This document provides a feasibility report for creating a mobile app for Paignton Zoo to improve revenue generation and visitor experience. It evaluates the zoo's current use of space and finds room for improvement. The report proposes developing a multi-platform app for around $250,000 that would provide maps, audio tours, ticketing, and more. A financial analysis estimates the app could earn back its costs within a year and increase annual profits by over $80,000, justifying the investment. In conclusion, a mobile app is recommended to better engage visitors and boost revenue at Paignton Zoo compared to existing options like maps or audio guides.

1. MANAGING FACILITIES
Feasibility report
NOVEMBER 12, 2015
UNIVERSITY OF PLYMOUTH

2. Contents list
Introduction – Paignton Zoo
An evaluation of the use of space and revenue generation -
Details of proposal – Paignton Zoo App
Full Justification for the proposal – Why a mobile appliance is worthwhile
Financial proposal – Will an app be beneficial
Conclusion
Appendices
References
Introduction
‘The British have been enjoying the traditional family visit to the zoo for over 140 years now’
(Regan, J, 2004: P.14). There are two-hundred and fifty licensed zoos within the UK to date
included in this is Paignton Zoo; ‘the zoo has been commended with a variety of awards
covering: research, as a green/sustainable tourism attraction, the quality of the experiences
the zoo offers and animal welfare (Paignton Zoo, 2011)’ (Lancaster, S, 2013: P.301). Noting
this the report is based on Paignton zoo and their use of space as well as, looking into the
generation of revenue. On the Paignton Zoo website it states ‘The amount of free space
given to the animals was very impressive. It is clear that the zoo is committed to
conservation and reducing their carbon footprint’ (Paignton Zoo, 2011). After a visitation and
some research some people would disagree with this statement. The use of the space may
be seen as good however, the welfare of the animals may be suffering from consequence of
this. However, in reference to the revenue generation of the zoo is on a plus for Paignton
zoo for they ‘successfully secured £35,000 from Alcoa Howmett for a new education project
– ‘making Sense of Global Environmental Change’’ (The Whitley Wildlife Conservation Trust,
2013: P.4).
An evaluation of the use of space and revenue generation
To start evaluating the use of space in Paignton zoo, it’s necessary to understand the
purpose and audience of the attraction. Evidently, a zoo is targeted at educational groups
and families. As for the purpose, it’s an educational but interactive attraction but also,
benefit, care and potentially create a better living environment for animals. On top of creating
such an attraction it must also create revenue best for the business to continuously sustain
itself. So to speak, about the use of space at Paignton zoo there a lot of picnic areas to give
the feel that the majority of the targeted audience are families. From a personal viewing of
the organisation/attraction the layout looks a little cluttered and disorganised. The site does
however, have empty spaces throughout; in-between enclosures that could be used for other
enclosures or wider/bigger enclosures for certain animals. The zoo acquire a couple of
investors as a charity, to fund projects for conservation and animal welfare but, from a

3. personal view the zoo had a feel of being run down, less populated (than other zoos), ill kept
and poorly conserved. A collection of comments from other visitors which had a similar
viewing and stated that there was a poor navigation system. Nonetheless, this is one of the
company’s key selling technique where the map is £2.95 and to make sure in a short of
amount of time that everything is seen visitors would definitely need one. It was also noted,
that the zoo signs and information boards by the enclosures were very run down and some
out-dated (some vandalised). Although the revenue generation looks good as everything
within needs to be purchased and nothing is on offer for free, the money being taken is not
going back into conserving the park which seems shameful and could be the reasoning
behind the zoo seeing ‘a small fall in the number of paying heads’ (The Whitley Wildlife
Conservation Trust, 2013-14). In terms of the interactivity for families there were some good
and bad facilities in terms of playing areas the company would get high marks as the
facilities for them were spaced out necessarily. Whereas, the interactive information boards
were appallingly out-dated and some broken with the era of mobile technology coming about
this was a shock especially as visitor attractions like Paignton Zoo aiming for families as the
main target audience it was expected that the interactive activities would have been well
kept. The use of the overall space could have been better developed it definitely looks as
though every now and then enclosures were built and no planning went into some areas.
The grounds of the overall zoo looked overgrown and some enclosures looked similar. The
organisation definitely tried to withhold the animals into small spaces which tells the space
usage is at maximum with extra areas that could be developed into enclosures for new
animals. Also, with the amount of land consumed by the company many developments could
be made ideas of bigger enclosures of another restaurant could be placed into the park
alongside all the cafes and picnic areas.
Details of the proposal
‘Paradigmatic changes in tourism have occurred and challenge existing notions of tourism
and travel, and the experiences they encompass. Globalization and technological changes
enable rapid movement of resources, capital and labour transnationally and worldwide’
(Gretzal, U and Tazim, J, 2009: P. 471). Crouch and Desforges discovered that
‘technologies mediate and shape the nature of interactions with and between people and
places’ (2003). However, when going to the zoo it’s seen as a family attraction, many go to
have bonding with the family and have interactions with each other in the
holidays/weekends. Most educational tourism attractions have some sort of tour guide or
maps, etc. Stahl has recognised there is flaw in changing the tour guide into a technological
advance of an audio guide, as well as a way to ‘avoid the typical effect of social isolation
through audio guides, we use shared audio so that the same sounds will be presented to
each user at the same time’ (2007). Stahl conducted a study into if this is a good way to go

