Kinzel Interview: Don't know if Jeff covered this?
Or do we need another season or two to fully make the call?
kRaXLeRidAh said:
Okay, now there's a difference between an individual personally liking a coaster, and the coaster itself being a poor decision from a business stand point. A lot of you are not getting that.
You are right. A group of people liking something does not mean it was a good business decision. SF kept on building many, many coasters. Sure, I LOVED all those coasters being put in all over. However, they were not great business decisions.
For the record, I never really cared that much about TTD. It was good the first time. Each time I ride TTD, it just becomes less thrilling. In fact, I only ride TTD if the line is less than 15 minutes now. Otherwise, I just skip TTD without any hesitation. I rather ride Magnum, Raptor or MF.
As far as a bad business decision, I don't think it was a bad idea to build TTD. Assuming it would work it would have been extremely successful. However I think the biggest mistake Kinzel made was underestimating the problems it would experience.
As far as a business decision? Dick sees a lot that we don't/can't see like non-bottom line numbers, budget sheets, etc. (did you ever think that required maintenance $$ on TTD may have contributed to the demise of WWL because they don't have enough maint$$ in the budget required for both rides?) Perhaps it was a bad business decision.. then again, how much of that money did they get back in merchandise centered around the coaster? Even my beloved CedarPoint-opoly wouldn't be the same with TTD as Boardwalk.
I'd say that while better decisions most likely could have been made, I wouldn't call it a "bad" business decision. Maybe "not-the-best-use-of-resources"? "inefficient"? While the uptime may not be much above mediocrity, am I wrong or have I heard that the uptime each year has been better than the year before? That means that the ride IS improving. Perhaps we're just looking at the world's longest break-in time for a ride? Perhaps 5 years from now, TTD will run like any other coaster.
Next question: If it's such a "bad" decision, why not just bite the bullet, scrap the ride, and use the land for something better?
For the same reason Disaster Transport still stands.
1) You don't just scrap a $25 million dollar mistake unless it endagers riders. You live with it, and get it operating the best you can. If the problems can evenually be fixed, many will continue to enjoy the ride.
2) As silly as this may sound, CP is still involved in a coaster count race.
dannerman said:Next question: If it's such a "bad" decision, why not just bite the bullet, scrap the ride, and use the land for something better?
What is more outrageous than that statement alone is the fact that you were being serious when you asked that. I'd think it would be rhetorical, but I really doubt that.
"Biting the bullet, scrapping the ride and using the land for something better" would be more than two-fold the "bad decision" of installing the ride in the first place. How can you even begin to suggest putting in a $25,000,000 ride investment and then removing it less than 5 seasons later as logical and a smart move? It's similar to the concept of buying a brand new car and selling it after owning it for only a month. YOU LOSE MONEY on your investment, simply put.
Jeff - Editor - CoasterBuzz.com - My Blog
Hahahahahahah...
Whatever.
TTD is, was, and always has been a mistake. I go "wow!" after getting off of it, yea, but that's because I only ride it like someone else mentioned, when the line is less than 15 minutes, or I have someone with me who's never ridden it. Otherwise, it's not worth it.
DawgByte, as usual, you have no concept of the separation between a business decision and a coaster-riding decision. Many of the "bashers" in this thread would probably tell you the first couple of times on the ride were amazing, the sensation is incredible, but it's not a coaster. It's a thrill-ride, simply put and I think there are a lot of different ways to spend $25 million if you're trying to go 120 mph and 400 feet in the air. Wouldn't a 400-foot gyro drop, and a 120 hydro-launch with a lot of substance, elements and such have been a better use of that money? How about not chewing up an entire midway with something that doesn't work all the time. How about an icon that you can see from anywhere in around and sometimes even not around the park that again, doesn't work all the time.
It's like spending $50,000 on a 1991 suped up Nissan or something. Is it a thrill when it works? Sure! Is it amazing to hit that gas and go zipping by, sure! Could you have gotten a lot more for your money? Definitely! Was it a horrible decision based on financials? Most certainly.
The ride should not be taken out completely, but I wonder more and more if it wouldn't be a better use of funds to maybe make some radical changes to the launch system, or even the ride itself some year. It start as a gag, but look at the shorter rockets, significantly less problems ... at what point does the investment line cross the lifetime costs line?
Is it on my must-ride list on any given visit? Not really, but then again few of the headliners are---my kids were not-yet-52 and not-yet-48 last season, and I'd rather spend the day with my kids than riding coasters by myself. (I know, but I'm weird that way.) Luckily, my daughter is a Magnum FIEND.
I personally still like the thing, and would even wait 30-45 minutes for it, which is longer than I would wait for most other things in the park.
However, whether I like it, you like it, or everyone who gets to ride it thinks its the bees' knees doesn't have ANYTHING to do with whether it was a good business decision or not. That's driven purely by metrics that the park has now had three seasons to measure. Metrics like attendance, per-capita spending, resorts occupancy, average occupied room rate, ridership (influenced by popularity and uptime) etc. And, it would appear that those metrics did not respond commensurately with the $25M spent on the attraction.
I don't think any of us knows *why* it didn't generate the business the park was hoping for. Maybe it's too intimidating for too many guests---I often wonder whether more people are watching it or in line for it at any given time. Anecdotally, not one of the ten adults I brought to the park this year was willing to try it. Maybe it's because the thing was up and down more often than a yo yo early on, 'cause you never get a second chance to make a first impression. Maybe it's becuase the layout is too simple for it to be re-rideable. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter why the ride hasn't generated big business. What matters is the simple fact that, according to the CEO, it hasn't.
*** Edited 11/10/2005 1:43:39 PM UTC by Brian Noble***
I think it's all about the headlines, ads and marketing dollars invested vs. downtime and POed guests.
-'Playa
NOTE: Severe fecal impaction may render the above words highly debatable.
If I went out and bought a brand new Bentley, and in the first month it had as much down time as TTD, I most certainly would get another vehicle.
Cedar Point isn't going to do that with TTD, but that was a poor excuse. (offer not valid in South Western Ohio in the year 1983)
TeknoScorpion said:
If I went out and bought a brand new Bentley, and in the first month it had as much down time as TTD...
They're called Jaguars.
-CO
NOTE: Severe fecal impaction may render the above words highly debatable.
...expensive car, lotsa downtime = Jaguar. Der?
Of course now that Ford owns the company, they're supposedly MORE reliable. Try THAT on for irony!
-CO
NOTE: Severe fecal impaction may render the above words highly debatable.
CoastaPlaya said:
Okay, lemme break this down in short sentences of small words for 'Tuan's benefit...-CO
Bite Me! ;)
You must be logged in to post
