Lo-Q changes name to Accesso

The company’s innovative virtual queuing solutions... will be integrated into the Company’s product line under the umbrella accesso LoQueue solutions.

Strange. Why didn't they keep the Lo-Q spelling?

I was unaware that Lo-Q bought accesso. That's yet another reason for me to hate that company.

Here is a (nonjudgmental) question. Why isn't Cedar Fair using accesso LoQueue solution's Q-Bot service? They already are using the company for online payments.

Wouldn't CF have to pay a fee for the Q-Bots? At this point, Fast Lane only costs the cost of wristbands (effectively zero) so essentially all of the revenue is profit. Using the bots, CF would either need to increase the price or accept reduced profits.

For online payments, Accesso is actually providing a service that CF would either pay someone else to perform or bear the costs of performing itself.

My understanding is that Lo-Q fronts the install, training and upkeep.

In return they get a cut of the money.

My guess is that this second point is where CF balks. They're the company that dumped a smaller cut of the far superior Nickelodeon IP for a larger cut of Peanuts. (pun not intended)

All the Fast Lane money is theirs to keep.

You understand correctly.

GoBucks89 said:
Using the bots, CF would either need to increase the price or accept reduced profits.

Unless the better infrastructure decreased costs or increased customer appeal enough to make up the difference in additional sales. ( Or maybe the better infrastructure/implementation could reduce the quantity of unhappy regular paying customers).

Lord Gonchar said:

My guess is that this second point is where CF balks. They're the company that dumped a smaller cut of the far superior Nickelodeon IP for a larger cut of Peanuts. (pun not intended)

(Sweet) pun notwithstanding....I continue to believe that the higher cut of the dollars for the obviously inferior IP just doesn't generate the same excitement, sales, or even "buzz" that the Nick IP did. I'd love for someone to prove me wrong (or even right)...but I highly doubt we'd ever get a look at the relevant numbers...

ApolloAndy said:

Unless the better infrastructure decreased costs or increased customer appeal enough to make up the difference in additional sales. ( Or maybe the better infrastructure/implementation could reduce the quantity of unhappy regular paying customers).

True. But presumably thats an analysis that Cedar Fair already performed when they went with wristbands over bots.

Yeah, I would think so. Except that every other major park, both regional and destination, seems to be jumping on a higher tech implementation. So unless CF and SF are really that different, somebody is doing it wrong.

With perfect info, the determination of who is doing it wrong could be made. But some of the info necessary to make the determination isn't necessarily easy to determine. Direct costs are easier to determine. Cost savings are more difficult. Increased customer appeal and decreased dissatisfaction are difficult to measure as well and also havevcorrelation versus causation issues.

Technology is a wonderful and amazing thing. But I think there are times when a low tech solution is better. There is a presumption that the high tech solution approach is better. More often than not it is but sometimes I think there is tech for tech's sake. Don't know if that is the case here.

I tend to be of the mindset that all the complaints about and problems with Fast Lane would be solved/avoided with a higher tech solution like Lo-Q.

(Disclaimer: I'm a big fan on Lo-Q)

I agree with Gonch, and I hate Lo-Q.

But how many of those problems can be solved/avoided with changes to the existing Fast Lane without going Lo-Q? And is the cost of getting to 100% solution/avoidance worth it in terms of profits?

No idea.

and

Most likely not.

It was my understanding that Lo-Q is a concessionaire at Six Flags. They paid for the equipment, upkeep, and the on-going operation of the FlashPass service, including staffing the facility that rents the bots and the attendants at the attractions where the service is offered.

Cedar Fair's system is garbage because there is no system.

egieszl said:

Cedar Fair's system is garbage because there is no system.

I chuckled.

Sure worked pretty well for me.

Seems like the easiest way to eliminate the "problems" with Fastlane is to just increase the price.

Make it too expensive, it doesn't generate revenue, and you have a bad time.

Make it too cheap, it generates revenue but no "value," and you have a bad time.

Price it just right, and you win all the ducats.

Avoidance of dynamic pricing comes at your own peril.

Yeah, but I think the 'problems' in this case go beyond simple pricing and more into what Eric is saying.

Right now the system is little more than "pay an additional fee and get into a different line" - there's not much control or direction other than limiting one or two rides to people who "pay even more" than those who just "pay more". It's a mostly passive endeavor on the park's end.

It might be a step up from the old FreeWay handstamps, but not by a whole lot. But hell, even with the handstamps they tried to control the return times and number given per hour window. Fast Lane is just a wristband free-for-all.

It's certainly minimum effort for maximum return.