North American AZA reciprocal zoos

team tapir

team tapir

Well-Known Member
Back in the late 90's when Bonnie and I first became members of our home zoo in Cleveland one of the major perks was free admission to other zoos.It was at this time when both of us starting to vist other establishments mostly in Ohio.Over the years we have seen a trend where more and more zoos have gone to 50% off.Bringing us to this week where Cleveland has made the decision to no longer offer any free admission anywhere.50 % off is the best you are going to get.While we surely realize the state of the economy in the US we are still very disapointed in this.What are some of your thoughts?

Team Tapir
 
I have noticed the exact same trend, and it is frustrating to not have free admission at more than 150 AZA-accredited zoos as was the case in the past. It is also too bad that most aquariums are not included on the list, and even smaller aquatic facilites almost always cost more than any North American zoo.
 
I have noticed the same thing and am also frustrated by it. I have never worked for a zoo, but I have been the HR rep. for a museum and I think what is driving this trend is a maturation of zoo membership programs.

Membership is not a free year long pass but a tax deductable donation to the zoo of your choice. That probably sounds like a minor distinction but it is not. It is an important piece of a non- profits financial structure and typically they would want to ratchet back perks as there program grows and develops. This adds credibility to the claim that membership reflects true community based financial support; and so foundations and corporations should take their grant applications seriously. I would by interested in the view of anyone who is a zoo membership director on this subject.
 
That is really interesting Scott re: membership maturation.

Going back to the 1980s most zoos took place in the AZA free reciprocal membership program, except for San Diego, the Bronx, and the major aquariums.

I think part of what has happened is that many zoos have switched to a financial model like the San Diego model (i.e., rather than being funded by a government entity primarily [city, county, state] they are run by a non-profit zoological society). Without a constant funding base the zoos look for any revenue stream that they can and not letting out-of-town visitors in for free is an easy revenue stream. I don't have data to show this, just conjecture based on observations over the last several years.
 
DavidBrown said:
That is really interesting Scott re: membership maturation.

Going back to the 1980s most zoos took place in the AZA free reciprocal membership program, except for San Diego, the Bronx, and the major aquariums.

I think part of what has happened is that many zoos have switched to a financial model like the San Diego model (i.e., rather than being funded by a government entity primarily [city, county, state] they are run by a non-profit zoological society). Without a constant funding base the zoos look for any revenue stream that they can and not letting out-of-town visitors in for free is an easy revenue stream. I don't have data to show this, just conjecture based on observations over the last several years.
Click to expand...

Also, with the advent of on-line purchasing, many "bargain-hunters" simply search for the cheapest membership available, regardless of geography, and essentially game the system to use it for admission to their higher priced local zoo.
 
My membership expiration times have been happening at the end of the year. I never really thought the plan could change starting at the beginning of the next year. With Buffalo, I just accepted the 50% off everywhere. But now that I am a member of the Seneca Park Zoo, I guess I'm fortunate they didn't decide to do 50% off. Although I have to say while deciding what zoo to get a membership with this year, I noticed the lists of all of them having the same zoos at 50% off. Maybe soon in the future the perk of getting free admission to other zoos won't exist.
 
Reid Park Zoo is still free admission for reciprocal members! (Of course, our full price adult admission is only seven bucks, so it is cheap either way). I think half price is a fair deal and I am surprised that there are any free reciprocal zoos left. I mean why should a local zoo give away free admission to out of towners who do not support that particular zoo in any way?

What is even more suprising is that Lincoln Park and Saint Louis are still free admission to all. (So is National Zoo, but that is not surprising since it is part of the Smithsonian Institute).

In addition to the AZA reciprocal program, there is also a smaller reciprocal program for small non-AZA zoos. I know because I just got the list from Exotic Feline Breeding Compound, which is one of the participants. Like the AZA version, some are free admission and some are half price.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JVM
Here is a good example of how this change relates to us.In 2010 while our Cleveland membership gave us free admission to the Akron (which is about 40 minutes from us)we visited about 9 or 10 times.In 2011 when Cleveland cut it to 50% off that number dropped to 4 or 5 times.On each visit Akron would make money on parking,concessions and gift shop sales.We would have to literally see the books to know otherwise but we just can't see how a few free admissions to out of towners is a birdenfinancialy to any zoo.

