Admission Costs

---

Jeff said:
[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).

---

I'm not familiar with CP's shows but if there is only one thing smaller than what sounds like a spectacle at the Red Garter, I can see why people complain about a lack of non-ride entertainment at the park. Maybe CP isn't a good park to use as an example. Perhaps we should be looking at a Paramount park that surely does have more in the way of live entertainment.

I say that the numbers can't truly be measured because market research is often wrong or misguided. These days, everything is market researched but not everything hits the intended mark. Look at the auto industry (something I religiously follow)- GM spent millions researching vehicles such as the Pontiac Aztek and look at how that vehicle failed in the marketplace. The Honda Element was researched and found to appeal to young males into outdoor activities but it didn't quite hit that mark either (Honda's figures prove that). Fortunately for Honda, the Element managed to find a different kind of audience that kept it from being an Aztek-like failure.

The point is, unless a park actually implements an idea like this, there will really be no true way to gauge how successful it would be. That's because market research IS a guess (albeit an educated one). And besides, some of the most successful ideas are ones that are accidental. Market research is a good idea but not the be-all end-all solution.

It's true, Gonch... many people ARE willing to pay the full price of admission to be in a park with riders even though they themselves are non-riders. But what if MORE people could be coaxed into visiting a park if they didn't have to pay full price for many aspects of the amusement park experience that they're not going to enjoy? Besides, a non-rider that dumped $15 to get into the park is going to be a lot happier (or at least a lot less unhappy) than one that dumped $50. The person that spent less is going to feel less "ripped off" and may be more inclined to visit again in the future. Then there is the argument that someone spending less to get into a park is likely to spend more once inside the gates.

I'm not implying that this is a sound idea, but there is really only one way to find out, and that way is not through statistical sampling.

admission prices are high, but consider the cost of insurance, electricity etc...
what i want to know is: how do parks make it w/season passes.
here is my case...
SFWOA 55.00 season pass last year:
55.00*22visits = $2.50
@ 8 hours =.31 cents an hour...
i have two kids. X3
so the cost for the 3 of us was .93 an hour.
the AC for my house cost more than that.
I took the kids bowling for two hours and it cost me 36.00...
i think parks are going higher to get more people to buy season passes...
Note: These figures did not include food. we usually left the park for that...

---

Besides, a non-rider that dumped $15 to get into the park is going to be a lot happier (or at least a lot less unhappy) than one that dumped $50. The person that spent less is going to feel less "ripped off" and may be more inclined to visit again in the future.

---

This seems to be a large basis for your POV.

The thing is we have no idea how many people feel 'ripped off' - I'd tend to think those people paying to enter but not ride just understand that that's the deal. It costs X number of dollars to enter, you either pay that or don't enter.

I don't think these people feel ripped off in the first place.

FLYINGSCOOTER: The money that parks make relies on food, games, souveniers, upcharge attractions and the like. Basically, the things you pay for once INSIDE the gate. That is the whole purpose of the "reduced non-rider admission". Get more people into the gate more often and let them spend their cash on the high-profit stuff.

Gonch: Maybe they don't feel ripped off but maybe they do. I know that I have heard many people complain about spending money to get into a park even though they aren't riding anything. Maybe they don't feel ripped off but they sound as though they'd have been happier if they spent less to get in to be with the riders in the group.

*** Edited 10/5/2004 8:32:56 PM UTC by Rob Ascough***

There is a broader question: how long can any business increase prices faster than inflation? Entertainment in general certainly has, in nearly any form. College tuition is my other favorite example. Health care is a third. In many markets, housing costs are a fourth.

Eventually, something has to give, or the fraction of income an individual has to devote to that product or service just becomes too high. One strategy is to narrow your market to higher margin business, driving out the low margin customers. Most sports franchises do this---rather than increase seating capacity, they keep it the same (or decrease it) but increase amenities and prices via luxury boxes, club seating, and seat licenses. This has also happened in Westchester, Palo Alto, and the like.

