Making zoos more commercial

Zooplantman said:
Great! Would you share data?
Click to expand...

I’m not going to share any finance figures, no. But having worked in an extremely quiet off the radar zoo before a TV series, and dealt with the dramatic effects after was astounding!

In another case, let’s not pretend that Longleat has been welcoming in the cameras for 20 years with there being no financial gain from visitor numbers.
 
mrcriss said:
I’m not going to share any finance figures, no. But having worked in an extremely quiet off the radar zoo before a TV series, and dealt with the dramatic effects after was astounding!

In another case, let’s not pretend that Longleat has been welcoming in the cameras for 20 years with there being no financial gain from visitor numbers.
Click to expand...
Well of course I am not contesting any of that and of course, I wouldn't expect anyone to share financial data.
But the question remains how viable is this approach for most zoos? In your zoo, did attendance jump and remain up for several years?
As each new zoo is featured in a series are the gains repeated and are they sustained?
 
Devi said:
I'm not sure how I feel about it but I did a few Polish zoos this year and it's common there for corporate sponsorships, like the elephants would be "Elephants bought to you by Adidas". It's not super classy but if it's that or the zoo not surviving I'd definitely choose that.
Click to expand...

Animal sponsoring is found in probably all European zoos. Poland differs, if anything, in lax laws about public spaces, so instead of putting a small notice it puts a large billboard.

BTW, some zoo directors in Poland, publicized and made a good use of the fact that a zoo is usually the most visited attraction in any city. In most cities of the world, attendance of a zoo is bigger than sports events, rock concerts etc. This is an obvious way to make money on sponsorship. But also needs an often complex way to reach the right people in companies etc.

Small things can increase attendance of a zoo very much. See this thread by Lintworm, for example:
Thoughts from a small and successful zoo: Tierpark Nordhorn [Tierpark Nordhorn]
A zoo should have nice place to eat and sit, clean toilets, make sure that local buses, trams etc. are convenient for visiting families, that viewing windows don't have an annoying glare, paths are easy to walk with a children stroller and such small things. Surprisingly often zoos think of big investments, but neglect such simple moves.
 
Zooplantman said:
Well of course I am not contesting any of that and of course, I wouldn't expect anyone to share financial data.
But the question remains how viable is this approach for most zoos? In your zoo, did attendance jump and remain up for several years?
As each new zoo is featured in a series are the gains repeated and are they sustained?
Click to expand...

I’m not saying it’s something that every zoo can do at all. I’m not sure you get how it works. The zoo doesn’t have a board meeting and say “right guys, we’re going to set out to make a telly show for the next 10 years”…it’s not actually up to the zoo at all! The tv production company either pitches an idea or has an idea pitched to them which they then have to sell to the channel. It’s up to the channel wether they want it or not and can cancel it at any moment.
So only zoos with something marketable are ever going to be offered it. Take PWP…they have the Whitnalls, who are the perfect setup for kids TV. Longleat has the house and the aristocracy, ideal for morning BBC. These shows only get renewed if the viewing figures are high enough for the channel’s requirements.
As Animal Park has been renewed 20 times, I’m fairly sure it’ll be doing well financially for both the Beeb and Longleat or it wouldn’t be made!

in the case of the zoo I was at….attendance went crazy after the series, and has remained so to present day, a couple of years after it’s finished.
 
@mrcriss & @Zooplantman Both of your line of arguments makes sense.
Zoo Leipzig in the 2000s till 2010s gained a considerable peak in national public attention and profits due to being the first major German Zoo having a whole TV series dedicated to it.
However, with more and more zoos joining this trend, this effect has considerably decreased.
The following musing might not please everyone, but I think traditional TV is on its way out. There are more and more people below the age of 40 that don't even own a TV set and haven't watched TV for ages. Whenever WdG appears on TV, the most common public reactions we get are from viewers >60yrs of age. And I have been on enough German & Austrian national TV shows behind the scenes to witness that the TV people are aware of this dire situation and yet don't really know how to solve it.

So yes, having a TV show dedicated to a zoo can increase its popularity - yet for how long-???
 
The only mainstream UK zoos that have never featured on any TV 'zoo' series at some time or other that I can think of are Marwell, Howletts & PL and Jersey(?) (the latter being outside mainstream UK) Belfast(?) and possibly Colchester, but I may be wrong on some of these latter ones? The longer-running the series, the better the publicity too e.g. Monkey World. But some haven't been featured on a series for a long time now e.g Paignton (Zookeepers) Dudley( the 'Zoovet' stories were mostly filmed there but the exact location wasn't featured) or Bristol ( 'Animal Magic' and other later programmes, maybe they have had a series too- not sure?) and its possible the previous TV exposure is long enough ago that it has no beneficial effect on their attendances by a new generation anymore. A lot of the smaller zoos are less fortunate in never being able to scoop up this valuable source of 'free' publicity- media exposure certainly being a form of 'golden ticket' to attendance, at least in the shorter term, as mentioned by 'mrcriss' above.
 
