A few weeks ago little kennie ham, the purveyor of the Ark Park, Creation pseudo-museum, and Answers in Genesis ministries, was blaming atheists, particularly the 'secularists' for the failure of the ark park to bring his promises of economic success to Grant County, Ky. You can read his post, "The Secularist Media War Against the Ark Continues", here is his opening paragraph:
"Recently, a number of articles in the mainstream media, on blogs, and on well-known secularist group websites have attempted to spread propaganda to brainwash the public into thinking our Ark Encounter attraction is a dismal failure. Sadly, they are influencing business investors and others in such a negative way that they may prevent Grant County, Kentucky, from achieving the economic recovery that its officials and residents have been seeking."
Little kennie, as usual, mis-represented things. The secular media has not been reporting that his ark park is a dismal failure . . . what they have been reporting is his ark park has not been seen the promised economic success for the area surrounding his park, most notably Grant County, Ky. Believe me, I would love to be able to report his ark park is a dismal failure . . . and educationally it certainly is . . . but apparently it has been bringing people into the area, apparently just people unwilling to spend much outside the ark park. Little kennie promised economic benefits for the local area, but so far those promises have been unrealized. So, as you can see by the above quote, kennie blamed Atheists. But kennie is now casting the blame wider than just the secular media and atheist groups.
In a recent opinion piece by kennie, published by Cincinnati.com, "Ham: Restaurants, hotels needed for Ark crowds" he has a new target to blame:
Most attractions see a drop-off in attendance following an opening period. Most parks plan for such things because estimates forecast this drop pretty accurately -- it's based on experience, well most estimates except for kennie's. He's now predicting an increase . . . but he built himself a ready excuse and will heap even more blame on the local communities. So when the usual drop-off in visitors starts happening, he already has a victim to blame. Anyone else see something wrong here?
Let's look back for a bit. Anyone been to Disneyland? The one in California. The first time I saw it in daylight, I was surprised how crowded everything was around it. Hotels, restaurants, and even housing, sprang up right up against the property line of the park itself. Now, the question . . . were those facilities there before the park? No! The area was mostly groves and farmland before the park, they sprang up in response to the park attendance. Note the words 'in response'!
It's not those facilities that brought in the visitors, but the attractions. But that's not how kennie sees it. If the local area fails to provide more facilities, the ark park won't bring in the business. However, that's not how it works, kennie. You bring in the people and the response will be more and more facilities. What you should be doing . . . and I feel really strange for saying it . . . is trying to attract more visitors. Instead, you are whining about atheists and blaming the local community for not building facilities that may never get used. Not a very effective way to attract visitors.
Real attractions are not one-hit wonders. If you want staying power, you have to continually add and update your offerings. But I can see kennie building another ark, maybe captained by Noah's little brother, Brian? Sounds implausible, but if there is a line in the Bible kennie could use to represent the possibility of ark II, you know he will -- no matter how convoluted the connection might be. After all, look what he did to the defenseless Bible with his pseudo-museum.
Little kennie might have learned that from the declining attendance to his pseudo-museum. What I find funny is how quickly kennie re-writes recent history. He said:
He's coming up on his first anniversary and apparently thinks he'll hit 1 million sometime in July. Of course, we have no firm figures, kennie isn't saying anything officially -- wonder why? He like to wave that alternative report around for a couple of reasons. I think he's hoping you will forget the 2.2 million visitors a years estimate -- and also because beating that several year-old estimate certainly sounds better than having to say he failed to reach 50% of his own estimate, or that he failed to reach his lower revised estimate, or admit that he has failed on his promises (jobs and economic success) to the local community!
In other words, kennie isn't being overly honest. But what can you expect after he reneged on his promise to comply with hiring laws and now discriminates against people who don't share his narrow religious view in making hiring decisions . . . which means the majority of the people who live around the park cannot work at the park. His little ark park ministry has also failed to have the several thousand job openings that he said it would as well. But since he screwed them out of jobs, it seems only fitting that he blames them for his failure to deliver on any of his promises.
My issue with the ark park has little to do with attendance or even money. My issue is that it is a ministry . . . it's not any of the other things he keep trying to claim it is . . . it was not intended as a tourist attraction, an educational attraction, nor an entertainment attraction -- it's a ministry! He's used those other terms now and again when marketing his ministry, especially when he wanted state aid in building this particular monument to his ego. It's a ministry and it will only appeal to a small part of the world's population. Once they've seen it, repeat business will be very limited . . . as kennie found with his pseudo-museum. Adding zip lines isn't going to be a great help, they weren't when he added them to his pseudo-museum. Seriously who is going to visit the ark, and pay $40 per person, to go zip lining?
No, attendance will most likely go down, and kennie is just lining up others to blame. After all, it's not his fault that he over-promised and failed to deliver, is it?
