What's new

How would you turn SeaWorld around?

Ian

From CoasterForce
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
Social Media Team
With a whale-sized reduction in visitor numbers, big fish changes on the management board and a considerable amount of negative publicity swimming about, it's easy to conclude that SeaWorld is in a bit of a pickle.

Imagine you were put in charge of SeaWorld and were tasked with turning it's fortunes around, how would you do it?

Would you go drastic and release all Orcas? Would you add new attractions that don't feature animals? Would you close the company down? Discuss.
 

Jared

Hyper Poster
I'd almost certainly create new, huge enclosures featuring natural seawater and quality filtration systems allowing the park to breed Orcas in captivity with the view to release them to the wild. Scrap the show with them and replace it with a decent dark ride of some description.
 

bmac

Giga Poster
Same boat as Jared, remove the shows and pull back the curtains on what care they take for the animals. Focusing more on amusement rides instead of the Aquatics, but still keeping them around will also help things.

Selling off the Busch parks might also alleviate some of their issues but they've stated in their recent quarterly earnings that this option likely will not happen in the near future. Doesn't matter either way since all the parks have ridiculous budgeting issues at the moment, even with the cuts.
 

Serena

Miss CoasterForce 2016
Staff member
Social Media Team
Ian said:
With a whale-sized reduction in visitor numbers, big fish changes on the management board and a considerable amount of negative publicity swimming about, it's easy to conclude that SeaWorld is in a bit of a pickle.

Hahaha, loving the puns!

SeaWorld is in a pickle indeed. I honestly don't know how / if they're going to be able to turn it around. The main reasons people love SeaWorld - the Orcas, the exploitative animal shows etc; are the very things that need to change drastically for the negativity to dissipate.

But what could they replace these attractions with, that would be unique to SeaWorld? I can't think of anything. How will they compete as a theme park in Florida if they lose their USP?

On a personal level, I thought the place was vile; one of the most depressing exhibitions of animals in captivity. So I think they should

- free the Orcas
- sell the B+M's
- tear the park down and forget that it ever existed.

But I realise that's pretty irrational..
 

nadroJ

CF Legend
Ooooh good one. OK, here's my plan.

So realistically, the big issue here is the idea of these HUGE intelligent creatures stuck in tanks to perform for us humans. Realistically you can't just 'free the whales' because the likelihood is that they're so institutionalised they could very well die, and the image of Shamu turned over on his back doesn't exactly portray the majesty of freedom very well. What I propose is a phase out of the creatures. Let those still living live their days out in Sea World but don't breed anymore in captivity and don't make them perform. Give them one on one training sessions every day for stimulation and whatever else they need to keep them occupied, but the performance aspect has become uncomfortable and grotesque. And this doesn't just go for killer whales, it goes for the dolphins and false killer whales too. I think the sealions and such can stay because let's face it they're just dog mermaids and are a lot smaller and therefore a lot more comfortable in a captivity situation. Plus the show is brilliant and fun and the animals don't appear miserable.

Simultaneously whilst this phase out is happening Sea World need to do what I think is probably their biggest task and that is a rebrand away from the focus on the Shamu character. Shamu is clearly Sea World's answer to the mouse, and whilst at Disney World you can go and meet Mickey and friends I would argue that, similarly to my Butterbeer argument, there is a much bigger cultural significance in meeting Mickey Mouse than their is in watching Shamu perform. Yes, Shamu has become a household name but I don't think folks would really care that much if his physical presence were removed from parks. Not in the way they would if Mickey were to suddenly disappear from the Magic Kingdom. I would argue that Shamu become more of an animated mascot that isn't actually present anymore, sort of how they stopped Ronald McDonald showing up at McDonalds and scaring the children. Because let's face it, a cuddly happy cute cartoon Shamu is a LOT more appealing than his counterpart: clinically insane Shamu that spends his day with his head in the corner. It makes a lot of sense and would keep outrage to a minimum. If you phased out the shows and eventually the actually presence of Killer Whales in park at the same time as a strategic shift in rebranding I think folks wouldn't really care/notice.

Another thing I think a lot of people forget is that even the not animal centric shows at Sea World are pretty on point. The Cirque du Soleil rip off thing is pretty fab and they do have a few shows that feature 'pet' animals that are cute. These alongside some world class animal exhibits such as those seen in the penguin enclosure and the many touch pools and the super cool shark tanks put the 'Sea' in Sea World way more than the performing whale does. The park also clearly takes its ride selection seriously, and with the fairly recent addition of a big family dark ride it's pretty clear to me that Sea World has its head screwed on when it comes to rides.