That's fine for things that no one really "needs", like football games and amusement park visits. It's not so fine for health care, which is why concern over health costs have garnered an increasing share of ink over the past few years.

No too stray too far far off here but the idea that rides are the reasons for the parks is actually a fairly new concept in the history of parks.

Most of the trolley parks were built as the weenie to increase ridership on the trolleys. The rides were the afterthought...if you will.

I am of two frames of mind on this issue. I had a grandfather who wouldn't go to the park with me...even when I offered to pay...because he thought it was a waste of my money since he wouldn't ride any rides. He just wanted to come and sit and watch.

However, I've been in the business and I understand the realities.

Is going to the park more expensive today? Yup. So is the gas it will take you to get there. So are the tires you put on your car. Movie tickets are over $10 for 1 1/2 hours of entertainment. An entire day at the park...even the Disney parks...appears to be a steal on a per hour basis compared to the movies.

I get a real kick out of folks who complain about park prices in one breath and then fork down $5 for a Venti Latte at Starbucks in the other breath.

Oh, and as for housing costs. I paid $100,000 for a townhome six years ago that today I could sell for $225,000. I haven't done any kind of remodeling or anything. THAT is insane. *** Edited 10/5/2004 8:34:46 PM UTC by wahoo skipper***

I think that park prices are pretty reasonable when compared to other forms of entertainment. Never mind the larger parks... I can go to a small park like Seabreeze for an entire day for little more than it would cost me for a two-hour movie (with discount, of course). Like Gonch said, live concerts are an example of prices gone wild... wild to the point where no one wants to pay them anymore.

Provided things increase in price at the rate of inflation, I see no problem. Cars, airfare, amusement park admissions, food... they are all pretty predictable. I have a problem with things like health care where pricing has spiraled out of control.

thanks, Rob. That explains a great deal...

As to the "we're the weird one's" comment a few posts ago...

People look like me like I am nuts when I say that when we were in Orlando and went to Sea World we didn't take in any of the shows... 8 rides on JTA (4rides each) and 9 on Kraken (me 6, my wife 3).

Probably the "worst" case of this was Marineland in Niagara Falls, Ontario. Full Price admission for two for a combined 6 rides on Dragon Mountain (me 5, my wife 1) and one (me) on Magic.

---

Rob Ascough said:
I'm not familiar with CP's shows but if there is only one thing smaller than what sounds like a spectacle at the Red Garter, I can see why people complain about a lack of non-ride entertainment at the park. Maybe CP isn't a good park to use as an example

---

.

That is so funny! I remember how happy I was to go to BGW for the first time ever (last summer). After being there only one day I was truly bored and ready to move on to the next park. The families at BGW who were into the shows, shopping, eating, etc., were the ones who really got the most for their money (it seemed), and were entertained a great deal more than I was. BGW seems (IMO) like an appropriate park for all members in a family (young and old).

But I would not say the same about Cedar Point. If you do not want to ride the thrill rides (or kiddie rides), the train and observation tower are going to get stale pretty quick. And we all know that CP will not increase attendance by adding a new show, like they will though by adding a new coaster. It's simple...if the park is not appropriate for your family's needs, pick a different park that is.

Good advice except that most families aren't going to travel too far to visit a park that suits their needs if their local one doesn't. Especially if you live somewhere like Indiana or the Pacific Northwest where the list of parks within a few hours' drive is very short.

The interesting thing is, Disney used to be a pay per attraction park with a general admission as well. You paid so much money to get into thye park and you got a book of tickets that you used for rides...here's more info on it all...

http://www.yesterland.com/abcde.html *** Edited 10/5/2004 9:24:25 PM UTC by Coaster Lover***

As a conservative I will say that one of the things we spend most on during vacations is food, and hotel rooms and gas prices. Admission prices are not as much. I agree that if people who don't ride the rides will go to the park and pay then why lower the price?

But I will say this. The way for park guest to be the most happy and for amusement parks to get the most money is for riders and people who just enter the park to pay differently. Wrist bands that represent 1 hour that you can ride all the big rides or 2 or 3 whatever. This way if the park shuts down for whatever reason it won't be as big of a deal.

