Posted Monday, July 17, 2006 3:32 PM | Contributed by Jeff
Son of Beast broke five world records and drew roller-coaster fans from across the country to Kings Island when it burst from its lair in 2000. Now, some wonder about the future of the wooden giant. Will it reopen? If not, will the park get a new coaster to take its place?
Read more from The Enquirer.
And what the hell else would expect someone from an enthusiast organization to say? If ACE people dictated the capital expenditures of amusement parks, they'd all be out of business.
"All parks know that roller coasters are the No. 1 draw for an amusement park."
Yeah, duh. That's how they've been packing them in at Disney parks for decades, right?
However, it's worth noting that just because a park doesn't add a new ride doesn't mean that guests will simply stop showing up. Roller coasters aren't required for success, but they are a big help in targeting a young, thrill-seeking demographic that simply isn't interested in mice in red pants and a cocky bunny-wabbit.
Are coasters a draw? Absolutely... in the short term. A bright shiny new coaster (or one that is a fresh, unfaded shade of natural wood) will bring more people through the gates.
While a new coaster might get people in the gates to try it... seldom will it be enough to get people coming back, visit after visit, year after year, if the rest of the park offers little.
Roller coasters aren't required for success, but they are a big help in targeting a young, thrill-seeking demographic that simply isn't interested in mice in red pants and a cocky bunny-wabbit.
Yup, the same demographic that generally has the least to spend and the least reason to spend it. (see: SF's descent into crapdom)
While a new coaster might get people in the gates to try it... seldom will it be enough to get people coming back, visit after visit, year after year...
Indeed. Words of wisdom to remember.
It wasn't the coasters that took me back to GL so much. It was the dolphins. i haven't had a season pass for GL since the last buy-out.
People usually apreciate record breakers, as long as they're not too short, intense, or rough. Too short being TTD and KK. If TTD would have used its momentum after the hill to do other elements for another minute, it surely would have been #1.
MF broke ten world records and is a fan favorite.
Of course you could look at it this way: Raven and Legend and Voyage have done wonders for Holiday World, but they had a great product to begin with, and they continue to make improvements all around, just not on the same type of niche. Now everything compliments the other the way that it had.
Also, HW's 3 major coaster investments were built over a span of 11 years, as opposed to "almost" every 3 or 4 years at CP and PKI.. plus they cost a lot less.
- Yeah, if you presume that the latter-mentioned "coasters" were of the drink-holding variety.
If you have a really good park that is known for its atmosphere - such as Holiday World, the addition of a new roller coaster (particularly the quality of the Voyage) is going to do nothing but good things for your park.
If you have a struggling park (SFMM for instance) that brand spanking new Tatsu is gonna boost your attendance for maybe a weekend or two, but then... back to sucktaculation.
Simple math: Good park already + Good coaster = Better Park. Bad park + Good coaster (no matter HOW good) = same bad park.
It says in the article that some manufacturers think B+M couldn't put a coaster in PKI because of contracts with other parks. Is this actually legal? I'm no lawyer, but it doesn't sound right. Then again when are lawyers ever right.
I like the simple math equation that's why I'm waiting to go to HW when they finally get that good steel coaster. However to argue with it I would absolutely love to get the funds to go to SFMM and try it out for all those good coasters.
As for the two previous posts, it's perfectly legal to have a non-compete or exclusive clause with a company. To give you a real world example, last year I went to replace a lightbulb for my father. I could've sworn my dad told me that the lightbulb came from Lowe's. I'm looking up and down the lighting aisle, and finally fought my typical male traits, and asked a salesperson. The guy says "We don't sell Phillips lightbulbs." Sure enough, it was Home Depot that had the Phillips lightbulbs. Do you think Lowe's doesn't want to carry the Phillips lightbulbs? Of course not.
You must be logged in to post