Kennywood, June 16 - CPLady Style

Drink Price 1.50 I buy five 7.50

Drink price 3.00 I buy two 6.00

Drink price 1.50 Girlfriend and boyfriend buy two for 3.00

Drink price 3.00 you buy one and split it. No difference

Drink price 4.00+ like some parks are charging, I guy none therefore they are out the three dollars they could have gotten.

I just think it adds up and I think there are a lot more people concious on how much or how much they are willing to spend than you think. Therfore I think the parks are actually losing on their high priced items.

Chuck, like he said, Usually takes the money that I think I've saved and buys souvineers at the afordable parks but wouldn't think about it in a corporate park.
*** Edited 6/29/2006 2:29:24 AM UTC by Charles Nungester***

^^ Gonch, just for the sake of discussion... ;)

Park A (cheap park): People leave saying "Park A is a really good value." They tell friends, neighbors, and relatives what a great time they had. They even go back, taking some of the neighbors' kids with them.

Park B (not-so-cheap park): People leave feeling a bit *taken*. They tell friends, neighbors, and relatives that they're not going back to Park B because it's too expensive...even if they spent less money overall.

How often does this play out? Like you said, it'd be an interesting study. :)

It really would be, wouldn't it? :)

I have to go back to attendance on the word of mouth thing. If it were really hurting the big parks, then you'd see some sort of exodus away from parks with that kind of pricing. I really don't think this pricing thing affects the average park visitor nearly as much as some of you guys think it does.

And again, it feels like you're equating money spent with quality of visit. I don't think it works that way at all. It is posible to spend big (and even think prices are too high), but still enjoy your visit to the park.

You know, those pesky rides that these parks are full of. ;)

Joe Sixpack doesn't come home and tell his buddies, "Yep, took the kids to Six Flags - worst time ever. They charge $3.99 for a large coke."

Joe Sixpack comes home and says, "Yep, took the kids to Six Flags yesterday. They have this coaster there that looks like a big dick. The thing is like 450 feet tall! You get on and they shoot you out at 120 miles per hour and right up the side of this thing. It was wild."

Joe's kids are even worse. And now their friends are begging mom and dad to take them to ride this big coaster too. :)

That's where I keep saying the big story of this year for me is going to be attendance numbers (and to a lesser degree, per cap spending) at the CF parks that lowered prices compared to the SF parks that significantly raised prices.

I have a feeling there's going to be a lot of surprises when those numbers come out. I don't expect things to change much beyond the already established trends of the respective parks - which in my eyes says that the pricing doesn't matter all that much.

We'll see I guess.

*** Edited 6/29/2006 4:44:27 PM UTC by Lord Gonchar***

I think both sides are right, there are all kinds of people and families out there that do all sorts of different things at parks.

I can come up with a number of examples for both sides outside of what I do at parks.

Why would I know ten people at my work that goto HW regularly (At least once yearly) they don't even advertise here in Cincy and unless they are discovery channel watchers probably wouldn't know about HW 3.5hrs away unless someone told them about it?

Those are ten I didn't tell about the park. I probably have told 50-100 and I know at least ten of those who now visit reguarly with their families and make mini vacations

When a park 165 miles away is drawing the guest PKI less than 30 miles away could get, I see something wrong.

Sure theres you get more for your money argument but with average waits of a half hour to fourty five minutes at those big parks are you actually getting more or the illusion of getting more?

Perhaps we shall never know, I do know HW ask for zip codes at the ticket booth, I'd love to know what percentage is from over 100 miles or outside their marketing area.

Chuck

That's exactly what I was saying in my previous post. I know lots of people who might make ONE trip to CP because it's an expensive option (even if it's just a day trip). These people, like my friend with the grandkids, would make more than one trip if prices weren't so high.

Additionally, someone explain to me why CP decided to drop the price of the junior ticket, drop prices on drinks and food, and begin offering 25 cent cotton candy? Because their attendance was falling or not meeting expectations. How much do you want to bet their figures rise this year even though gas prices have risen?

---

How much do you want to bet their figures rise this year even though gas prices have risen?

---

That's a bet I'd take. :)

The price drop at CP and Knott's was a knee-jerk reaction to a non-existent problem.

And don't get me started on how gas prices don't affect this at all. Gas is just 65 cents a gallon higher than last year. Do the appropriate math and see how little the difference for any given trip is over last year. We're talking a few dollars.

USA today even ran an article in today's paper that mentions last week the demand for gasoline was the highest ever for June and the fifth highest week ever of any week on record.

It makes for good news stories, but people aren't running from the gas pumps - they're running to them.

On the flip side, I'd also bet that SF attendance doesn't drop more than it would have otherwise even with their across the board price increases.

Care to take that bet as well?