In a recent opinion piece by kennie, published by Cincinnati.com, "Ham: Restaurants, hotels needed for Ark crowds" he has a new target to blame:
"For 2017–2018, Answers in Genesis (owner of both attractions) confidently predicts that the Ark will have even greater attendance than our excellent first year – provided, that is, we see more entrepreneurs building additional hotels to accommodate our visitors."So let me get this straight. The local area around the ark is complaining that the ark isn't bringing in the business they were promised. First, kennie blames the 'secular' media for reporting about what the ark is (a ministry) and the ever shifting claims of attendance (both before and after the park opened), and the lack of financial benefit to the surrounding area. Now he's blaming the local community for not building enough stuff to bring in people. And, if you read this the way I have, if the local community doesn't do more, the ark park won't bring in even more people and it will be the fault of the local communities. Doesn't that seem a bit off to you?
Most attractions see a drop-off in attendance following an opening period. Most parks plan for such things because estimates forecast this drop pretty accurately -- it's based on experience, well most estimates except for kennie's. He's now predicting an increase . . . but he built himself a ready excuse and will heap even more blame on the local communities. So when the usual drop-off in visitors starts happening, he already has a victim to blame. Anyone else see something wrong here?
Let's look back for a bit. Anyone been to Disneyland? The one in California. The first time I saw it in daylight, I was surprised how crowded everything was around it. Hotels, restaurants, and even housing, sprang up right up against the property line of the park itself. Now, the question . . . were those facilities there before the park? No! The area was mostly groves and farmland before the park, they sprang up in response to the park attendance. Note the words 'in response'!
It's not those facilities that brought in the visitors, but the attractions. But that's not how kennie sees it. If the local area fails to provide more facilities, the ark park won't bring in the business. However, that's not how it works, kennie. You bring in the people and the response will be more and more facilities. What you should be doing . . . and I feel really strange for saying it . . . is trying to attract more visitors. Instead, you are whining about atheists and blaming the local community for not building facilities that may never get used. Not a very effective way to attract visitors.
Real attractions are not one-hit wonders. If you want staying power, you have to continually add and update your offerings. But I can see kennie building another ark, maybe captained by Noah's little brother, Brian? Sounds implausible, but if there is a line in the Bible kennie could use to represent the possibility of ark II, you know he will -- no matter how convoluted the connection might be. After all, look what he did to the defenseless Bible with his pseudo-museum.
Little kennie might have learned that from the declining attendance to his pseudo-museum. What I find funny is how quickly kennie re-writes recent history. He said:
"Interestingly, a state-commissioned study predicted that if the Ark Encounter were a themed attraction featuring our creationist beliefs (and it does), it would draw 325,000 visitors the first year. The Ark reached that figure in less than three months."However, that's not exactly a lie, but it's not the whole story either. Several years before the ark park was built, a separate study was done and made the estimate kennie quoted. But kennie's own estimates were over 2.2 million a year -- which was later changed to 2.2 million visitors in the first year, which was later changed again to between 1.4 to 2.2 million in the first year.
He's coming up on his first anniversary and apparently thinks he'll hit 1 million sometime in July. Of course, we have no firm figures, kennie isn't saying anything officially -- wonder why? He like to wave that alternative report around for a couple of reasons. I think he's hoping you will forget the 2.2 million visitors a years estimate -- and also because beating that several year-old estimate certainly sounds better than having to say he failed to reach 50% of his own estimate, or that he failed to reach his lower revised estimate, or admit that he has failed on his promises (jobs and economic success) to the local community!
In other words, kennie isn't being overly honest. But what can you expect after he reneged on his promise to comply with hiring laws and now discriminates against people who don't share his narrow religious view in making hiring decisions . . . which means the majority of the people who live around the park cannot work at the park. His little ark park ministry has also failed to have the several thousand job openings that he said it would as well. But since he screwed them out of jobs, it seems only fitting that he blames them for his failure to deliver on any of his promises.
My issue with the ark park has little to do with attendance or even money. My issue is that it is a ministry . . . it's not any of the other things he keep trying to claim it is . . . it was not intended as a tourist attraction, an educational attraction, nor an entertainment attraction -- it's a ministry! He's used those other terms now and again when marketing his ministry, especially when he wanted state aid in building this particular monument to his ego. It's a ministry and it will only appeal to a small part of the world's population. Once they've seen it, repeat business will be very limited . . . as kennie found with his pseudo-museum. Adding zip lines isn't going to be a great help, they weren't when he added them to his pseudo-museum. Seriously who is going to visit the ark, and pay $40 per person, to go zip lining?
No, attendance will most likely go down, and kennie is just lining up others to blame. After all, it's not his fault that he over-promised and failed to deliver, is it?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment