Whilst I'm not saying PR/marketing departments may have some influence in a zoo's animal collection (more so in smaller zoos where the "marketing department" is essentially the owner -and they all want a tiger
) I'd largely disagree with most of your points:1. I think you'll find that their opinions are very secondary at larger collections (Chester for instance);
2. The reason Dublin "doubled" their attendance is probably more to do with the fact that they're the only geographically close and sizeable collection for most visitors and the fact the zoo attendances have increased, pretty much, across the board in the last ten years. This increase has also been seen at smaller collections with less showy animals and less impressive enclosures -hence the increase in new small collections in recent years. This is regardless of social media storms and PETA activity;
3. Whilst I like Wingham a lot, most of their large collection is housed in fairly mundane, basic enclosures (the Chimp complex being the exception). This hasn't stopped locals visiting it in far greater numbers than the better housed/less species zoos of nearby Howletts/Port Lympne. This may have more to do with the more child-friendly play facilities and compact nature of Wingham -nothing to do with it being a "small collection with better housing";
4. PR/marketing does have a role in the zoos running -but it's promoting what the zoo has, through social media etc., rather than any significant influence on the animal collection and zoo development plans.