So yeah, that would be my plan: phase out the presence of whales/orcas in the park and rebrand to stop Sea World being so Shamu-centric and you're on to a winner.
 

peep

CF Legend
^Fun fact: Seaworld already has a cartoon character out in the parks of Shamu. He even has a group of friends. I would dig up some pics but on my phone using valuable data.

So I think what they are doing is exactly what you suggested.

They also have an excellent animal rescue (sans Rolf) thing going on but mainly in the background. I can see them making that more of a "thing".

Basically they're going to become large sea life's in the light with big rides.
 

nadroJ

CF Legend
Oh I know they have a cartoon Shamu. I have photos with him. What I meant was make more of a deal of him instead of focusing on 'real' Shamu.

And I disagree that they're already doing what I'm suggesting, because they still insist on the shows being a thing and are pumping a **** load of money into new stadiums/tanks. Which is the one big thing they need to step away from and just get over.
 

Robbie

Hyper Poster
Ditch the shows, make it more of a viewing experience with really impressive environments and large enclosures. Big up the conservation: really, just make it about the animals rather than exploiting the animals.

But then, this is the advice my dad gave the execs when he ran Morecambe Marineland, so what do I know...?
 

SilverArrow

Certified Ride Geek
Jared said:
I'd almost certainly create new, huge enclosures featuring natural seawater and quality filtration systems allowing the park to breed Orcas in captivity with the view to release them to the wild. Scrap the show with them and replace it with a decent dark ride of some description.
They already have seawater tanks and the best filtration systems in the world for that industry.

I've given my opinion on this extensively in other posts on this forum but in an as-close-to-a-nut shell form as possible, here are the main points:

-Focus on informing people about their methods of training. The training used at SeaWorld and other good marine parks is positive reinforcement based which means focusing on good behaviour and building trust with animals. It's about letting the animals make choices, including it being ok for then to opt out of training they want to. A lot of people seem to think their training is akin to people whipping elephants in the circus which is a different style of training built on fear and punishment. There have been recent changes in other fields such as dog training moving away from punishment and fear based training but the positive approach was pioneered with marine mammals at places like SeaWorld. I don't think many people know much about the training methods (and probably now assume that is is abusive thanks to blackfish) as SeaWorld like to keep it mysterious and magical they miss out on opportunities to actual explain what they're doing. Lots of other zoos and aquariums who use positive reinforcement style operant conditioning (the good type of training) as a great tool for husbandry and enrichment purposes (including many in the UK) explain this in their demonstrations and get good public responses. I have first hand experience of this.

-I would also bring their rehab facilities into the park (instead of backstage) to add depth to their animal exhibits and make more people aware of the rescue work that is going on as currently only those who pay extra can view them.

-I would generally try to diversify the exhibits to make it less about the whales and maybe bring in some more endangered species if possible. I would also continue the work that is already going on to continually improve exhibits and make them as natural as possible.

There have been a few recent positive press releases recently so we'll see how it all goes. The parks have a lot of positives so hopefully they can focus on those. It is good either way that we are starting to get the facts out because hype and fabrication doesn't help anyone (except maybe PETA's bank account).
 

GuyWithAStick

Captain Basic
Here are GuyWithAStick's 5 easy steps to make a Good park:

1) Put in 20 Wacky Worms and 25 Go Gators at all parks.

2) Put in 30 Fabbari Drop towers at each park.

3) Put in an RMC at each park.

4) Mega Lite at each park.

5) Attract all enthusiasts.

Sent from my VS840 4G using Tapatalk
 

Jarrett

Most Obnoxious Member 2016
Personally, I'd go the route of Dollywood with their non-releasable eagle attraction. Ditch the shows and turn what existing structures exist for the shows into a habitat for non-releasable aquatic animals, doing what needs done for the ones they own, and turning the existing stuff into exhibits into sanctuaries for animals who couldn't survive in the wild. Make it a bit more like Busch Gardens in that it's more of a zoo (or in this case, aquarium) with coasters than a few rides centered around the Shamu shows. I agree with Jordan on this one, make cartoon Shamu more of a park mascot and ditch the actual Shamu shows. Once the focus has moved away from the conservation sanctuaries, make the parks more like regional parks. Fill them up with creds (don't imagine any complaining on that one) and flats and dark rides relating to the ocean. Make it more of a traditional park than what it is, essentially.
 

gavin

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Social Media Team
nadroJ has pretty much said what I've always said about it.

