Wet N' Wild Marketing Study Part II: in Park Survey
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
University of Central Florida STARS Dick Pope Sr. Institute Publications Dick Pope Sr. Institute for Tourism Studies 6-1-1989 Wet N' Wild Marketing Study Part II: In Park Survey Ady Milman University of Central Florida, [email protected] Part of the Tourism and Travel Commons Find similar works at: https://stars.library.ucf.edu/dickpope-pubs University of Central Florida Libraries http://library.ucf.edu This Report is brought to you for free and open access by the Dick Pope Sr. Institute for Tourism Studies at STARS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dick Pope Sr. Institute Publications by an authorized administrator of STARS. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Recommended Citation Milman, Ady, "Wet N' Wild Marketing Study Part II: In Park Survey" (1989). Dick Pope Sr. Institute Publications. 74. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/dickpope-pubs/74 WET N 1 WILD MARKETING STUDY PART II: IN PARK SURVEY May 1989 Data Prepared by: Dr. Ady Milman Dick Pope Sr. Institute for Tourism Studies University of Central Florida Orlando, Florida 32816 June 1989 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PART II: IN PARK SURVEY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 I. METHODOLOGY 2 A. Sampling 2 B. Data Analysis 2 C. Limitations 4 II. FINDINGS 5 A. Demographic Profile of the Respondents 5 B. Central Florida Vacation Travel Behavior 17 C. Perception of Wet N' Wild 26 1. Previous Visits to Wet N' Wild 26 2. Decision to visit Wet N' Wild 29 3. Facilities used at Wet N' Wild 32 4. Consumption of Food & Beverage at W.W. 37 5. Shopping activities at Wet N' Wild 38 6. General perception of Wet N' Wild 40 7. Level of Satisfaction with Wet N' Wild 42 D. Experience with other water parks 46 E. Exposure to Wet N' Wild Advertising 48 1. General Exposure to Advertising about Wet N' Wild 48 2. TV Watching Habits 49 F. Predictors of Likelihood to revisit Wet N' Wild 51 G. Perceptual Differences between Groups of Respondents 52 III. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 54 Part II: IN PARK SURVEY May 1989 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. The majority of the respondnets had not been to Wet N' Wild previously. 2. Most respodents decided to visit the park a day prior to, or on the day of their visit. 3. Repondents were influenced to visit the park by brochures, their previous experience with Wet N' Wild, and word of mouth recommendations. 4. The most frequently used facilities were the Wave Pool, Raging Rapids, and Lazy River. 5. Most respondents purchased food and beverage in the park and were quite satisfied with quality, prices, and service. Over one third of the respondents visited the Surf Shop and were satisfied with its merchandise and prices. 6. The majority of the respondents were very satisfied with their visit and said that they were likely to come back. 7. Familiarity with other water parks was high; half of the respondents visited other water parks. 8. Billboards, brochures, and TV were the top advertising tools remembered by Wet N' Wild visitors. 9. A very high proportion to tourists watched TV while in Central Florida. 10. Those who were more likely to visit Wet N' Wild had the following characteristics: a. Thought that the food quality, price, and service were good. b. Thought that the Surf Shop merchandise selection and prices were good. c. Thought that Wet N' Wild was the best value for money of all other water parks. d. Did not .think that Wet N' Wild lines were long. e. Did not think that the admission fee to Wet N' Wild was high. f. Thought that Wet N' Wild employees were polite and courteous. g. Had previously visiterd Wet N' Wild. 1 h. Had made the decision to visit Wet N" Wild while in Central Florida. i. Arrived in Florida by car. j. Were local residents (Central Florida residents). I. METHODOLOGY Sampling The population sample consisted of Wet N' Wild visitors during the month of May 1989. Interviews were conducted in a period of seven days between May 8-15, 1989 (Table 1). The respondents were intercepted at the exit gate of Wet N' Wild, briefly rescreened for age (13 or over) and were asked to participate in the study. After elimination of disqualified respondents, a usable sample of 304 visitors was obtained. An additional sample of 300 visitors was obtained for visitors' zip code analysis. Data Analysis The majority of the items in the questionnaire were structured. Several open-ended items were used to explore additional information of "other" categories not included in the structured questions. Interviews lasted between 3 and 16 minutes with an average length of 10 minutes. Completed questionnaires were coded and the data analyzed at the University of Central Florida. Frequency distributions were