4. and the result being ‘that the system is easy to use and has a stimulating influence on the
communication between the visitors’ (2007). Visitors have also mentioned on Tripadvisor for
example one said ‘it takes a long time to go round’ with the idea of an
interactive/mapping/audio tour guide, child friendly and for the adults with different channels
for both. It would also attract international tourism if the audio could have channels for the
multilingual international visitors. To get this in place its necessary to ‘create engaging audio
content, you need an experienced scriptwriter and integration manager to lead you through
the process of creating tours, regardless of the technical platform’ (AudioConexus, 2013).
After overlooking the prices the best possible solution to create more revenue generation is
creating an app for Apple users than investing in audio guides for the zoo has ‘over 70,000
members’ (Regan, J, 2004) the company would need to invest plenty of money with a slow
return investment in comparison to an Apple app. Yarmosh wrote in an article ‘that it’s about
$10,000 to create an app’ (2014) However, for bigger companies using professionals it can
cost up to ‘apps that are built for a SMARTPHONE and tablet, that have a complex user
interface, or that require a significant backend can cost anywhere from $250,000 to
$1,500,000’ (Yarmosh, K, 2014). The company can also charge for the app a small fee to
make they’re profit back as more frequently ‘parents routinely hand over their iPhones and
iPads to keep their children entertained. Thanks to the so-called in-app purchasing
mechanism, developers are often only one whine away from a sale’ (Troianovski, A, Ante, S
& Vascellaro, J, 2012). The number of users of apple products is increasing as years go on
which creates more justification for the app to work better than an audio tour guide however,
the iPhone, iPad and iPod is just another audible device just ever so more interactive and
already known about and popular (See appendix 1).
Full justification for the proposal
Buhalis states that ‘unless the current tourism industry improves its competitiveness, by
utilizing the emerging ITs and innovative management methods, there is a danger for
exogenous players to enter the marketplace’ (1998: P. 409). It’s also well known by other
academics that the hospitality, tourism and leisure industry needs to jump on the new
demands and trend to keep up with the competitive market being lived in today. With many
of the population owning at least one handheld technological device Boren comments that
‘there are more gadgets in the world than there are people, including a growing number that
only communicate with other machines’ (2014). There is pure coloration between apps and
education Fox demonstrates this with ‘findings indicate that multimedia tools on mobile
devices have power for changing awareness and therefore changing action’ (2013) this tells
a story that mobile devices and technological devices with the increase use of the internet is
a positive way to interact with cliental. This is backed up by another Plymouth University
student who created an app to benefit a charity and interact with one exhibit at Paignton zoo.

