Empty King's Island 5/22-23/13

Saying you don't have to pay for something at our park, that you normally have to pay for at every other park (hence being 'free' at our park), isn't exactly really twisting the situation. I already said it was marketing ploy... it's a common marketing practice to include a perk of sorts in a bundle and claim it's a "free" inclusion. Cedar Fair does the same thing... a platinum pass includes "free" parking and "free" halloween events.. that are really covered in the cost of the pass itself. Just as "free" drinks are covered in a HW admission.

I think we have a simple disagreement on the use of the word free. I take it if the holiday world page said "All the drinks you want are included with admission!" you'd be OK, so it's just semantics/definitions at this point. In this case, the CF page should say halloweekends and parking are included with the pass, not "free", correct?

As enthusiasts we also tend to discount Water Park rides that are not water coasters. Holiday World and Splashin Safari has some cutting edge waterslides that puts it on par with the major waterparks in the business (Noah's Ark, Disney Waterparks, Water Country USA, Wet n Wild, etc.) Their pricing is very fair when you factor that in, and if you go in the summer.

metallik said:

In this case, the CF page should say halloweekends and parking are included with the pass, not "free", correct?

Sure. Why not?

Except that you don't have to buy the pass to visit the park. By purchasing the pass you can do those things at no additional cost...or free compared to those who don't buy the pass.

At HW you have to buy admission of some kind to get in...everyone who steps throught he gate gets 'free' drinks, parking and sunscreen and stuff. Not everyone gets to visit Halloweekends for free or parking at a Cedar Fair park for free.

There's subtle but important differences there that change the situation.

Touchdown said:

Their pricing is very fair when you factor that in, and if you go in the summer.

...during a full moon...while the bananas are ripe...and you get exactly 2.74 laps on each ride...and are left handed...

Seriously, I get what you're saying. I disagree, but point taken.

I understand your point - HW does not offer a pop-less admission price point, to compare to the regular pass vs platinum pass at CF. It changes things, but how much? Assume HW mimicked these 'levels' (gold admission gets you pop and sunscreen wristband, cheaper regular admission-- no pop for you!) and tried to make them paid perks... I really think (and I think HE execs think) it would be a complete pain in the butt to deal with it. Gold guests would share with regular peons, you suddenly need enforcement and management, which adds to cost.. probably get some tempers here and there.. just a real bad idea overall. Since it only really works as a blanket policy, they choose to do it that way - included with every admission - rather than not do it at all. I can't fault that decision.

That said, the ultimate choice remains with the guest: whether or not to visit HW in the first place. Is the "free" pop/sunscreen worth whatever unknown cost it adds to the gate, which is a fair bit higher than discounted CF/SF tickets? ($17 off KI on LaRosas boxes already). Guests vote with their feet, and the success of HW/SS seems to indicate most find the 'freebies' worth paying for :)

End note.. HW's verbage on free pop isn't much different from the thousands of hotels that advertise 'free' wifi (costs of which are bundled in the room rate, and unavoidable). Plenty of other examples of 'free' stuff that's just bundling... I don't think HW's use of the term deviates from the norm WRT marketing.

metallik said:

I can't fault that decision.

Neither can I.

Guests vote with their feet, and the success of HW/SS seems to indicate most find the 'freebies' worth paying for :)

1. People are stupid.

2. Guests vote with their feet 3-to-1 in favor of the large corporate parks and their 'loss leader' model. (assuming we're using rough attendance numbers as 'votes')

(and yes, I realize that #1 combined with #2 essentially argues your point - not mine, so choose your favorite and ignore the other because trying to live with both is a contradiction of sorts...I just can't resist multiple answers)

I don't think HW's use of the term deviates from the norm WRT marketing.

Neither do I.

But I want to point out that the whole discussion was predicated on implying HW's chosen approach is the more upfront and honest. And I still think you had it exactly backwards.

Lord Gonchar said:

For the record, just got back from a few days at CP and they have it posted everywhere that the refills apply to 2013 cups only.

It looks like they've been reading our thread. ;)

The fact that you equate frugality and wisdom is a perfect example of just how different you and I are and look at things.

Let's say a frugal and non-frugal guy walk into McDonald's. The non-frugal guy purchases a 10-piece Chicken McNuggets for $4.29. The frugal guy purchases three 4-piece (12) Chicken McNuggets off the Dollar Menu for $3.00. All fast food jokes aside, isn't the frugal guy wiser in this scenario?

If the goal is to get the most nuggets for the least money then he made the better decision.

