Associated parks:
None
As for me, we have a nice big cooler that we bought last year and used on our big vacation to Ocean City, MD. However the first part of that vacation was two days at Sesame Place. I don't know how many of you have been there but the prices there are insane for such a small park. Last year, we just came back out to the minivan, grabbed the cooler, and snarfed at the picnic tables by the parking lot. It was the first time that we NEVER bought a single food or drink item at a park, and I'll bet I saved at least $75 bucks or more by doing that!
Tom *** Edited 6/28/2006 3:52:48 AM UTC by LdScotsman***
You have disturbed the forbidden temple, now-you-will-pay!!!
My point is, Thats 25 bucks the park isn't getting because they feel selling 2000 meals at 20 bucks is better than selling 10,000 at ten bucks.
Go figure.
Chuck
Wow!
In interesting contrast is CP which has HUGE ride capacity. Cedar Fair concluded that the attendance for this park should be higher and that pricing was one thing that prevented this. One must remember that Cleveland and Detroit aren't the strongest places economically. Anyway, CP cut their admission price and some of their food prices. The interesting thing is, will this help the park boost their attendance and revenue? Will it encourage people to keep coming back?
The question stands, why don't more families try going to the more affordable parks? Take GL, for example. This park is quite affordable and uncrowded but everyone seems to think about the Six Flags days and then they go off to CP or PKI or to no park at all.
In Pittsburgh, where I live, we do have an affordable park that is well attended. People here do "stay local" and go to KW. If they are fairly well off, they may also go to another park such as CP or HP. The problem with KW selling itself out of town is its hard to find location. Also, many people in the Cleveland area think, "we can only afford to go to one park so why not make it Cedar Point". Sure, CP isn't the least expensive park but, for what it offers, it is a good value.
If a park is expensive, it still might get the locals because you spend less on gas, hotels, and meals on the way to and from the park. You have to look at the whole package. Meanwhile such a park is more likely to have the attractions to draw visitors from other areas *** Edited 6/28/2006 12:10:20 PM UTC by Arthur Bahl***
Arthur Bahl
These are people who range in age from 20-40's (we are a commuter campus with a wide range of undergrads and lots of grad students). Most have no idea CP has dropped their admission prices, let alone the drink/food prices. Most remember paying $45 plus parking, and a couple remember the $3 drinks and high food prices.
My friends with grandkids make one trip a year and they pack a cooler and eat in the parking lot to keep costs down. One of those friends was thrilled when I told her about the lowered prices...including the $10 junior ticket (two of her three grandkids are still too small for the big stuff), so she's considering making two trips this year.
I think that's what Charles is talking about.. CP realized they were not getting the attendance they wanted and dropped prices. What they are likely to see (if they begin pushing the price drops in the commercials) are more people making the trip and maybe making two trips again. At the very least, discovering the huge drop in price for the junior tickets on top of the lowered price for the regular tickets might give people more incentive to spend that cost savings in the park on the one day they go.
I'd rather die living than live like I'm dead
I'd rather die living than live like I'm dead
Anyway, in my experience here in Pittsburgh, people say that Kennywood is too expensive as well. My step aunts and unkles wont go because of the price, and thats even the discounted $20.
My co worker took his family to california last year, they went to Universal etc. His kids wanted to go to Kennywood and he was complaining about how much it cost.
I call BS on the arguement about value, price, location. Like Gonch has been saying, as much as people may feel a sense of value, or a sense of being ripped off, they are going to pay what they have to pay. This is in my experience, before and after discovering this site and enthusiasts and my opinion.
Glad you had a nice trip CPLady, Kennywood seems small and like you could get it all done in a few hours but there is plenty to fill a day with. Hope you get back again.
The quality of my days at Kennywood have ALWAYS been very enjoyable. So they don't have 16 rollercoasters - you really don't miss that. It has a very charming feel, and knowing that you are getting great value for the money always helps.
What about the park that gets 400 dollars out of someone's pocket and shows them a good time? IMHO that's the biggest success of all.
I brought a "first time" family with us to CP for CoasterMania weekend. I figure they spent almost $350 on tickets and lodging alone for the two days, plus food and a few souvenirs, puts 'em at $450 or $500 easily. They had a great time, and are looking forward to going back.
The question stands, why don't more families try going to the more affordable parks? Take GL, for example.
We don't because it is an extra hour and a half, one way, compared to Cedar Point. It takes almost seven hours to drive there and back, and that means we have to stay overnight (which changes the trip dynamics significantly). In other words, CP is a day trip, GL is not. Same story with MiA.
Arthur Bahl
Lord Gonchar said:
I hate the way you're so good at saying something that is earnest, makes a good observation, is twistedly humorous and succinct all at the same time. :)
You're pretty sexy yourself... ;)
Somehow I think I was mis-cast as a straight guy, LOL. But anyway, I think what we'd ALL like to see is people leaving the parks "feeling like they got their money's worth". If that is true, then THEY come back, they *bring* friends and family, and they *tell* neighbors and relatives. THAT is the ultimate success story to me...and one of the reasons I keep finding myself at one of those darned PA parks that starts with a 'K'... ;)
*** Edited 6/28/2006 3:07:59 PM UTC by rollergator***
Anyway, I'm on LG's side on this one. While smaller parks may be a lower cost "alternative" in most cases, they can (rightly) be seen as a substandard alternative. Simply put, while a place like HW can indeed give you a day of fun just like PKI does, there is more *to* do @ PKI. You pay for having that variety. And the food costs at most major parks near major cities charge about the same for the same type of wack food that is served @ sporting events. (Kennywood being a notable exception).