The publicity image is purely down to the killer whales. This debate existed long before Blackfish- there are topics in here dating back YEARS if anyone's interested in digging them out. Blackfish certainly hasn't helped matters for them, but the backlash had to happen eventually.

They need to be a lot more transparent and stop pretending that they're keeping them purely for conservational/scientific value; they're not. Captive orcas serve pretty much zero value when it comes to conservation and anything that can be learned about them has been learned about them by now. The entire show now is damage control, trying to convince the audience that the animals should be there; it's desperate, and the shows are depressing.

Stop breeding them. They're not doing this to protect the species; they're merely keeping their stocks up as they know that if they ever took another wild animal, they'd be finished.

Let them die out, but keep the shows for the immediate time being, gradually decreasing them until they're phased out totally. In the meantime, they'd still have years to rebrand, regroup and implement new ideas.

Yes, the orcas are their main selling point, but they're also their biggest burden. Thousands of aquariums the world over, and multiple marine-themed amusement parks, manage to turn a very healthy profit without having to keep killer whales.

The basic fact is that people are turning away in droves purely because of their disagreement with keeping killer whales. This is not just due to Blackfish or some immediate emotional response, but due to years of consistent negative press and a very high availability of information that we all now have at our fingertips. Bigger tanks are not going to change those people's opinions. Phasing out the keeping of the orcas completely will.
 

nadroJ

CF Legend
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10153728730297565

They've recently posted this, and it annoyed me so much! It's so so bad to argue back. Even if you're right. They have to understand that they are the 'giant evil corporation' going up against the do-gooders, and no amount of 'well what we actually do is pretty good' is going to change that, it's just going to make people hate you more!

Such a dumb move ffs.
 

SilverArrow

Certified Ride Geek
nadroJ said:
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10153728730297565

They've recently posted this, and it annoyed me so much! It's so so bad to argue back. Even if you're right. They have to understand that they are the 'giant evil corporation' going up against the do-gooders, and no amount of 'well what we actually do is pretty good' is going to change that, it's just going to make people hate you more!

Such a dumb move ffs.
I'm not sure that's completely true. I think a lot of people who were on the fence about the issues looked to them for reassurance that the claims weren't true and just getting silence for so long has made people wonder whether they are really hiding something. I don't think they can do much harm in getting some facts out there.

These are the sort of facts a lot of the supporters have known for a while but unless you're in the know you might not know them.
 

nadroJ

CF Legend
Nah, I completely disagree. They're 100% better off keeping their mouths shut and not responding. Especially when companies like PETA are involved. It's not worth the hassle. It's all about perceived trustworthiness, and if a damning documentary has come out about you and you're, like I said, the 'big evil corporation' nobody gives a **** if you're telling the truth or not. People love to see big companies be brought down a peg or two.

Look at Tesco, for example. During the horse meat scandal they were taken to the cleaners. They didn't actually do anything wrong (it was the company Findus that actually used horse meat in their products and didn't label it properly, Tesco merely sold them) and yet because Tesco are the big dog people jumped on the 'outrage' band wagon to have a go. And Tesco handled it beautifully. They never once put out any ads justifying what had happened or any of that, they simply apologised, held their hands up and said it won't happen again. And people soon forgot about it. People aren't interested in humble admittance. They want a war. They want an argument. And this is precisely where Sea World is failing miserably.

Yes I agree that Sea World's animals are probably very well cared for now and what have you. That doesn't stop their animals from being incredibly inbred and, at some point in history, snatched from their natural habitats. And what Sea World have still yet to do is go yes this happened, we are ashamed of it, we can't change the past but we are working to do things differently in the future. Instead they insist on this approach of 'no actually it's not like that, here's a video of some happy Shamu's'. No. Do not give these instigators of conflict a response. Do not satisfy them with a direct comeback like that. It's just antagonising and in the end not beneficial to brand improvement in any way, nobody cares to see the big evil corporation fight their corner, what they want is to see them taken down a peg or two and humbled for it.
 