5. With all the justifications of the public demand, research was done through numerous
resources. A popular and accurate source was Otreva. The full calculation accumulated is
$297,675. However, this is includes an app compatible with Apple, Android and Windows;
the main mobile phone companies. The app would include; a login either with email or social
networking websites, camera – photos (for guests to share pictures with the company)
camera – Videos and a gallery (for the company to share zoo TV), Geolocation (to help
getting to and from location and to track visitors routes), maps (to help navigate a way round
the zoo), audio (for clips about each enclosure), ticketing and feedback system and lastly, a
calendar integration (for updates about new upcoming events and be remaindered of them).
There are other successful companies that use an app to achieve revenue and
memberships/loyalty such as; Bristol Zoo Gardens, Longleat Safari Park and London’s Kew
Gardens. It has been stated by Jepson and Ladle “The least frequent categories were nature
visitor attractions apps (244, 3.9 %) that covered parks, zoos, museum, aquaria, and
botanical gardens and, finally, citizen science apps (33, 0.5 %)’ (2015). This proposal could
potentially make Paignton one of the top five visitor attractions to step towards the trending
technological advances and make it stand out to others, as London’s Kew Gardens does
‘Apps associated with visiting attractions typically emphasized routes and location mapping,
with a tiny minority (e.g., London’s Kew Gardens) providing augmented reality interpretation
of exhibits’ (Jepson, P & Ladle, R, 2015). This could be a new revelation for the cultural and
educational tourism attractions. Another justification for this development in hope to create a
window for increased revenue is something Kim and Adler have looked into that using ‘apps
will have a positive effect on the brand awareness, customer engagement and brand
commitment, which in turn positively influences the brand loyalty’ (2011).
Financial appraisal
‘Paignton Zoo’s visitor numbers rose from 451,473 in 2011/12 to 462,660 in 2012/13’ (The
Whitley Wildlife Conservation Trust, 2013: P. 13) which working out how much entrance fee
say for every 2 adults there is one child that works out to 308,440 adults and 154,220 are
children. Adult prices being £16.50 meaning the revenue from them are £5,089,260.00 and
revenue from the children is £1,866,062. This is evidentially an estimate of prices because of
the discounts on family tickets, seniors and children under three going free. Altogether that’s
£6,955,322 revenue from the entrance fee. The Whitley Wildlife Conservation Trust doesn’t
divulge the outgoing costs that the company spend on employees and refurbishments of the
attraction. However, This is Devon disclosed that on a visitor would on ‘average spend per
head was around £15’ so on average 462,660 people spending £15 each would account to
£6,939,900 so on top of the entrance fee the company’s estimate revenue is £13,895,222 in
a year. Even though just £13,895,222 is from an average from estimated websites stating
the amount of visitors and guess work with entrance fees and the amount of adults to

6. children. From employees of the company, there are 200 employees in the peak season and
90 off peak. The information retrieved to find an estimate of cash flow within the company.
To suggest that one hundred and twenty-seven days in a peak season and two hundred and
thirty-seven days in the off peak season as Paignton Zoo states on the website ‘Paignton
Zoo is open from 10.00 a.m. every day, apart from Christmas Day’ which explains the
reasoning behind the peak and off peak days add up to three hundred and sixty-four days.
Averaging out the employee’s work hours with half an hour each side of opening and closing
time to finish tasks that suggests each employee works 8 hour shifts a day. All in all the
figure of £2,235,916.80 per year spent on labour. That brings the original figure of revenue
from £13,895,222 down to £11,659,305.20 left as a profit. However, there is no information
on other expenses that the zoo invest in or spend to up keep on the zoo. In retrospect the
company could contribute some of that revenue into an app that can create loyalty and
better brand recognition for family enjoyment. With the rough calculation from Osterva in
dollars being $297,675 with the foreign exchange at the moment being £0.65 per $1 so the
price of an app for the company in pounds would be £192,750.43 which would make a dent
in the revenue but to get profit back the company could put a price on the app say £0.59 per
app with the 462,660 visitors a year. The company is retrospect can potentially in one year
make the money back for if each visitor downloads the app for £0.59 the company would
make £272,969.40 in one year which would create £80,218.97 in profit.
Conclusion
In personal view of the managing of the zoo, it could be better kept as stated previously.
With the cost of the up-keeping of interactive information boards and information signage it
could be in better interest for Paignton zoo to invest in a mobile appliance to promote and to
sell to the guests for cheaper than a map/guide or as well as maintenance for general zoo
interior/exterior. There could be work done within the zoo with the space that they have
accumulated however, there is the point that there is always work to be done with a zoo
because there are always going to be chances to take in other animals and space can be an
issue for zoo’s to find more space once they have developed something within a space that
isn’t being used. That’s why this proposal is based upon an electronic appliance for use
before/during and after the experience; it won’t be affecting the zoo’s chances of losing out
on opportunities to gain new arrivals as well as, affecting the revenue being gained at the
current moment. From a personal perspective the company could benefit massively from the
investment especially as this investment has only been made by three zoos within the UK
and not at all in the same way as the app could work for Paignton. In the retrospect of
increasing the parks revenue the app will help as seen in the financial appraisal however
that is only within a year and that the figure of visitors taken in 2014 only not taking into
account that the numbers were relatively higher than the figure of visitors in 2013. Although,

