Classism and park demographics: whither the credit whore?

In Petes case its a choice of a rollercoaster or a stones concert :)

---

What are you going to do without? Is it food on your table or rollercoasters?

---

Moot point. If you're borderline enough to have to choose between eating (or living in general) and an amusement park, then you weren't visiting in the first place.

Even with a $13 per person raise in gate price and a $5 or $10 raise in parking, it a difference of $60 for a family of four.

If $60 means the difference between eating or not, you're not the type of person who was visiting the parks in the first place.

Which kind of comes full circle. They don't want these people at the park anymore (if the suspected 'classism' argument is true).

I think they're deciding that there's a low point where the small amount of money they get from a certain type of guest just isn't worth it.

As enthusiasts, we visit a lot of parks, and we get to see the difference between the service at Park A and Park B. We know the difference between the sterling customer service at HW and the shoddy lack of it at many SF parks. (However, my "local" SFGAm is pretty good for a SF.) The GP just doesn't know the difference. They have a home park where they almost always go, and then maybe some of them go to WDW or DL at times and see the difference, but "that's Disney". Everyone in the Chicago area and eastern Wisconsin knows about "Great America" (most don't even realize it's a SF park!) Very few realize they can coast in the Dells, or have even heard of IB or HW. They have no idea of the difference in treatment they will get, if they even know about these alternatives.

People know that the big SF parks have tons of coasters and they are accustomed to the fact that they will stand in line for hours in the hot sun. This is the only local amusement park experience they know. They may not like the treatment they get, but they just don't have anything to compare it to - they don't realize it's "not as good as" BG.

SF's real competition is not other amusement parks. It's camping and outdoor sports. SF just wants to get the family to come to the park one day a year somehow. It's not "should we go to SFGAm or IB?" It's "we should really go to SFGAm sometime this summer when we have time."

In most markets, SF just doesn't face any meaningful competition, so SF raising prices will just mean that less people go to an amusement park at all. Whether SF makes more money or not, who knows? I do know that SFGAm was so packed on weekends last year that we could not ride anything without a 45+ minute wait between noon and 8pm! If they can keep 90% of that crowd at 20% higher prices, they win. If it's only 80%, they lose. That's the only question, not how much business is going to go to IB or HW instead.

How come everyone always brings up Knoebels, Holiday World, Indiana Beach and to a lesser extent, Kennywood when these kinds of conversations come up? It's apples and oranges folks. These parks are not in the same position as the large Six Flags parks, therefore their pricing structures have little to no relation to Six Flags' Even Cedar Point is in a similar position.

Most every major Six Flags serves a LARGE American city: SFGAdv = NYC, Philly, SFMM = LA, SFGAm = Chicago, SFoT = Dallas, SFoG = Atlanta ... and you're going to compare the markets, supply and demand, and the proper pricing structures for those parks with Knoebels = north-central bumfartnowhere PA, Holiday World = farm country Indiana, Indiana Beach = farm country Indiana, Kennywood = economically depressed Pittsburgh and southwest PA.

It just doesn't make any sense. You're thinking like an enthusiast that knows that these parks exist, that actually looks for a park to go to rather than just going to whatever one is known because they see/hear the most ads for the place, and that knows that little does not mean crappy! To Joe Parkgoer in Dallas, or Atlanta, or NYC, they want a big park with lots of rolley coasters and as long as $15 for parking doesn't seem obscene to them, well then Six Flags feels that's their target customer! Please come in and leave the contents of your wallet at our gift shop!

Have I ever told you guys how much I love Hamburgers? I don’t buy them at White Castle though! I don’t like the taste!

P.S. I bet that every Hamburger enthusiast is just lying when they say they don’t like White Castle and don’t plan to eat there!

*** Edited 1/20/2006 12:20:33 AM UTC by Jeffrey R Smith***

But comparing White Castle to McDonald's is like comparing apples to oranges! ;)

---

Brian Noble said:
...nearly everyone finds it comfortable to be surrounded by people more "like them"...

---

Not me... I prefer to be surrounded by Asian women.

Anywho,

My wife and I visited SFMM last year. Took a big trip before getting her pregnant. Figured that it'd be a long time before any good coaster trips.

The park was fairly busy, we only had one day there, and we didn't know when or if we'd be back. Therefore, we shelled out the money for FastPasses.

I hated spending it, but it let me get more out of the day.

I think I'd see more of a percieved value in paying more to park and/or at the gate, and having short, efficient lines in the park.

What the hell, maybe they're on to something.

*** Edited 1/20/2006 1:31:32 AM UTC by kpjb***

I disagree with all of this talk about the "GP" not knowing their options. Talk to the people you work with about parks sometime.

When I talk about parks, my friends and coworkers mention a lot of nearby parks with enthusiasm. People specific rides in different parks by name. People who live in Pittsburgh do not only visit KW. They visit GL, CP, HP, and maybe more. People are not stupid. Give them some credit.

