Flashback, Sky Tower, Freefall to reopen BY Springtime
My point is that the prices that SF charged last year would have been a good value if the park was run like they are going to try to run it this year. (McDonnald's Fries should always be hot and fresh at the prices they are at now.) Now that they have decided to raise the admission prices by what, 20%, and the parking fees by 33% or more, they are overpriced no matter how well they think they can run their park, imo.
Are people going to forgive SF for all of those crappy visits they have had in the past just because they are "deciding" to finally open some rides that have been sbno for years? The future looks bright for SF, but looks are decieving. Who's going to want to take the chance to visit again with the prices so much higher than before, just to find out firsthand if they are serious or not about keeping rides open?
My example:
For $15 to park, my car should be personally Valet parked by Jeff Gordan and I should be carried up to the front gate by no less than 6 Playboy Bunnies and Penthouse pets :)
I do agree....improved operations at last year's prices (which IMO were still high) would be a good, fair value. But $75 for one admission and parking, that's still too much in my book. Disneyland and WDW don't even charge that much and they give you way more, IMO.
...and you can't take a day trip to WDW....well, YOU can't... ;)
Time alone has softened the blow a bit.
That was a "first the bad news" sort of thing. Since then it's been nothing but saying all the right things followed by a hint of actually delivering with some of the TR's coming out of Valencia.
If the trend continues, people won't even be thinking twice about dropping $15 to park by the time August rolls around.
Go back to some of those threads of heated comments when the price increases were first annouced and then look at how the mood on the subject has already changed a good bit from just a month or so ago.
We blasted these guys for weeks on end on the podcast and now are actually admitted to having to eat a bit of crow.
The final results aren't in, but the preliminary results look nothing but promising.
And when it starts going so well for SF, you have to wonder which other chains/parks will take notice and move accordingly.
Which park will be the better value for the money this year? Cedar Point or one of the larger SF parks?
And your sig is interesting; as though the previous CEO and cronies were so worried about guest experience and weren't corperate (sic) pigs.
The good part about bottoming out is that you can really only go up. Or you can stay at the bottom. But they already seem to be making positive changes. And seriously... your signature has it all wrong. Amusement parks aren't in it for charity, and at least the new management seems to recognize that the previous management ignored customer satisfaction.
dexter said:
Umm...Gonch. SF is the ones who are looking at other parks, taking notice, and moving accordingly when we are talking about guest experience.
I'm talking pricing, you're talking operations. Apples and oranges.
I hope other parks who already offer great service do not look at SF and decide to raise thier prices by 1/3.
This is exactly my point.
Which park will be the better value for the money this year? Cedar Point or one of the larger SF parks?
If the new SF management comes through with their promises, it'll be a much closer call.
I think more interestingly (assuming SF does deliver) is what kind of numbers will be in the books.
You can't tell me it won't turn heads if the Red Zone guys pull this off with SF.
Which kind of goes back to the earlier points. A park like CP pulls a knee-jerk reaction to what seems like nothing more than normal attendence fluctuation and drops some strategic prices. SF gets things up to par and rakes in cash with increased prices across the board.
And then this is just short term (the 2006 season). Even if it goes moderately well this year, give them a couple of seasons of 'cleaning up', selling land and adding their ideas of new attractions that deliver ROI and see what the amusement park landscape looks like after a couple of seasons.
Of course, all of this assumes these guys will come through on what they're promising. :)
How SF ran their park's in the past has me so jaded that I can't help but roll my eyes when I hear "Sharpio visit here and promises this and Sharpoi visits there and promises that."
I'm watching closely. I want these guys to do well. When you are mad at someone for so long and then they change for the better, it's hard to stop being mad at them. I'm trying...
It's a nice thought that MM might just become my wishpark that it used to be. If MM's problems can't be fixed with a 33% parking and a $10 admission hike, than it might as well be swallowed up by Mother Earth...lol.
I could give a crap about this new focus on the family....I'm sitting here as an enthusiast(a coaster enthusiast not a park enthusiast) thinking "Is the golden age over"?
Frankly, catering to families will make a whole lot more money that could go to new coasters than any coaster could rake in.
13 Boomerang, 9 SLC, and 8 B-TR clones
...but not necessarily a park :(
Most chains seem to think that attracting families make the most sense right now (based most recently on the shift to waterpark additions and SF's new mantra to cater to families). They did the coaster thing for a decade or so and are now looking square in the face at slowing or diminishing returns.
Perhaps in the shadow of slowing attendance, a park like CP shouldn't have lowered prices, but rather switched up what they're offering potential guests?
*** Edited 2/18/2006 11:05:37 PM UTC by Lord Gonchar***
I think that Cedar Point, with minimal "Kiddie" stuff, is surviving just fine.
Funny, but its management lowered prices for the first time. Ever. As in, in the history of the park.
Apparently, they do not share your optimism.
The management wants to make as much money as possible. For example, if they make $50million, they're doing fine. If they feel they can make $60million by lowering the prices, why not?
Let's not forget that Cedar Fair just posted a profit in the 4th quarter for the first time. Ever. As in, the history of the company. ;)
Regional parks require a much more well rounded experience. Rollercoasters tend to draw teenagers, which in turn, alienates some adults and small children.
There's nothing *suddenly* wrong with coasters. But like anything else, if you overdo it...
well you know the rest. ;) *** Edited 2/19/2006 5:34:39 AM UTC by DWeaver***
Coasters by themselves needn't be "teenager-attractants". Mice, mine trains, the newer spinning coasters, and even Rollerskaters and Tivolis can VERY often draw a mixed demographic (esp. if well-themed, I'll *never* get over SFFT's mine train). Loops and launches, and extreme heights, OTOH, do tend to drive away certain portions of the family... ;)
FWIW, SFoT has it *all* over CP in terms of mixed-demographic rides...IMO.
You must be logged in to post