7. This is Devon stated that ‘During the past ten years around 4.5million people have visited
Paignton Zoo' (2011) and with that even if every visitor that enters Paignton Zoo may not
purchase the app the company will make their money back as long as 326,696 visitors
download and purchase the app. Which if the app if advertised on the organisations website
for it’s a cheaper option than arriving at the zoo and purchasing something similar but on
paper (non-eco-friendly which would be frowned upon in the upcoming trends of society)
when the app can be purchased beforehand that could help in the process of making the
day worthwhile in long-term creating better satisfaction to the visitors.
Appendices
Appendices 1
References
AudioConexus. (2013). Content Integration: One Key to Successful Audio Tour Project.
AVAILABLE: http://www.audioconexus.com/category/audio-guides-
2/page/2/#sthash.vzxGCeuq.dpuf. Last accessed 20th Oct 2015.
Boren, Z. (2014). There are officially more mobile devices than people in the world.
AVAILABLE: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/there-are-
officially-more-mobile-devices-than-people-in-the-world-9780518.html. Last accessed 20th
Oct 2015.
Buhalis, D. (1998). Strategic use of information technologies in the tourism industry. Tourism
Management. 19 (5), p409-421.
Crouch, D & Desforges, L. (2003). The sensuous in the tourist encounter introduction. The
power of the body in tourist studies. 3 (1), p15-22.
Fox, D. (2013). The Nai‘a Guide: An Ecological Conscience Guide to Spinner Dolphin
Tourism in Hawai‘I. AVAILABLE: http://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/handle/10161/6675.
Last accessed 20th Oct 2015.
Gretzel, U & Jamal, T . (2007). Conceptualizing the creative tourist class. Technology,
mobility and tourism experiences, Tourism Analysis. 14 (1), P471-481.

8. Jepson, P & Ladle, R.L. (2015). Nature apps: Waiting for the revolution. A Journal of the
Human Environment. 44 (Ambio), p1-6.
Kim, D & Alder, H. (2011). Student’s Use of HOTEL Mobile Apps: Their Effect on Brand
Loyalty. Available:
http://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1242&context=gradconf_hospitali
ty. Last accessed 20th Oct 2015.
Lancaster, S. (2013). A study evaluating what best inspires visitor behaviour and attitude
changes in zoos, with a small botanical garden comparison. Addressing zoos educational
and subsequent conservation values. 6 (1), p289-331.
Regan, J. (2004). The Manifesto of Zoos. Available:
http://www.johnreganassociates.com/wp-
contentUPLOADS/2013/08/the_manifesto_for_zoos PDF Last accessed 20th Oct 2015.
Stahl, C. (2007). The roaring navigator: a group guide for the zoo with shared auditory
landmark display. AVAILABLE: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1378042. Last accessed
20th Oct 2015.
The Whitley Wildlife Conservation Trust. (2012-13). Annual review & Accounts 2012 – 13.
Available: http://www.wwct.org.uk/userfiles/Annual Review 2012-13 Booklet.pdf. Last
accessed 10th November 2015.
Troianovski, A., Ante, S. & Vascellaro, J. (2012). The Hidden Costs of Apps for Children:
Mom, Please Feed My Apps! AVAILABLE:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303753904577452341745766920. Last
accessed 20th Oct 2015.
Ulrike, G & Ulrike, T. (2009). Conceptualizing the creative tourist class: technology, mobility
and tourism experiences. Tourism Analysis. 14 (4), p471-481.
Yarmosh, K. (2014). How Much Does an App Cost: A Massive Review of Pricing and other
Budget Considerations. Available: http://savvyapps.com/blog/how-much-does-app-cost-
massive-review PRICING-budget-considerations. Last accessed 20th Oct 2015.