III.Situation Analysis: SWOT

Table of Contents

I.Executive Summary

II.Introduction

III.Situation analysis: SWOT

IV.Current Marketing Strategy

1)Target Market

2)Marketing Mix

a.Product

b.Place

c.Price

d.Promotion

V.What went wrong?

VI.Recommendations

Bibliography

APPENDICES:

Appendix A: Regional origins of Vulcania’s French public

Appendix B: Origins of International Tourists:

Appendix C: Location of Vulcania in France

1. Executive Summary

This report was commissioned to examine the underlying reasons of the failure of Vulcania, an educational theme park based on volcanoes in France, as a tourist spot and to recommend ways to turn this property into a high valued tourist destination.

The research draws attention to the fact that Vulcania failed to meet the target visitors’ number of a reasonable 800,000 in the first year of its opening itself. This number plummeted over years due to the lack of introducing new and innovative attractions doubled by poor connectivity to its location via regional transport system. Furthermore, it identifies the problem of unclear branding and product positioning as an unsuccessful marketing strategy which affected the long term brand image of Vulcania. Moreover, criticism over Vulcania’s environmental hazards, and personal motives of the former French President, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing in developing this propertyalso aided in creating a poor image of Vulcania in the tourism industry.

The report evaluates and concludes that Vulcania has the potential to be a landmark site in France provided that it took immediate strong action to fix its evident problems while playing on its relevant strengths.

It is recommended:

that Vulcania accommodates modifications to the property to project an image of a theme park only

that Vulcania offers promotions and concessions on price are to its visitors

that necessary advertising is taken up to create a buzz

that supporting sponsors and partners are sought for this revision project

1. Introduction

Vulcania, the "European Park of Volcanism", is a theme park on volcanism which was opened in February 2002 thanks to the strong support of Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, former French President and, at the time, Chairman of the Regional Council of Auvergne. The activity of the park is managed by a company namedVolcans. It is situated in Saint-Ours-les-Roches, Auvergne, France, a place known for its amazing natural landscape.The slogan is “the adventure of the land”, which shows how strategically important the environment is for the park’s marketing. This park being one of its kinds in the whole of Europe enables visitors to discover an actual volcano from the inside, as ¾ of the park is underground, but it also offersaround 30 activities, two 3D and 4D theatres and regular exhibits displaying the great mysteries of volcanoes.

Goals and objectives

As described on the official website of Vulcania[1], its two main objectives are:

To diffuse expertise and the latest knowledge in volcanology, and in earth and universe sciences

To be a tool of economic development, culture and tourism of the region Auvergne

Regarding the second objective, despite the uniqueness of this theme park, this initiative has not met with its initial expectations in terms of visitors and promotion of the area in all. Vulcania wanted to position itself as the “motor for tourism” in Auvergne and has defined clear objectives regarding tourism. It was supposed to attract at least 800,000 visitors during its first year of opening in 2005. It was aimed atfirstly attracting a large audience including natural sciences amateurs, secondly,to be priced like any other amusement park and finally, create an economic impact for the region.

1. Situation analysis: SWOT

Strengths

• Educational values withentertainment
• Has something to offer for every age group
• Perceived as a family outing spot
• One of a kind in Europe: novel idea of using Volcanoes as a theme for creating unusual media of educational entertainment—great adventure rides, 3D movies, parks, volcano walks

Weaknesses

• Located in one of France’s poorest areas[2]
• Remote location of Clermont-Ferrand
• Neither an amusement park nor a museum—not good enough
• Seasonal tourism of the area only draws tourists in summer to the region

Opportunities

• Political support due to the creator’s former alliance to the French Government –ex-President Valery Giscard D'Estaing
• Increasingemployment and tourism
• Ability to boost local economy through increased socio-cultural and economic development in the area
• Development of new technology to keep the park up-to-date
• Geo-tourism at regional, national as well as international scale
• Eco-tourism trend
• Central geographic location in France strategic to draw tourism from across the nation

Threats

• Local discontent of regional money directed to fund this project
• High targets set to be achieved in the first decade to turn profitable
• Failure of Futuroscope, a competitor, that showcased technology and innovation overshadowing the chances of Vulcania’s success
• Disneyland Paris (12million fans a year[3] as per 2002 records) and Walt Disney Studios are the strongest tourist attractions in France—very strong competition

1. Current Marketing Strategy

1)Target Market

As defined during the launch of the theme park, the primary target markets for Vulcania were families, tourists and schools.

However, visitors are mostly families and schools, with kids representing 40% of the total of visitors[4]. The park’s whole attractions are aimed to children but it has had difficulties to adapt the scientific knowledge to an ideal target market for kids that would be the 8 to 14 years old. The activities are considered too difficult and not attractive enough for kids.

Moreover, Vulcania’s intention was to attract tourists from all other Europe in order to revitalize the region and gain increasing revenues and notoriety. However, Vulcania has managed to attract neither the locals nor the international visitors. In fact, locals from Auvergne only represent less than 1 out of 5 visitors (see Appendix A) which indicates clearly their region. Only 11% of visitors are international and mostly from nearby countries such as Belgium, Norway and Switzerland, which represent 50% of the total of International visitors (see Appendix B).

