Can you Imagine Six Flags Kennywood?
- More
- 1
- 2 of 2
RatherGoodBear said:
Guess it works out for the best, since it sounds like the blue-collar, steel-worker,union-local, fraternal-society picnic type of crowd is exactly what Shapiro doesn't want in his precious parks.
Yikes, that's a rather broad and kind of negative correlation to make. So you're saying anyone who physically earns their money can't afford to spend it?
Even I take great offense to that. Every 'real' job I've ever held in my life has been blue collar. Back in those days we didn't take many trips (we weren't quite enthusiasts - so the lack of trips was due to interest, not financial), but we still had no problem dropping the money when we did go and we were able to it.
I'm with Flyingscooter on this, I think you're underestimating an entire segement of workforce and if that's really how you see the whole SF thing and is part of your problem with it, then you're even further off base than I originally suspected.
It's not as "us-vs-them" as you like to make it. In fact, it's not that way at all.
Luckily though, I'm a drug dealer now so it doesn't affect me either way. :)
---
EDIT - changed "works hard" to "physically earns" in the first paragraph because it seemed to imply that white collar workers don't work hard for their money and it's a misconception I absolutely can't stand.
*** Edited 3/14/2006 9:21:38 PM UTC by Lord Gonchar***
-Tina
*** Edited 3/14/2006 8:24:40 PM UTC by coasterqueenTRN***
One question I get asked is why I love going to PA for coaster travel so much...the answer: "LOADS of parks, NONE of them owned by SF." ;)
Follow-up question: "But SF is the biggest player in the game, why don't they own any in PA?"
Follow-up answer: The parks already there are SO nice, so well-run, a SF park there would just go out of business... :)
You still have Zoidberg.... You ALL have Zoidberg! (V) (;,,;) (V)
I think it's a pretty positive correlation I'm making-- about the blue-collar, steel-worker, union-local, fraternal society people. It's SF I have the problem with.
I didn't say anything about who could afford to spend what. I won't argue with the fact that Scooter's dad spent bucks for food, games and souvenirs at the park. My family did too. Well, maybe not the food part, since my family figured they could make much better than what any park had to offer. Hell, the day before the park food prep operation was almost as fun as going to the park itself.
But did your dad ever spend 15 bucks (or the equivalent allowing for inflation) to park the car? Did he ever stand in a line for over an hour to rent a gizmo for $40 to avoid having to stand in line? Or $75 for VIP treatment? How many SF parks allow people to bring their own food into the park? How many still offer on-site picnic facilities?
I will venture to say that many (not all) people who "physically earn" their money don't spend it too extravagantly. They're looking for that perceived value people in here are fond of talking about. The people I know aren't fond of being treated like "captive audience members." And maybe they're not educated people, but they know a huckster when they see one.
My impression is that Shapiro is going for the crowd who won't blink at spending big bucks to stay at a "destination" for several days. Gonch, I think it IS an us vs. them thing-- those who are willing or able to spend without questioning and those who can't or won't. (I consider myself a won't). Granted, that probably doesn't have a lot to do with one's earnings. And you're the one who mentioned elsewhere that those who have a problem with the pricing should just take their "chump change" elsewhere. (Which I have and will continue to do).
The park would have gone under (especially thanks to the local tax laws) a couple of years ago if Six Flags had bought them.
And it's PittsburgH ... there's an H people for the love of god!
If SF was still under old management, how long before they'd pirate 'gator's idea and hire Chong to run their new souvenier line? =)
What I have to say on the $15 flat fee is that 15 bucks in NYC or LA is NOT the same as 15 bucks in alot of areas of the country where the same money goes a LOT further...plus the park's offerings are SO divergent, it makes NO sense at all to me to charge a flat fee nationwide...on the flip side, the large metropolitan areas have more CHOICES for entertainment, so maybe it DOES balance out...
Working in the bowels of the bureaucracy, I can tell you for certain that white-collar workers vary WIDELY in terms of how hard they work for the money...VARY VERY WIDELY. ;)
*** Edited 3/15/2006 2:05:00 AM UTC by rollergator***
You still have Zoidberg.... You ALL have Zoidberg! (V) (;,,;) (V)
RatherGoodBear said:
And you're the one who mentioned elsewhere that those who have a problem with the pricing should just take their "chump change" elsewhere. (Which I have and will continue to do).
Just to be clear, I was both paraphrasing and putting words into the mouth's of the SF management. Those weren't necessarily my words, but a glib representation of how I felt they're apporaching this.