Team Tapir
 
While I agree that the decrease in zoos offering a 100% reciprocal discount is frustrating, I think the change may speak to our economic climate. Many government-funded zoos (which make up a substantial portion of AZA accredited facilities) are having their budgets cut - in some cases, drastically. When that happens (or, when a zoo experiences reduced admission in general from an economic downturn), they have to cut costs and maximize profits where possible. Granted, reciprocal member visits probably aren't a HUGE percentage of annual visitors, but I can definitely see the appeal in maximizing profit where they can.
 
team tapir said:
On each visit Akron would make money on parking,concessions and gift shop sales.We would have to literally see the books to know otherwise but we just can't see how a few free admissions to out of towners is a birdenfinancialy to any zoo.

Team Tapir
Click to expand...

Parking is the only thing you mentioned that you HAVE to pay for each time you visit. Gift shop and concessions purchases are completely optional. Just because YOU would make those purchases each time doesn't mean that every out of town visitor would.
 
Being the zoo enthusists that we are we would have no problem if zoos would create a higher level of membership which would benefit those who travel often.Any one else like this idea?

Team Tapir
 
I agree with Team Tapir on this point. For a municipal zoo; admission is a loss leader. If a city or county is having financial trouble they should stimulate tourism by giving zoo admission away to out of town members. They make far more money on the taxes paid when you fill your car with gas, go to a restaurant, rent a hotel room, or use an airport, then on admission tickets. This is not some controversial idea either: every freshman economics class teaches it.
 
scott.c.hansen@ said:
I agree with Team Tapir on this point. For a municipal zoo; admission is a loss leader. If a city or county is having financial trouble they should stimulate tourism by giving zoo admission away to out of town members. They make far more money on the taxes paid when you fill your car with gas, go to a restaurant, rent a hotel room, or use an airport, then on admission tickets. This is not some controversial idea either: every freshman economics class teaches it.
Click to expand...


That may be true, but funding decisions don't work that way. A city or county will cut funding, leaving the zoo to decide where to trim money or create extra revenue.
 
10outof9 said:
That may be true, but funding decisions don't work that way. A city or county will cut funding, leaving the zoo to decide where to trim money or create extra revenue.
Click to expand...

I actually agree with scott's summation. However, indeed the sad realities are that usually city or county or federal state do not have that visionary instinct ... and act like mere administrative bookkeepers instead of politicians with a vision of what may or might be. :o
 
team tapir said:
Being the zoo enthusists that we are we would have no problem if zoos would create a higher level of membership which would benefit those who travel often.Any one else like this idea?

Team Tapir
Click to expand...

I can't agree with you more on this topic.As much as me and my gf travel to other zoos i wouldn't mind paying a higher fee. i just bought a membership to the National Aviary today and the lady told me that they just switched to 50%. ugh :( I just have one question why are zoos like San Diego,Bronx,Indianapolis,Denver, cheyenne Mountain and fort worth not on the list? or does other zoos have them on there list cause Pittsburgh and National aviary don't have them on there membership list.
 
jusko88 said:
I can't agree with you more on this topic.As much as me and my gf travel to other zoos i wouldn't mind paying a higher fee. i just bought a membership to the National Aviary today and the lady told me that they just switched to 50%. ugh :( I just have one question why are zoos like San Diego,Bronx,Indianapolis,Denver, cheyenne Mountain and fort worth not on the list? or does other zoos have them on there list cause Pittsburgh and National aviary don't have them on there membership list.
Click to expand...

Some zoos like San Diego and the Bronx Zoo have never had reciprocal membership with other zoos. These zoos are the equivalent of non-profit corporations essentially and see the reciprocal memberships as unacceptable loss of needed revenue.
 
Talking about revenue streams, Birmingham used to be a municipal zoo that suffered in that role then became privatized about 12 years ago and then recently the city started donated an annual contribution to the zoo. Anyone else set up like that?
 
tschandler71 said:
Talking about revenue streams, Birmingham used to be a municipal zoo that suffered in that role then became privatized about 12 years ago and then recently the city started donated an annual contribution to the zoo. Anyone else set up like that?
Click to expand...

It seems like many zoos here in California now use this model (San Diego, Sacramento, Santa Barbara, Fresno), and it is likely that the LA Zoo will be next. This model seems to be the standard that many, if not most, American zoos will be following.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top