Beyond that:

1. I'm not sure I'd call that wisdom, per se.

2. I'm not sure frugality is often that simple.

3. I don't think saving money is the most important aspect of good decision making or wise choices...or a reasonable driving force behind the decisions one makes in general. In fact, I feel the tenacious pursuit of frugality can lead one to make bad decisions.

I don't think saving money is the most important aspect of making wise decisions either. But I think you can be frugal without making sacrifices, like in the nugget example above. Where we seem to differ is that you seem to specifically associate low-class, trashy people at Walmart with frugality.

I say a dude that secures a deal below invoice on his BMW online rather than walking into a dealership and paying MSRP can be frugal too... There are different levels of frugality, and I think it's important for businesses to appeal to various levels.

But I want to point out that the whole discussion was predicated on implying HW's chosen approach is the more upfront and honest. And I still think you had it exactly backwards.

I think you fixated on that 'honest' term a bit more than needed.. I already said it was inaccurate :) I was really looking for a word that describes their more cost-based pricing model, as I explained earlier. I don't find either park's approach particularily deceiving; CF/SF don't deviate from the norm WRT captive audience pricing. The fooled bit was more of a joke, but there's always that someone who is insulated from captive audience pricing and gets their first sticker shock at the food stand. I was just pointing out the differences and how HW is the outlier compared to the traditional model.

As for success, that 3-1 ratio completely ignores the fact there's only one Hworld, and that it's located in backwoods SW Indiana, away from any major metro area, airport, etc. A "vote" for HWorld is much more expensive in terms of effort than a quick trip to the local home park. I think their success *despite* the bad location shows people like the model. A comparable remote corporate park would me MI Adventure, and it looks like HWorld attendance is stronger (hard to find MiA numbers but found a Muskegon article quote of ~500K for 2010?)

Or maybe people just go to HWorld for the rides.. :D

Jeph said:

Where we seem to differ is that you seem to specifically associate low-class, trashy people at Walmart with frugality.

Affluent people can be trashy too. It can be very unbecoming to try to get something for nothing.

There are different levels of frugality, and I think it's important for businesses to appeal to various levels.

I disagree, as I have been the whole time. If a business prices itself out of your frugality range, you go somewhere else or buy something else. It's up to the customer to find the products at the price that fit their needs, not the business' responsibility to give away product for less because a customer is trying to save a buck. Everything is not up for negotiation. In fact, I think a lot less is than some people believe.

Lord Gonchar said:

Affluent people can be trashy too. It's can be very unbecoming to try to get something for nothing.

Sure they can. In the same breath, people that pay higher prices for things and those that don't care about saving money (non-frugal) aren't necessarily higher class or less trashy. That's the whole problem I've had with your logic from the start of this thread...you seem to be making generalizations that often aren't true.

You keep supporting your stance with extremist phrases like "trying to get something for nothing." It conjures up the image of someone complaining about trivial things in their room in an effort to get a free hotel stay. That's a trashy form of frugality that you seem to be associating all acts of frugality with. Buying the exact same model of television off Amazon for $500 less than walking into Best Buy and paying retail can be a frugal act, and I don't see that as being trashy or low-class in any way.

This relates to another thing you said where we greatly differ: "You get what you pay for." I hate this phrase. I've always seen it used in the sense that the higher the price you pay for an item / service, the more you're getting, the better the quality, and the finer it will be. In reality, you can pay a ton of money for something and get really crappy service or an inferior product versus a lower-cost option. Just take a look at various product / service reviews sometime.

In conclusion, I agree that saving money isn't most important in making wise decisions. But, I think you can make a very wise decision and save money. Lastly, I don't agree with the generalizations that trying to save money means you're lower-class & trashy while spending more money means you're higher class and getting better stuff.

Well, Daniella got a large number of responses for her first trip report... ;)

Jeph said:

In the same breath, people that pay higher prices for things and those that don't care about saving money (non-frugal) aren't necessarily higher class or less trashy.

The thing is I never said that.

It conjures up the image of someone complaining about trivial things in their room in an effort to get a free hotel stay. That's a trashy form of frugality that you seem to be associating all acts of frugality with.

Buying the exact same model of television off Amazon for $500 less than walking into Best Buy and paying retail can be a frugal act, and I don't see that as being trashy or low-class in any way.

Well, you're reading me right. To me the former is frugality, the latter is not.

To me, frugality implies some sort of effort or compromise or sacrifice or plan (or some word along those lines that may be escaping me right now) in order to save money.

