$15 to park at SFMM!
I'm just in awe of this agressive pricing at SFA. I mean, I can see it at SFGAdv or SFMM or some of the larger parks in the chain that could increase prices a little, scare off a few of the guests not willing to pay, and still make out money wise, but at a smaller park like SFA, just seems like it'll be a make or break situation. Maybe it's just Snyder's way of showing his control over the park closest to his other major investment (Redskin's FedEx Field).
I just hope with all these price increases, we see a noticable increase in guest services and park maintenence and all. If we do, I'm all for the price increase, but if I'm going to pay nearly as much to go to SFA as I'd pay to go to BGW, I'd like to at least see more ride attendants on the platforms, more people keeping the park clean, more street performers, and just better service all around. I'm not expecting miricles overnight, but I do at least want to see improvement that lasts through the year.
If you can't stand the heights, get out of the line.
If they can fix customer service and operations issues within the park, I don't think people will be pissed about paying more. If it's the same old SFMM, then people will be pissed. I don't think people will dwell on how much they paid for parking if everything is cool once they get inside.
For example, I took three teens to IOA when we were in Orlando for a leadership conference. I was not happy about the price I paid for the tickets at the time of purchase. By the end of the day (well, maybe even within an hour of entering the park) I had forgotten about the amount we had paid because of the experience we had at the park.
Of course, for SFMM to become half of what IOA is would be a miracle to say the least. *** Edited 1/19/2006 7:32:01 PM UTC by The Lorax***
Chitown said:
They raised the gate by 10 bucks and then raised the parking by 5 bucks.
Wow... I guess you're right.
On the other hand, they have this "Online Ticket" thing going on right now with tickets available for a lower price from what it used to be.
But who knows if this is just an "off-season" event.
Obviously they considered it a good idea to disperse customer milking between the parking lot and the gate.
Another bad thing of course about the incredible parking fee ist the effect it has on people with a season pass.
While families "only" pay $15 for a visit, people with a season pass might have to fork over $15 for each one of their visits.
There are some possibilities to park cars outside the official parking lot at SFMM, as there are residential areas within 15 minute walking distance, but I have never tried that option - I'm sure if they raise admission like that, they will think of a way to make you put your car in the parking lot.
At Knotts, there is a Mall pretty close by, so you don't really have to park your car in the lot, if you plan things carefully and don't bother to walk a little.
Thank you for helping me to make the decision to not visit SFA this year. Your parking fees made this a very simple decision. I look foward to next season when you lower your parking rates due to lack of people at your park.
Have A Good Season
I'm just in awe of this agressive pricing at SFA. I mean, I can see it at SFGAdv or SFMM
[Caution: Cynical Mind at Work]
August 2011: Coorporate Announcement from Four Flags:*
"Four Flags America will close permanently on Sept 30. The Rides will be auctioned off or moved to other Four Flags Parks and the property will imediately be liquidated to the XYZ development group. Of all the parks in the chain, Four Flags America has seen the largest drop of attendance and revenue, even with the most recent price adjustment of $125 admission and $52.50 parking."
In a back room at Coorporate HQ: Executives high five each other... Through their pricing, they have managed to make the park lose enough money so that the land can be sold for development with out any complaints from anyone.
*NOTE: In 2007 Six Flags became known as Four Flags when two of the Flags were sold for $300,000 a peice.
Regarding the recent happenings at your newly-acquired amusement parks, I have taken the liberty of creating some more ideas for your consideration.
1) Instead of charging just a $15 flat fee for parking, there should be a charge of $15 per person in the vehicle. Therefore, a standard family of 4 would spend $60 before they even entered the gates to any given property. As a service to guests ages 2 and under, their fee will be $15.
2) Provide tram service in the far reaches of the parking lots for a nominal additional fee ($10 per rider perhaps). Also, you can offer an upcharge "Tram Xpress" pass (note the super-cool use of the letter X) which would allow guests front of the line priviliges for Tram service.
3) At parks with metal detectors, there will be an additional fee for their use. Remember- you can't get into the park without using the metal detectors!
4) Charge to access the smoking areas. This will be a "per visit" fee, so each time a guest enters the smoking area, they will be charged an additional fee. Also, outside lighters will be prohibited. Official Six Flags "one-time use" lighters will be available for an additional charge.
These are just a few great ideas that can help your amusement park chain make a few extra dollars off of your happy guests. Thank you for your time-
Mr. Raymond P.
(Please note the above was simply a lame attempt at humor! :))
Effective 2006
SF Pricing Policy: Your admission entitles you to enjoy all of the rides and attractions in the park. If you so chose, you may pay an additional $29.95 to update your admission with our "Coaster Restraint Option" that will allow you to you ride in the specially designated "Restraint Equipped Seats".
SF First Aid Policy: First Aid is available free to all individuals who have selected the "Coaster Restraint Option". First Aid is available at an up charge of $100 per incident for those who have chosen not to take advantage of that option.