Last edited:
Just occassionally, TV exposure has unexpected/negative repercussions. For some years Prague Zoo ran a 'gorilla camera' on their Gorilla group which then became featured as a sort of (I believe) TV 'animal soap opera'. So the behaviour and the individuals in the group became known to a much wider audience than normal. When trouble later occurred in the group, with the rejection of the poorly socialised female Bikira( she has since died) it was widely noticed and the Zoo were open to more resulting adverse publicity and critisism than usual.
 
Just read all of this thread and find it fascinating. Whilst some members have suggested good ideas, I really hope the days of zoos selling animals (even if it's domestics) and giving rides are long gone.

The biggest problem for zoos in trying to raise money, is they aren't very good at it. Places like Chester and Longleat are definitely an exception and ZSL for that matter, but very few zoos realise the many ways fundraising can help and go about things the wrong way.

As everyone knows there are two different types of visitors, families and zoo nerds. The former are the more frequent visitor and ones who can do the most damage with negative feedback, whilst the latter are the ones who can be more financially important, as they will travel the arse end of the country to see a species of animal you wont see anywhere else.

I personally think too many zoos use social media in the wrong way, but then I think 2/3 places are using it in a productive manner which has actually become a good revenue stream.

More zoos should be exploring this. There is a farm park in Scotland, which earns £5000 per month minimum via Facebook in having a supporters page and bringing them live content every few days about the animals, something most zoos wouldn't even start to consider, but as with anything the public like to be informed, interested and entertained.

TV Shows are wonderful, but very few zoos would get highlighted and normally its the big parks who benefit, so this is not an area the small zoo would even have a chance to exploit.

Animal Experiences generate good money for zoos, I used to be very much in the I enjoy the meet and greet experiences, but times are changing and I think zoos need to be more hands off and educational and teach and offer experiences which show how we can help the animals, learn about the good zoos do in terms of conservation and use training as the way of experiences. Just feeding and having a selfie, whilst cool, sends the wrong message and animals should not be for our entertainment, but so we can study and learn about them. You learn so much more from observing, training and enriching animals than you ever will from a quick hand feed and photo.

Zoo sponsorship is something zoos should be doing, working with businesses either to name animals, sponsor exhibits and help with funding. Many businesses will do it, if the right package is in place and its a good way to bring in funding.

It's not so much making zoos more commercial, it's about utilising what can be done with benefit and interacting with the public in a manner that brings in revenue. Sadly too many zoos think that entrance fees alone will keep them alive, they need to look at the bigger picture. Every zoo should hire or bring in someone who actively works in marketing and social media to help the zoo generate money, sadly too many rely on one of the office staff to keep people informed and updated, rather than appointing someone who knows what they are doing.
 
Alwaysevergreen said:
As everyone knows there are two different types of visitors, families and zoo nerds. The former are the more frequent visitor and ones who can do the most damage with negative feedback, whilst the latter are the ones who can be more financially important, as they will travel the arse end of the country to see a species of animal you wont see anywhere else.
Click to expand...
Everybody knows this? Zoo Marketing Departments and researchers have a different idea. (After families with children, Couples present the next largest % of zoo visitors in many studies. If "zoo nerds" visit by themselves, they fall into the 2% range - if "with friends", the 9% range of which only a few would be considered "zoo nerds")
An overwhelming % of zoo visitors are repeat visitors (well over 85% in some studies) so their financial impact is greater than the itinerant zoo nerd, surely.


And how many zoo nerds do you think there are? If they all lost their love of zoos would the zoo financial picture even notice?
 
Last edited:
Zooplantman said:
Everybody knows this? Zoo Marketing Departments and researchers have a different idea. (After families with children, Couples present the next largest % of zoo visitors in many studies. If "zoo nerds" visit by themselves, they fall into the 2% range - if "with friends", the 9% range of which only a few would be considered "zoo nerds")
An overwhelming % of zoo visitors are repeat visitors (well over 85% in some studies) so their financial impact is greater than the itinerant zoo nerd, surely.


And how many zoo nerds do you think there are? If they all lost their love of zoos would the zoo financial picture even notice?
Click to expand...

Let me rephrase, most families, will buy a season pass if it suits, or the grandparents will to take the children after school or so on. They may well be repeat visitors, but many will bring packed lunches and so on.

