Clementon Park's new owners hope to improve experience

[

There is insufficient demand for a hotel there even though about three million people visit the park per year? Even though, as you say, it is located in the most congested area in the country? Even though they have more than one days worth of attractions to visit? Even though there isn't another hotel in the area to compete with? Do you seriously believe that SF would be looking forward to building a hotel if their wasn't sufficient demand for one?

Seriously, don't you think Six Flags has done market research on this? Neither you nor I actually know whether sufficient demand exists or not. We're both offering our opinion.

Is that new? I don't remember hearing that reason from you yet. In rebuttal, I don't see the theme park having any problems with having the Air Force base nearby. If a park can exist near an air force base, so can a new hotel. Giving that as a reason is a distraction and not valid.

This really had nothing to do with the hotel, it stemmed from a tangential discussion with Gonch about why Six Flags was sitting in the middle of nowhere

I'm not making any of this up. The population is (bla bla bla...)

Nice non response.

If we have already established that the park gets (clears throat) three million guests per year (lol), and we have already established that the park is in the most heavily populated State in the country, and between two of the most populated cities in the country, then how on earth does that solidify that there is not sufficient demand for a hotel near Six Flags Great Adventure? I am lost.

Again, do you think Six Flags hasn't looked into this? Your saying sufficient demand exists doesn't make it so, any more than my saying sufficient demand doesn't exist. We're both just offering our opinion.

rollergator said:
I demand clean renewable energy nationwide....but because we don't have it yet, is that sufficient proof that it will never happen?

Somewhere, somehow, Schrodinger's cat is still in the box....Dead Or Alive...you spin me round! (like a record baby).... :)

Arent there various firms working on fuel cells, electric cars and the like?

Have they poured the foundation for the Jackson NJ Holiday Inn yet?

See the difference?

Isn't park management on record as looking into it? Like, doing research? Hmmmm...

Carrie M. said:

billb7581 said: More correctly I should have linked "Straw Man" because you keep appealing to something I never said.

billb7581 said: I never said that a hotel wouldn't be built because there wasn't one. I've always mantained that a hotel wouldn't be built because there was insufficient demand for one.

And yet....

billb7581 also said: If it were that easy, and such a sure fire money maker, they'd already be doing it.

billb7581 also said: If it's such a sure fire thing why wouldn't Aloft or someone just plop one down right there?

billb7581 also said: Great Adventure has been there 30 years, why hasn't a hotel ever materialized... hmmmm?

You can say you've been misunderstood, but you can't say you never said that the current lack of a hotel is justification for your argument that there shouldn't be one. Your statements certainly do indicate you believe that if a hotel could be successful, it would be there already. And folks are pointing out that all successful endeavors had to be created at one time or another. The hotel's absence is not a sole indication that demand is lacking.

EDITED to add: Damn it, Gonch! :) (Please consider the extra effort I took to be an example of how to effectively quote from various posts...;) )

I dont see your point. I may have not worded it as clearly as I would have liked but the implication in all those statements is that I dont believe the demand exists, restated different ways.

... hotels don't just spring up from the ether, and then attempt to book guests.

Tekwardo said:
Isn't park management on record as looking into it? Like, doing research? Hmmmm...

I said that, heck they even have the zoning in place, but neither you nor I are privy to that research with respect to the feasibility of a hotel. So at this point we're just offering our opinion.

billb7581 said: I dont see your point. I may have not worded it as clearly as I would have liked but the implication in all those statements is that I dont believe the demand exists, restated different ways.

Re-read my last paragraph again...slower...and see if you get my point.

Edited because BillB is double posting...again.

Billb, I don't want to cause any offense, and I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but...are you Charlie Sheen?

Bill I don't see how there is a difference if research is being done in both ends.

Having said that... I'm surprised that you finally admitted that this is your opinion and not fact, which is how hour implication came across from every post. I'm dine with the arguments, I just like point out he outlandish remarks still comeing in.

Sure the absence of a hotel doesn't prove insufficient demand, the fact that various Six Flags administrations (dating back to the guy who built the place) have looked into the idea and noone has pulled the trigger is a pretty damning though.

Only through ass backwards logic does it somehow make the case for a hotel, if the upper limit for amusement park attendance is on the order of 3 million people (LG's words not mine), and they're already doing that, and the people that choose to overnite there are able to find the lodging they need in Freehold or Lakehurst or wherever.

Ensign Smith said:
Billb, I don't want to cause any offense, and I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but...are you Charlie Sheen?

Na...the only Columbian I partake in is coffee... I do have a collection of those bowling shirts like he wore on that 21/2 men show though.

It's not damning if there are other reasons for its absence, which is what others have been trying to point out.

And it's not ass backwards logic if said people who choose to overnight would rather choose a closer option. That's like saying there should never be a new flavor of Pepsi because people are already quenching their thirst with what's out there. That has never stopped the manufacturers before.

I'm happy to hear that you are understanding that this is all opinion, even though your is wrong. :D

To answer you questions, Yes, I believe that SF has done research and looked into building a hotel. I think I read that in a few different places over the years. ;)

Opinions: I am basing my opinion on the countless of other theme parks and tourist destinations around the country that have hotels built up around them, and my studying of the amusement and travel industry for over 30 years (including about a decade of reading CoasterBuzz), oh- and reasoning. What are you basing your opinion on?

My biggest question is why haven't they yet. They act like they are planning it, by building a separately gated water park next door, then a few years later, they announce that they are planning to build a hotel near Kingda Ka, then they say that they are looking for partners to build a hotel. That all says to me that they know that it would be a profitable business to get into. Since they don't own any other hotel properties anywhere else in the world, I assume that they aren't looking into taking the chance to begin with an unfamiliar business venture alone. They want to partner with another company who is familiar with the hotel industry.

