If the figures presented in the article conflict with a pre-held negative personal bias towards SFMM, then that is just the way it goes.
It's not a negative personal bias. There just isn't any way to make the math work out. Let's say Magic Mountain has an operating margin of 33%---that's 1/3 higher than even the most successful theme park operators, mind you. They drew 2.8M guests---that's believed to be factually accurate. To have made $50M last year, those guests would have to spend an average of $53.50 per person---almost double the average per capita spending chain-wide. So, Magic Mountain must be VASTLY more efficient than not only the average Six Flags park, but ANY amusement park. But, it must also be VASTLY more capable at separating guests from their money than the average Six Flags park ($32 and change per cap in '05) or the average Cedar Fair park ($37.68).
Of course, it is possible that Magic Mountain is both wildly efficient and wildly successful at getting guests to part with money. However, if that were really the case, I'm not so sure Shapiro would be so excited to try to sell the thing.
I am biased, but I'm biased in favor of math. In this case, the math doesn't work. If you'd like to correct my math, or the underlying assumptions, feel free, but accusing me of bias just isn't going to wash. As further evidence of my "bias", feel free to read the Six Flags Survey thread---in which I *defend* the reports of increased customer satisfaction at Six Flags parks in general, and Magic Mountain in particular.
So, again, nice try, but it's not going to stick. If you'd like to debate the truth of the number, feel free. If you want to resort to ad hominem attacks, that's your business, but the rest of us see them for what they are.
You must be logged in to post