SFGA, Unbelievable...

Gonch, I think you hit the nail on the head - you're just not sensitive to advertising.

I am sensitive to it. I think details matter. Many people here agree with you so I recognize I'm in the minority here. That might make me a snob, which I accept.

A few years back I cut my cable. Now when I watch TV, I'm fascinated by the ads. When I'd see them all the time, I just kind of accepted them. Now that I'm no longer acclimated, I see how ridiculous they are and can actually feel my brain shrinking.

To be overly clear, I'm not challenging your acceptance of advertising, I'm just explaining my distaste.

For 59.99 the price of a SF seasonpass what do you expect. CF charges 180 for their pass and your getting the same service at both chains so why complain.I dont even notice the advertisements in parks any more because im not looking for them.

Jetsetter said:

To be overly clear, I'm not challenging your acceptance of advertising, I'm just explaining my distaste.

It's not an acceptance, it's an indifference.

I guess I'm not questioning why people hate ads as much as why they even care.

And I don't think (in my case, at least) that it's acclimation as much as a filter. After 40 years on this planet, my mind automatically skips right over that sort of thing instinctively - or I've been desensitized...whichever. :)

At the very least, I'm not sure why people find it offensive.

You suggested earlier that there might be a potential point where it hurts business. So what is so offensive about advertising that it would prevent people from doing leisure activities that they enjoy?

I mean, amusement parks and their patrons aren't exactly the purveyors of good taste, high brow leisurely pursuits.

If anywhere seems like exactly the right place for this kind of advertising, it's the garish, loud, appealing-to-the-lowest-common-denominator environment of the average amusement park.

I've never understood why Six Flags hasn't corrected their gate integrity problem. That they continue to practically give it away and hope to make it up on in-park spending is beyond me.

SFGAM seemed perfectly fine to me except for the girl at the Flash Pass station neglecting to tell me that for $105 I get only one ride on Goliath. I did notice a lot of signs saying cleanest park in America and while I find this to be an exaggeration, the cleanliness of the park was acceptable. And neither have I ever heard of anyone getting bumped out of a seat for someone with a Flash Pass. As to the ads, I don't pay much attention. They're a fact of life. The only ad I really noticed recently is for Got 2 B Glued at my home park, SFGAD. It's advertised at Kingda Ka, and the fact that it is suggests that someone decided KK appeals primarily to a very young demographic, and this is not the case at all.

I think the Six Flags advertising campaign is a bit much. I mean they plaster it all over rides. To name a few at Six Flags Great Adventure they had Snickers on Nitro, Twix for the Top Spin, Kia for El Toro (which I hated making one train look like a Soul) and I'm sure there were a few more, but honestly the subtlety of it would be nicer. Meaning being seen and heard less.

Cedar Fair does it as well, so I guess that throws that argument out as well. I notice that they make it a point to let you know Luminosity is powered by said company, I remember it being Pepsi the first year. They also place John Deere mowers out there to show that they cut the grass at Cedar Point with em. To be honest its much smaller advertising on the grand scale. I myself go to the rides and try not to pay attention. The hard part is Six Flags throws it in your face more than other parks.

Lord Gonchar said:

It's not an acceptance, it's an indifference.

Good point, thanks for your thoughtful reply.

Lord Gonchar said:

I mean, amusement parks and their patrons aren't exactly the purveyors of good taste, high brow leisurely pursuits.

If anywhere seems like exactly the right place for this kind of advertising, it's the garish, loud, appealing-to-the-lowest-common-denominator environment of the average amusement park.

I guess I still distinguish amusement parks from carnivals but you are probably right. One of the reasons I pipe up here is that this issue isn't just happening in amusement parks, it's happening all over and that bothers me.

For example, I live in a beautiful city. It's expensive, but for me it's worth it to live in a place with great architecture, walkable neighborhoods and good transit (side note: one of my family members lives in a pretty bland subdivision without a lot going on but he's done an incredible job building out his dream home. Plus, schools. No judgement there, it's choices and priorities, I get that).

When a tacky ad or billboard goes up, my city gets a little less beautiful. That means my life is a little less beautiful. It's not about nostalgia for simpler times, it's about aesthetics and quality design. I want to live in a beautiful world and seek out experiences that reinforce that (again, snob here).

