15 Companies That Might Not Survive 2009 and Six Flags is on the list....

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 12:52 AM
Sawblade5's avatar

Rob Ascough said:I'm surprised to see Station Casinos and Landry's on that list. I had always assumed those to be healthy companies.

Doesn't Landry's own Kemah Boardwalk? If so then that's another park on the list.


Chris Knight

+0
Wednesday, February 11, 2009 7:35 AM

Matt, yes I am a born & bred damn yankee (technicaly, a Red Sox fan or Masshole).

I do like DD's. Better iced coffee than $tarbuck$

As for on demand thing, I'm still partial to my local MG because I did work there for 2.5 years (not counting the summer i worked at CP).

Blockbuster has WAAAAAY too much debt. That's what's killing 'em. They only think "big blue" has going for it is the lack of late fees.


Coaster Junkie from NH
I drive in & out of Boston, so I ride coasters to relax!

+0
Wednesday, February 11, 2009 8:08 AM

Pagoda Gift Shop said:
So what happens if they tank? Close all the parks? Close all but the major markets?

SFOG and SFOT are not owned by six flags
they are just managed by them they have individual
owners (stockholders) The others could still be run
and long as they are cash flow positive and the court thinks they may be able to pay the bills eventually.
If their reorganization plan is turned down then they will sell assets They will try to sell the parks as whole parks first then sell parts (rides) if they can't get an offer the judge will accept.

Kevin38

+0
Wednesday, February 11, 2009 8:38 AM

matt. said:
1. Recognizing how bad Blockbuster sucks and then offering any brick and mortar video store as a better alternative is like preferring Creed to Nickelback. This is 2009, there is no need for any video store, anywhere, ever, unless you live somewhere that doesn't have broadband or regular mail service. Considering we're discussing this on an internet message board, I'd guess this not the case for most of us.


I do not know what you have in your area, but here, there IS better alternatives. It's more like comparing Christina Agueleria(sp) to Norah Jones(or whatever singer you like). It's much easier to find old Doctor Who videos in a small video store, than it is in Blockbuster.
There is very much a need for video stores. There is still appeal in browsing shelves, and looking for some obscure movie, or documentary. Not everyone is willing to wait a day to watch a movie, or is willing to watch a movie on their computer, after downloading it.


I guess it is an age thing. I grew up during the days of Betamax, and VHS, and there are many shows, and movies that you can still only find on VHS!

And yes, there is still some stores in Toronto that still provide VHS tapes, as well as our public libraries.

+0
Wednesday, February 11, 2009 9:10 AM
matt.'s avatar

^The point was it's like having one option that's awful and then offering up another option that's just a little less awful.

I understand there may still be appeal to a very slim market of people to go to their local video store and pick up a movie, sure, but it's dying, and dying fast, because for the vast majority of consumers there's just a much, much better option out there. Actually, lots and lots of better options. Your point is also moot about watching movies on your computer, there are plenty of options for downloading movies via broadband and then enjoying them on a real TV.

Next you'll be telling me some of you people still have landline phones, still read physical newspapers, and use Internet Explorer as your preferred web browser.

+0
Wednesday, February 11, 2009 9:19 AM

^ Not really related to the topic but I agree with how it's nice to have a physical copy of a movie or album. I don't want to download something, I want to have a box with nice packaging and a tangible version of the product. Call me weird or old-fashioned but paying for a download isn't for me. That said, Blockbuster sucks and it is surprising they're still around considering how many people seem to hate the Blockbuster experience.

+0
Wednesday, February 11, 2009 9:36 AM

Thereis very much a need for video stores. There is still appeal in browsingshelves, and looking for some obscure movie, or documentary.

There's a lot to this, I think. Things like "you might also be interested in..." on amazon et. al. are helpful, but they don't do a very good job of those random recommendations that a real live person can give you that turn out to be awesome. There's also something to the "randomly browsing shelves" model that, somehow, hasn't ever been replicated on line for me.