Saving $500 by buying an identical commodity from one retailer instead of another is simply shopping. There's nothing frugal about it.

Frugality would be reusing old margarine containers instead of buying tupperware. Frugality would be wanting to paint your room blue, but the current green paint is still in good condition so you live with it to save the money. Frugality would be driving across town to a different grocery store because they have a coupon to save you 25 cents on milk.

This relates to another thing you said where we greatly differ: "You get what you pay for." I hate this phrase. I've always seen it used in the sense that the higher the price you pay for an item / service, the more you're getting, the better the quality, and the finer it will be.

Well, you took it out of context to a degree. I used it in reference to the airline ticket example and the conveniences that come with paying more in that situation. If you don't need those conveniences then it's just wasted money.

But, just for the record, I don't see not buying those conveniences if you don't need them as frugality - again, it's simply shopping. I see not buying them even though you might need them as an example of frugality.

In reality, you can pay a ton of money for something and get really crappy service or an inferior product versus a lower-cost option.

Sure...and you can pay a lot more for something and get a vastly superior service or product.

That's the whole problem I've had with your logic from the start of this thread...you seem to be making generalizations that often aren't true.

What's really great is that I find myself thinking the same thing about your thoughts on the subject.

In conclusion, I agree that saving money isn't most important in making wise decisions. But, I think you can make a very wise decision and save money.

I wasn't suggesting they were mutually exclusive. But on the other hand, the way you wrote that post seemed to indicate you saw them as synonymous.

Lastly, I don't agree with the generalizations that trying to save money means you're lower-class & trashy while spending more money means you're higher class and getting better stuff.

At this point it seems to be surfacing that we both see 'frugality' as slightly different things. To me, it's starting to feel like you're talking about efficiency more than frugality. (although, admittedly there is some crossover in definition there - frugal still seems to have more negative connotations attached)

Yeah, I do agree that we seem to be taking different meanings of the word "frugal," which I even noted earlier. I tried to come up with a clearer word, but then the dictionary's use of the word seemed right on:

"What your office needs is a frugal manager who can save you money without resorting to painful cutbacks." It seemed to be just what I wanted without negative connotations.

They have "thrifty" as a synonym, which may have been a better word to use in the thread. Which appears to be exactly what I wanted:

thrift - wisdom and caution in the management of money.

Oddly though, the next definition is "economical management, frugality."

But yes, I was more in the efficient direction and was not intending negative connotations.

Thanks you two. Now I can't decide if I'm just smart, frugal, thrifty, cheap, or trashy.

Thanks.

Ok, then.

I think everyone tries to be efficient with their money to some degree. I also think it's possible to go too far in an attempt to achieve a certain level of efficiency.

Once you reach a certain point in that pursuit, it's a real turn-off. It's icky. It's unbecoming. It's classless. It's embarassing. It's the inverse of the pompous tool who flaunts their wealth and throws money around as a display of some kind.

Doing something in the name of saving money isn't automatically a noble (or even necessarily the 'correct') pursuit. That's what I'm getting at.

Fair enough?

With all of that said, my take has always been money is only good for one thing - spending. It doesn't do anything else. Worrying about holding on to it is just doing one thing...worrying.

My dad always said "you never save money, you only spend it" and I disagree. Take the time I drank 20 dollar tequila shots that were on sale for 12. I saved all kinds of money that night...

My friend used a word I've never heard the other day:

Spaving : saving money by spending. (i.e. "Save $X when you buy # items!")

It reminded me of this conversation. :)

I was a spaver just yesterday at the grocery store. With my Giant Eagle Advantage Card I was able to buy 2 bottles of detergent for 5 dollars. Now, I didn't need 2 bottles right then, but I guess I will go through it eventually. The price for 1 bottle was 2.50, but I went on ahead and got two for the savings!

#What a savvy shopper!#

"The more you buy, the more you save!" - Most untrue marketing slogan ever.

RCMAC said:

I was a spaver just yesterday at the grocery store. With my Giant Eagle Advantage Card I was able to buy 2 bottles of detergent for 5 dollars. Now, I didn't need 2 bottles right then, but I guess I will go through it eventually. The price for 1 bottle was 2.50, but I went on ahead and got two for the savings!

#What a savvy shopper!#

I'll sometimes take advantage of a "sale" like that only when you can't get just one at the discount price. I'm not a heavy soda (apologies to all you "pop" people) drinker. But Shop-Rite will often do a 4 for $5 type thing, with greater or lesser quantities at a higher price. I just don't wanna have that much soda on hand at one time.