There are some beautiful parks out there - think BGW - with great landscaping and charming little themed hamlets. Think about that beautiful vista from the bridge with a riverbank littered with billboards for hair gel. One reason (albeit not the only one) why people go to that park is its beauty, at least it is for me. It would be a lot cheaper to build coasters around a parking lot. That beauty is part of the enjoyment of the experience. To cut the landscaping or increase the advertising presence would diminish that experience for me.

Believe me, I wish I could filter it out like you, but even with my fancy "good taste" I still think at some point advertising detracts from the park experience. Everyone's line may be different - and I may be on an extreme end - but it does exist.

You must really hate Times Square.

One of the reasons people do go to BGW, or to a Disney park or a Universal park, is the beauty of those parks. Certainly for the latter two, people are paying a premium to visit those parks. There's advertising being done with sponsors -- Test Track Presented by Chevrolet, for example -- but it's in keeping with the beauty of the parks.

I don't go to Six Flags Great America for beauty. That park's themed charms were lost long ago. The advertising at the park? Stop me a few minutes after I pass an ad and it's almost certain I won't be able to tell you what was being advertised -- if I even noticed the ad at all.

This is three separate ideas that all work together so stick with me.

Jetsetter said:
One reason (albeit not the only one) why people go to that park is its beauty, at least it is for me.

Pleasant appearance doesn't hurt, but I'm not sure it's a dealbreaker for most.

It would be a lot cheaper to build coasters around a parking lot.

Insert Six Flags joke here.

Six Flags does build parking lot coasters.

That beauty is part of the enjoyment of the experience. To cut the landscaping or increase the advertising presence would diminish that experience for me.

I think it may be an element or part of the puzzle to varying degrees for many parks. But when you're looking for that sort of experience, you're probably looking at the wrong place if you're heading to Six Flags.

To tie it all together:

The best comparison I can make is that Six Flags is the amusement industry's Wal-Mart.

And you don't go to Wal-Mart looking for a high-end experience. They're both the current shining example of LCD, good-enough-for-the-discounted-price business models.

And maybe now that I've talked it out, that's what I mean with the "Why?" question. It's exactly what I'd expect to find at that kind of business.

And beyond that, if it's not your (not you specifically, but in the general sense) cup of tea, why complain that it's not.

That's always seemed funny to me - "This place isn't the kind of place I like and their bsuiness model isn't one that suits my needs! They need to change!"

No. You need to go somewhere else.

...

...

Umm, I'm not really sure what I'm pontificating about at this point.

Six Flags not exactly high class. Exactly what I'd expect from their business model. If it doesn't suit me, I go elsewhere. Yada Yada Yada.

Going back to the "highest rated parks" thread (see how I roll?) - the parks with the highest ratings DO tend to be the places where they spend a lot of attention to the kind of landscaping, theming, cleaning, etc. The Herschend parks, the Disney parks, the Busch/Sea World parks, Universal parks..well-respresented. CF and SF can do *better*, but it's not their stock-in-trade.

Different business models...definitely. Part of it is location, branding, corporate mission-type stuff. But I'd say that CF was hoping to trend in the direction of the more profitable, more highly-rated companies when they brought in Ouimet...

Six Flags one day ticket/parking prices are high. However they have an all-park season pass with parking for $105 which is a huge bargain if you plan on going to a Six Flags park just 3 times this year.

Great America probably has one of the best thrill ride lineups in the US. Ride operations were fine when we went in June.

I would rather have security at the gate and a wait than no security at all.

The only downfalls of this park right now are the total lack of landscape maintenance. and the removal of nice areas of the park for concrete and asphalt (go karts and hometown square area).

Just about all theme parks use sponsorships. Even Disney. Chevy is the sponsor of test track. I do agree the wraps on the coaster cars at Six Flags are tacky looking though.

Lord Gonchar said:

And beyond that, if it's not your (not you specifically, but in the general sense) cup of tea, why complain that it's not.

That's always seemed funny to me - "This place isn't the kind of place I like and their bsuiness model isn't one that suits my needs! They need to change!"

No. You need to go somewhere else.

Why post to a coaster forum? Because it's fun and interesting to talk and read about parks and coasters. I don't think any of us are here solely to defend park business plans. I understand the plan, I just wish parts of it were different.

There's a lot of things Six Flags does that I enjoy. Sometimes they do things I don't like. It's not black and white, it's gray. If it was black and white, there would be little to talk about (or "complain" about if you like).

