Admission Costs

As far as shows for Kennywood goes, they only have 3. And not to seem like I don't like my job nor my employer, the shows are nothing to justify the $8 general admission. At Kennywood we have a day where the local TV channel WPXI has a day and offers the public free general admission and $17.95 Ride-all-Day admission. Every year we have this event the place is packed, and there is never an emty seat on a bench. Anyone that works at the park will know what I'm talking bout. I'm not saying that Kennywood should charge $17.95 for the all day price, in fact there $28.95 price for the 2004 season is a steal. But I just believe that general admission should be free.

---

SFGAdv lover said:
Not sure why you're using Hershey as an example. Family of 4 and parking at GADV = $210

---

Only used Hershey as an example because I knew the costs off of the top of my head. I realize that there are many that are higher.

---

Den said:
But why use an example with no discounts? No park doesn't offer discounts, and anyone who takes his family of four to a park without $10 coupons or the like is a fool (or rich).

Besides, a day at an amusement park is still cheap compared to other forms of entertainment. Try taking your family of four to a hockey game (which will be over in 3 hours), or to a 90-minute movie.

---

The fool or rich comment: Okay... say you have $10 coupons... How many parks are out there with a $47 entry? With a $10 coupon you would get the $37 cost I used in my example.

As for Hockey... It will cost a family of four $88 to sit downstairs, or $64 to sit up stairs for an AHL game in GIANT Center at Hershey. Yeah, I know that is "only" the AHL, but it is still pro-hockey (and with the NHL strike, the "only game in town" so to speak")

Bottom line is... when are parks going to start "out pricing" themselves where they will see it reflected in the attendance and what can be done at that point to turn things around?

Free general admission is what leads to riff-raff entering a park and causing trouble. I doubt that a lot of riff-raff is going to drive to a theme park, spend $10 to park and another $15 to get into the gate just because they have nothing better to do. The idea is to get the non-riders to spend some money along with the riders. Why that makes no sense is beyond me.

*** Edited 10/5/2004 6:38:15 PM UTC by Rob Ascough***

---

WickedMatt said:
Anyone, including people that would discourage families from showing up, could just park there all day and drive their business away. You don't want the riff raff in your park just cuz they have nothing better to do.

---

Using Hershey as an example again, I believe that I read that was one of the reasons why they decided to "fence" the park and charge an admission.

Like Rob sort of alluded to... when I say a "cheaper" price, I am not talking "free"... more of a "Rider" and "Non Rider" admission... $40 and $20... or something like that. And as stated... there is always that little issue of $6 - $10 parking fees to keep people away. Of course, this doesn't affect parks that are served by a decent public transportation system. *** Edited 10/5/2004 6:40:17 PM UTC by SLFAKE***

---

The whole "pay for what you use" thing gets silly.

I'm going to the park. I don't ride many flats but do kiddies with my children. My daughter rides everything but she's not 54 inches yet, so she can't ride all the 'big' rides. My son rides just kiddies. My wife rides a few coasters and a few flats.

So we need:

1 "coasters and kiddies"
1 "short people's general admission"
1 "kiddies only"
1 "everything but kiddies"

We'll have four different wristbands and ride-ops will have to distinguish between the dozen or so admission options as we enter each ride.

---

This is why parks like GL have Junior and Adult admission, because those smaller than 48" can't ride all the rides and shouldn't have to pay the same price. As well as senior-citizens discounts because in general older adults don't ride much(no ofense to whoever is offended by the last line). *** Edited 10/5/2004 6:42:27 PM UTC by razore86***

---

when are parks going to start "out pricing" themselves where they will see it reflected in the attendance?

---

1.When they become significantly more expensive that comparable entertainment. And even then (and I'm possibly in this category) if the people involved choose amusement parks as their main form of entertainment and all the parks stay in the same range (they all raise prices together across the board), then probably never. That'll just be the price of visiting a park.

Heck, as little as 10 years ago, you could get good seats to a concert by a top name act for $20. Now it's easily double or triple that. People still see shows, that's just what it costs now. Maybe they see less shows and are forced to 'pick and choose' a bit more, but that probably wouldn't effect parks much. Few people travel like enthusiasts to visit amusement parks. They might have 2 or 3 'local' choices at best. I think you'd be surprised at just how much higher amusement park admission prices could go with no effect on attendance.

2.When interest wanes enough that people don't feel justified in paying that price. I doubt that would happen anytime soon either - parks have been a staple of family entertainment for over 100 years.