computed for all questions, as 2 well as Pearson Correlations, t-tests, and one-way analyses of variance for various predicting variables of park attendance. The results are shown in the findings section of the report. Table 1: Day of the Week when Interviews were Administered Day of the week May June July August Sept ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 1. Monday 12.7 2. Tuesday 14.7 3. Wednesday 14.4 4. Thursday 14.4 5. Friday 14.0 6. Saturday 15.4 7. Sunday 14.4 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 3 Limitations Several limitations in the research methodology are noted here. The practice of interviewing only willing respondents may create problems of representation. Since there was no control over who participated in the study the results could have been biased by either favorable or unfavorable participants. In addition, some questions related to behavior intentions of the respondents rather than actual behavior; that is, those respondents who reported willingness to revisit Wet N' Wild, would not necessarily translate it into actual behavior. Furthermore, the study is limited to a particular month of the summer season, and may not necessarily represent the "typical" summer visitor to Wet N' Wild. 4 II. FINDINGS Demographic Profile of the Respondents The median age of the respondents was between 25 and 34 years. One half of them were married and the other half were single. Their median 1988 annual income was $30,000-40,000 and their gender distribution was equal between males and females (Tables 2-5). The majority of the respondents (76.3%) were tourists visiting Central Florida (Table 6). Most of the respondents were U.S. residents (73.7%), However, a small proportion of the sample lived in Canada (3.3%) and other foreign countries (23.3%) (Table 7). Zip code distribution of U.S. cities is presented in Table 8). Canadian respondents originated in Ontario, Quebec, and Manitoba (Table 9). 5 Table 2: Age of the Respondents --------------------------------------------------------------Age May June July August Sept --------------------------------------------------------------% % % % 1. 13-17 8.9 2. 18-24 33.6 3. 25-34 30.9 4. 35-54 23.4 5. over 55 3.2 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Median: 25-34 Table 3: Marital Status of the Respondents Marital status May June July August Sept 1. Married 51.0 2. Single 49.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 6 Table 4: Respondents• 1988 Household Income --------------------------------------------------------------Household Income May June July . August Sept % % -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Under $10,000 6.3 2. $10-20,0000 15.2 3. $20-30,000 20.8 4. $30-40,000 23.4 5. $40-50,000 18.2 6. $50-60,000 8.2 7. $60-70,000 3.0 8. $70-80,000 3.0 9. Over $80,000 1.9 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Median ( 1 ooo) 30-40 Table 5: Gender Distribution of the Respondents Gender May June July August Sept % % % 1 . Males 49.7 2. Females 50.3 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 7 Table 6: Respondents• Central Florida Residency Status --------------------------------------------------------------Residence Status May June July August Sept % % % % 1.-------------------------------------------------------------- Tourist 76.3 (a) 2. Local resident 23.7 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 a Note: Residents of Orange, Seminole, and Osceola counties. Table 7: Respondents• Place of Permanent Residence Permanent residence May June July August Sept 1. U.S. 73.7 2. Canada 3.3 3. Other foreign 23.0 countries Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 8 Table 8: Respondents• City of Residence (U.S. respondents only) City of residence May June July August Sept % San Juan 0.4 Springfield MA 0.2 Worcester MA 0.2 Boston MA 2.7 Middlesex MA 1.0 Brockton MA 0.4 Buzzard's Bay MA 0.2 Providence RI 1.0 Manchester NH 0.4 Portsmouth NH 0.2 Portland ME 0.2 Brattleboro VT 0.2 Burlington VT 0.2 Hartford CT 0.2 New Haven CT 0.8 Waterbury CT 0.6 Stamford CT 0.8 Newark NJ 1.0 Jersey City NJ 0.2 Paterson NJ 0.6 -------------------------------------------------------------- 9 Table 8 (continued}: Respondents• City of Residence (U.S. respondents only) --------------------------------------------------------------City of residence May June July August Sept --------------------------------------------------------------% % % % Red Bank NJ 0.2 Summit NJ 0.6 South Jersey NJ 2.1 Camden NJ 0.8 Trenton NJ 0.2 New York NY 0.4 Westchester NY 1.1 Monsey NY 0.2 Queens NY 0.4 Brooklyn NY 0.6 Flushing NY 0.2 Jamaica NY 0.4 Hicksville NY 1.5 Albany 1.0 Poughkeepsie NY 0.2 Birminham NY 0.4 Binghampton NY 0.2 Buffalo NY 0.8 Rochester NY 0.4 1.2 Pittsburgh-------------------------------------------------------------- PA 10 Table 8 (continued): Respondents• City of Residence (U.S.