Gonch, I think it IS an us vs. them thing-- those who are willing or able to spend without questioning and those who can't or won't. (I consider myself a won't).
I consider myself a shouldn't but still does ;)
I don't get the us-vs-them thing one bit and I'm kind of at a loss. I can't play because I really don't think I understand the game at this point.
It's the blue collar workers of the world (representing those that can't or won't pay the asking price) vs Six Flags (representing the evil corporation trying to increase profit margins)?
Am I even close?
They have great parks, and great rides, but the one thing Shapiro forgets is that grandparents, mine or yours, will not go to Six Flags. They will go to Kennywood, Conneaut Lake, Lakemont, Cedar Point, etc.
Why? Because it is there. 100 year old parks that still kick ass, and deliver a pure family product, for riders, picnicers, fascination players, people watchers, etc.
Its the Wal Mart principle. With no other store in your town, ya, they have a great retail experience. But, what happens when Murphy's Mart, Ames, Hills, and Gold Circle all close up? It leaves K-Mart and Target left to fight it out. When one of them are gone, we are at the mercy of the Walton family and have to pay $17 for a 6 pack of Charmin.
This summer, do your good deed, and spread your hard earned vacation dollars out at some family owned regional parks. If you are in Orlando, give up a day on the flex ticket, and drive to Cypress Gardens. If you are heading to Cedar Point, spend a day at Conneaut Lake and Geneva on the Lake instead of Darien Lake.
Riding the Train at Bonnie Springs Ranch outside of Vegas may not be the same as the one at Disneyland, but the animals and scenery are real. In Chicago, maybe skip Great America, and head to Iowa. I bet you will find some great parks.
There are over 250 parks in the US, and they all do not begin with Six Flags.
I think those that are used to Six Flags and Cedar Fair will find the traditional independent parks to be a breath of fresh air.
Places like Holiday World, Kennywood and Blackpool have a charm to them that you just don't find at every park these days.
These parks are certainly well worth supporting!
I have no problem with any corporation in any industry making a profit by way of honest hard work. And I don't believe that Six Flags is evil, they're just annoying right now. (Wahoo, we're going to empty the trash now. Stop the presses!)
When most other businesses hit a low point and are trying to re-gain lost customers or attract new ones, they go out of their way to provide customer service and incentives. When the customer base is built back up and you show them some concrete improvements and some value for the customers' money, THEN you can increase your prices.
Now, I'm not advocating that SF cut their prices. But I still think it's pretty arrogant of them to increase the cost of the single-day pass and parking pretty much across the board without actually showing any marked improvements. There's been a lot of talk so far, and maybe there will be many things improved, but until those happen, I don't see how cost increases can be justified.
The only exception would be what many other people in here have mentioned-- the cost of the season pass, which should be raised just to bring it in line with what other parks charge. IMO, if season passes had been raised to about 2.5 the cost of a single day pass, the chain would have seen a large increase in income and the complaints would have been a fraction of that resulting from some of their other changes (like the aborted re-entry policy, etc.). It would have been easy to deflect any other complaints simply by saying they're bringing their prices in line with what every other chain and independent park is charging for season passes.
From what we've read in here, it appears there are numerous cosmetic improvements going on in various parks, such as new trash cans, cleaner bathrooms, new paint. All well and good. But it's like when you're selling a house-- if you have to replace the roof, broken windows and a malfunctioning furnace, you can't realistically add those costs to the selling price of the house. Because the prospective buyer expects a to buy a house with a roof, secure windows, and heat.
Same with parks, anybody's parks. They can't turn around and charge more for a new coat of paint and new trash cans (less overflowing trash), because such things are a basic condition people expect to see, not a premium service for which they feel obligated to pay.
Like I said, I have no problem with anyone turning a profit by earning it through honest hard work. Reaching into your customers' pockets at every opportunity is not honest hard work.
RatherGoodBear said:
Getting closer, Gonch.
Sadly, I think it's as close as I'll get. I just generally have a different take on things.
I have no problem with any corporation in any industry making a profit by way of honest hard work. And I don't believe that Six Flags is evil, they're just annoying right now. (Wahoo, we're going to empty the trash now. Stop the presses!)
I think the over the top PR is good. In fact, it's the one thing I think CF has missed with GL. They're getting the word out that things will change. That's an absolute must. Say it, say it again, then say it some more.
Also, I think PR is incredibly important all the way from the biggest corporation to the individual. Making people think you're good is just as beneficial as actually being good in most cases.
