Passing on this saving to visitors would - given that limits on visitor numbers are likely to remain - surely defeat the whole purpose?
UK zoos & lockdown going forward...
- Thread starter TriUK
- Start date
Passing on this saving to visitors would - given that limits on visitor numbers are likely to remain - surely defeat the whole purpose?
Forget the fact that the original quote wasn’t about my post, zoo’s might pass down the savings to consumers (even if it isn’t the entire 15%) because, as another member has suggested, it might get them more visitors? It makes perfect sense at a time when many people are struggling to make ends meet and are having to tighten their belts. Also, I wasn’t demanding anything so don’t put words in my mouth.
Andrew Swales
Well-Known Member
I never put words into anyone's mouth. I lumped the two comments together as I thought they deserved the same answer - rather than posting the same reply twice...
... and why would they need 'more visitors' (those words were from your mouth), when they are having to limit numbers...?
Last edited:
Entirely depends whether they are filling their quota of limited numbers I suppose. I would be suprised if they are not. I can't say I've noticed continuous demands for zoo's to pass on any savings either though - but obviously I only see a limited number of posts on social media etc.
Theoretically a zoo that charges £24 entrance charge should be able to charge £21 and perhaps attract more visitors.
But at a time where zoos are having to limit their daily numbers then where is the sense in trying to attract more visitors who may not be able to enter?
I suppose it depends on the zoo. There may also be a benefit from people being allowed to be 1 metre apart rather than 2 metres.
sooty mangabey
Well-Known Member
This assumes a number of points...
As @Brum has already pointed out, most zoos are currently running at capacity anyway. The assumption that they could absorb more visitors is probably unfounded.
In addition, you assume a direct correlation between demand (for entry tickets) and price (of those tickets). I think that demand is actually pretty price inelastic, for most zoos. Compared to alternative days out, they are mostly inexpensive, and the public appear happy to pay to support what are seen as worthy causes. I think many zoos could put their prices up, and not see attendance damaged.
Perhaps, but I’m not sure about collections in holiday destinations where there is often an over saturation of tourist attractions?
It will affect zoo income if they keep things at the same price.
They sell you something for £4.80. They send 80p to HMRC.
For the period of this VAT reduction they only send 20p to HMRC.
So an extra 60p for the zoo.
Multiplied by the many, many sales of 20% VAT rated items (or services).
Zoos may be at capacity now, but the initiative is to help maintain capacity through to January.
If they feel they can take the suggested discount for themselves as additional revenue for themselves, l guess that is their choice. I assume they could encourage repeat visits in November etc by using the discount then.
If they feel they can take the suggested discount for themselves as additional revenue for themselves, l guess that is their choice. I assume they could encourage repeat visits in November etc by using the discount then.
My experience and research suggests that within limits people are more interested in the experience being worth their time expended rather than the cost of the experience. In fact they see higher price as an indication that the experience is worth visiting.
For instance (in an admittedly extreme situation) I know of one zoo that increased it's admission charge by four times. The result was a doubling of visitor numbers, in other words resulting in an eight times increase of the gate.
Therefor I would suggest that cutting admission ticket prices would not result in an increase in visitation, indeed it might result in fewer visitors overall. Better pocket the additional money to try and cover some of the losses from the closure period.
It's one of the cornerstones of conspicuous consumption - that is to say, that people will often purchase the more expensive product when presented with two items identical in all but price point, on the basis that if something costs more a) it must be better and b) purchasing it proves to all and sundry that you can afford the more expensive option.
General public who don't realise the situation with zoos needing as much income as they can get, will probably expect the prices to be reduced,and complain if they aren't
Some people don't like paying the extra voluntary donation some zoos
have as an extra, and that's not that much
Some people don't like paying the extra voluntary donation some zoos
have as an extra, and that's not that much
It was the Waterbird Haven, Rosevears, Tas, long gone, and about 40 years ago or so. The price rise was from 50c to $2, and was after the owners heard a discussion in a car outside saying if it was only 50c it can't be worth going into.
I don't think that is quite right. It is more that people value their recreational time and want the best experiences. Price is one signal as to the quality of the experience, there are others including reviews and recommendations. People will tend to pay what they need for the experience they value. For instance a Paul McCarthy fan might be happy to pay $200 for a ticket to a concert, and no amount of discounting by a zoo will convince them to forego the concert to go to the zoo. I don't think people go around boasting about the "expensive" zoo they visited.