+0
Wednesday, February 11, 2009 10:27 AM

It's pretty much impossible to recreate the type of impulse buys made possible by brick & mortar stores on the internet, and I have a feeling that a lot of video stores rely on those kinds of sales.

+0
Wednesday, February 11, 2009 10:47 AM

I would take what you read on Yahoo about as seriously as the Detroit Lions defeating the Pittsburgh Steelers in next year's SuperBowl.

+0
Wednesday, February 11, 2009 10:51 AM

It's pretty much impossible to recreate the type of impulse buys made possible by brick & mortar stores on the internet

Maybe. I'm not sure. The Wii has the "nintendo channel"---video previews (and maybe even demos) of games that you can download right then and there, provided you've got WiFi. It's pretty close to replicating that browsing model, though this is a medium that just naturally lends itself to online spontaneous purchases.


+0
Wednesday, February 11, 2009 11:18 AM
Lord Gonchar's avatar

LostKause said:
Matt, I like DVD's. I like to read the back of the box, and phisically hold the disk between my fingers. I like to insert the disk into the player. It feels like I have more of an ownership of my copy when the format the movie is on is tangible rather than ines and zeros flying around inside my computer.

Out of curiosity, do you still buy CD's?


+0
Wednesday, February 11, 2009 11:37 AM
LostKause's avatar

"""Nextyou'll be telling me some of you people still have landline phones,still read physical newspapers, and use Internet Explorer as yourpreferred web browser."""

I get less than perfect cell reception, living in the hills of West Virginia, so a land line is necessary. They just installed 3 new cell towers in my hometown, and reception still drops in some places.

I work at a newspaper, and sales haven't fallen as much as one would think, around here anyways. We still post some news online, but we advertise that the complete experience is only available if you pick up a physical copy of the paper. The day, where newspapers disappear and everything that used to be in the paper is online, could come. It comes down to changing the minds of people like me, who like to hold things that I buy in my hands in order to perceive more of a value from them.

IE works well enough, but Microsoft shouldn't have a monopoly on web browsing. I'll give you that. I'm used to firefox, to the point that I really like it.


+0
Wednesday, February 11, 2009 11:44 AM

Wow. I'm guilty of all three of those things. Of the three, the physical newspaper is the one I'm least likely to give up.


+0
Wednesday, February 11, 2009 12:06 PM

Here's why I still love Blockbuster. Cheap candy. We go in there, buy our SnoCaps and M&Ms and then get back in the car and go to the movies!

We have(had) lots of Krispie Kremes here in Columbus, but many of them have closed, and that's been about a 2-3 year process. There's nothing better than a hot raised glazed fresh right off the line. There's a brand new Dunkin opening up today right at the corner of Broad & High. downtown.

Now, I'm no economist, but I've noticed that developers don't make money unless they are developing. We are so over grown here with restaurants and retail, and a perfectly good shopping center will be left to go derelict while a new one gets built just down the street. This article speaks of these companies with growth and debt problems and it's no wonder- especially during these times when most of us are opting to leave our billfolds in our pants.

Last edited by RCMAC, Wednesday, February 11, 2009 12:09 PM
+0
Wednesday, February 11, 2009 12:58 PM
CPLady's avatar

matt. said:

Next you'll be telling me some of you people still have landline phones, still read physical newspapers, and use Internet Explorer as your preferred web browser.

Guilty...except the IE thing. I got smart and use Firefox.

But seriously, there are a lot more people than you'd believe who still get the newspaper, have landline phones and do not have On-demand service or the ability to download movies. We still have analog TV's.


I'd rather die living than live like I'm dead

+0
Wednesday, February 11, 2009 2:13 PM
matt.'s avatar

LostKause said:
It comes down to changing theminds of people like me, who like to hold things that I buy in my handsin order to perceive more of a value from them.

