Price of Voyage

Friday, October 13, 2006 6:15 PM
Lettuce said:

It's all about what parks want to do with their money based on the market they're in. HW can't afford a ride like Nitro or Sheikra, but it can afford the Voyage and its guests happen to like it. A park like CP can afford just about any coaster within reason, yet its guests expect a little more than a wooden coaster and they can get a return on their investment in a B&M or Intamin that HW can't.::

Dude, Theres smaller parks out there with Beemers so don't say what you don't know as fact.

The fact is HW spent far less and got a bigger return on investment than any of these 28 million dollar rides. They also have people craving to come back because of how good it is.

I was told by a former park spokesperson when speeking of a certain over 20 million dollar woodie their park built. "We could have had 5 legends for what we spent."

TTD- Admitted mistake
KK- if they haven't declaired it a mistake yet. They soon will.

MF, Way overspent for a record while rides like S:ROS costing half as much get better reviews and hype.

Im not knocking records but many times quality of ride suffers from it and there are a lot fewer elements when it comes to speed and height.

Chuck

+0
Friday, October 13, 2006 7:04 PM

Charles Nungester said:


MF, Way overspent for a record while rides like S:ROS costing half as much get better reviews and hype.


Well, let's not get ahead of ourselves here. Better reviews does not equal more money, and "hype" is only as powerful as it is within a park's own market. Enthusiasts in general may prefer SFNE's Superman to MF but to imply that that somehow effects the return on investment potential of MF is pretty ridiculous. I'm not sure how anyone could look at the sort of popularity MF has recieved and say "way overspent."

+0
Friday, October 13, 2006 7:16 PM
maybe matt but the return on investment for MF will take far longer.

Chuck

+0
Friday, October 13, 2006 7:17 PM
I'd be interested to find out, as a percentage of turnstile clicks, how SFNE's beast has done in terms of attendance. My WILD guess is that it has done as much for its (*pre-existing*) park as any steel coaster in the last 10 years or so...

Wooden coasters are different....they can take a park like Beech Bend, and literally "put it on the map". That's where I think woodies have the REALLY big advantage over steel.....new or smaller parks can become overnight sensations with a good wooden coaster...not many steel coasters, if any, have that kind of drawing power...

+0
Friday, October 13, 2006 7:20 PM
Charles Nungester said:


MF, Way overspent for a record while rides like S:ROS costing half as much get better reviews and hype.

Are you crazy? How can you say that? The park's attendence grew greatly after the introduction of this ride. Sure, some enthusiasts may perfer S:RoS, but enthusiasts aren't the majority. With the general public and with the worldwide media, MF has been a huge hit. MF has helped Cedar Point grow greatly, and has made CP the number one park for roller coasters with the general public. With all the attention MF has given CP and the money that has been made, MF was in no way a mistake.

+0
Friday, October 13, 2006 7:29 PM
Dude, Yeah Im crazy.

Since MF was built, PKI and PCW have both drew more in attendance.

Im crazy.

Chuck

+0
Friday, October 13, 2006 8:07 PM
^There are a million different factors concerning the attendance levels at CP, PKI, and PCW and MF is just one coaster at one of those parks. Grasping at straws, dude. *** Edited 10/14/2006 12:08:47 AM UTC by matt.***
+0
Friday, October 13, 2006 8:11 PM
Not really, PKI and PCW haven't put 50 million in two rides but still outdrew CP.

CP and PKI have been close for the last ten years in attendance. The rides made no real difference in long term attendance goals. PKI realized this well before CF did and CF is building another one next year. So what? They beat PKI by a hundred thou or so?

Think however you want, The real dividend CP makes is on its resorts and the rides do help that margin but not the park itself.

+0
Friday, October 13, 2006 8:36 PM
Ok, for those of you who don't believe me (that would be Chuck and .matt), this is from Wikipedia as a definition for "footer":

"A construction term often confused by builders to be a good substitute for the correct word footing."