It's funny to me that I hear all these stories on here about the picnic lunches and the "trailer-park-tailgates" and what not, but I'm never the only one eating in any of the in-park restaurants and often have to wait in significant lines to buy some of that nasty-overpriced food that nobody is buying (/end sarcasm). Do I wish prices were lower? Selfishly, yes I do. But I understand *why* they are what they are and, like LG said, consider it the price of playing ball.
I'll admitt, I'm extraordinarily blessed to be able to get what I want without money being the primary deciding factor. But even during the times when I was broke, I just saved for what was important to me.
As for amusment parks, I'm not even sure that they *need* the same people to come every year to maintain their attendance...especially not the big parks. GAdv, for example, draws from such a large population base it's concievable that they could have 3million people come to their park this year and a significant portion of them had not have visited last year. If a family has to "take a year off" i dont think that's a big thing.
But for those that think it's "too expensive" how much were they spending in the park to begin with? I find it odd that one is happy about spending 100 but grumbles about 50. I guess I just have a different way of looking at things. I know how much I can "afford to lose" and stick to that. I dont suddenly become stingy just because I feel gouged. IMO, you should have known that before you came.
Who knows, maybe my thoughts would be different if I had on a different pair of shoes...
jeremy
It's funny to me that I hear all these stories on here about the picnic lunches and the "trailer-park-tailgates" and what not, but I'm never the only one eating in any of the in-park restaurants and often have to wait in significant lines to buy some of that nasty-overpriced food that nobody is buying (/end sarcasm).
Love that. :) On the same note, I don't exactly see tons of parking lot picnics either when I do run out to the car for something.
I find it odd that one is happy about spending 100 but grumbles about 50. I guess I just have a different way of looking at things. I know how much I can "afford to lose" and stick to that. I dont suddenly become stingy just because I feel gouged.
Thank you! I was starting to think I was insane. I don't get this at all.
Tom
You have disturbed the forbidden temple, now-you-will-pay!!!
eightdotthree said:
Is Kennywood REALLY that hard to find that it effects attendance?Glad you had a nice trip CPLady, Kennywood seems small and like you could get it all done in a few hours but there is plenty to fill a day with. Hope you get back again.
Eightotthree, It is when Altolf steals all the ARROWS :) J/K
Chuck, who had no problem finding kennywood following the arrows the first time he had too do so.
The thousand soft drinks drank out in the parking lot that aren't sold in the park are still a couple grand that the parks not getting.
All i mean is I goto KW and don't even think about buy a drink, 1.50 is nothing, 3.50 and I say forget it. but I'd probably buy 5 at 1.50 instead of reluctanly paying for one at 3.50.
Im not the only one who feels this way, Sure a teen or well to do family might not think twice but there are a lot who do and a lot that go so far as to avoid eating and drinking in parks at all cost.
All i mean is I goto KW and don't even think about buy a drink, 1.50 is nothing, 3.50 and I say forget it. but I'd probably buy 5 at 1.50 instead of reluctanly paying for one at 3.50.
But this is exactly what Jeremy said in part and something that makes absolutely zero sense to me.
You'll spend $7.50 at KW because their drinks are cheaper, but reluctantly drop just $3.50 elsewhere because prices are high.
Yeah, $1.50 is nothing, but you're spending $7.50.
It just doesn't make sense.
I spend more but don't even give it a second thought. Thats why imho the corporates are missing out on money they could make just by making things affordable the 1/2 of the guest who don't buy because of price would be buying or be more likely to buy.
Chuck, who has no good way of saying what im trying to say other than the charge less and sell more is better for parks than charge more and sell less. And it don't leave a bad taste in your mouth.
Buying a $1.50 drink hurts less than buying a $3.50 drink. So, you buy it. Later in the day, you buy another, again without thinking about it. By the time the day is over, you realize you've spent more, but since you didn't spend it all at once, it just kind of trickled away.
A similar mentality fires up every time I go to a place like Best Buy. 3 DVDs at $15 each, no problem. One video game at $50, I reconsider...
--Greg
"You seem healthy. So much for voodoo."
However, I entirely disagree. I don't think the majority of people work that way. Who knows though? It'd be an interesting study.
I've always believed that selling less product at a higher margin is vastly superior to selling more product at lower margins.
Here's how it works for me:
I'm thirsty. I want a drink. I get one. Later, I get thirsty again. I want a drink. I get one. Repeat as necessary.
So if I end up getting 5 drinks in a day then the park that charges $1.50 got a total of $7.50 from me, but the park that charges $3.50 got a total of $17.50 from me.
So if we're both at the park on the same day and both buy based on the '5 drink' theory, then:
-Cheap Park got a total of $15 from us (we both spent $7.50)
-Expensive Park got a total of $21 from us (my $17.50 and your $3.50)
Conclusion: Even if only 1/2 of the people accept the higher price, it's still enough to more than make up the difference.
And just for fun let's assume only a third of park guests accept the prices:
-Cheap Park gets $22.50 (7.50 x three guests)
- Expensive Park gets $24.50 ($17.50+3.50+3.50)
Conclusion: It's still to their benefit to run drink prices at $3.50 each. (and this doesn't even factor in the additional costs of moving more product at the cheap park)
Just a basic difference in philosophy, I guess. :)
You must be logged in to post