Zoo financially up the creek

[stumpjumper]

That can't be right - Australia Zoo is the obvious counterexample.

Well spotted Aidan. Slack journalists!

[Wayno]

Rebranding the Zoo

From AdelaideNow

ADELAIDE Zoo is considering breaking with a 128-year tradition by rebranding itself as "Conservation Ark" under a plan to ease its $24 million debt.

Zoos SA, which runs the beloved Adelaide institution along with Monarto Zoo and Warrawong Sanctuary, has used the potential new moniker for its conservation and research projects since 2008.

However, the Sunday Mail understands management has started consulting with key stakeholders, including tourism representatives and media partners, about the change predicted to take place early next year.

Zoos SA was asked several times by the Sunday Mail to confirm the rebranding plan, but on each occasion failed to provide a clear answer.

A spokeswoman for Zoos SA said it "is considering a number of changes but is unable to comment further".

"For a number of years there have been ongoing discussions about whether the organisation would benefit from a re-branding exercise," a statement said. "Internal discussions are still underway and it is unlikely there will be any changes until next year . . . the thinking is yet to be put to the Society's Board."

Requests for interviews with Zoos SA chief executive Dr Chris West and president Kevin McGuinness were declined.

Information contained in Zoos SA's 2009-10 Annual Report adds further weight to the possible name change.

A jointly written introduction penned by Dr West and Mr McGuinness states: "We are joining together the twin identities of Zoos SA and Conservation Ark as they address our dual identity as a Zoo-based organisation with an expanding portfolio of wider programs in research, field support and outreach education.

"Of course we are still the Royal Zoological Society of SA as a legal and historic entity and no name changes will alter our proud and successful heritage."

In June, Zoos SA was forced to seek a $2 million bailout from the State Government after its 2009-10 end of financial year balance sheet showed a $24 million black hole. Zoos SA blamed a shortfall in sponsorship revenue "largely due to the onset of the global financial crisis at a critical point in the project" for the deficit.

Unlike interstate zoos, the privately operated Adelaide Zoo relies heavily on donations, bequests and grants, including a $3.2 million State Government contribution.

When Environment Minister Paul Caica announced the $2 million advance of the zoo's 2011-12 allocation in parliament he said "a government working group has been established with the agreement of the society's board to work with the society in respect of its current financial challenges and the future sustainability of the zoos".

This week an Environment Department spokesman said the "government has not participated in the Society's review of its operations".

SA Tourism Industry Council chief executive Ward Tilbrook said he would be "surprised" if they did move away from the Adelaide Zoo name."(However) conservation is a key organisational objective," he said.

Adelaide Zoo visitors topped 470,000 in 2009-10, up from 358,723 the previous year.

[Zills]

what a load of poo!

[crawf]

Terrible idea. Next

[stumpjumper]

It looks as though the 'next' idea is a public bail-out of the stricken zoo.

Not such a bad thing, regardless of the reason for the failure of the zoo as a business. Most zoos around the world are 'municipal zoos' - publicly funded, not for profit etc, and providing good things: education, recreation, research, etc. The days of zoos being run by boards of governors comprising local worthies and a few zoologists are probably numbered.

However, along with the support from most quarters for the bail-out, how about an analysis of what went wrong, in order to learn from the experience? Surely that isn't much to ask in return for the millions of public money being poured into the recovery effort? Not a witch hunt, but a sober study into how things drifted so far that a debt of tens of millions - equivalent to decades of surplus earnings - could accrue without anyone crying out for help.

[rhino]

I'm gonna have to back Stumpy up on this one. I agree with all points made.

[Wayno]

article on Adelaide Zoo from news.com.au - focus on financial management.

ZOOS South Australia has spent an extra $2 million on staff salaries and wages in the past financial year, despite having financial problems that prompted a multimillion-dollar state government bailout.

Figures released by the zoo show that since 2007, annual staff costs almost doubled from $6.9 million to $12.8 million, while the amount spent on animal care rose only $165,000.

In the past financial year, wage and staff costs increased $2.3 million despite the zoo being unable to service $24 million in debt incurred as a result of infrastructure associated with the giant pandas.

Yet while the zoo was grappling with its financial problems, it cut spending on animal care from $723,000 in 2010 to $676,000 in 2011.