To sum it up. I don't see a problem and things aren't going to change anytime soon.

---

The idea is to get the non-riders to spend some money along with the riders. Why that makes no sense is beyond me.

---

Because 99% of the amusement parks out there are in the business of amusement rides. If you don't ride, you're not the target customer.

Should a chinese restaraunt add hamburgers to try to attract a larger crowd? Should McDonalds add sushi to the menu? You get the idea.

I'd say that amusement park prices have increased steadily and are in check with inflation. I'm not sure if they are "out-pricing" themselves but I think that some of them are walking a very fine line. Park admission is relatively cheap when you consider all that you get (there's that "perception" thing again) but when you factor in the price of driving, parking, food, games and souveniers, the cost per person (and that "cost per hour") goes way up. It's like going to watch pro sports- the cost of parking and a beer can split the difference between affordable and outrageous.

If you want to look at an industry that has out-priced itself, live concerts iare where to turn. Ticket prices have become ridiculous over the past couple of years and the industry learned how much people are willing to take before they stop taking it at all.

Gonch- I doubt that parks like Busch and Paramount consider 99% of their business to be rides. A good portion of what they consider to be entertainment is shows.

I DO agree that people that go for rides are the target customers but when dealing with an industry where target customers are very often "groups" of people that have to be appeased and not just one individual, concessions have to be made. If a "family" is a target customer but not every member of the family is into rides, that means that the target customer is not being completely satisfied. And that might ultimately hurt the park with lost sales over time.

McDonalds should definitely not serve sushi (for a number of reasons) but they found a way to appeal to groups of customers looking for a meal. If you go to a restaurant with a large group of people, how likely is it that they will ALL be starving? McDonalds has a menu with both meals and a la carte items to appeal to customers with varying degrees of hunger. You can get a drink if you're thirsty, fries if you're hungry or a meal with both if you are thirsty AND hungry. Selling a drink to someone that isn't hungry is better than asking them to pay for fries that they're not going to eat and wind up losing the sale altogether.

*** Edited 10/5/2004 6:57:22 PM UTC by Rob Ascough***

I don't think people will stop paying the admission - people like *going* to the parks too much to stem that flow unless you start charging like $100 a day. What's going to get cut back is food and souveniers and Jeff and all the other "top in-the-knowers" have stated time and again that it's not the gate that makes money, it's the in-park spending. If you're shooting yourself in the foot at the gate and emptying those wallets, what's left over to spend in the park? Not too much. You might not have that many fewer people, but you're not going to get as much out of their pockets at the food stands where you're making a lot more profit off their $1 than you are at the ticket booth.

And a free general admission is a horrible idea. Never just give the gate, that was Six Flags' error at WoA. But I'm right in line with Rob here, I can think of a lot of my family and some friends who would be a lot more willing to come to CP with me if it only cost them $10 or $12 to get in since they're not big riders. And those people are going to spend money - they'll be either shopping or sitting in the hot sun (which equals food and drink, even on cooler fall days) waiting for the riders to get off, and the park makes money off someone who wouldn't have come if they didn't have that lower price range for non-riders.

I think Kennywood's method of requiring proof of age that you're over 19 is a great way to keep it from being a babysitting job for the park staff. You don't want that at all. But by setting the age at 19+, you're attracting all the college and older folks who have significant others who don't ride, or who want to spend some time with family who might not ride. Plus, perception;

"Announcing family-friendly pricing this year at ______ Park! Bring the whole family, only $40 for all the thrills you can handle (cue picture of dad and the kids getting on the big coaster), and $12 for all the smiles you can handle (cue picture of grandparents greeting the smiling kids at the exit)!"

I just know being the "richest" of my group of friends, it's rough that I'm frequently at the park by myself, not because people don't want to come, but because they can't afford it, or they have significant others or family members who want to come, but don't want to spend the huge price to just sit around and shop all day (and spend more money ... see where this is going?).

Edit: my brilliant advertising pictures got cut out for some reason ... dont use the "<" next time ;) *** Edited 10/5/2004 7:03:01 PM UTC by Impulse-ive***

See, we're on two totally opposite sides of the fence on this one, Rob.

---

A good portion of what they consider to be entertainment is shows.

---

I wouldn't consider any amusement park entertainment as a more than an afterthought. People aren't going to see the shows. If you want to see a show, you by tickets to a show. If you want to ride rides, you buy tickets to an amusement park. Which is a nice segue to:

---

when dealing with an industry where target customers are very often "groups" of people that have to be appeased and not just one individual, concessions have to be made.

