Attendence changes and complete figures

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 2:47 PM

I would bet that a good share of CF guests pay the "posted" admission price where at SF very few do.

That'd be neat to know. Anyone able to find the ticket per cap for CP? Or even CF?

SF's ticket per cap in 2005 was just $18.09, but in 2006 it went up to $20.47. (that's chainwide)

+0
Tuesday, April 10, 2007 2:57 PM

egieszl said:Gator thank you. Your argument actually further supports our thoughts that price really had little affect.

Well, that's not *exactly* what I was trying to show, either, LOL. I think that price DECREASES at CF had little/no effect.

I think the price INCREASE at SF had more of an impact...but it was the *intended* effect, so all was OK in the end. I do believe that SF's intention was to "price out" that part of their clientele that wasn't making them enough money...

Meh, in the end I guess I agree with you and Gonch more than I disagree. But I did want to note the subtle difference in our arguments. Price, IMO, did have an impact on SF's attendance...but if SF had been delivering quality product for the last 10-15 years, they could have jumped gate prices AND held reasonably steady in terms of attendance even WITHOUT the new $20-25M rollie coastie...

That's my theory, anyway...begin shooting it down like the clay pigeon (red herring?) it is supposed to be... :)

+0
Tuesday, April 10, 2007 3:06 PM
Gonch: it's not just Orlando. DL's one-day ticket is $63, plus tax. BGE's is $55+tax.

SFI is getting there, though. ;)


begin shooting it down like the ... (red herring?) it is supposed to be.

I'm just enjoying the visual of herring under fire...
+0
Tuesday, April 10, 2007 3:17 PM
I wish I could, Gator. But I think you're pretty dead-on with that assessment.


I do believe that SF's intention was to "price out" that part of their clientele that wasn't making them enough money...

You know I kind of thought that for a long while too (and still kinda do), but I don't think it's as drastic as we first thought.

I say that because SF claims 50% of their attendance is season pass holders and they didn't do much to push the prices on season passes. In fact, they're still stupid-cheap.

Although that could be part of the plan. Those people keep attendance levels relatively steady (and now presumably spend more in-park thanks to $7 pizza and $4 drinks) while they slowly ween the other 50% onto the new higher pricing scheme.

Kind of like trying to delicately balance on the fence and play both sides of the field at the same time.

I still like it. Feels more like a long-term plan than a series of quick fixes.

As far as the CP side of things. What we had to say when price drops in the park were announced was pretty interesting. :)

Actually, now all we need are the CP revenue numbers (I'm feeling WAY too lazy today) and we could go a long way towards figuring how much it helped (or didn't help) to drop prices across the board inside the park as well as dropping gate prices.

+0
Tuesday, April 10, 2007 3:22 PM

Brian Noble said:
Gonch: it's not just Orlando. DL's one-day ticket is $63, plus tax. BGE's is $55+tax.

SFI is getting there, though. ;)


Oh, they're there. :)

SFGAdv's 'listed' gate price is $60. SFGAm's is $55.

+0
Tuesday, April 10, 2007 3:42 PM
SFoG's *all-inclusive, all-parks* SP was, 70-ish, plus tax and processing, came out to JUST under 80 bucks.

PCar's Maxx Pass - the equivalent in CF terms, was ten dollars more, 89.95 tax included (no processing since I purchased at the park)..

Once you factor in that my PARKING pass at SF paid for a seson's parking, and that at PCar the only parking pass available was STRICTLY for Carowinds....SF's pricing is pretty much in line with CF's.

Disney's HUGE difference isn't in the day-ticket prices, it's in the PASS prices....explains why I have no Disney pass despite having one for nearly every other chain going (HFEC will have to wait til I get to D-Wood).

+0
Tuesday, April 10, 2007 3:58 PM
But there's variables (inconsistencies?) to account for as well.

For example my Maxx pass from PKI was $125.

If we decide to go to Texas this year, my SP at SFOT will run $47. (outer market - stretching a bit, I know)

A fairer comparison would be SFKK's pass and that runs $60. (not sure if it goes up 'in-season' or how much if it does)

And just for reference the HW pass is $100. (goes to $130 in-season)

So if I live in the PKI/SFKK/HW market, one of these parks is clearly offering a pass that's much less expensive than the others.

But yeah, I see your point.

+0
Tuesday, April 10, 2007 5:55 PM

Lord Gonchar said:SF's ticket per cap in 2005 was just $18.09, but in 2006 it went up to $20.47. (that's chainwide)

Where did you find the front gate per cap figures? Those are figures I've been wanting to see. I obviously wasn't looking hard enough.

Basically with the in-park per cap and front gate average you can make an estimate of the park's annual revenue. You'd be missing parking and special events, but with those figures SFMM's revenue would be about $160 million using the average. I'd bet that SFMM is above the average at the front gate and with in park spending.

