Multiple Coaster Contract "deals"

Quite often, someone will cite that "Park Y has a 3 coaster deal with Manufactuer X". As soon as that is said, here comes a "coaster business guru" to say that such contract NEVER exist. Now, I in no way shape or form believe that people on here (save a *very* select few) have ever even *seen* a purchase agreement, so I discount most of those rumors. But on the other hand, is it really impossible to believe that a park could negotiate such a deal? Or if not such a deal, at least an "incentive option".

It's now fairly common knowledge that Paramount had a long term agreement with Vekoma for the Dutchman coaster. If such a deal could be struck across a chain, why not limited to a single park?

Just a question for those "in the know"
jeremy

-------------
"Nobody writes about the planes that land." Steve Salerno Washington Times 7-10-01

What about SF and the GIB? Maybe there is a multi coaster deal for a seris of coasters across the chain, but not for an individual park.
-----------------
CP! Still the coaster capital of the world in 2002!
My fellow Americans; Let's Roll!
WoodenCoaster.com

I think there might be one For MM and arrow, i mean you dont get the most technologically advanced ride on the planet for 15 mill with out some type of deal.
-----------------
The Scream Site
http://www.screamsite.cjb.net

A contract for installation, but not one to build more than one coaster.
-----------------
CP! Still the coaster capital of the world in 2002!
My fellow Americans; Let's Roll!
WoodenCoaster.com

An individual park in a chain like SFMM does not have a deal with a company like Arrow. SFTP does their planning for capital at the corporate level.

It wouldn't make sense for a manufacturer to exclude themselves from doing business. Across parks, sure, if they agree they're going to buy x number of rides over y number of years, I can see that. The manufacturer is making a living. But in the case of doing the same and maintaining exclusivity with one park, that doesn't happen.

Would a park do a contract with one manufacturer over time (non-exclusive)? That would be pretty stupid to me because most park execs will tell you that it's hard to really predict the needs of the audience more than two or three years out. The economy changes.

-----------------
Jeff - Webmaster/Admin - CoasterBuzz.com, Sillynonsense.com
"As far as I can tell it doesn't matter who you are. If you can believe, there's something worth fighting for..." - Garbage, "Parade"

Jeff has definitely hit the right buttons on this topic, why would a manufacturer alienate the rest of its potential customers for buying a new product. Do any other bussinesses operate this way, not that I know of!! The deals with certain park chains certainly exist, like BigKirby mentioned.

2hostly, it doesn't seem completely rediculous but it just isn't practical, the needs of the GP and park can change in a few years. While a lot of parks maintain a master plan, they do not tie themselves down to the plan. Example the SFA masterplan, Batwing instead of the stand-up. So multiple coaster contracts limit the parks options but you know I could see some parks have a two coaster contract, one year after the other.

-----------------
There is only so much time left in this crazy, I just crumbling erb. they don't understand the master plan, i just cumbling erb.
Outkast

*** This post was edited by sethman on 1/26/2002. ***

But companies *do* exclude themselves from 'certain types' of business sometimes. S&S and the company that makes 'skycoasters' are good examples. But these "exclusivity" contracts are not what I'm asking about.

In most other businesses, compaines tend to buy products in bulk, usually with the incentive of a discount. I just wonder what is so ludicrous about a park forcasting adding say a looping coaster and a family coaster over the next few years and making a simultaneous agreement for both of them. It just doesnt seem that outrageous to me.

-------------
"Nobody writes about the planes that land." Steve Salerno Washington Times 7-10-01

The problem with making this kind of deal is being able to accurately specify what is to be purchased. It wouldn't be at all hard to make a deal to purchase 3 Boomerangs or 3 SLCs over the next 3 years. These are standard designs that are installed on basically flat ground.

What we hear all of the time on bulletin boards though is that ACME Amusement Parks has signed a 4 coaster deal with X Coasters Inc. for coasters of unspecified design, length, and location. How would you set a contract value on such coasters? I won't say it's impossible that some sort of cost plus deal could be signed, but it would probably not be in the park chain's interest since the coaster manufacturer would lose much of the incentive to be efficient.

Excluding business can happen for 2 reasons. The Skycoaster arrangement is to make their ride more attractiveto the park by guaranteeing the park that a similar ride will not be built within a certain distance. This is common in franchising. It helps Skycoaster to get parks as customers.

The second reason can be park involvement in the development of the technology of a new ride. Both Disney and Universal have both invested large sums of their own money in the development of new ride technology. If Universal spent $50,000,000 of their own money developing the technology of Spiderman, they aren't going toi want another similar ride to go in at Disney 6 months later.