---

But why would amusement parks be any different than anything else?

I don't dig hockey (sorry, Brett), yet they don't add strippers in a little side room so people like me can still go with a group and be entertained.

I don't dig ballet. Still no stripper side show.

I don't dig country music. No side stage with various techno, metal or rap acts...or stripper side show.

I don't like 'chick flicks'. No little screen on my seat playing comedies (or stripper footage - nothing like killing a gag, huh?) for me.

I simply don't go to those events. I don't expect side attractions and lower admission to accomodate me.

So using the 1 + 1 = 2 logic:

I don't dig amusement rides. Maybe I shouldn't be going somewhere that offers entertainment that I don't enjoy.

I have friends who like parks. They visit with us. I have friends who don't. They stay home.

I have friends who like hockey. I don't go to games with them, they go with friends who enjoy pucks and sticks and stuff.

Why should amusement parks be any different?

Edit - spelling :(

*** Edited 10/5/2004 7:08:54 PM UTC by Lord Gonchar***

Not that this will have anything to do with the whole general admission thing. I bought a 2004 Season Pass to GL this year and have been there 5 times already and plan on going once more. So at 6 visits, and $59 for the pass. I paid $9.83 per visit. That's a great deal. Got hundreds of rides in due to the lack of lines.

I see what you're saying, Gonch. And if the topic of the conversation were anything but amusement parks, I'd be in complete agreement with you. But here's how I see it:

"Alternative entertainment" IS an afterthought at amusement parks. It was put in place to entertain the masses that go to amusement parks with the people that go for the rides. The problem is, the cost of staging those shows adds to the cost of theme park admission. That high cost of admission keeps many of the people that would be enjoying the shows outside the gate because they can't seem to justify spending the money. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

My non-riding friends and family have learned not to go to amusement parks with me because I want to ride and they can't see spending the money that I spend to sit and watch shows while I ride. But I know of plenty of people that would be more willing to go with me if they weren't paying as much as me because they won't be doing as much as me.

Shows were born more or less out of neccessity, but now that they're there and costing money to stage, I still see no reason to charge non-riders less money to go and enjoy them while others pay full price to ride.

Now, about this whole stripper fascination... ;)

Gonch, while I think much less of you for your dislike of hockey ;) (although it gets countered by the suggestion of strippers at ballets, country music shows or chick flicks!) I have to counter your point that no one goes for the shows;

My Mom loves parks. She worked on the design team for Canada's Wonderland as a color designer. But she can't ride - not only is she terrified of most rides (she'll do the occasional Pirate Ship), but her back won't let her. But she loves spending time with my Dad and I in-park and watching the coasters run, and looking at the colors in the parks and how they flow together, and most of all, watching the shows and live entertainment. For that reason, she loves Paramount parks and is so/so on Kennywood, but won't come to Cedar Point - for her, not only is there no perception of any kind of major color or theme for her to look at, there's no shows, and there's no reason for her to spend $45 to sit around all day and watch us stand in line.

Now, throw in a $10 ticket at the Point for her - she'd have been there at least twice this year already as Dad and I have season passes. She might have even found another ride or two she liked, and discovered the tons of live entertainment that's at the Point. But, the price tag has kept her out.

---

Rob Ascough said:
I agree that the costs of a show CAN be more than a coaster but, more often that not, I would say that's not the case.

---

At CP, the only show smaller than the one at Red Garter is the one at Lusty Lil's (or whatever they're calling it these days).

---

Rob Ascough said:
I'm speaking about a hypothetical increase in business... one that really can't be measured unless the idea was actually implemented.

---

Of course it can measured! Decisions like that aren't made without market research. Again, using CP as an example, I don't know how much they spend, but there sure are a lot of people in the marketing department that do this kind of research. You don't guess when there are tens of millions of dollars on the line.

Fair enough, guys.

I still think that parks in general are smart enough that if the idea made sense, they'd go with it. (many parks do offer 'later hours' admissions or 'smaller rider' admissions, so they're open to the idea)

The thing is, I think many people are paying the full price to go to the park and not ride and those people more than cancel out the extras that would pay less. Why let people who are paying $40 in for $10?

It goes back to what Jeff said many posts ago:

Look at all the eldery, obese or the 'moms' sitting on a bench loaded with the families' stuff just waiting. I see them all the time at all the parks.

Why fix something that isn't broken?

Edit - still can't spell :(

*** Edited 10/5/2004 7:40:11 PM UTC by Lord Gonchar***

After reading over all of this, a few scattered thoughts:

Using Hersheypark as my point of reference since that is my home park...