+0
Tuesday, April 10, 2007 6:34 PM
The front gate pricing strategy of SF and CF differ. Many seemed to miss the reasoning behind the "posted" price increases at Six Flags last year. The new management stated that they felt the posted price for the experience they offer had fallen behind other popular forms of entertainment, attractions and activities

The "posted" price increases were not an attempt to make the consumer pay more since the discount offers continued, but an attempt to bring their prices up to par for the type experience Six Flags felt they offerred.

Here are a few comparisons.

Sporting Event (3 hours of entertainment) = $25 - $75 (even higher)
Ski / Snowboard Ticket (6 hours of activity) = $70
Live Concert (2.5 hours of entertainment) = $50 or more

The strategy also follows something that is common in retail. What sounds better? I paid $1000 for a television that was worth $1000 - or - I paid $1000 for a television that was worth $2000. Who pays the Suggested Retail Price? Very few.

Six Flags is doing same thing. The increase was simply to say the experience we offer at Magic Mountain is worth $60. They're not trying to make their guests pay that. They just want to make the statement that that is the kind of value they offer. *** Edited 4/10/2007 10:37:40 PM UTC by egieszl***

+0
Tuesday, April 10, 2007 7:42 PM
Rob, Euro Disney SCA (parent company of DLP) is supposed to pay the Walt Disney Company royalties for the right to use the Disney stuff. But, due to the financial problems, they've suspended the payments for years, as not to put an additional strain on the resort. As for owners... in the 90's, the resort was saved when a rich saudi prince bought 10% of the Euro Disney SCA stocks.

The DCA Tower of Terror was originally designed for the Walt Disney Studios, but it took them so long to get started on it, they built it at DCA and TDS first.

+0
Tuesday, April 10, 2007 9:19 PM

egieszl said:
Where did you find the front gate per cap figures? Those are figures I've been wanting to see. I obviously wasn't looking hard enough.

Right Here :)

Keep in mind though that those are company-wide numbers, Eric.

+0
Wednesday, April 11, 2007 9:15 AM
^^ So when something is built at DLP, who assumes the bill for that? Disney or Euro Disney SCA? I'm a bit confused... you said that Tower of Terror was designed for Disney Studios Paris but it ended up being built at DCA, which implies that the Disney Company itself was paying to have that ride built... after all, they were the ones that opted to build it elsewhere.
+0
Wednesday, April 11, 2007 10:34 AM
The WDS Tower of Terror was designed by WDI Paris... which is a completely different office from the US one. Walt Disney Company got the design from Paris and built it at DCA. Presumably, Oriental Land got it from Paris as well for the TDS one. What's interesting is that there seems to be a lot of... "conflicts" between WDI Glendale and WDI Paris.

When an attraction is built at DLP, Euro Disney SCA are the ones paying for it. With all the financial problems, it explains why there was only a revamped 3-D theater as a "new" attraction at DLP between 1995 (Space Mountain) and 2006 (Buzz Lightyear). They could not afford anything else!

WDS was built simply cause they had to. As per the original contract between Disney and the french government, Euro Disney had to build a second gate within a set time line... So they raised all the money they could from the shareholders and they tried to build a theme park with it! 300-400 millions is not a lot for a Disney theme park, so that's why Tower of Terror and the theming was cut from the park.

In 2004, they raised another 300 millions from the shareholders in order to build 4 attractions: Buzz Lightyear (DLP) in 2006, Toon Studios, with Crush Coaster and a spinning ride from Zamperla in 2007 and Tower of Terror in late 2007-early 2008.

+0
Wednesday, April 11, 2007 2:04 PM
I doubt they'll stick with them, but I still feel the decrease in prices at Cedar Fair parks was a good long term move (at least within the park). $.25 cotton candy and cheaper pop is not going to bring families to a park for the first time, but it does help them feel like there not getting ripped off as much while they’re there and improves their experience (which keeps them coming back more often). I think if they struck with the policy for 5-10 years they would have a higher profit than if they start radically raising prices again, but it’s hard to think that long term I understand. I'm admittedly not as sure about the gate prices though. It's easier to get mad at a $3 Pepsi than an admission ticket with no perfect outside comparison.
+0
Wednesday, April 11, 2007 6:37 PM
25 cent cotton candy? Where?
VF's price shot back up at the end September '06...

-'Playa

+0
Wednesday, April 11, 2007 8:23 PM
^They shot ours up at WOF just in time for Halloweekends -- talk about making people mad. Their excuse was that the machines just were not able to handle the large amount of output that the pormotion was demanding of them. Don't know how clsoe to the truth that is (was), but nonetheless they advertised it for the entire season and did not follow through.
+0

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2019, POP World Media, LLC
Loading...