in short, yes
Maybe it is just a UK thing but a Lemur Walkthrough or for that matter any type of walkthrough enclosures seem to be nearly everywhere to attract crowds...
Elephants
Great Apes
Big Cats (specifically, lions and tigers)
Giraffes
Giant Pandas or Polar Bears
They would be the big five groups of species, or 'superstars' if you will. I can't think of a major zoo that does not have at least a couple of these, and most have several.
The next tier are still genuine stars, but harder to build a collection around.
Rhinos
Koalas outside Australia.
Big cats other than lions and tigers
Bears other than pandas or polar bears
Meerkats (the power of Disney!)
Penguins
Butterflies if exhibited well
Common hippos (*not* Pygmy hippos) are a hard one here. In a good exhibit, they fall into this category. Otherwise, they might be in the next group down.
The third tier are still drawcards, but fall behind the group above in their capacity to draw visitors, especially repeat visitors.
Zebras
Pygmy Hippos
Camels (yes, camels - don't underestimate them for youngsters. They fit the two main criteria for being popular with small children - they are big, and they are familiar)
Gibbons
Lemurs
New World monkeys
Mandrills
Hyenas
Wolves
Red pandas
Otters
Kangaroos outside Australia
Flamingos
Parrots
Komodo dragons
Large crocodilians
Large constrictors or famous venomous snakes like rattlesnakes and cobras
I've not bothered to include aquarium animals here. Everything else are just filler species from the perspective of regular zoo-goers. That's not to say fillers are not needed, because variety matters, it's just that nobody except possibly members of this forum are going to zoos specifically to see the agoutis.
Great Apes
Big Cats (specifically, lions and tigers)
Giraffes
Giant Pandas or Polar Bears
They would be the big five groups of species, or 'superstars' if you will. I can't think of a major zoo that does not have at least a couple of these, and most have several.
The next tier are still genuine stars, but harder to build a collection around.
Rhinos
Koalas outside Australia.
Big cats other than lions and tigers
Bears other than pandas or polar bears
Meerkats (the power of Disney!)
Penguins
Butterflies if exhibited well
Common hippos (*not* Pygmy hippos) are a hard one here. In a good exhibit, they fall into this category. Otherwise, they might be in the next group down.
The third tier are still drawcards, but fall behind the group above in their capacity to draw visitors, especially repeat visitors.
Zebras
Pygmy Hippos
Camels (yes, camels - don't underestimate them for youngsters. They fit the two main criteria for being popular with small children - they are big, and they are familiar)
Gibbons
Lemurs
New World monkeys
Mandrills
Hyenas
Wolves
Red pandas
Otters
Kangaroos outside Australia
Flamingos
Parrots
Komodo dragons
Large crocodilians
Large constrictors or famous venomous snakes like rattlesnakes and cobras
I've not bothered to include aquarium animals here. Everything else are just filler species from the perspective of regular zoo-goers. That's not to say fillers are not needed, because variety matters, it's just that nobody except possibly members of this forum are going to zoos specifically to see the agoutis.
In looking at pictures of the new Gondwanaland exhibit at the Leipzig Zoo it strikes me that there are cases where the exhibit itself is the star, regardless of the species within it.
The examples that come to mind are exhibits portraying an ecosystem or group of ecosystems and the landscaping and exhibit design are arguably bigger stars than the exhibited species.
Desert Ecosystems: Desert Dome, Omaha Zoo
Rain Forest Ecosystems not built around great apes: Gondwanaland, Lied Jungle (Omaha), Minnesota's tropical exhibit
African Ecosystems: Dallas Zoo's multi-ecosystem monorail exhibit
The examples that come to mind are exhibits portraying an ecosystem or group of ecosystems and the landscaping and exhibit design are arguably bigger stars than the exhibited species.
Desert Ecosystems: Desert Dome, Omaha Zoo
Rain Forest Ecosystems not built around great apes: Gondwanaland, Lied Jungle (Omaha), Minnesota's tropical exhibit
African Ecosystems: Dallas Zoo's multi-ecosystem monorail exhibit
Zurich's Masoala and Burger's Bush and Desert fit this category