The number of staff directly involved in animal care and visitor services also declined in 2011, plummeting from 225 in 2010 to 145 in 2011.

At Adelaide Zoo, the amount spent on animal care was less in 2011 than it was in 2008.

Zoos SA attributed the increased salary bill to the purchase of Warrawong, but annual reports show the new sanctuary added just $600,000 to wage expenses while more than $1.5 million was added to staff costs at Adelaide Zoo, Monarto and the Society.

A spokeswoman for Zoos SA said operating costs had increased because of an expansion of the zoo, including the development of the new front- entrance precinct, the perimeter fence required to meet national zoo standards, and the giant panda exhibit.

"Animal management costs have remained relatively constant as the zoo has not increased its animal collection significantly in the past few years," she said.

She also said salaries and wages had increased as a result of inflation and specific grants.

Figures provided by the zoo show staff numbers have surged under the reign of chief executive Chris West, rising from 174 in 2007-08 to close to 300 now.

The wage increase comes after the zoo was unable to repay a $24 million debt to Westpac that drove it to being bailed out by the bank and the State Government.

The Advertiser has previously reported the zoo's financial position was so bad that at one point it was unable to make superannuation payments on behalf of staff and companies stopped supply. Financial documents have shown the zoo was probably trading insolvent from as early as June 2010, before the blowout in wages occurred.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/zoos ... z1j1wR3IqP

[HeapsGood]

maybe more people would go to the zoo if it wasnt such a ******* rip-off...

[Nathan]

maybe more people would go to the zoo if it wasnt such a ******* rip-off...

Define a rip-off? I'll admit it's not the cheapest place to visit, but when my fiancée went at the end of last year we had a good time (despite the odd shower of rain) and thought we got our money's worth.

[monotonehell]

Define a rip-off? I'll admit it's not the cheapest place to visit, but when my fiancée went at the end of last year we had a good time (despite the odd shower of rain) and thought we got our monkey's worth.

Fixed it for you.

[build 'em smarter]

I took some interstate visitors and their children to the zoo a couple of weeks ago... The thought that kept going through my mind the entire time was, 'no wonder this place is going bust'.

I am all for supporting the zoo and the conservation work they do, however i was most disappointed with the zoo in how it is designed and run.

Firstly, to have to go and line up for a pass to get into the gift store to spend money.... i mean really?? why cant they use the doors that face the entry plaza.

Secondly, although some of the detailing of the new buildings are excellent, There are as many examples of poor planning and design decisions that just let the entire thing down. The panda hall is one of the most uncomfortable spaces i have ever been in. Was the mirror like glass delibrately used for a reason, and why is it angled so you can only see the glare from the sky and not the Pandas? defeats the purpose doesn't it.

And finally, why is the zoo open until 5:00 if the animals are put away at 4:00. We arrived at 2:30ish and took our time with the kids so they could see everything, went to see the pandas at feeding time, only to come out from the pandas mirrored room at around 4 and have most the other animals put away and areas of the zoo closed down, including the childrens zoo.

There are some great aspects to the zoo (such as the monkey/lion/giraffe displays and the open lawn areas amoungst the animals) however, it could be much better and therefore attract return visits, if there are a few things that are corrected to make you feel positive about the place when you leave, not feeling disappointed and ripped off.

[[Shuz]]

I went there a couple of Sunday's ago because my partner got some free tickets as part of the "SDA's Family Fun Day"...

Don't even get me started on how cringeworthy that was - basically picture 5,000 ignorant bogans who either have been brainwashed or have no idea about the SDA's hard-right political agenda and masquerading it as some sort of family-friendly thing, but that's a topic of conversation for another day! (paging StumpJumper to the SDA thread, please)

Anyways, it was actually pretty bloody crap. The new bits for the pandas were nice and all, although grossly overengineered, everything else was just a huge let down. Paths that go nowhere, poor signage, general untidyness, etc, and they're asking, what? $38.50 for an adult ticket. It's absolutely no wonder they're broke, I wouldn't pay that kind of money for the experience that I got - totally not value for money.

I'm really suprised a private organisation has been allowed to operate like the Zoo has for years now. Any other place, the board would be thrown out and a major restructure take place - something seems a but suspicious here.

[dsriggs]

So your partner's an ignorant bogan then, Shuz?

[Hooligan]

So you're an ignorant bogan then, Shuz?

fixed

[metro]

^^