Not really. There's a vast sea change going on in the industry and when the physical, local newspaper is gone in a town there are no minds to be changed, because the paper isn't there to read. If the market has moved well beyond your own personal preference of having a physical paper in your hand then it doesn't really matter if that's your preference because you are no longer where the profit is. Maybe there will still be enough people out there to leave the traditional paper as a niche industry but those papers will be much fewer and further between then they are now.

Let's also not forget the biggest newspapers readerships are not in places like West Virginia where relatively few households have internet access to begin with.

Brian Noble said:
Wow. I'm guilty of all three of those things. Of the three, the physical newspaper is the one I'm least likely to give up.

What I was kinda getting at in my own facetious way is certain things are dying with or without your own participation. It may not be in 10 or 20 years but there will come a point when it won't be a matter of giving up your newspaper voluntarily.

CPLady said:

But seriously, there are a lot more people than you'dbelieve who still get the newspaper, have landline phones and do nothave On-demand service or the ability to download movies. We still haveanalog TV's.

It's not really a matter of believing the numbers because they're easily countable. And the fact that lots of people still read papers and have land line phones isn't really part of the argument because it's a static number, and isn't relevant to the trend itself. Lots of people still read newspapers - that doesn't mean that they're not dying all around the country left and right because indeed, they are.

Bringing up analog television is actually the perfect argument because no matter how much you want to stick with analog TV, the market's already moved on. In just a few weeks it just won't be an option any more, just like you can't buy VHS tapes anymore, just like you can't find parts for old roller coasters anymore, just like someday soon most of us won't have a local video rental store unless we live somewhere with enough niche-interested customers nearby .

I was making a point before facetiously, and listen guys, I get it, some people like having a physical DVD in their hands to own and that's fine, but that doesn't have any meaning when the current crop of 2 year olds out there could really care less by the time they're cognizant enough to have an ITunes account.

Last edited by matt., Wednesday, February 11, 2009 2:14 PM
+0
Wednesday, February 11, 2009 2:27 PM

Brian Noble said:
The Wii has the "nintendo channel"---video previews (and maybe even demos) of games that you can download right then and there, provided you've got WiFi. It's pretty close to replicating that browsing model, though this is a medium that just naturally lends itself to online spontaneous purchases.

Yes and no. I've found many things on Wii's Nintendo Channel (as well as Virtual Console and Wiiware) that I want but buying online can be a bit time-consuming. You either have to add items to your cart and go through the checkout process or, in the case of the Wii, add some points to your account if you don't have enough to spare. Not as easy as opening your wallet and handing over cash or a credit card to the cashier. I think the longer it takes to complete an impulse buy, the less likely it is to happen at all.

+0
Wednesday, February 11, 2009 2:29 PM

there will come a point when it won't be a matter of giving up your newspaper

We're already there. The two Detroit papers have dropped home delivery three days a week.

But, my point was: there isn't much functional difference between a landline and a cell phone, or IE and Firefox. (And, I half-lied; I mostly use Firefox, but use IE for a few sites that aren't FF-friendly.) For me, there's a big difference between a newspaper and online news sources.

I get most of my news online. But, I would be sad to not also get a paper.

or, in the case of the Wii, add some points to your account if you don't have enough to spare

For better or worse, my wife keeps a pretty good level of points laying around for "emergencies". ;)

Last edited by Brian Noble, Wednesday, February 11, 2009 2:30 PM
+0
Wednesday, February 11, 2009 2:37 PM
Lord Gonchar's avatar

I don't think it takes any longer to complete a purchase on the Wii than online - even less if you have points sitting there.

Again, it's a broad change in the way we do things.


+0
Wednesday, February 11, 2009 3:02 PM

It depends. If you have points, you're golden. If you don't have points, you have to get your wallet, find your credit card, enter the information with the Wiimote... it's a bit of a time-consuming process, or at least enough of one that probably gives certain people enough time to reconsider their purchase. At least Xbox Live allows you to store your credit card info so you cane easily add points.

Still, I think there is a difference between impulse buys in brick & mortar stores and impulse buys on websites/the internet.

+0

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2020, POP World Media, LLC
Loading...