Major Chain Considering Free Parking and/or Free Drinks?

RideMan said:
When was the last time you saw a park actually advertise their parking fee on their website in a place where you could actually find it?

As another person who doesn't carry much cash, I make an effort to find the parking costs. It's not always the easiest thing to find. But, I can usually find it on the website. In addition, more and more places are taking credit cards at the toll booths. Including Universal Hollywood. I remember because I upgraded to the premium parking. I almost never do that. But, I got there a couple hours after the park opened and I didn't want to waste time walking.

RideMan said:

I actually asked them about it, and the response I got was that, "Well, most people don't use all seven days...". My response: "So what?"

Incidentally, I didn't use all seven days either. But I still would have paid that extra days' parking if it meant I didn't have to fork over cash every morning at the tollbooth. It's the same reason I buy a P-O-P when I go to Knoebel's, knowing full well that I probably won't get enough rides to "pay" for it.

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

And doesn't it also stand to reason that if they could get people to prepay their parking they are more likely to get them to stay (and continue spending money) the full 7 days?

Yeah, I think they are totally leaving money on the table by not doing length-of-stay parking prepayments. Their argument is that it's an incentive to put people in their overpriced hotels, but you know what? By the time I get there, it's already clear that I am staying somewhere else. And call me old fashioned if you want, but I just don't see using a credit card to pay for any "quick" transaction like parking or a grab joint. I don't work that way, and my FICA score* reflects that.

--Dave Althoff, Jr.
*Credit crunch? What credit crunch? I have people begging to loan me money!

Over-priced hotels? For real? Have you stayed in them? I find them to be priced right and have some of the best pools (and spa) that I've been to. With the annual pass discount, it's an even better deal. Yep, Loews First platinum member here.

It's also strange that you wouldn't use plastic for anything "quick," since it's inherently faster than cash. That, and can you blame Universal for you not knowing in advance how much to budget for parking? :)

I dunno, it seems that every time I use plastic it involves waiting around for system responses that take a lot longer than me handing over a couple of bills. Television spots to the contrary notwithstanding.

For what I wanted, Universal's hotels were overpriced. For what they are, they're probably a great deal, but that's for a lot more hotel room than I wanted or needed.

Knowing how much parking was going to cost me, I kind of expected that I'd be able to buy a pass for that... :)

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

Personally, I don't have much of a problem with them overcharging for soda and bottled water. However, prices that are charged for parking are ridiculous, and I have a problem with.

Soda/bottled water/drinks: I don't have much of a problem with this because personally, I can go without soda for a day at the park, and the parks are required to give away free ice water whenever asked. If the soda was free, the price would just be passed onto us through higher ticket prices. Therefore, non-soda drinkers would have to subsidize the soda drinker's soda.

Parking: I think that what they charge for parking is insane. Taking SFA as an example, if you are ever able to see a view of the park from high up, you'll see that there is an abundance of parking that will never be used, and that probably never was used. This may not be the case in all parks, but it is in many parks, and this particular park charges you $15 to park there.

I understand that the park is in business to make money, but goods and services are supposed to be priced at where supply meets demand. The parking lots at most parks are placed in a manner where its only real usefulness is to the park. Additionally, it is often hard to get to a park without using that parking lot. Therefore, using that parking lot is a necessary condition to attending the park without using other means.

This gets us to the issue of the "other means." Charging a lot for parking when parking is abundant artificially requires the guests to be dropped off, take the bus, or carpool in massive groups. These are acts that would probably not be taken, so they are probably undesirable. Moreover to that, those who choose to take these cost avoidance techniques pass the cost of the park, and parking onto those who do park. Therefore, you are left with the ultimatum of paying artificially inflated prices, or engaging in an artificial process that may not be desirable.

However, if parks do have limited parking, costs act as an agent to discourage patrons from parking in the lot, and allow those to who it is most important to, to pay extra. For every incremental dollar, the patrons will be more likely to carpool, get dropped off, take a bus, etc.

Therefore, it would stand to reason that parks should price their parking rates at a price that is at equilibrium with the demand for parking, and the supply of it. If the parking lot is estimated to hold much more than it could ever hold, it should be free (maybe have preferred parking with a fee if you must) and increase the ticket price to equilibrium. If parking is limited, the price should be at the equilibrium to fill every parking spot, and lowering the prices enough to offset the cost of parking.

I just don't see using a credit card to pay for any "quick" transaction like parking or a grab joint.

Debit Card? Bueller?

2fast4comfort said:

I understand that the park is in business to make money, but goods and services are supposed to be priced at where supply meets demand.

...it is often hard to get to a park without using that parking lot. Therefore, using that parking lot is a necessary condition to attending the park without using other means.

Stop and read that again. :)

That's the very definition of supply and demand. You need to a place to leave your vehicle. The park has the only reasonable space to do so.

You pay more for something that is scarce. The supply in this case is incredibly limited - to the park's lot to be exact.

The rest of your reasoning is irrelevant because you overlooked this angle.

---

I'm slowly coming around to the idea of tying in the price of other things to the gate - you can charge more and convince people it's a deal. Rather than $15 for parking, add $4 to every ticket. That family of 5 or carload of 5 friends just park $20 to park in the 'free' lot.

Funny that you used SFA as an example. We were just there today and I thought it was a great park at a great price. For $133.97 we got four admissions, parking and unlimted drinks. ($33.49 each)

If they can offer that indirectly through deals and promotions, then they need to just do 'free' parking and 'free' drinks at a $39 gate ticket and laugh all the way to the bank.

I can't think of another park that can match that.

2fast4comfort said:
Soda/bottled water/drinks: I don't have much of a problem with this because personally, I can go without soda for a day at the park, and the parks are required to give away free ice water whenever asked. If the soda was free, the price would just be passed onto us through higher ticket prices. Therefore, non-soda drinkers would have to subsidize the soda drinker's soda.

How far do you want to take this? I mean, aren't the people who don't ride coasters subsidizing the cost of coasters for those who do? Are people without kids subsidizing the kiddie attractions?

Regarding parking: very often parking requirements are set by the local municipality based on some formulas. How they decide this for an amusement park, I have no idea. Parking spots costs several thousand dollars apiece to construct. I'm sure no business on its own will volunteer at its own expense to build many more parking spaces than are ever going to be used.

2fast4comfort said:

Parking: I think that what they charge for parking is insane. Taking SFA as an example, if you are ever able to see a view of the park from high up, you'll see that there is an abundance of parking that will never be used, and that probably never was used. This may not be the case in all parks, but it is in many parks, and this particular park charges you $15 to park there.

There are actually a handfull of days when all that extra parking is needed. Take a visit during "Gospel Explosion" (or whatever it's called) or "Latino/a Heritage" (or whatever they've named it) and you might find yourself in a lot you never even knew existed.

I understand that the park is in business to make money, but goods and services are supposed to be priced at where supply meets demand. The parking lots at most parks are placed in a manner where its only real usefulness is to the park. Additionally, it is often hard to get to a park without using that parking lot. Therefore, using that parking lot is a necessary condition to attending the park without using other means.

Ironic that you use SFA as an example as it is one of the few parks that can be legitiamtely reached by public transportation, negating any use of the parking lot at all.

Therefore, it would stand to reason that parks should price their parking rates at a price that is at equilibrium with the demand for parking, and the supply of it. If the parking lot is estimated to hold much more than it could ever hold, it should be free (maybe have preferred parking with a fee if you must) and increase the ticket price to equilibrium. If parking is limited, the price should be at the equilibrium to fill every parking spot, and lowering the prices enough to offset the cost of parking.

I think what you'll find is that park believe that the parking fee has been too *low* in most cases. That's why they've been on the incline for years. Contray to your argument, most people do not balk at the parking fee when they show up. They just (begrudgingly?) pay the price. What incentive is there to lower the cost if it is routinely being paid?

I'm with Gonch though on rolling the 'cost' into gate admission. I think doing so most people might actually spend *more* than they would a la carte, but would 'feel' better about it. That's the type of good will that results in repeat business. I mean really, look at 'all-inclusive' resorts. Do you really think people drink enough alcohol to cover the mark-up. Of course not! But they feel good about it while they are there. And they'll recommend it to friends.

And call me old fashioned if you want, but I just don't see using a credit card to pay for any "quick" transaction like parking or a grab joint. I don't work that way, and my FICA score* reflects that.

Using a credit card is not the same thing as "using credit". Pay your card off in full every month and there's no damage done to your credit rating whatsoever.

I do think the pre-paid parking thing would be a great idea, and I too prefer cash for small expenses like this. But, it's not like you can't get more whenever you need it---you couldn't swing a dead cat without hitting an ATM just about anywhere you go. Yes, it will cost you a few bucks if it is not your local bank's machine, but if you'd be willing to pay a few extra bucks for the convenience of pre-paid parking, it seems that you should be willing to do the same for the convenience of ready access to cash.

Or use a Debit Card at the parking gate and it comes out of your account. I like only pulling out my debit card, that has protection against theft/loss, and only having very little small amounts of cash on me for things I need, like parking meters, or if I stop to get food and their system is down.

Lord Goncher and 2Hostyl,

If you would have read by post in detail you would realized that I did require the price at the gate to be indexed to the reduction or elimination of the parking free (when I said that the gate fee be set to the equilibrium level to reflect the changes). Lord Goncher, your whole rebuttal is worthless because you ignored the fact that I did recommend making the money up elsewhere.

I guess that my argument is also contingent on the fact that fully serving and maintaining a certain level of trust with your customers has certain economic value. Moreover, that if given the opportunity for the average person to spend the same amount of money, the most convenient, and forthcoming option should be taken, unless there are specific reasons otherwise (trying to encourage car consolidation).

New-to-posting guy... Attributing disagreement to a lack of reading comprehension on the part of others will not win you any friends or credibility.

"YOU'RE a towel!" ;) :)

Isn't there a serious risk with consolidating various fees (admission, parking, drinks, etc.) into a pay-one-price scheme?

It seems that a park operator would have less breathing room to adjust it's prices during economic upturns/downturns. For example, say less guests are buying food, so you add two dollars to parking cost.

I know that's a simplified example, but still, I think the point is illustrated. The pay-one-price operator would NOT be able to make the parking fee adjustment, unless they raised ticket prices, which is the one thing park goers DO have strong opinions about.

So, maybe keeping parking, admission and drinks/food separate is a better business model for corporate parks that need to make quick adjustments because they live and die by their stock prices.

I don't know.......seems to be working great at Holiday world.

On the other hand, the airline industry has given pretty good evidence that the paying public prefers unbundled pricing---even Southwest, where bags fly free, has dipped its toe in the unbundled waters with their early-bird boarding scheme.

^That was weird seeing their ads coming up with the SW logo and an "upcharge" model...I guess the last bastion of POP flying has gone the way of the dodo... ;)

2fast4comfort said:
Lord Goncher and 2Hostyl,

If you would have read by post in detail you would realized that I did require the price at the gate to be indexed to the reduction or elimination of the parking free (when I said that the gate fee be set to the equilibrium level to reflect the changes). Lord Goncher, your whole rebuttal is worthless because you ignored the fact that I did recommend making the money up elsewhere.

You're right. You caught me. I'm actually illiterate and I've been faking this whole time.

For the record, my disagreement with your ideas had nothing to do with making the money up and everything to do with your misunderstanding of supply and demand in the context of amusement park parking.