Robbie

Hyper Poster
That video would be hilarious if it wasn't that SeaWorld was so in denial. Despite putting "FACTS" and "Government Scientists" in large letters they fail to back up with any independent research; and no-one's saying all their animals live shorter lives than in the wild - in fact, a central part of Blackfish is that the killer orca is so old he's gone nuts thanks to too many years of captivity and abuse.

I agree the approach should really say, "hey, we may have made mistakes but we're fixing things" rather than carrying on as if there's no issue.
 

gavin

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Social Media Team
^ Yep, PETA is ridiculously flawed. Doesn't make Sea World right though.

That's exactly the sort of tactic that they actually tried with Blackfish. Instead of addressing the issues raised, or suing the arse off them (which clearly they couldn't do, or they would have), they instead just tried to discredit the film and film makers. The idea is that if people see some liberties taken with the film, they'll turn against it and believe that there were never any real problems that needed addressing.

Unfortunately for Sea World, people aren't generally that stupid.

I, again, agree with nadroJ. Despite seeming to take a strong anti-Sea World stance, I'm not actually all that bothered whether they have them or not. I'm far from some animal rights nut. I just can't STAND that they're so duplicitous and treat their customers like idiots, trying to wriggle out of every criticism, and flat out lying, instead of just holding their hands up and being honest.

There's a reason that we don't have dolphins in the UK any more. People won't accept any "conservationalal/educational/natural behaviour" bulls**t.
 

SilverArrow

Certified Ride Geek
Ok so this is a massive post but thought I would condense it all into one to avoid clogging up the thread. I'm involved with animal care and know quite a few people in the field so I always like to chime in with some devils advocate stuff to aid the discussion.

nadroJ said:
Nah, I completely disagree. They're 100% better off keeping their mouths shut and not responding. Especially when companies like PETA are involved. It's not worth the hassle. It's all about perceived trustworthiness, and if a damning documentary has come out about you and you're, like I said, the 'big evil corporation' nobody gives a **** if you're telling the truth or not. People love to see big companies be brought down a peg or two.

Look at Tesco, for example. During the horse meat scandal they were taken to the cleaners. They didn't actually do anything wrong (it was the company Findus that actually used horse meat in their products and didn't label it properly, Tesco merely sold them) and yet because Tesco are the big dog people jumped on the 'outrage' band wagon to have a go. And Tesco handled it beautifully. They never once put out any ads justifying what had happened or any of that, they simply apologised, held their hands up and said it won't happen again. And people soon forgot about it. People aren't interested in humble admittance. They want a war. They want an argument. And this is precisely where Sea World is failing miserably.

Yes I agree that Sea World's animals are probably very well cared for now and what have you. That doesn't stop their animals from being incredibly inbred and, at some point in history, snatched from their natural habitats. And what Sea World have still yet to do is go yes this happened, we are ashamed of it, we can't change the past but we are working to do things differently in the future. Instead they insist on this approach of 'no actually it's not like that, here's a video of some happy Shamu's'. No. Do not give these instigators of conflict a response. Do not satisfy them with a direct comeback like that. It's just antagonising and in the end not beneficial to brand improvement in any way, nobody cares to see the big evil corporation fight their corner, what they want is to see them taken down a peg or two and humbled for it.

Whatever they do in response can be taken negatively. If they don't do anything people will criticise them for hiding facts and trying to ignore things and if they do counteract people will say what you've just said. It's a lose-lose really. My previous comment about it re-assuring people was mostly aimed at previous park visitors. I know quite a few people who are interested in animals and have visited the parks but were confused by Blackfish and started to wonder whether they shouldn't visit again so I think press releases like that help to re-assure those people. I think also a lot of their supporters are pleased that they have come out with this stuff as they don't have to fight their corner by themselves now as a lot of online discussion has gone on between animal fans and activists people on this issue.

Re-Tesco- I'm not sure it's that easy to compare the two as people don't really give that much of a sh*t what kind of meat they're eating whereas as a LOT of people are passionate about animal welfare (and will make big decisions based on their beliefs in it e.g. turning vegetarian). People still have to eat so of course they're still going to go to their local tesco if it's nearby, cheap and convenient. Going to Seaworld is a luxury that people can do without and if animal welfare is questionable a lot of people will passionately choose not to go.

