Paramount Parks attendance up 16%, per cap down 4%

Posted Friday, July 23, 2004 10:29 AM | Contributed by supermandl

Viacom says in their 2004 second quarter results that Paramount Parks attendance is up 16%, though per capita spending is down 4%.

Read the press release on PR Newswire.

Friday, July 23, 2004 10:40 AM
eightdotthree's avatar So attendance is up at Paramount parks, and down at Six Flags parks. I wonder why? ;)
+0
Friday, July 23, 2004 11:01 AM
Paramount has no parks in the Northeast so there is better weather there.....
+0
Friday, July 23, 2004 11:18 AM
^ Not only that but their guest services & overall park atmosphere is way above that of SF parks...see my PKD TR to learn why.

Paramount seems to care about the guest experience & it shows in everything they've done this year so far,SF only cares about getting your money & providing little to no atmosphere or service at their parks.

+0
Friday, July 23, 2004 12:13 PM
Attendance up and per cap down is hardly a win-win. Let's try it this way...Per cap is down at Paramount parks and up at Six Flags parks.;)And how is it possible anyone can take such sweeping generalizations^^^^^^seriously?
*** This post was edited by IBsteve 7/23/2004 12:13:26 PM ***
+0
Friday, July 23, 2004 12:44 PM
We don't have results for the July-August peak season from anywhere yet.

A per cap down 4% with attendance up 16% sounds like successful discount promotions to me. This works out to an 11% increase in revenue which is pretty good.

My trip to PKD this year did have improved customer service compared to previous years.

+0
Friday, July 23, 2004 1:00 PM
BFSFA, I think once again you're making broad generalizations about Six Flags parks. How many have you been to? I've been to seven, and let me tell you that some of their parks have plenty of atmosphere. I've also had good customer experiences at some of their parks. Again, try traveling a little bit more and then get back to us. Make no doubt about it, all any park cares about is getting your money, or they wouldn't be in business.
+0
Friday, July 23, 2004 1:54 PM
Ive been to 5 SF parks and 2 Paramount Parks and IMHO the Paramount parks are head and shoulders over the SF parks in customer service/cleaniess/atmoshpere etc. I would say that SFGAM holds is as good but the other 4 SF parks while maybe having more exciting steel coasters pale in comparsion to the overall expereince i have had at PKI/PKD.
+0
Friday, July 23, 2004 2:12 PM
Jeff's avatar I don't understand why anyone defends the Six Flags parks when the only number that counts, the one at the bottom of the balance sheet, sucks, and continues to suck.

Jim is probably right though about the promotion. A 4% decline in spending is easily made back and then some with a gate boost like that.

+0
Friday, July 23, 2004 3:16 PM
eightdotthree's avatar Not to mention that we are speaking about the chain, NOT the individual parks.

How many northeast parks does Six Flags operate? Three? I really dont think the weather can be an excuse for them this year, espcially if their competitors are doing fine so far.

About the promotions, SF is STILL giving away the gate through buy one get one radio ads at SFGadv and their season passes are DIRT cheap. If that isnt working than what will? Hmmm.

+0
Friday, July 23, 2004 3:55 PM
ApolloAndy's avatar I have a feeling that Jeremy was being sarcastic. Maybe not, but that's how I read it.

I don't understand how people bash SF as only wanting your money. It's not like CF or Paramount are charity organizations. They only care about guest relations as a means to a better bottom line. If it were more profitable to be jerks, I can't see either park chain sticking with the less profitable route.

On the other hand, Knoebel's and HW (thought I've never been) strike me as places that have good customer service because "it's the right thing to do" regardless of the bottom line. Maybe they've pulled a fast one over on me, because I'd much rather spend my $ at parks like that than at chain parks, but there's a genuine concern for the guest's happiness that doesn't feel dependant on profitability.

+0
Friday, July 23, 2004 6:28 PM
Jeff's avatar No, even Holiday World does it because it's good for business. I mean, it's the hospitality business at the end of the day. Isn't it in every park's interest to be "hospitable?"
+0
Friday, July 23, 2004 8:52 PM
Lets look at it this way-

Estimate that 100,000 people paying $75 each visit a Paramount Park every day (and thats very conservative) will generate $7.5 million. When attendance is up 16%, it's bumped upto $8.7 million. With per cap spending down 4%, you have $8.35 million generated after all is said and done. A gain of nearly 12% in total guest spending.