Example: Say a park now normally has its all day admission at 45. The changed it so that every hour of the day it costs 6 dollars for an all ride pass plus a general admission of 8 bucks. But a half day price costs 25 dollars which would you buy. How much time do you like to spend in the park?

Dont know what being a "conservative" has to do with anything you just said, but my whole thing is, a person, rider or non-rider, knows exactly what they are getting into when they go to a park.

Now, most of my fam/close friends, like to ride. When I still lived in Chicago, we would go to GAm like every year. One member of the annual group is terrified of rides, yet she went willingly every year. To her, the price of admission was a reasonable cost for the fun we had during the day. I mean really, she did everything that we did, the joking in lines, the people-watching, etc. Just when it came to the coasters, she took the chicken exit. I think that is fine.

I have to agree with Gonch. As much as I wished there was a Playboy booth at the Bridal Fair my fiancee took me to, I knew no such alternate entertainment would be offered. Similarly, I dont like waterslides, so I dont set foot into Noah's Ark in the Dells.

lata, jeremy

--who is going to vote for a conservative for President...OOPS! No conservative is running...

You're voting for Nader? Oh, wait...

Being a conservative I know how I spend my money and where it is spend most like I said. and how places like to in a way take money from you. Six flags NE 3 bucks a bottle of water! This summer I refused to buy one drink. when I was there used the fountain. ( there where only two)

The Political debate is in RCT2 questions.

---

Rob Ascough said:
I'm not familiar with CP's shows but if there is only one thing smaller than what sounds like a spectacle at the Red Garter, I can see why people complain about a lack of non-ride entertainment at the park.

---

Who is complaining? There are shows at Garter, Lil's, Centennial, Good Time Theater (plus pre-show), the aquatic stadium and this time of year, Halloweekends stuff everywhere.

---

I say that the numbers can't truly be measured because market research is often wrong or misguided.

---

That's a totally unqualified statement. We just has a news story last week indicating that Paramount Parks bet the farm on their research. If they're having double-digit growth, I'd say the research is dead-on. At the other end of Ohio, they continue to build rooms or upgrade an entire hotel with an indoor water park. This stuff is not left to chance, and there's nothing "wrong" or "misguided" about it. Your example of GM is a poor one, because those idiots haven't understood their own industry in decades. Cedar Fair, Paramount Parks and smart independents like Holiday World get it, and they're wildly successful. *** Edited 10/6/2004 12:26:31 AM UTC by Jeff***

So what you're basically saying is that since you've never heard anyone complain, that means my statement is false? Interesting assumption. I had no idea that you recently spoke to everyone about that.

I read the news story about Paramount and their research and understand the reasons why they conduct it. As someone who participated (like many other enthusiasts), I obviously think that there is something to be said for it. Hence the reason that I said market research is often misguided and not always misguided. Hence the reason that I said it doesn't always hit the mark instead of saying it never hits the mark. I also stated that market research is often a good idea. Do you ever bother to read posts in their entirety of do you just skim them? If you're going to get into a serious debate with someone, at least familiarize yourself with what the other person said.

Regardless of whether my GM example is a poor one, it is proof positive that market research can be wrong. When polling people and asking them what they might do in the future, there is a margin of error... sometimes quite a large one. Just because Paramount's and CF's market research has been generally correct in the past is no indication that it will always be correct, nor does market research always reveal all the answers. So unless you can clearly prove that market research is always right, all of the time, your statements are just as unqualified as you claim mine to be.

*** Edited 10/6/2004 1:39:32 AM UTC by Rob Ascough***

I'm not making any assumptions, and you're back tracking. I'll stick with what Gonch said... Industry types a lot smarter than us would've thought of it and would be doing it if it was good for the bottom line.

I'm not backtracking at all. Read what I just said and compare it to what I said at the top of the page. Or better yet, read all of my posts. I'm saying it was an idea worth considering and you're acting like I'm preaching it as the new amusement park bible.

It's called a debate. For some reason, you took it to heart.