My point was, a lot of people more into certain species, might do experiences, spend more money and gather interest for other visitors and so on.

I have also noticed a lot of co-operate companies have starting looking at zoos for team building exercises, but very few offer and do it, which is a shame.

You have to look at the financial picture. A family might be worth £60-100 a couple of times a year. Someone with a massive animal interest, with like minded friends and business's and so on can be worth 5 - 10x that.

Certain experiences get purchased by families as presents or someone for a bf/gf, but people often looking for something special are big animal lovers and normally not a family person. I have been lucky enough to do most of Chester's KFAD this year, they are £250-280 each and there is 9 of them. I've met 3 or 4 people who like me have tried to do them all. They do them one day a week, all year, so a max of 45-50 people can do them. Ironically they are nearly always sold out, and majority of the time its not by people for presents but people who love animals. Each week, the 9 experiences bring in 2400 a week when fully booked, and around £100,000 a year. This is a small drop in the Ocean for Chester, but it certainly helps. Chester could raise the prices and they would still sell out as its Chester and demand is high.

Small zoos often struggle as they don't realise what demand there could be if they channel attention at certain areas.

Your main visitors may well be families, but they are not the ones who will spend the most money.
 
Alwaysevergreen said:
You have to look at the financial picture. A family might be worth £60-100 a couple of times a year. Someone with a massive animal interest, with like minded friends and business's and so on can be worth 5 - 10x that.

Your main visitors may well be families, but they are not the ones who will spend the most money.
Click to expand...
I can see why you might believe that, but zoo annual reports do not support this thesis.
While a typical family may not spend the most per capita, they nonetheless as a group are where zoo income comes from.
Admissions make up the bulk of visitor revenue (.>66%). "Other activities" make up a small additional amount. (<1.5%) They do of course help increase revenue but they are not substantial contributors to a zoo's bottom line.
Asserting heartfelt but unfounded beliefs gets us nowhere. Please do some research before you jump to conclusions and then you can present a convincing case that we all can benefit from.
Most zoo's Annual Reports are available on line. Take a look at them.
Returning to your original post::
Every serious accredited zoo has a marketing dept. and most have social media specialists on staff.
Every zoo is well aware that admissions alone will not be enough,and that is why we see all of these multi-pronged efforts to increase per capita spending, extend support outside the gates, host special groups and events. A great deal of zoo staff now is dedicated to these efforts. In some cases marketing and development staff are almost as large as full-time guest services staff. Zoos are smarter than you apparently think and zoo Boards and Directors are more focused on how to capitalize their resources than on how to add obscure species to please zoo nerds.
 
Last edited:
Alwaysevergreen said:
Let me rephrase, most families, will buy a season pass if it suits, or the grandparents will to take the children after school or so on. They may well be repeat visitors, but many will bring packed lunches and so on.

My point was, a lot of people more into certain species, might do experiences, spend more money and gather interest for other visitors and so on.

I have also noticed a lot of co-operate companies have starting looking at zoos for team building exercises, but very few offer and do it, which is a shame.

You have to look at the financial picture. A family might be worth £60-100 a couple of times a year. Someone with a massive animal interest, with like minded friends and business's and so on can be worth 5 - 10x that.

Certain experiences get purchased by families as presents or someone for a bf/gf, but people often looking for something special are big animal lovers and normally not a family person. I have been lucky enough to do most of Chester's KFAD this year, they are £250-280 each and there is 9 of them. I've met 3 or 4 people who like me have tried to do them all. They do them one day a week, all year, so a max of 45-50 people can do them. Ironically they are nearly always sold out, and majority of the time its not by people for presents but people who love animals. Each week, the 9 experiences bring in 2400 a week when fully booked, and around £100,000 a year. This is a small drop in the Ocean for Chester, but it certainly helps. Chester could raise the prices and they would still sell out as its Chester and demand is high.

Small zoos often struggle as they don't realise what demand there could be if they channel attention at certain areas.

Your main visitors may well be families, but they are not the ones who will spend the most money.
Click to expand...

I think if you look at the cafes (and the reviews about them) that families, couples and others even with memberships will be spending more money in catering and play facilities than you think - there’s a reason all the minor outlets in bigger zoos close in the week and off peak as they do far more trade on weekends and in school holidays. Some zoos also do kids events (there was a birthday party going on at all things wild when I was there the other week). Some of the big places have more picnicking going on (whipsnade for example) but people are still queuing out of the door for refreshments and food. You’ve only got to walk around watching everyone eat ice cream in the summer to count there’s more money being spent than just a membership.