*** Edited 1/19/2006 8:00:20 PM UTC by SLFAKE***
*** Edited 1/19/2006 8:22:11 PM UTC by delan***
From what I understand they have always had free parking (at least it was 2 years ago when i visited, not sure about last year?), and according to the website (as someone else pointed out), is now listed as $10.00.
from $0 to $10.
I sense some outrage in the future...
as for me, i am reconsidering visiting SFGADV and SFNE this summer. i mean, reconsidering NOT visiting. ::thumbs up six flags::
// alan "will be travelling to holiday world. again. because they deserve my business :)" j. *** Edited 1/19/2006 8:51:17 PM UTC by SFDL_Dude***
Oh....Never mind...please continue. ;)
--George H
La Ronde is one of the few places where paying for parking bothers me. It's $12 CDN (~$10 US), and barely-paved parking lots are very narrow (4 cars per row) and incredibly long. If you arrive early, you get a good deal. But if you arrive later in the day, you could be waking 3/4 of a mile from your car to the main gate. No tram service. To their credit, La Ronde encourages guests to take the subway, which is also 3/4 of a mile from the main gate.
What about if the intent is to keep out those who would be pissed about a $15 charge? If $15 is a big deal to you, how likely are you to buy a $15 burger and fries? Now, let's say it means nothing to drop $15 or even $20. As long as that's an "incidental" cost to you, the number of in-park items (where we all know the real money is made) that are purchased increases.
I think the target is not just families, but rich families. In Snyder and Co.'s opinion, it's better to have 50% fewer guests with 100% more disposable income, because why? Ding Ding Ding! The million dollar answer: it increaes the stock price!! This move, along with re-entry and all the other "garbage" that "ruins the experience" and "pisses off guests at the door" is just a blatent play to increase the stock price as much as possible. Snyder is blowing his own stock price up, financially, it's quite brilliant I think!
Let's do this example: Pittsburgh could build a stadium that holds 200,000 people and as long as the Steelers are passibly good, they'd probably fill most of the building charging $15-$20 a head with free parking in most lots and maybe like a priority $5 lot. But, you have to provide enough people to RUN a stadium holding 200,000 people - food vendors, security guards, ticket takers, etc. etc. Now, decrease your "attendance", drive up "parking" and "admission" and all of a sudden you're attracting a more select crowd more willing to spring for a $7 beer and a $50 practice jersey ... but you only need 1 guy to sell that person the beer, not 5 because there's only 2 people in line, not 10. Am I making sense? I would look for the number of employees at the parks to decline in the face of declining attendance, but no one on the Six Flags board or shareholders will really give two hoots about attendance because due to massive increases in in-park spending, their pockets will be too lined for them to care!
... and once the shareholders from Cedar Fair and company begin to see what's happening over at SFI, watch for the pressure to grow on those guys.
Hoping I made sense.
--Brett, who feels season passes should be at least 5 days, and always thought people who complain about season pass prices for amusement parks should have their passes revoked.
In fact, you're saying the same thing we are. :)
I've been using the much simpler arguement of:
I'd rather make $1 off of each of 1000 guests than make 50 cents of off each of 2000 guests.
Why? Overhead.
Brett was finally the first to have the patience to give a slightly more detailed explanation.
I've always been of the mind that it's better business to sell less at a higher margin than sell more at a lower margin.
Looks like SF is thinking so too.
*** Edited 1/19/2006 11:41:59 PM UTC by Lord Gonchar***
Basically SF can maintain flat attendance levels and still be profitable. Look at companies in other industries. Sears has declining sales every single quarter. Yet they still turn a profit every time. If SF can simply generate more money then they are spending, they will make a profit. Sure arks aren't going to see double digit revenue or attendance growth, but they will bring in more than they spend.
As much as I hate to say it, and this is purely speculation this early, this could bring a more enjoyable experience to the public. Keeping crowds slightly lower could improve some the typical guest complaints: long lines, too much trash, etc. The biggest loser in all of that is the lower-income park visitors.
1) I think this is definitely a choice of keeping people out of the park. I think they're focussing on families and away from the average teen who would balk at fifteen bucks. That keeps the lines shorter and profits streamlined. RideMan may be able to go all day without spending, but try to do that with three kids. You're not gonna starve them just to make a point. You're going to spend.
2) Anyone else see the absurdity in the fact that they're charging $15 to park and then on top of that telling you that you're not allowed to return to your car during the day? Perhaps they could allow re-entry, but charge $10 each time you open your car door.
3) I can definitely see the end of free entry to sister parks. I wouldn't be surprised to see passes good at a home park only, but I think the likely scenario will be a CP-esque upcharge to add other parks. Either that or the passes would be good for free entry to your home park and discounted entry to sister parks.
See, I told you it was a few points.
Hi
Sorry Six Flags. I'm staying away this year and after I hear what visiters have to say (if their are indeed any), I may be staying away every year. There are many more amusement parks that are so much more fun and less irritating to visit. I am one of those people who have less money than some, but when I have a good time at a park, I spend more than I should.
...But that's probably what you wanted me to decide.
You must be logged in to post