- I suppose the costs of parks are not all that much out of line when compared to other forms of entertainment. Another thing to consider... How many times a year does the "average" CB'er go to parks? How many times does the "average" family of 4 go to parks? As my wife said... growing up (and even into her college years) she can remember when going to Hersheypark was a big deal... the family would plan on it for weeks and weeks on end until "the big day". For most normal people, is it still this way? For most on this board it is like "Yep... went to the park... again... 15th park this season". I suppose many do counter act the price by going less.

- A lot of hockey comments on this thread... some like it, some hate it. For me... that is the great thing about Hershey... coasters in the summer, hockey in the winter... both during Hersheypark in the Dark. Even have two games a season where every fan in attendance gets a free admission ticket into the park good next season (This season those games are on Nov 7, 2004 and Jan 26, 2005). And sorry, but I have never seen strippers at a hockey game... however seeing the way some of the "puck-sl**ts" (teeny-bopper and older girls who are out trolling for guys and/or hockey players) dress at the games, perhaps some of them do that for a living.

- It is also a case of priorities. I know a guy who laments that "it is so expensive" to go to Hershey... $37 (non discounted) admission... so they just don't go and "spend all of that money". Now he is a smoker. Since I am not, I do not know prices for sure, but I do see ads and signs advertising cartons of cigarettes for around $30 to $35. He seems to have no problem buying those... but yet plopping down $37 to get into a park is "too much money." All a case of priorities I suppose.

- I tend to look at / justify the price of admission by either the number of hours or the number of rides ridden. $37 admission for a 6 hour visit (10am - 5 pm) = $6.16 per hour... not bad. If you look it as a per ride cost... On a visit to Hershey earlier this season I had around 23 different coaster rides; thats averages to $1.60 per ride... considering that it was their "after 5" admission, it was more like $0.80 per ride... not bad at all.

- Discounts and special admission offers sure help too.

Bottom line... I suppose this all answers my original question. Had no idea it would spark this much debate. *** Edited 10/5/2004 7:59:33 PM UTC by SLFAKE***

---

I suppose the costs of parks are not all that much out of line when compared to other forms of entertainment. Another thing to consider... How many times a year does the "average" CB'er go to parks? How many times does the "average" family of 4 go to parks? As my wife said... growing up (and even into her college years) she can remember when going to Hersheypark was a big deal... the family would plan on it for weeks and weeks on end until "the big day". For most normal people, is it still this way? For most on this board it is like "Yep... went to the park... again... 15th park this season".

---

Sorry to quote below the post (again), but this is a great thought.

This is exactly what many people here forget when debating - and it applies to many of our debates.

We're the weird ones. Don't forget that our personal experiences aren't the norm as park/coaster enthusiasts.

Just a truth that many of us seem to forget after a few years of coaster credits and park trips.

I can remember as recently as 1998 or 1999 still feeling this way. In late 99/2000 the mental transition started and in 2001 I visited more parks in one season that in my entire life before that.

Each year we did a 'local' trip to Kennywood with family and friends and then planned a late summer 'big' trip where we rounded up people from near and far and went to CP for a few days.

While parks are every bit as fun (my appreciation is just 'different' now), there was a 'special' feeling about visiting an amusement park that I haven't had very often since we crossed over into enthusiast territory.

At any rate, that's an excellent point, SLFAKE and one that enthusiasts quickly forget once they 'cross over'

Wow, that's a great deal SLFAKE - I just might heading out to catch a Bears game Nov. 7! I'm in desparate need of hockey!

In my experience, it's not a plan for weeks thing for amusement parks even as far away as 3-4 hours drive (CP or Hershey for Pittsburghers), but it's definitely a once or twice a year "hey this sounds like fun" kind of thing a couple days in advance. Completely unlike me that gets out of his car at work at 8am, realizes the weather's gorgeous and is out of work by noon on vacation hours the rest of the day and at Cedar Point by 3pm ;).

*sigh* sort of wish I hadn't crossed over! While knowing all this stuff is cool, and having ridden so many different ones is cool, I'm so used to the local parks now that it really tacks the budget to get the thrill and the giddyness back. I used to get that thrill 10-15 times a year, now usually only when I get to Hershey or Great Adventure or King's Dominion or further does it really come back in full force (CP at Halloween gets me excited, and the first time of the year is great), but those further away parks all cost a lot more in travel, admission, hotels, etc. But that's a whole 'nother can of worms ;)