This reminds me of Universal Studios in Orlando. They partnered with Lowes Hotels to build and operate the three on-property hotels there. Perhaps USO was uncomfortable in trying to operate a hotel on their own?

billb7581 said:
Sure the absence of a hotel doesn't prove insufficient demand, the fact that various Six Flags administrations (dating back to the guy who built the place) have looked into the idea and noone has pulled the trigger is a pretty damning though.

All that the absence of a hotel shows is that there was some obstacle of some sort to a profitable hotel being built. That obstacle may be insufficient demand, high property taxes, zoning, government red tape or any combination of a million different reasons.

I think what most people are arguing is that insufficient demand is much lower on that list than you seem to think.

The fact that the hotel hasn't been built just shows that there are obstacles, not the relative position of insufficient demand on that list.

This is a hot topic, and the pages are just rolling by...

I've always mantained that a hotel wouldn't be built because there was insufficient demand for one.

billb7581 said:
Sure the absence of a hotel doesn't prove insufficient demand...

So you are saying that just because their isn't a hotel there doesn't mean that the demand is not there for it, but it will never be built because there is no demand for it?

I think I've gone cross eyed.

Only through ass backwards logic does it somehow make the case for a hotel, if the upper limit for amusement park attendance is on the order of 3 million people (LG's words not mine), and they're already doing that, and the people that choose to overnite there are able to find the lodging they need in Freehold or Lakehurst or wherever.

1. A hotel would make money from the three million people already visiting the park. It would give them an option to stay there instead of the further away cities, thus taking away money from the other hotels and giving it to SF instead.

2. A SF hotel may increase attendance by suggesting a multi-day stay to those who may not have though about it before, through marketing and advertising.

Andy just summed up with four little sentences what I've been trying to say for over 4 months over the course of three different threads.

I hate when that happens. :)

Basically, read Andy's reply. Everything else is moot. That's the situation.

I think I've said it at least twice in this thread now, but it keeps getting passed over, so I'll say it again, and expand on it now.

The need/demand already exists for the hotel. They already have 1% of their annual attendance that needs somewhere to stay, enough to do to warrant a multi-day visit, and it isn't very hard to convince someone to stay closer to an attraction. What GAdv has not done, however (and won't be able to do until they have a hotel there), is do the kind of outstanding marketing work that makes more people realize they have a need to stay overnight. There are no doubts in my mind that the amount of multi-day visits would increase immediately with the presence of a hotel, and through no real effort of the park's. People will see/find out about a hotel and think "Gee, it would be nice to spend an extra day here..." You don't have to look much farther than the gates of Cedar Point (and I think Knotts' may have them as well with their hotel) to see that example, with the "Stay a night and play another day" posters to catch people who didn't know they had a hotel or didn't originally plan on staying another day. You want to know the kind of people those signs reach, and who would do that? People that live about 45min-2 hours away. Close enough they were only planning on a day trip, but far enough that it makes a lot more sense to stay overnight than drive another few hours the next day.

Considering the two cities they sit between and the population count within a 2hr. radius...that seems like a lot of possible money to be leaving on the table, possible profit. Everything points to land-use/infrastructure issues or costs, not profit issues once it is open.

I agree with Gonch. Andy wins the internets!

I think what most people are arguing is that insufficient demand is much lower on that list than you seem to think.

The fact that the hotel hasn't been built just shows that there are obstacles, not the relative position of insufficient demand on that list.

I wont disagree with any of that, but you have to admit the members of this board do not represent an accurate sample of whether sufficient demand exists or not. If GA was going to do a marketing survey of the people attending the park, the responses wouldn't be all coaster enthusiasts who lived 500 miles away....it would be quite the opposite, mostly people who lived within an hour or two with varying degrees of coaster enthusiasm.

Opinions: I am basing my opinion on the countless of other theme parks and tourist destinations around the country that have hotels built up around them, and my studying of the amusement and travel industry for over 30 years (including about a decade of reading CoasterBuzz), oh- and reasoning. What are you basing your opinion on?

Living in the area and observing people's behavior with respect to Six Flags.

Comparing CP to GA is apples to oranges. You don't have the larger tourist draw of the Atlantic Ocean with all it's ammenities 30 minutes away from CP.

I didnt realize belonging to a message board made you an expert on something.

My biggest question is why haven't they yet. They act like they are planning it, by building a separately gated water park next door, then a few years later, they announce that they are planning to build a hotel near Kingda Ka, then they say that they are looking for partners to build a hotel. That all says to me that they know that it would be a profitable business to get into. Since they don't own any other hotel properties anywhere else in the world, I assume that they aren't looking into taking the chance to begin with an unfamiliar business venture alone. They want to partner with another company who is familiar with the hotel industry.

Is a water park really that novel, to necessitate an entire extra day? Waterparks are everywhere around here. You're only going to rope people into that safari once, until they realize how lame it is.

This reminds me of Universal Studios in Orlando. They partnered with Lowes Hotels to build and operate the three on-property hotels there. Perhaps USO was uncomfortable in trying to operate a hotel on their own?

Maybe, maybe not, it's all just speculation at this point by a self important message board "expert"

Considering the two cities they sit between and the population count within a 2hr. radius...that seems like a lot of possible money to be leaving on the table, possible profit. Everything points to land-use/infrastructure issues or costs, not profit issues once it is open.

There are no land use issues, they have the zoning.

You cant seperate the infrastructure and cost from profit once it's open.

If it is profitable when it's open, it would be able to absorb the sunk costs of construction.

If it costs 10 million to build, Holliday Inn finances the 10 million over a fairly long term. The loan payment would then be part of that hotel's overhead along with property taxes and any other fixed costs. The beancounter's analysis would be "can this place absorb these costs and beat the vig we're paying on the 10 million?"