Re-Inbred and wild capture- Afaik only a few individuals from SW's orcas are considerably inbred. AI actually helps avoid this but of course animal rights people think that this is terrible despite it being a common practise with farming and domestics already. White Tigers are actually a lot worse off. They're very inbred to the extent that a considerable number of them have genetic defects and health issues. Inbreeding is also something that occurs naturally to an extent anyway. I understand your point and obviously we'd love for them to have as large a gene pool as possible but from what I know it's not as bad as PETA would like people to believe.

All animals in zoos came from the wild at some stage as they couldn't come from anywhere else so I don't think all zoos and aquaria suddenly need to say "hey look guys these animals originally came from the wild". We all know that and don't need to keep appologising for things that happened decades ago. The fact that no wild caught cetaceans have been taken on in the UK or Europe (Western at least) for decades shows that we have already made changes and don't consider that acceptable anymore.

I get what you're saying about it possibly being a bad idea to engage the naysayers but at the same time I think it's good that there are now some positive press articles out there to counterbalance all of the negative ones. Now that it's become such a big issue, anything Seaworld does that is positive will get big press now too.

Robbie said:
That video would be hilarious if it wasn't that SeaWorld was so in denial. Despite putting "FACTS" and "Government Scientists" in large letters they fail to back up with any independent research; and no-one's saying all their animals live shorter lives than in the wild - in fact, a central part of Blackfish is that the killer orca is so old he's gone nuts thanks to too many years of captivity and abuse.

I agree the approach should really say, "hey, we may have made mistakes but we're fixing things" rather than carrying on as if there's no issue.

One of PETA's claims, whether in Blackfish or not is that the Orcas at Seaworld don't live as long as in the wild. One crucial point to this what that a wild Orca was discovered that was estimated to be around 100 years old. In actual fact it was then realised that this individual (who would be an anomaly anyway) only had a 20% or whatever chance of actually being 100 years old. So basically it was very weak science. I saw a presentation on this piece of research so it could be this piece of research that they are referring to. I believe they've simplified it all down for the video for layman consumption but I've certainly heard of research having come to similar conclusions.

I addressed the whole "hey we've made mistakes" thing earlier. I think to an extent they have admitted to this as they've constantly upgraded and updated their protocols e.g. no wild capture etc. Animal keeping has evolved a lot over the last 50 years. I don't think London Zoo or wherever needs to keep apologising for their past animal enclosures or practises from decades ago.

gavin said:
^ Yep, PETA is ridiculously flawed. Doesn't make Sea World right though.

That's exactly the sort of tactic that they actually tried with Blackfish. Instead of addressing the issues raised, or suing the arse off them (which clearly they couldn't do, or they would have), they instead just tried to discredit the film and film makers. The idea is that if people see some liberties taken with the film, they'll turn against it and believe that there were never any real problems that needed addressing.

Unfortunately for Sea World, people aren't generally that stupid.

I, again, agree with nadroJ. Despite seeming to take a strong anti-Sea World stance, I'm not actually all that bothered whether they have them or not. I'm far from some animal rights nut. I just can't STAND that they're so duplicitous and treat their customers like idiots, trying to wriggle out of every criticism, and flat out lying, instead of just holding their hands up and being honest.

There's a reason that we don't have dolphins in the UK any more. People won't accept any "conservationalal/educational/natural behaviour" bulls**t.

Ok so I see that you're obviously anti anyway but whatever I'll give my 2c seeing as this is a discussion. How exactly are they flat out lying? I think they've been honest with a lot of the stuff they've come out with and that there is also a lot more that they could truthfully say that would help their cause (like talking more about their training and behind the scenes stuff).

Re-UK Dolphins- The main reason why we don't have dolphins anymore in the UK is because all of our facilities were too small and when the new regulations came in around 1991/2 none of the zoos could afford to upgrade and expand their facilities. A lot of people who support dolphins in captivity elsewhere would not have supported them here in the UK with the size of tanks that we had. We also have a high proportion of animal rights people over here in a relatively small country (i.e. people like to moan here). Thousands of british people visit dolphinaria and zoos abroad.

I assume that you're anti-zoo in general if you're calling "conservational/educational/natural behaviour bulls**t" as plenty of other animals are trained in the same way elsewhere and many zoos contain animals that are much less endangered than Orca or some species of dolphin. Which is fair if you have your reasons, but I was just making a point.
 
Top