---

As a person with very little extra income, I have always hoped that "classism" wouldn't spring up into the amusement business any more than it already was. Q-Bot started rewarding people with more money to spend with more rides per visit. It's becoming a rich mans hobbie. I'm lucky if I get to make 3 or 4 park visits per year.

It's all going to change for me soon though with school and a new film career. I may have more money in the future, but I will always remember how the unexceptable greed of some of my favorite businesses made me feel like a pos, and therefor spend elsewhere.

Of course the GP are idiots! If they actually knew anything about the business then Six Flags would be a struggling company with a poor reputation, high debt load, free-falling stock price, with ever-changing leadership/policies. Instead the public would flock to Paramount, Cedar Fair, Disney et al! Those idiot GP’s don’t know a good value when they see it! Lucky for Six Flags they’ve been pulling the wool over the GP’s eyes!

Nominee - best thread title of '06.

Bottom line: Six Flags can successfully raise prices if the public believes it's getting a good value. Most of us are skeptical Six Flags can deliver on that front based on past history, but I'm content to just wait and see what happens this year.

I've been a SFFT season pass holder for three years, and I've gotten plenty of mileage out of it, visiting six other Six Flags parks for the cost of parking alone. I'm not getting a pass this year, not because of any of the changes in the company's policies, but simply because there are way too many non-SF parks I've yet to visit. And I'll be curious to read people's trip reports on SF parks this year.

Just keep in mind that SF was already in a world of hurt before Snyder's folks took over, and they really needed to take drastic measures to attempt to turn the company around. The grand experiment may very well fail, but something - anything - had to be done.

---

Lord Gonchar said:

Which kind of comes full circle. They don't want these people at the park anymore (if the suspected 'classism' argument is true).

I think they're deciding that there's a low point where the small amount of money they get from a certain type of guest just isn't worth it.

---

Well, that may be exactly what Six Flags is thinking. But look at Cedar Point. They are going exactly in the opposite direction, saying the avg. income at CP is way up and they want to attract lower income people.

So, which is right? I'll would put my money on Cedar Fair.

I'm in a fairly good position where I'm not really worried about how much I spend in parks. But, do I enjoy feeling like I'm being gouged even if I can afford it? No I don't, and it affects my attitude toward a park.

Getting a 25 cent cotton candy will make me feel good and put a smile on my face, paying 15 dollars for parking won't. I'll leave a place where I feel the prices are fair with a positive outlook toward the place. Which translates into repeat visits and good word of mouth advertising.

Six Flags may make more money this year with high prices, but I think in the long run people will take their entertainment dollars elsewhere.

But then again, the Six Flags pricing could be a plan to artificially raise stock prices, make a quick buck for the first year or two, and then sell off the poor performers for the land value. That way it won't matter if they have return visitors.

First off, I don't buy this "the GP are generally ignnorant about parks and how they are run, blah, blah." Anyone who has basic cable and an internet connection has been exposed to tons of info about parks across the country. I live in eastcentral-bumfartnowhere PA to paraphrase Impulsive, but I knew about places like Holiday World, Knotts, and a whole bunch of Six Flags parks long before I wandered into this site.

BTW, Impulsive, it's true that most SF parks are near large cities. But it doesn't appear there will be any exemptions for the ones that aren't such as GE, DL, KK, etc.

When it comes to trips that will cost them hundreds of dollars, they do their research. Even if it's that lame MSN Top 10 list that keeps popping up, you can bet that thousands of people have clicked on the sites to those parks. No, they can't look at a coaster and tell you who the manufacturer is, or what kind of cars are on it like many people on this site. But they do know when someone is trying to d*** them over.

So don't think people will just blindly fork over all their money to Snyder and Shapiro because they think that's the way it's supposed be. And do you really believe people with $80.000 vehicles will park them in a non-secure parking lot half a mile from the park entrance?

Maybe it's me, but I just don't see the upper of the upscale agaonizing over whether to do the Riviera or Magic Mountain. The crowd that buys tickets for 8 Redskins, Cowboys, or Falcons home games are not necessarily going to hit an SF park 8 times during the summer.

Everybody has a threshold. Everybody. I wouldn't get too smug about "classism" and "undesirable elements." Because there will come a point when the bar will be raised enough that many of you will find yourselves not making the cut. And you will piss and moan as loud as anybody in these threads now.

Hey, with these new admission prices, do you think the employees will see any jumps in pay? Er, by employees, I'm not talking about the folks up top. ;)

The point being improved customer service.

Jeffrey: as far as I know, SFs problems are not due to the parks themselves. My understanding is that the parks generate positive cash flow. The problem is that the company grew much too quickly---via new acquisitions and capital expenditures in their existing parks---and they've never recovered from the borrowing.

The falling attendance isn't helping, but I don't believe that individual parks are unprofitable. Yet. Though, in some sense, I suppose that both SFWoA (aka Geauga Lake) and SFAW (aka "housing") could be viewed as parks that were either not profitable, or not profitable enough to justify keeping given the economic realities of their markets.

