It seems that when I was asleep I missed a huge discussion I don’t know about the other places, but I wouldn’t use Toronto as an example of Pandas being successful. The first year yes it brought in a lot of visitors, but after that attendance at the zoo dropped every single year to numbers below pre-panda levels. Pandas cost so much money, from food (Toronto had to fly in fresh bamboo from Memphis every single day), to the cost to rent pandas from China (isn’t it 1 million a year?), to the cost of building a new habitat (Calgary spent 30+ million dollars on their exhibit for 4 years, there’s no way they make back that money). They’re essentially prestige symbols, but if you’re not a super rich zoo like San Diego or Pairi, you’re going to lose a lot of money.
Ah... So do you think that Beauval (which is in the middle of the spectrum in terms of wealth) profited from it? Thank you for bringing me up on something and backing it with solid evidence
I honestly don’t know anything about Beauval, so I don’t know if they profited of it or not. I’m not saying Pandas are always un-profitable, but if you’re not a super-Zoo with huge donators (does Beauval fall into this category), you’re probably going to get burned. As to your other paragraph, is that sarcasm? I don’t want to seem rude, but it’s very hard to tell someone’s tone on a forum.
I guess it is 44-43 to Denver in the end.... close. As to my earlier post, it was meant entirely genuinely
I have not been to Edinburgh for some years - but are they really using their huge profits from the Pandas to fund fantastic enclosures, and the import of oddities and gems?
I have already said that Edinburgh did not make profit on their pandas, so a bit of thread re-read would be appreciated...
@amur leopard: Let me preface by saying that I'm not familiar with Beauval in any shape or form, so I won't hazard a guess on whether you are right about that example, let alone argue with you on it. However, I can say with a high degree of certainty that pandas do not generate net revenue for zoos in the United States. Here are some news articles that I was able to pull up about this. The first (For zoos, pandas are about prestige, not profit) talks about the numbers and how attendance at zoos in Atlanta and Memphis was not affected in the long-term by the acquisition of pandas. It also talks about how these zoos lose money overall on pandas, including a quote from the PR manager of San Diego Zoo who explicitly says, "Pandas have been a cost, not a revenue source." The article concludes with the point that pandas are about prestige rather than revenue. This second one (The Economics of Zoos - SmartAsset) only has a couple paragraphs about giant pandas, but also states that "some zoos have reportedly found that the extra ticket sales pandas generate still aren’t enough to cover the added costs." This vibes with the first article. This third one is from NatGeo (Panda "Rent" Too High, U.S. Zoos Say) and explicitly states that Atlanta and San Diego lose money on their giant panda exhibits. This fourth one (The economics of giant pandas - Marketplace) has a quote from a former president of the AZA. The reporter asks him what he would tell a zoo interested in getting a giant panda and he says, "Don’t do it. If your objective is to break even or make a profit, there’s almost no chance of that happening." This fifth one is super useful (You'll Never Believe What It Costs To Rent A Panda From China), because not only does it state a concrete number ("Washington, Atlanta, Memphis and San Diego zoos are said to have spent $33m more on pandas from 2000-03 than they received from showing them") but it also addresses your argument that Pairi Daiza could not possibly have acquired pandas for political reasons. On the contrary, this article indicates that pandas are primarily being used by China for reasons of trade and geopolitics: "But World Resources Institute researcher Kathleen Buckingham, with a team at Oxford University, last year studied China's recent panda loans and concluded that all were linked to trade. The Edinburgh deal, overseen by China's vice-premier, Li Keqiang, coincided with a £2.6bn contract for Britain to supply China with petrochemical and renewable energy technologies, Jaguar cars and enough salmon to double Scotland's production. Other panda pairs were loaned to Canadian and Australian zoos after negotiations for uranium, oil and minerals. Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand and Macao all got pandas after signing free-trade agreements. In France, the panda loan to Beauval zoo coincided with a $20bn deal for nuclear giant Areva to supply China with uranium oxide. "A new phase of panda diplomacy is under way. Panda loans are associated with nations supplying China with valuable resources and symbolise China's willingness to build trade relationships," said Buckingham." Take note of the sentence I bolded also, as it pertains to your chief example (although again, I'm not familiar with Beauval and have no idea what impact pandas have had on them financially). ------------------------------------------- TL,DR: While the popularity of pandas suggests that they are big moneymakers for zoos, the numbers and statements from the zoos themselves do not support this. Also, pandas at Pairi Daiza absolutely could be there for political reasons, and in fact they most likely are.
Reading this thread and the comments being made about how profitable pandas are....Curb Your Enthusiasm comes to mind!
Um... Is it not good enough for you guys if I say I was wrong on Edinburgh? I said it multiple times, and yet you still haven't bothered to even go back and read my posts!? Come on...
This is the most useful and statistically backed up post on this thread so far, and I do therefore accept that pandas may not benefit American zoos in terms of money. HOWEVER the uranium thing could certainly be a coincidence - I am still not entirely convinced that every panda given out is for political reasons... I hope that people stop (quite aggressively now) attacking me on this thread for my views. I was not (intending to be) aggressive in any of mine, I would love that courtesy to be returned, as it has been by @Coelacanth18 . If anyone issues any more snarky comments without having at least read my posts, I will literally quit Zoochat, because believe it or not I am not a neverending punchbag.
If China feels this way about Belgium, then I don't understand why are they so interested in the Czech Republic as possible China's influence here is one of the most discussed politic's topics in recent months.