If I went there expecting a red carpet and a limo to escort me around sure, I see your point about having the wrong expectations, but I'm not.

Yes, they have a different model. For all I know it may be the only valid way to run a profitable property. I'm not trying to convince you otherwise, I'm just stating how I feel about it.

In summary: I like parks, if they did some things different I could like them more. Others may feel differently. That's okay.

::Group hug::

Jetsetter said:
I don't think any of us are here solely to defend park business plans.

No. I pretty much am.

My M.O. for the past 13 years has essentially been, "Parks are a business, get the **** over yourself."

I'm not trying to convince you otherwise, I'm just stating how I feel about it.

And there's the difference, I am trying to convince you that your feelings (or at least feelings similar to yours - like the OP's) are misguided.

I understand the plan, I just wish parts of it were different.

I wish I crapped Tiffany cufflinks.

Seriously though, my take on that is two fold (and starting to talk in circles/repeat myself)

1. I'm simply not that passionate about parks and park visits. I don't care enough about my day at the park for advertising (or whatever arbitrary detail) to ruin it. There are much bigger things that make parks suck.

2. I'll never get the idea of putting yourself in situations that you disagree with or make you unhappy - especially when alternative situations more to my liking exist. (yet for some reason I didn't just ignore this thread and comments)

Why post to a coaster forum? Because it's fun and interesting to talk and read about parks and coasters.

Which is what we're doing.

Summary of my opinion thus far for the TL;DR crowd:

1. Advertising isn't going to kill Six Flags.

2. It either bothers you enough to stop visiting or it doesn't. (it is kind of black and white in this sense)

3. Complaining will foster discussion on internet forums, but it won't change anything. So in the end, you're really left with points #1 and #2.

I think my point was more complex and nuanced than what you reduced it to, and I'll leave it at that. Thank you for clarifying your position as to your intent.

But according to the "Gonch School of Economics" is Six Flags' best move to cater to the lowest common denominator? If they're ever going to appeal to the higher end spenders with a higher quality experience, it seems like in park advertising is going the wrong direction.

It's not the way I'd do it. But they're Walmarting the park experience. There's definitely a market for selling cost above quality.

Wait, WHAT!? What is the difference between:

"It's not the way I'd do it, but that's their business model."

and

"[Cluttering the park with advertising] is not the way I'd do it, but that's their business model."

Why is your comment okay but mine misguided? Come on dude, are you just messing with me now?

Heh

It's interesting stuff. Six Flags' attendance is down while attendance at the more expensive options are up. Out of curiosity I checked their site to look at the season pass pricing and they aren't really all that cheap. The pass that includes parking would cost my wife and I $154.99/ea. If you have friends or a family of four that drops to $94.99, still not all that cheap but not expensive either especially for the park experience SFGA gives you. Great water park, great rides. I liked the day I spent there years ago.

Then I looked at BGW's pass prices and for $120 you get a full year pass that includes parking. For $72 you get a season pass that doesn't include parking but parking is half the price of Six Flags's and you get a nice shuttle that drives you to the entrance! BGW is beautiful, I drive 8 hours almost every year to visit.

On another extreme Kennywood did a buy one get one for Black Friday and the park has been a mess. The gardens are at their worst, the midways are gross. I would gladly pay more if they stepped up their in park experience. But hey the parking is free and Phantom's Revenge is running in complete insane mode after what looks like some rehab to the trains.

Jetsetter said:

Come on dude, are you just messing with me now?

Well, yeah. I kinda was wasting a slow afternoon messing with you - at least in the sense of having discussion for the sake of having discusssion.

Wait, WHAT!? What is the difference between:

"It's not the way I'd do it, but that's their business model."

and

"[Cluttering the park with advertising] is not the way I'd do it, but that's their business model."

Why is your comment okay but mine misguided?

Because you not only put words in my mouth, but you misinterpreted my comment.

My comment has nothing to do with advertising and everything to do with how they price/sell their park. I wouldn't cater to the lowest common denominator. I wouldn't sell price over quality. It's not how I'd do it.

Andy mentioned the advertising as flying directly in the face of "Gonch's School of Economics" - my reply was to that.

But if I have to comment on the advertising again, no, it's probably not how I'd do it either.

The difference is that not once have I complained about it or claimed that it somehow hurt my experience. They're doing what they're doing. Good for them. I don't care either way. It's not changing my day there.

What's different? Context.