2)Marketing Mix

1. Product

The core product of the park is a variety of fun and cultural activities around volcanoes aimed at sensitizing the younger audience to natural sciences and entertaining them. An emphasis is stressed on creating a unique atmosphere in the park thanks to its natural environment.

A range of attractions and theatres constitute the main tangibleproducts of the park. Itoffers around 30 activities, two 3D and 4D theatres and regular exhibits displaying the great mysteries of volcanoes.

Moreover, Vulcania offers a range of augmented products such as services for visitors with special needs, car parking, catering and retailing, large opening times, etc…

The servicescape is a very important part of the product marketing of the park. In fact, Vulcania relies mostly on exterior attributes such as the landscape and the exterior design, which is built in a very modern way in order to put an emphasis on the environment. However, interior attributes are also very important as the park seeks to generate an atmosphere for its customers, enabled thanks to the layout, interior design, signage and lighting.

1. Place

Tickets for the park are essentially sold through their website with an emphasis placed on making it easy for visitors. However, tickets are also available through two main distributors, la FNAC, first distributor of tickets in France, and Carrefour. We think it is a good strategy to sell tickets online, as the online sales of tickets are annually increasing from 15 to 20% in France. Moreover, la FNAC is a good partner as it represents more than 55% of market share[5].

1. Price

Vulcania uses Yield Management techniques in order to offer prices that change depending on the time and profile of the visitor. Prices are affordable and ranged in the average for any parks, between 11 and 24€ (between 14 and 31 CAD).

1. Promotion

Vulcania has a communication budget divided into four main categories: strategic consulting, consumer communications, corporate communications and web marketing. Since the opening of the park, Vulcania has been working with the same creative agency,One, to build its communications campaign[6]. However, in 2008, due to the repositioning of the park and the lack of positive results from the marketing campaigns, Vulcania changed its communications agency in order to redefine its strategy.

Vulcania’s first promotion goals didn’t consider encouraging people to come back after their first visit. Therefore, no new attractions were launched during its first three years of opening. It is only in 2005 that new attractions began slowly to appear into the park. To break the bad image issues due to the lack of innovations, Vulcania operated a brand repositioning in 2007, with a name changed into “the New Vulcania” that would later lead to“Vulcania II” launched in 2008.

1. What went wrong?

There are a number of potential sources of errors concerning the marketing of Vulcania, from its opening to now, that Vulcania has not been able to overcome. They are all potentially responsible for the failure of the park.

First of all, we have observed that the core product is obviously lacking attractiveness for visitors. In fact, the experience that Vulcania tries to convey to their visitors doesn’t seem to be as attractive as planned regarding the low number of visitors. Attractions fail to gain the attention of the younger audience and technology is not proficiently used. Concerning the tangible product, concerns can be raised as to how small the park is compared to its competitors and how it offers little high-sensation attractions. Globally, the on-site attractions may not be attractive enough as it is estimated that a visitor only spends about 3 hours in the park during its visit.

Secondly, the targetmarket is not clearly defined. The project has deliberately been constructed as a mix between a park and a museum. This positioning is risky as neither families nor science amateurs may feel targeted and be attracted by the park. This is a huge mistake for Vulcania as they do not know who the park is trying to target –kids and families or science amateurs? Moreover as highlighted before, neither international visitors nor locals have been attracted to the park due to a bad marketing strategy. For example, the official website is only available in two languages, French and English, but the English part is very poor and not everything has been translated for an easy access from international visitors.

Thirdly, the place, Auvergne, is also a loophole that Vulcania has not managed to overcome. In fact, in a first place, it has deliberately been constructed in the middle of an amazing natural landscape, but barely inhabited, in order to revitalize the region and promote the landscape (see Appendix C). However, many issues have risen due to the lack of effective transportation for international visitors and the total absence of touristspots in the region. Transportation is a key element for a tourist spot, especially when it is so far from any major city. Moreover, very problematic issues have been addressed by environmental pressure groups concerning the location of the park. They have been fighting since the opening for the protection of the environment it is built on that they fear will be damaged by the number of tourists gathering there. Those groups were defending “another form of tourism”, recalling that the Charter of the Auvergne Volcanoes Parks favors “light and widespread facilities”[7].

Furthermore, we believe that the initialobjectives weren’t properly decided and clear enough. In fact, a huge scandal rose as the park first opened concerning the links between the park and the former French President, Valéry Giscard D’Estaing. The park was directly associated with his image and named “Giscard’s Volcanoes”, “the beloved child of Valéry Giscard d’Estaing”[8] or even the “Giscardoscope”[9]. Many critics believe that the park was only built to boost the former president’s image and reinforce his ego. That creates bad images for the park, reducing its potential attractiveness for tourists.

