Im pretty new here but like how bad is the financial debt BGW is in? Like potential bankrupcy? I know this is slightly off topic but Im just trying to understand what exactly is going on.
Large Zoology Department Cuts in 2015
- Thread starter Zachary
- Start date
Long story short...BGW is owned by SeaWorld. They are making budget cuts in their parks to save money. I don't think SeaWorld would go bankrupt without selling BGW first. Which in turn means, 'I' don't think there is much potential for BGW bankruptcy.Crums28 said:
They did have an employment ad for an Assistant Curator, which is the Zoo Department Manager at the park, which is a plus! Their previous Assistant Curator moved to Orlando.
All Animal Shows will still be running, yes. SEAS Ambassadors are animals considered to be a part of the whole company, and can easily be transferred inbetween park, the staple attractions at BGW aren't, for the most part, Ambassadors, they are considered to only belong to BGW. And basically everything featured in the two animal shows were non-ambassadors, especially the pets.
Ambassador's were mostly behind the scenes animals you would see at the Conservation Station every once in a while.
Ambassador's were mostly behind the scenes animals you would see at the Conservation Station every once in a while.
The Animal Ambassadors are fantastic, because they really like people and human interaction. They want to see you as much as you want to see them. It is enriching and stimulating for them.
Mazakman said:
Yes it will. They actually just transferred new people in to run it so it might be a little different. I know that the people they contracted to run it gad previously been running something for BGT.
Matthew claimed some of them were sold outside the company; however, they are the company's animals and most of them if not all of them are being moved to other parks like the SeaWorlds and BGT.
Some of them have been sold outside the company. I believe the majority have just been moved elsewhere though.
Zimmy said:
Moving this here at the request of Zachary.
The opinion that the ambassadors are a good marketing tool, although a good point, is also very arguable. Again, the validity of these cuts is going to come down to opinion. Arguing on how animal ambassadors are a marketing "tool" cannot be 100% verified. We don't know as well as the park what draws visitors to the parks(nor do I think the park knows a lot about it either, but that's another topic), and arguing on how cuts will or will not effect attendance is highly defendable, because we won't be able to know anything for sure until actual numbers are released. And even then, we just have a tiny fraction of what the park gets to see, so even conclusions drawn then won't be completely valid.
The park does not know what they should. They do not poll in any legitimate way. They have not good numbers.
I am not going to make the claim that Zoo pays for itself. My argument is that cutting zoo was not and is not the same thing as cutting a dive show. Why? Simple numbers, the animals introduce some revenue. The dive show does not. For that matter none of the shows do. These are NOT equal losses.
I am not going to make the claim that Zoo pays for itself. My argument is that cutting zoo was not and is not the same thing as cutting a dive show. Why? Simple numbers, the animals introduce some revenue. The dive show does not. For that matter none of the shows do. These are NOT equal losses.
It is also worth pointing out that conservation not dive shows are part of a stated corporate mission.
Zimmy said:
Yes, the park did have tours involving the animal ambassadors which the guests had to pay for. But we cannot know for sure if the money made on those tours completely paid for animal care, food, and labor that was provided daily. And it's not like animal tours have been completely eliminated, there is still money flow coming in directly for the zoological dept. but it just isn't for ambassadors. Finally, the opinion that no show is revenue making, or attendance producing is highly, highly arguable, and a marginal assumption that cannot be proved.
Mathew, I never said zoo paid for itself, in fact I said it did not. What I did say was that it does bring in some money to offset costs. We know that for certain. Their is no evidence that the dive show has ever done anything to bring in a single dollar.
My point remains, these are of equal value.
The fact remains, there are any number of places the park could have, and should have cut costs before cutting zoo jobs. Which incidentally is a near zero sum gain. Most of the animals went to BGT. The same costs will be incurred there for food and handling. Now they have additional costs for infrastructure improvements to handle the new animals, the cost to transport the poor things, and oh yea, probably additional labor.
The fact is we can see on paper that the animals >+$1 we can not point anywhere that any show has ever brought in a single dollar.
We are comparing apples and oranges. One thing, shows that has a intangible fiscal impact, (only intangible because the park does not generate metrics) and animals which have a tangible fiscal impact. Incidentally I am only talking about income not expense.
My point remains, these are of equal value.
The fact remains, there are any number of places the park could have, and should have cut costs before cutting zoo jobs. Which incidentally is a near zero sum gain. Most of the animals went to BGT. The same costs will be incurred there for food and handling. Now they have additional costs for infrastructure improvements to handle the new animals, the cost to transport the poor things, and oh yea, probably additional labor.
The fact is we can see on paper that the animals >+$1 we can not point anywhere that any show has ever brought in a single dollar.
We are comparing apples and oranges. One thing, shows that has a intangible fiscal impact, (only intangible because the park does not generate metrics) and animals which have a tangible fiscal impact. Incidentally I am only talking about income not expense.
Well as long as they keep the moo cows...i'll be happy.
[instagram=https://instagram.com/p/r-rec_MG_1/]
[instagram=https://instagram.com/p/r-rec_MG_1/]