It works two-fold. The word gets out and a fraction of the people believe the hype. Win/win in my eyes.
When most other businesses hit a low point and are trying to re-gain lost customers or attract new ones, they go out of their way to provide customer service and incentives. When the customer base is built back up and you show them some concrete improvements and some value for the customers' money, THEN you can increase your prices.Now, I'm not advocating that SF cut their prices. But I still think it's pretty arrogant of them to increase the cost of the single-day pass and parking pretty much across the board without actually showing any marked improvements. There's been a lot of talk so far, and maybe there will be many things improved, but until those happen, I don't see how cost increases can be justified.
Because the product was undervalued to begin with. There's a reason SF fell $2 billion into debt (well, actually there's many :) ). If I had to pay off that kind of debt, I'd look for ways to make money. Granted there are several ways to do it - such as the ones you mentioned - but the most direct route is to simply make more money.
Undervalued product + severe need for cash = price hikes.
The only exception would be what many other people in here have mentioned-- the cost of the season pass, which should be raised just to bring it in line with what other parks charge. IMO, if season passes had been raised to about 2.5 the cost of a single day pass, the chain would have seen a large increase in income and the complaints would have been a fraction of that resulting from some of their other changes (like the aborted re-entry policy, etc.). It would have been easy to deflect any other complaints simply by saying they're bringing their prices in line with what every other chain and independent park is charging for season passes.
I agree, but I belive the fact that 2006 passes had already begun selling for established prices delayed them from this. I'm sure we'll see it next season and if they stop at 2.5 times the gate price, they're missing the mark in a big way. Realistically, it's easy to enter SF for under $40. Even the most casual of park goers probably checks the website. I say 3, preferrable 4 times that for a pass. $159 for a season of SF park visits is still a steal.
From what we've read in here, it appears there are numerous cosmetic improvements going on in various parks, such as new trash cans, cleaner bathrooms, new paint. All well and good. But it's like when you're selling a house-- if you have to replace the roof, broken windows and a malfunctioning furnace, you can't realistically add those costs to the selling price of the house. Because the prospective buyer expects a to buy a house with a roof, secure windows, and heat.
I stand by the undervalued comment. I'll stick with the house analogy.
Red Zone bought a run down house that needed all the necessary repairs you detailed. It was on the market for a price slightly lower than it's worth minus the repairs. Red Zone came in, did the repairs and then put the house back on th market for it's full value.
Like those people that buy old ''fixer upper' houses that go dirt cheap because they're not in the best shape and they require a lot of work, do the work themselves and turn the house around for a tidy profit.
They're correcting the undervaluing and doing the repairs (supposedly).
Same with parks, anybody's parks. They can't turn around and charge more for a new coat of paint and new trash cans (less overflowing trash), because such things are a basic condition people expect to see, not a premium service for which they feel obligated to pay.
See, I still don't get it. The house (SF) needed the new roof, windows and heat and was on the market for cheap. These guys came in, did the reapirs and put it back on the market for it's full value.
Stuff like that is exactly the reason these price hikes don't seem out of line to me.
Like I said, I have no problem with anyone turning a profit by earning it through honest hard work. Reaching into your customers' pockets at every opportunity is not honest hard work.
Still, still don't see it. They're doing the hard work - cleaning up the old guys mess and bringing things up to par. You're making it sound like they walked in, said "Things are fine as they are" and then jacked up prices across the board. They didn't.
Your 2+ billion in debt. You've promised your stockholders that your going to fix things by adding to that debt as little as possible.
Please explain to me how your going to make changes and continue to operate your parks without raising prices significantly? Then, add in LG's point about the company already being undervalued and underpriced for years, and what did some of you really expect?
Some of their prices have been nothing short of a steal. Consider it restitution time. *** Edited 3/16/2006 1:42:14 AM UTC by DWeaver***
To assume stockholders only care about the selling of parks is *extremely* short sighted. Because each park that is sold results in an automatic decrease in yearly revenue. These aren't decisions that are taken lightly simply because there is money involved.
Believe it or not, those sunkist oranges and character signings aren't just about dollars a pop. I wish you'd get that. It's about restoring faith and value in the brand. Perceived or not, these are basic, low cost things the company should have been doing all along.
If anything, what the stockholders want are improvements done to bring in the maximum of new guests at the fraction of what $200 million in coaster installations would cost.
- More
- 1
- 2 of 2
You must be logged in to post