Finally, Vulcania’s promotion tools have been ineffective up to now. In fact, a 2011 study from IFOP, the French Institute of Public Opinion,has underlined poor performance from Vulcania’s promotion tools. In fact, only 74% of French people have heard about Vulcania[10], which places the park in the last known parks regarding French parks notoriety. Moreover, concerning the frequentation of the park, only 10% of French people said they had already been there, which is not only a potential loss of visitors in the country itself, but also a result of a bad marketing campaign. Finally, only 65% of people declared been impressed by the park and ¾ of the visitors would encourage a friend to go. Those results are poor for a theme park that could be so much more attractive.

1. Recommendations

We believe that Vulcania can turn into a dynamic and unique spot drawing tourists’ attention locally and internationally. For Vulcania to be a viable entity we recommend the following strategy:

• Vulcania is neither good enough to be a theme park nor a museum. The undecided, unclear image should be changed to turn this property completely into an outstanding theme park by focusing more on entertainment. More attractions and innovative rides should be added to cater to kids and families, also giving Vulcania a defined target audience.
• With a new face for Vulcania as an exclusive theme park promising fun, adventure and thrill, appropriate promotions need to put out at the same time to pull people to give this place another chance to succeed. A package that includes entry ticket, transportation and accommodation can be promoted for foreign visitors (not local). It is observed that the people of Clermont-Ferrand region do not acknowledge this site as a local attraction, there is no sense of belongingness. To integrate the people of this region to this theme park, promotional Annual Pass with multiple entries can be issued at a promotional price as done at other theme parks like Disneyland in Paris. Similar packages and concession rates can be offered to students of French universities.
• As Vulcania gets its make-over, supportive advertising should be done to create the buzz, nationally as well as internationally. This should be done by running print ads in newspapers, travel magazines, tourist travel guides, and getting the French Tourism Board to promote Vulcania through its website and other channels of advertising.
• Furthermore, Vulcania should take advantage of newtechnologies to create the buzz and especially throughsocial media. It is important for Vulcania to build a community of fans online who will spread the word of mouth about the park to the large majority of people seeking information online. Vulcania also needs to engage mothers who will ultimately be the purchaser of the family’s vacation. As a strong technology-based park, Vulcania needs to be a trend leader on social media technology, starting by an increase presence on Facebook and Twitter, where they only have respectively 3,490 fans and 250 followers, to develop interaction and engagement with their fan base. Therefore, we recommend Vulcania to create excitement and buzz amongst mothers.
• To lower costs of redoing the property and advertising, strategic partnerships and/or sponsorships should be sought. For instance, McDonalds which is well-known in France and internationally, and more so is a favorite among the kids, could be signed as one of the main food sponsor at theme park. A special Ronald McDonald ride can be designed and in turn McDonald’s shall promote Vulcania through its Happy Meals or a special Vulcania dessert running as a month’s special.

Thus, all in all, Vulcania, a failed property, can be redefined for it to take advantage of its untapped potential and eventually achieve a well deserved success.

Bibliography

d'Istria, G. C. (1997, September). Vulcania, vitrine de l'Auvergne . Retrieved March 24, 2012, from Le Point:

Leitus, C. (2008, April 24). Vulcania se réveille. Retrieved March 25, 2012, from Strategies Magazine:

Number of Visitors. (s.d.). Retrieved March 25, 2012, from Vulcania:

Roland Berger. (2010, July). Panorama du marché de la billetterie en ligne. Retrieved March 25, 2012, from

Survey: Notoriété et image des parcs d’attraction. (2011, July 3). Retrieved March 2012, from IFOP:

Sylvie, O., & Benjamin, S. (1997, August). Les volcans de Giscard.Retrieved March 25, 2012, from L'Express:

Théodora, Y. (1997, February). L'éruption freinée du Giscardoscope.Retrieved March 24, 2012, from Liberation:

Vulcania. (s.d.). retrieved March 25, 2012, from

White, C. (2002, March 11). Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved March 25, 2012, from Will this French idea crater?:

APPENDICES:

Appendix A: Regional origins of Vulcania’s French public

Source:

Appendix B: Origins of International Tourists:

Source:

Appendix C: Location of Vulcania in France

[1]Vulcania. (s.d.). retrieved March 25, 2012, from

[2]White, C. (2002, March 11). Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved March 25, 2012, from Will this French idea crater?:

[3]White, C. (2002, March 11). Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved March 25, 2012, from Will this French idea crater?:

[4]Number of Visitors. (s.d.). Retrieved March 25, 2012, from Vulcania:

[5]Roland Berger. (2010, July). Panorama du marché de la billetterie en ligne. Retrieved March 25, 2012, from

[6]Leitus, C. (2008, April 24). Vulcania se réveille. Retrieved March 25, 2012, from Strategies Magazine:

[7]Théodora, Y. (1997, February). L'éruption freinée du Giscardoscope. Retrieved March 24, 2012, from Liberation:

[8]Sylvie, O., & Benjamin, S. (1997, August). Les volcans de Giscard. Retrieved March 25, 2012, from L'Express:

[9]d'Istria, G. C. (1997, September). Vulcania, vitrine de l'Auvergne . Retrieved March 24, 2012, from Le Point:

[10]Survey: Notoriété et image des parcs d’attraction. (2011, July 3). Retrieved March 2012, from IFOP: