Mt. Olympus buys up and improves hotels on Dells strip

The advertising thing seems like either a cop out, or really stupid management at the corporate level. I mean, I can't imagine them saying "Let's pass up this cash cow because we don't know how to tell people that other six flags parks don't also have hotels."

Not a cop out, here is the clarification from the person that was there (and it makes sense):

the concern is that since there's a Six Flags in MD, and a Six Flags in NY, they can't advertise there for SFGA.

Translation? The problem isn't that they couldn't fill the rooms, the problem is that if Six Flags bulds the onsite hotel, in order for them to advertise for it, they would need to advertise in those markets, and those markets already have a Six Flags, which could cause confusion. People showing up to SFA and wondering where the hotel is. Or, people in those markets not realizing that they could go to NJ for a 'Staycation' esq trip, and wondering why Six Flags America added a hotel. SFA is definitely less of a 'destination' park than Great Adventure could be. Not only that, but They likely don't want to advertise SFGAdv in the MD and NY markets that aren't served by GADv anywho.

Still doesn't mean that a hotel wouldn't work, just that Six Flags doesn't want to do the footwork themselves for the obvious reasons. Now, if a chain built one there in partnership, then things would be different.

I figure that if SFI wasn't already coming out of shakey financial situations already, maybe it'd be benificial for them to do a hotel with waterpark, that they could definitley just advertise to the 'locals' that want to get away.

But yeah. The reason isn't because it isn't sustainable or profitable as was stated. Nor is it because they don't think anyone would stay there. Quite the oppostie, really, in that they're afraid they'd pull too many people from the other parks, it would seem.

I can see where the confusion could exist, but I still think that's something a decent marketing plan would be able to handle. It could open up the potential for some cross-park promotions, like score a free ticket to your home SF park when you stay at SFGAdv's hotel.

Why don't they just build hotel at all of the SF parks mentioned? Then there would be no confusion at all. They could call SFGAdv "Great Adventure; A Six Flags Park", and SFA "America: A Six Flags Park", for example.

Actually, I believe that they do a really good job of letting people know that Six Flags is a chain of parks. Just take a look at their website.

I have heard a lot of good things and bad things about this park... I have never been to it however it seems to be run at a decent state...

I hope they invest in the hotels and make them really nice and make more of a resort out of it!

LostKause said:
Actually, I believe that they do a really good job of letting people know that Six Flags is a chain of parks. Just take a look at their website.

...and yet, somehow, everyone still believes theirs is THE Six Flags park. ;)

To illustrate - my customers call me daily and tell me "I work for your program, and I need assistance" - to which I continuously respond with "you need to tell me what CITY you're in so I can sign in to actually help you." They'll NEVER figure out they're part of a larger statewide program...

Tekwardo said:

They would love to have an on-site hotel, but there are issues with advertising when it comes to the other Six Flags parks in the area that are of concern. It was mentioned if a chain would like to partner with them and build a hotel, they would be all for it.
- There was talk about a possible RV-park, maybe log cabins on property. Nothing really concrete, sounded like a possible thought.

Playing devil's advocate... So if there is such a need for a hotel and the park is eager to partner up with an outside hotel chain, why haven't any outside chains signed up for this?

I don't get the advertising angle. How big of a hotel are we talking about - 100 rooms, 200? Seems like the park should be able to support that without some major advertising campaign. Put a big announcement on that park's webpage, send a brochure to the season pass holders who process their passes at that park. What more do they need to do?

Who knows what deals they may have on the table with other chains.

Having said that, it's not THE reason, it's part of the reason. Again, as was said early in the thread, the company has went thru many changes in the last several years. I wouldn't want to put the money up to do it right now either. They likely don't feel the need to get that park into another type of business at this point and would rather it be done by someone else.

Having said that, nobody ever said the park was suffering from not having a hotel. The core arguement was that the park has looked into it, but bill didn't believe it would ever happen because it hasn't happened, and if there were hurdles, they'd have been jumped to make it happen. Everyone else said that yes, the hotel could be profitable at the park, and its obvious that the park thinks so as well from their own words.

Looking into the 2nd comment, they see the need and demand for some lodging, or they wouldn't be considering an RV Park and log cabins. They mentioned that they will be dealing with other RV/Camping parks in the area so as not to infringe on them either, so the park sees a need for lodging.

With this economy, I'm not sure I'd want to build a hotel either at this point, which is not to say that I don't think it would be profitable, but it would be out of SFI's core business. Having someone else come in to do it would be better, and they may be in talks for that.

I know that somewhere in my history of life, I could come up with another example to show you that I understand exactly what you are saying, Gator, but for the life of me it isn't coming to the front of my thoughts right now. :)

Great Adventure could always partner with Cedar Fair, and let them come in and build and operate some hotels. That would be an excellent idea. ;)