Bulk income from memberships also mainly comes from families / groups in a lot of zoos.

Zoo shops are also selling items targeting both regular and casual visitors (and lots of them put the shop as only exit now) again that’s not targeted at zoo nerds and I doubt the shop income comes from only non family visitors.

Overnight stays are something a lot of zoos appear to be getting into and again I doubt pure nerds / animal enthusiasts are the target market (read the reviews on trust pilot where people say how many people they went with for some indication).

Experiences of all sorts generate a lot of income and aren’t really for or targeted at zoo ‘nerds’ as it’s not a big enough market. If zoos relied only on income from zoo enthusiasts I suspect they’d go bust.

While all areas are worth targeting if they segment their visitors into groups to maximise revenue from the potential revenue expansion from ‘nerds’ would be small compared to adding dinosaurs and soft play to make families visit more often and facilities for adults / couples to make it seem like the place isn’t just a playground.

I agree there should be a balance but not sure that pure enthusiasts are a pot of gold. As you say though experiences do generate money and indeed goodwill.
 
Lafone said:
Overnight stays are something a lot of zoos appear to be getting into and again I doubt pure nerds / animal enthusiasts are the target market (read the reviews on trust pilot where people say how many people they went with for some indication).
Click to expand...

That's a good point, and these are becoming ever more popular, but I would be surprised if many normal families could afford them.

Take a certain park in Kent for example, to stay in some of the lodges you are talking nearly £4000 for a weekend. Granted you can often fit 6 people in (2 double rooms and a twin room) but this is targeting high end cliental, not families looking for a weekend at the zoo. Having stayed over once at the park, most of the people are from abroad and have come on holiday from America, Eastern Europe and so on. The crazy thing is, these lodges are nearly always sold out, but lets be realistic, this is not being aimed at Mr and Mrs Smith from Leicester who work in 9-5 jobs.

The ones at a park in the Midlands are cheaper, but again, very few people could afford one night in these lodges, not your every day working folk.

I appreciate what you say about catering, but I have to be honest, most trips I do to zoos are not at the weekend, but even so, outside of school holidays most zoos are near enough empty during term times especially this time of year.

I was at one zoo on Sunday which is local and there couldn't have been more than 30 people there all day, at another last Thursday and there was 5 cars in the car park, and I don't recall seeing more than 7 or 8 people all day walking around and when I left at 3.30, I was told by the lady in the café, I was the last one in the zoo.

Lets put it like this, entry is say £15, and say you get 20 people on a quiet day, your intake is £300. That wouldn't cover energy costs, staff costs or anything.

I get why certain zoos close in the winter, when this is the footfall, as it probably costs more to open.

I don't doubt holiday turnover of people accounts for massive intake of funds and the Ice Cream trucks are busy, but also a number of Zoos nowadays are outsourcing catering.

Beale Park have given the catering to an outside business. In the summer Highland Wildlife Park had burger vans and so on selling food, all under contracts where they are paying the zoos a fee to do the catering.
If catering in the zoo, was as profitable as you make out, the zoos wouldn't be looking to outsource, but the guaranteed income is probably more beneficial.

I can actually see more zoos going down this route, by offering its café to an outside company, who cover the bills and staffing for it, and are basically paying a pitch fee.

I get what others say about designated marketing teams and the big zoos, do have these, but a lot of the small zoos don't. I know zoos where keepers are put in charge of the socials, because, no one else has the time.

Big zoos are an exception to the rule and they are unlikely to struggle and their name alone brings in punters, but for a smaller collection to survive, they need to be unique.

Experiences, Online presence and good socials, supporters pages and sponsorships, and team building are all effective, but not used by many zoos, big and small.

When I paid a figure for an experience last week, which equated to 20 x entry to the zoo and there was less than 10 people in the zoo all day, I think it's fair to say, that the experience fee probably helped significantly.

I'm not saying I know the solutions or have studied every zoos accounts to see what comes in and goes out, but the pandemic crippled a lot of zoos and the recovery is hard and slow. Bigger zoos have recovered better, and there has been talk of collections closing because of costs spiralling.

Memberships in big zoos will be massive turnover, but at a lot of smaller collections its 5 or 6x the entry cost, so I can't see high numbers of memberships, bigger collections where its 3 x like Chester and Longleat will get a mass of sign ups as that constitutes value. Would I pay £80 to visit a collection any time I wanted when entry is £13.95, probably not, as I'm unlikely to go six times in a year.

I don't think I am alone in my thoughts, maybe I am.

But I think there are a lot of ways that can generate money for smaller collections which aren't covered or considered, which constitutes little in the way of cost to implement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top