No re-entry at Sux Flags this Year

---

Lord Gonchar said:
Might I suggest that some of you guys NOT listen to this week's podcast when it gets posted.

---

No problem here. Wouldn't want to break my streak. Those podcasts are for the GP anyway, right? :)

Awww, so you missed the couple of times we talked about or quoted your posts in the news items. (which we've agreed with)

Seriously. :)

Hell, had I known you weren't listening I'd have just ripped you off rather than giving credit. ;)

---

No they don't make those kind of major decision changes without a much larger production.

---

At least, we hope they don't. With the speed with which this might/did/did not happen, I'm not sure.

In any event, if you're going to do this the right way, you want to randomly sample folks to gauge their reaction. The problem with CBuzz is that it's anything but a random sample---it's horrendously self-selecting. Asking us whether re-entry is critical to our park visits is like gathering together fans who travel to a half-dozen NASCAR races per year and asking them if people like watching cars going fast and turning left. You'll get some strong (and largely one-sided) opinions, but they may or may not reflect the average customer's view---and they almost certainly don't reflect the average potentially-but-not-yet-a-customer's views.

So, at the very least, if you want to know how current customers will react before you try it out, you have to randomly sample in-park guests. Disney is a master at this, but Cedar Fair is no slouch either. If you want to know , you randomly call people out of the phone book. Still plenty of bias---you lose cell-phone-only people, and you lose people too busy/crotchety to bother answering phone surveys, etc.

The other way is to just try it out and see what happens. But, unless you're right a whole lot more often than you're wrong, this is a stupid way to run a business.

Personaly, I almost never re-enter a park once I leave. If I eat, I usualy eat at the park. With having a season pass, I'm not usualy at the park long enough to need to eat. However, I can also atest to the fact that the rest of my family, who only visits once a year +\- always stay the whole day and bring enough food for a lunch and dinner. So they need to re-enter at least 2 times. That's probably 10-15 people per year that I don't tink would come if re-entry was disallowed.

I really beleive this is a bad idea. I mean I see what they are trying to do by keepingguest in the park and basically they have to buy food in the park or wait till they leave, instead of heading across the street to McDolnalds and get something alot cheaper, and more food. But I still think it is a very bad business move and may end up hurting them in the long run.

Guys, catch up. We're done arguing over whether or not re-entry is a good idea. Now we're arguing about whether or not enthusiasts have impact in the industry.

I don't 6Flags gives the slightest damn about what anyone thinks, much less enthusiasts.

There would be one way to prove it, though: Have enthusiasts push an issue to the point of boycotting a park and see what happens.
I don't think much would.

Enthusiasts thinking they have some actual power in this industry? That is one scary thought.

Gonch, no wonder why my ears have been burning. I just thought it was an allergic reaction to my new shampoo.

DWeaver, we DO have some power...the power to observe and comment... ;)

Trip Reports are extremely powerful. Parks reading them and the GP doing research on particular parks read them as well. I found out a lot about my home park when I found these discussion forums.

With the power of enthusiasts... weren't they able to save certain rollercoasters from certain deaths? If it weren't for enthusiasts... wouldn't a number of old tyme coasters met their doom long ago?

They may have little overall say in the industry altogether, but I think for the smaller things, word eventually gets around & some things have been accomplished.

I'm going out on a limb comparing theme parks to sports and concert facilities. (I appologize if this was brought up earlier -- I didn't read all 10 pages of posts.)

Most sport and concert facilities do not allow re-entry in order to force their patrons to eat and drink inside the venue. Alcohol sales are a HUGE element of the venue cash flow. Alcohol is also a significant liability -- in many jurisdictions, the venue holding the liquor license is responsible for the level of intoxication of their patrons. Any policy that keeps guests from returning to their vehicles for booze (or illegal drugs) is good business sense for a sports or concert venue.

How does this compare to a theme park? We've all seen families picnicing in their minivan at our local theme park. We've also seen guests toking up and drinking in the same parking lot. How big is the problem? Is it worth alienating the picnicing families to prevent intoxicating patrons from returning to the theme park? I think each park has to decide for themselves.

If a park has problems with teenage gangs, eliminating re-entry may reduce some (not all) of the alcohol and drugs that fuel their destructive tendencies. This avoids fights, vandalism, and hopefully bad PR for the park.

I would favour a more discriminatory approach -- one where re-entry is allowed throughout the day, but not after 6:00 pm. Come and go during the day, but if you leave after 6:00 pm, you can't come back.

But what's the difference if a person leaves the park at 2 or 4 PM to get booze or drugs at his car and a person driving in at 10 AM and sitting in his car doing booze and drugs THEN going into the park. Or someone who leaves the park, then hangs out in the parking lot for 2 hours?

Security should be doing their job at the gates the entire time the park is open. If someone appears to be under the influence, you deny them entrance. Check people as thoroughly at re-entry gates as you do at regular entry gates for weapons, intoxication, etc.

I don't see how re-entry has much to do with that issue.

---

RatherGoodBear said:
But what's the difference if a person leaves the park at 2 or 4 PM to get booze or drugs at his car and a person driving in at 10 AM and sitting in his car doing booze and drugs THEN going into the park. Or someone who leaves the park, then hangs out in the parking lot for 2 hours?

---

Because booze and drugs (with a handful of exceptions) tend to wear off long before the park closes.

Kind of hard to stay high from 10AM to close with no access to your drug of choice. But if you can hit the car every few hours for a big, fat blunt - then you're happening.

Just saying...

Okay, who else is trying to mentally catalog what might get you through an O-C day? ;)

-brian, who, just like our President, was young and irresponsible when he was young and irresponsible.

^ But it looks like YOU have grown up! ;)

I'm just glad my days of running to the car for that pick me up blunt are behind me. ;)

I wouldn't know about things like that.

However, I have had to deal with people who were pretty boozed up by 10 AM. Like I said, that's why you have security at the gates. If someone is visibly under the influence, you refuse them entry, whether it's 10 AM, 2 or 8 PM. Whether it's their first time entering the park that day or their fourth.