---

On an unrelated note, you guys know how I am with backing opinion up with some sort of data. Well, after some searching I found epinions. It's a pretty large site that lets people rate, review and share opions on just about anything under the sun. So naturally there's a theme park section. :) It's probably as close as we're going to get to honest, across-the-board opinions on these places from the average park visitor. (read: not an enthusiast site)

Just some fun facts (feel free to look around and present your own findings):

-of 174 reviews of CP only 28% listed prices as a 'con' in their review summary. And of those who did only one rated the park as 'average (3 of 5 stars), all the others still rated the park above avergae or better (4 or 5 out of 5 stars) and some even left comments like:

"a little pricey, but what parks are not these days??"

and

"a bit spendy, with the cost of the price of admission and food, souvenirs, etc. but heck, it's your vacation!"

Basically, while people complain about the prices, they still visit and they still leave happy. (it's hard to be happier than 5 out of 5 stars, right?)

A much bigger complaint of CP visitors? Lines.

Interestingly, in the 35 reviews for Knoebels you'll find that:

-17% said there wasn't enough 'big rides' or 'thrill rides'
-14% said the park was too far out of the way or too hard to find
-71% rate the pricing as a 'pro' toward visiting the park

Only one person rated the park as 'average' while the rest rated it above average or better.

On to PKI:

-37% complained about pricing. But like before, all people who did complain about pricing rated the park average or higher (in fact, there were just two 'average' ratings, the rest were higher among price complainers)

Again the biggest complaint by a long shot is the crowds/lines.

Let's keep going with HW:

-15% complain about the small size of the park/lack of rides
-12% complain about location
-8% actually complain about the price! (although I suspect this is just the inverse of the 'lack of attractions/size complaint)
-65% list price as a 'pro' of visiting the park

Only two people rated the park as 'average' with the rest rating above average or higher, but both who did were people who said "not enough thrill rides".

I see a pattern forming here.

I'll let you guys nose around more if you're truly interested.

Sounds a lot like my take. People may not like paying the high prices, but they understand it's part of visiting the park. Yes, they're happy when the price is lower, but then seem taken a bit by the lack of 'big game' that the smaller parks offer. Which leads me to:

---

Sure theres you get more for your money argument but with average waits of a half hour to fourty five minutes at those big parks are you actually getting more or the illusion of getting more?

---

But it's not about what you get, it's about what they offer.

Again, most people aren't power riding a woodie somewhere in the middle of the woods and getting off on it. They see all the big scary looking thrill rides and want to sample them all. They are happier with riding 8 or 12 'big' rides the they are over being only given the choice of three or four smaller rides (which enthuisiasts might understand are truly world class attractions, but the GP just sees a little ol' ride with no hype ability) but unlimited opportunity to ride them.

If anything, parks should be finding ways to combat wait times and crowds - that's one complaint that all the parks across the board had listed. Now we know why so many people are in line for Q-bots. :)

*** Edited 6/29/2006 9:07:54 PM UTC by Lord Gonchar***

Good points.

All Im saying is elimate the 37 percent that see price and value as a bad thing and if you can make them feel value or welcome then that 37 percent are more likly to come back.

IMHO HW and Knoebles both are maybe one coaster and five flatrides for competing with any park in the amount of things to do. Kennywood already has enough, additions are just topping to me

And your always going to get a percentage of those having been to CP, PKI or several other parks with over 10 coasters saying theres a lack of big rides. To teens, there could never be enough even if you couldn't ride everyone in a single day like you can't at CP on a busy day.

I looked at Epinions on KW and some interesting things turned up in the 20 reviews. Everyone rated the park 4 stars or more.

Oddly enough, 20% considered pricing a con and only 10% considered it a pro. The other major con was the parks size (20%). Most of the people had no cons at all or cons that were really pros (getting tired, spending all day there etc.) Everyone listed the rides or fun as a pro and 40% mentioned the food as a pro. 5% mentioned short lines as a pro and no one mentioned long lines as a con. *** Edited 6/29/2006 9:33:46 PM UTC by Arthur Bahl*** *** Edited 6/29/2006 11:24:05 PM UTC by Arthur Bahl***

For those who want to get super nerdy, the correlation between price and demand (which is really what we're talking about here) is called the "Price elasticity of demand."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elasticity_of_demand

LOL, my economics major is at least good for a good laugh if nothing else...

LG said: "It makes for good news stories, but people aren't running from the gas pumps - they're running to them."

VERY true, but GAS (well, energy in general) is amazing resilient to price changes. It's demand curve is exceptionally INELASTIC. Which is why gas taxes are usually seen as *regressive taxes*.

Not that I want to get nerdy or anything... :)

P.S. Is the *demand* for amusement activities elastic? To a large degree...then again, it also depends on what consumers would consider as "acceptable substitutes". Is it the same as bottled water vs. tap water, or butter vs. margarine or a lab-grown diamond vs. a natural mined diamond?

P.P.S. LG also came up with THIS: "But it's not about what you get, it's about what they offer."

That's HOT! Hehe, I'm stealing from Paris - meh, I'll mail her a check for a nickel. But really, alot of people WANT those attractions, and are willing to pay for them. I guess the real "trick", as it were, is to balance out the OFFERINGS with the COST of the offerings, and then try to keep the maximum number of guests as happy as possible. As for the ratings, they're AMUSMENET parks for cryin' out loud - I expect good ratings. And yes, if you go ONCE or TWICE a year, as most people are likely to do, the cost factor really DOESN'T add up as much as it would for someone who might visit a dozen or so parks...