'nuff said :)

+0
Friday, October 13, 2006 8:56 PM
Yes, because Wikipedia is ALWAYS completely 100% accurate. Just like everything you see on YouTube is real. And I own 51% of Google.
+0
Friday, October 13, 2006 11:15 PM
And coaster enthusiasts on message boards are always 100% correct, as well :)
+0
Saturday, October 14, 2006 9:27 AM
I think there is a point that some people are forgetting with regard to attendance increases. Parks that are less developed and have lower attendance have much more room to grow attendance wise when adding a major addition/coaster. On the other hand, parks such as a Cedar Point and Kings Island have well established attendance around the 3.3 million range or so, and experience much less variability when in comes to attedance changes. Those parks have 10 coasters plus, and every one in the area that probably would want to go to an amusement park has been there and knows about it. You rarely see more than a .1 million change in attendance in these parks.

Holiday World on the other hand has so much room to grow. Of course an addition like a voyage is going to spike attendance. But who is to say, that if they added a steel coaster like Millenium Force, they would not have experienced the same attendance increase or more. There really is no way of knowing. Of course the cost of a world class steel coaster and wooden coaster are not equal, but then again the operating and maintenance cost yearly of a wooden coaster is more.

On the completely other side is a park that experiences complete attendance drop, like six flags worlds of adventure did a few years ago. They dropped from around 2.5 million to 1.5 million. That really is quite drastic and is definately an indication of a park that at the time was not performing well.

+0
Saturday, October 14, 2006 11:38 AM

rablat5 said:
Ok, for those of you who don't believe me (that would be Chuck and .matt)

I didn't say I believe you, I just think the point is nitpicky and pointless.

http://www.cedarpoint.com/public/fun/photo/index.cfm?id=pg_wicked_twister_construction

Maybe you should write to Cedar Point explaining their word usage mistake. *** Edited 10/14/2006 3:42:20 PM UTC by matt.***

+0
Saturday, October 14, 2006 11:53 AM

Charles Nungester said:

Think however you want, The real dividend CP makes is on its resorts and the rides do help that margin but not the park itself.


Wait, what? Correct me if I'm wrong here but it seems like what you're saying is that building expensive rides doesn't increase attendance at the park, but it does help increase the profit margins at the resorts.

Maybe I'm missing the point here but if Cedar Fair is in the business of making money (something they seem to be pretty good at) then why does the differentiation make a difference? Whether a big expensive ride brings in more money at the gate or more money at the hotels, it still amounts to MORE MONEY. Comparing the attendance levels at CP to PKI or PCW is pointless because they aren't even really resorts to begin with, at least not on the level that CP is, not to mention that PKI is in a different market with a longer operating season.

Honestly, I don't understand the comparison. Both parks are in the same state but are vastly different otherwise. What's wrong with PKI doing what works for PKI and CP doing what works for CP? You have to look at this sort of stuff on a park by park basis.

+0
Saturday, October 14, 2006 2:26 PM
Just to fuel the fire ( :) ), I've designed several large concrete blobs in the ground that support structures (and rides), and my co-workers and I constantly throw around terms like footer, footing, foundation, grade beam, mat slab, pile, pier, and "that giant concrete blob over there".

Footer v. footing is a pointless argument in semantics, and everyone knows what you mean!

Speaking of foundation costs for rides, foundations for a ride like Voyage strike me as much simpler than many steel rides. I know from experience that the foundation for PKI's FOF is a giant mat slab. THAT's a complicated, expensive foundation to design. The cheaper foundation system may contribute to cheaper overall cost.

+0
Saturday, October 14, 2006 2:54 PM
The correct term is footing.
+0
Saturday, October 14, 2006 3:10 PM
You used Footing twice, That makes footers
+0
Sunday, October 15, 2006 5:53 PM
What Chuck seems to be saying is that a park's choice of ride has NO bearing on its attendance. After all, PKI built SOB the same year CP built MF. Which ride is better?

Might want to think through that argument a couple more times, homey.

+0
Sunday, October 15, 2006 6:53 PM
But when it comes to PKI and CP we're talking about parks who have virtually saturated their markets. When was the last time *any* single ride at either park caused a huge spike in attendance? My guess is it's been a long, long time.

The point is that looking at just attendance numbers isn't going to give the entire ROI picture. It's an over-simplification. *** Edited 10/15/2006 10:54:47 PM UTC by matt.***

+0
Sunday, October 15, 2006 10:31 PM
True, But PKI has had better return on investment by waterpark rides than a 20 million dollar coaster. Thats all Im saying.

Chuck

+0

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2019, POP World Media, LLC
Loading...