Apples and Oranges. Period.
Skycoasters are 'exclusive' for territory only. The overwhelming majority of them are privately owned and insured. The limited capacity of them makes it even harder to generate profitable income in a short time. They are given 'franchise operating zones' to ensure the surrounding market isn't saturated. The same goes for most 'pay as you go' attractions.
Same goes for certain food items such as Dippin Dots. Also some hard to get game prizes, like Beanie Babies, Furbies,etc. are all subject to availablility.
As Jeff said, ride manufacturers could not survive being exclusive. Paramount did enter a developement partnership with Vekoma and the 'Stealth', and they really didn't do a good job. The ride is mediocre, has poor loading times, and now the partnership is dissolved due to Vekoma's new owners.
Think of this, why doesn't Lagoon have every Arrow ride? Why didn't Kings Island have a new TOGO? Its a free market, and money talks. First come, first serve. Even in the 1920's when Travers Engineering in Beaver Falls, PA was placing rides in parks on a revenue share basis, neighboring Kennywood and West View didn't have their best rides.
But hear this now. At IAAPA in 2002, if the Arrow 4-D is still in sound operation, every major chain will be at the table. Cedar Fair, Six Flags, etc will all be wanting the next version. All the major players now are moving to the same financial playing field. Paramount, Cedar Fair, Six Flags, and Busch are all bringing similar capital budgets to the shows. Its getting tougher for independents to launch a marquee attraction. Of course, that leads to smaller companies to bring innovation to the table, which is a new subject.

*** This post was edited by Agent Johnson on 1/28/2002. ***

Multi-coaster contracts, sure, they just make sense. But multi-coaster contracts make way more sense across a chain, especially when there's two V2s, two Medusas, two Ricochets, etc. I don't believe the individual parks have the clout when dealing with ride manufacturers that the CHAIN would.

Exclusivity contracts would kill the manufacturer's opportunity to do business elsewhere, and would be akin to suicide. I seem to recall rumors where AIR was going to be the only B&M flyer built for a certain period of time...how's that worked out, it's not even opened and there's another one announced. The territory thing attempts to ensure, as Agent Johnson said, prevent market saturation, which would make the rides unprofitable...

-----------------
PoTP acolyte - remove fear to reply
Son of Drop Zone - PKI CoasterCamp I Champions!!!

Didn't Big Chief's have a contract with CCI for 3 woodies?
-----------------
"This Movie spent way to much money on special effects, look they couldnt even afford to buy those little dudes shoes!"

Number 1, Big Cheifs has 3 CCI woodies.

Number 2, do you seriously think a family owned go kart facility would sign a "contract" for multiple coasters!? This isn't a world wide park corporation we're talking about!

-----------------
- Peabody

I know, I just thought I read it somewhere. I really dont know to much about the park really, just that it has 3 CCI's, nevermind.
-----------------
"This Movie spent way to much money on special effects, look they couldnt even afford to buy those little dudes shoes!"

They have been rumored for a 4th. Sounds great to me! (I hope my earlier post didn't come off in a nasty tone.)

-----------------
- Peabody

*** This post was edited by Peabody on 1/26/2002. ***

You hurt my feelings...sniff...sniff ;). The 3 they already have look amazing, lets hope for more. Hopefully I can get to the Dells sometime this summer.

-----------------
"This Movie spent way to much money on special effects, look they couldnt even afford to buy those little dudes shoes!"

Jeff hit it right on the nail. There is so much for the industry to offer, I can't never see a park sticking with one company for a long period of time. It would not make any common sense.

Even thought it's still a little far out,I can say Moss Pier will definately not be using just one ride company

-----------------

...as a side note:

What about someplace like Europa Park? I do believe that's the place I'm thinking of.

It's a testing ground for Mack rides, I guess - but is it exclusive? Are there attractions from other manufacturers there?

It's just something that popped into my head - but it struck me as possibly being an example (and exception, certainly) of a park that may use a single supplier.

-----------------
~~~ M ~~~
Official Driver for the Long Island Regional.

Going along with what Agent said, yes, there is such a thing as market exclusivity, but for people to suggest that park exclusivity exists is nuts. Remember how everyone was saying that no US parks would get a B&M flyer? Shows you how much they know.

With regards to multiple rides over time, there are two factors to consider. The first is inflation, which is unpredictable and could be bad for the manufacturer, the second is changing market conditions that could affect the park's ability to pay up when it comes time for the second ride, and that's bad for the park. In either case, the option to not build is better for both parties involved regardless of any potential discount.

-----------------
Jeff - Webmaster/Admin - CoasterBuzz.com, Sillynonsense.com
"As far as I can tell it doesn't matter who you are. If you can believe, there's something worth fighting for..." - Garbage, "Parade"

Well Chernabog, I think Europa was kind of unique in that area, but they're picking up a Beemer, Silver Star. HW had a good CCI coaster, probably developed a good relationship with them, and when they wanted another woodie, went back to them. Same goes for HP and GCI, WI Dells and CCI, CP with Arrow, Silverwood and CCI. The unpredictability of future inflation, especially now in what we'll call "uncertain" times, means neither party is probably interested in long-term deals. But a previous good working relationship certainly doesn't hurt either, when a park is looking. .
-----------------
Off-season coaster blues got you down, stop by the 'buzz and turn your frown upside-down...
PoTP acolyte - remove fear to reply
Son of Drop Zone - PKI CoasterCamp I Champions!!!