Economics is fun! ;)

*** Edited 6/29/2006 10:33:55 PM UTC by rollergator***

Hippie Nerd. :)

Yeah, but come on, it takes 77 gallons of gas to add $50 to your trip over last year's cost.

That's 1500 miles at the most modest of MPG estimates.

If you're taking a 1500 mile trip and $50 forces you to cancel - you probably shouldn't have been making the trip. (unless it was a 1500 mile trip to McDonald's or the movie theatre)*

I don't get it.

*that's social commentary, not fact-based opinion stuff :)

^ Oops, sorry...make that hyper-editing hippie nerd! :)

^^^Did you know that Paris had the nerve to come out with a single? Truth be told, it's not bad. Granted, it's not good, but it's far from the outright train wreck I expected and on par with the other crap pop that is out now...but I digress.

LG: I wonder if that "gas demand" takes into account that people are more likely to run the tank all the way down now rather than top off regularly. Thus, buying more gas at one time, but I wonder if the average gas comsumption over say a month has changed any....and if so, is that chage statistically significant when you take into account population changes.

Anyway, I believe Chuck is right to say that people would be happier if they could pay less (well no duh), but I'm still not convinced that the parks that charge more are really leaving money on the table. Think about a park like GAdv...or even CP for that matter. Let's say that they do lower prices and more people do come, wont a significant portion of those new people visit on summer Sats & Suns? Those parks are already busting at the seams on those days. Having more attendees actually makes the day worse for everybody. I'm sure that a fair number of people would pay more to have a shorter wait (oops, didnt mean to go there :))

As for the smaller parks competing with the biggies, I cant comment on Knoebels, but HW is far from the best of the bigs. Even with a few more additions, HW wouldnt offer as much as even SFA let alone SFGAm. Could you have a good day there? Sure. But dollar for dollar, you get more with the bigs (unless you are drinking an unruly gang of soda or slathering sunscreen on like Crisco).

As for KW, I said after my first (and so far only) visist that KW felt every bit like a big-corporate park..though with an ecclectic assortment of flats. I dont know what the local economy is like around Pitt but I'd almost wager that, like the SF parks, KW is undervaluing itself. KW is a darn fine park. If I staty in this area, it will likely be the first "road (park) trip" I take my kids to (well, maybe second to Disney). But, I dont know, Kennywood's place in the industry is an enigma to me.
lata, jeremy

Well I've gotten no great satisfaction from any corporate park save Hershey. So if getting more things to do for your money is your thing, I say go for it. Id rather have fewer and better than tons and braked with three hour lines any day of the year.

Chuck, YMMV

I think LG is arguing the majority's point of view, not just his own or enthusiasts.

And I got no problem with that

:)

Chuck

I don't know, but when I was at HW for Holiwood Nights I saw people eating in the picnic grove outside the park.

I say there will always be people who complain about price, no matter the price.

-Tambo
*** Edited 6/30/2006 7:09:33 PM UTC by tambo***

Yeah, at least I think am. (trying to present the viewpoint of the majority or park visitors in any given situation)

Also, in the interest of fairness, USA Today (can you tell I'm stuck in a hotel room ;) ) ran an article today on gas prices and their effect on vacations.

Some stats:

How gas prices have changed summer plans:

-38% said, "Not Traveling Anyway" (well that's useful ;) )
-33% said, "Changing Plans"
-28% said, "Going ahead as planned"

However, that's only part of the story because "Changing Plans" doesn't mean "spending less". Of those who said they were changing plans:

-37% will cut down on the number of trips
-26% will cancel their trip
-23% are choosing a closer destination
-9% will use another form of transportation
-7% will save more money for the trip
-5% don't use preferred vehicle because of gas consumption
-2% carpool

So if you run the numbers really quick-like, it shows that 8.5% of those surveyed are cancelling a trip because of gas prices.

However, if you eliminate the people who had no plans anyway, then 54% are changing their plans in some way - and of those 14% are cancelling their trip alltogether.

I suppose that's a pretty big impact. Let's just be happy there's still almost 50% of the people with travel plans that have the good sense to just save a few bucks more and head on out as planned.

Heck, I'll even give minor kudos to the other percent or so that are just switching from the SUV to the sedan as an equalizer and still heading out as planned. :)

*** Edited 6/30/2006 7:25:09 PM UTC by Lord Gonchar***

---

tambo said:
I say there will always be people who complain about price, no matter the price.

---

Absolutely - where do ya think old people come from? ;)

But seriously, I think we're all trying to predict the behavior of people at large - pretty sure Gonch and myself (at LEAST) aren't taking this discussion to a more *personal* level...even though I'm not rich like he is, LOL! MOST people are going to do what Gonch says, suck it up and pay the higher prices....the *question* that remains is "how many IS *most*, and how will that play out in the bottom line?...will the fewer people paying more offset the loss of those who were paying less (based on our assumptions)?"

*** Edited 6/30/2006 7:34:32 PM UTC by rollergator***