In any event, I'd like to try to refocus the question away from the financials of Six Flags, and back to the question of what the pricing moves of Six Flags, Cedar Point, and Disney World suggest: are these companies trying to price out/re-attract the lower end of their customer base (measured economically), and if so, what are the plusses and minuses of either approach?

Remember: Six Flags is instituting unprecedented price increases, at the same time that CP and WDW have, for what may be the first time ever, decreased admission costs for (at least many of) their patrons.

And, not just "how will it affect me?", but "how will it affect the nature of a theme park?"

---

Anyone who has basic cable and an internet connection has been exposed to tons of info about parks across the country. I live in eastcentral-bumfartnowhere PA to paraphrase Impulsive, but I knew about places like Holiday World, Knotts, and a whole bunch of Six Flags parks long before I wandered into this site.

---

Sure the information exists. That doesn't mean that most people seek it out. I can tell you that literally no one else in my extended family has ever visited the cedar point web site more than once or twice in their lifetime. That includes my brother's family (who visits CP once per year, and visits a Disney park every 1-2 years), and my cousin's family that visits CP 2-3 times per year, and has been to Kennywood, Michigan's Adventure, and a handful of other parks.

You'd have to care enough about amusement parks to go looking and spend your time reading about them. By definition you, as an enthusiast, care enough. But, for the VAST majority of the people who visit a park, it's just another thing to do during the summer with all the other "summer stuff", and not something that is researched ad nauseum.

For example, the Unofficial Guide to Walt Disney World has some statistics on just how few people buy ANY guidebook AT ALL before visiting WDW. It's shockingly small considering the amount of money most families spend on a trip to the Mouse, which is probably at least $3000 for a week. And that's the low end of the range: $800 to fly, $1000 for tickets, $700 for lodging, $500 for food. It can get a lot more expensive than that in a hurry.

So, you might think people would plan their week-long $400-$500+/day vacation, but according to the folks making their living selling a $20 book to help them plan, they just don't.

Given that, how much do you think the average family dropping $300 taking a day trip bothers? My conclusion is: not much.

You're right: everyone has a threshold. I'm getting to the point where I'm wondering whether or not it's worth keeping both my pair of Michigan season tickets and my four Cedar Point season passes---they cost about the same, and their "seasons" overlap by a good chunk of time. If one has to go, it's probably going to be football. Many other people would go the other way---it depends on what they value more.

Who buys Disney or universal guides?

They ususally send us DVD's and trip packages for free! :)

Chuck, who actually considers it nice junk mail.

---

janfrederick said:
Hey, with these new admission prices, do you think the employees will see any jumps in pay? Er, by employees, I'm not talking about the folks up top. ;)

The point being improved customer service.

---

Funny stuff! You write for Comedy Centtral in your spare time? ;)

Well, I had to compete with SLFAKE:

"Come along, Lovey... We're going coastering with the Rockefellers and Vanderbilts this weekend."

"Alright Thurston, but you know how sick I get on Roller coasters."

"That's alright Lovey, we'll have the butler throw up for you."

Eh... I was just being a smart-arse.

In reality, when you come right down to it... If you make several park visits a year (either to multiple parks or several visits to a few parks) you will notice a difference.

Many (most?) people don't do that. My wife and I were talking about this a few weeks ago... "Remember back when going to Hersheypark was a big event that we looked forward to for months... now it's not unusual to go there a few times a summer..."

To many people visiting a park is like this... it is a big event that they plan for as part of a vacation or as a vacation in its own right. If they get to one park a season, they are doing good (for them). The higher prices simply means that more money will be budget for it. A family of four will spend an extra what... an extra $65 on that vacation. As Gonchar said (I think it was Gonchar) if $65 is going to make or break your vacation plans, you should take a serious look at how you are spending your money.

Now for us on this board it is different. Last year, my wife and I went to 12 different parks. Had they been all SF visits, that would have been (assuming no passes, no discounts, etc) an extra $420. THAT MIGHT make a differnce... but then again... that is not $420 spread out over one trip... but rather $420 spread over 5 months averaging out to $84 a month. Still a lot? Yes... but hey, we all know that this isn't really a cheap hobby. Got two choices... either pay up, or cut down on the number of visits. Because like it or not, over the long run, it isn't going to get any cheaper.

Bottom line... I'm not complaining. I'll probably get a SFA season pass again this year. Gets me in to SFGrAdv and SFNE for basically Free. May not be that way next year. If so, oh well... We've enjoyed the obscenely cheap Season Passes for so long, we have gotten used to them, and spoiled.

Big question is... we complain now... "I'll NEVER go to SF again..." But come this summer, how many will actually stick to that vow?

Yah, but it just seems strange for parks in certain markets. Say, Magic Mountain where Knott's and DL are nearby. Then again, I remember a time in my life where I would have NEVER chosen Disneyland over Magic Mountain.