Now lets look at SF-

Also estimate that 100,000 people visit SF parks spending $75 each, they also generate $7.5 million. After decreased attendance, you're making $7.2 million. Increase per capita spending by 1% and it ends up at 7.27 million. A total loss of about 3.6% in total guest spending.

So yeah, I'll take Paramount's 12% gain over SF's 3.6% loss.

I've been to 6 SF parks (SFMM, SFMW, SFGAm, SFWoA, SFGADv and SFA). While some SF paarks are decent (SFGAm was even GOOD), the rest had horrible guest service and atmosphere! Alot of the parks had major attractions down all day, ones I VERY WELL KNOW aren't down because of maintnance issues.

The 3 Paramount Parks I've been to (PGA, PKI and PKD) are far above and beyond SF parks in every aspect! Guest service is great, the ops are good for the most part, and I have *never ever* seen a major Paramount ride down all day. Thats not to say that it hasn't happened, but I've been to PGA 12 times, PKD and PKI twice and no major rides were closed all day, a few only went down for a few hours at a time. I mean jeez, these are parks with rides like Stealth, Tomb Raider, SOB, Volcano and Hypersonic and while they broke down, I never once saw any of them closed for more than a few hours at a time.*** This post was edited by ThePhantomLives 7/23/2004 9:16:26 PM ***

+0
Friday, July 23, 2004 11:12 PM
Well now that attendance is up it's time to finally get some hypercoasters in this chain!

Sounds good to me though, business wise. I will agree that the parks (or atleast PKD, that I know of), tends to improve every year. Now if only they would just run 3 trains on both Hypersonic and Volcano on a regular basis, then things would be that much better.

+0
Saturday, July 24, 2004 7:23 AM
You're right! Time for big coasters now and lots of them!

Worked for Six Flags, right? Uh, right?

Why are so many of the parks reporting big increases the ones adding waterslides instead? Hmmm? PKI revamped their whole park. HW added more to the ones they've already added. And PGA? They ripped a coaster out of the ground and replaced it with you'll never guess what.

Don't you get it? Haven't you figured it out yet? The next parks with big gains will be the parks with complimentary waterparks and hot new slides. It's not simply gonna happen...it's happening already!

-CO

+0
Saturday, July 24, 2004 9:15 AM
CoastaPlaya - Perhaps it's because - and just like it's everywhere else on this site - that Six Flags' services suck. Ofcourse, waterparks are wonderful for promoting a park, but if Six Flags is losing attendance, then where are all the families going for some summer fun?(for those that like parks)

Six Flags and PKD are about the same distance from me, but I'd rather go to PKD almost any day even though I would rather ride Superman: RoS than anything at PKD. Park overall quality and service could be playing a huge role as well, not just the slides, IMO.

+0
Saturday, July 24, 2004 9:29 AM
Thanks "Double A". I was indeed being sarcastic. We need a sarcasm similey on this site bad :).

And as for CO's waterslide theory, I'd just like to say that correlation does NOT equal causation. Those parks all got *something* new, many SF Parks did not. Please dont let your waterpark fetish get the best of you.

lata jeremy

--who believes the secret entrance to CO's lair is somewhere in Whitewater Country Waterpark (possibly *in* the wavepool....)

+0
Saturday, July 24, 2004 10:14 AM
WWC is naught but 5 slides and a kiddie pool, hardly a waterpark. I live in a state with exactly one wavepool to date. So that's got nothing to do with it.

Are you trying to tell me the 16% chainwide spike came entirely from one park with a hand-me-down coaster? Or that PGA (who removed a coaster for a waterpark) isn't enjoying gains? Gimme a break.

When SFStl added Mr.Freeze (and got it working) there was no huge spike in attendance. When they added a small but complimentary waterpark, WOF's attendance took a blow it never recovered from. Check the numbers.

In recent years, HW has added a standard S&S DoubleShot, a nice set of swings and what else? Another woodie? Nope. Waterslide after waterslide after waterslide. And where has there attendance gone?

Think about it. There's only one town in America where a coaster war still rages--and that's the one where wavepools and waterslides rule the roost.

You...just...don't...get it.

-CO

+0
Saturday, July 24, 2004 5:25 PM
Maybe parks will begin to realize that waterparks REALLY can drive gate sales if they're complimentary? Unfortunately most parks already have thier stand alone waterparks and are probably unwilling to make the change to a comp waterpark. But who here thinks SF parks with Hurricane Harbors next door should all be one park, and that they'd make ALOT more money doing so?

^Raises hand! :)

+0

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2018, POP World Media, LLC
Loading...