SFGAdv Media Announcement Sneak Peak?
+Danny
"The average Six Flags park attracts about 1.5 million people each summer (most are just under 1.5 million). If Six Flags were able to build five wooden coasters in five different parks AND attract an additional 3% attendance at all five parks, you're looking at a total attendance increase of just 225,000 people. Again, that's assuming you'd be able to find five Six Flags parks that are in markets that would respond well to another wooden coastr.
Now let's look at SFGAdv. Last year that park's attendance was 3.15 million. However, in the past SFGAdv has attracted at least 3.8 million people (1999 figure). If this record-breaking (and very newsworthy) ride wasn't even able to set attendance records at SFGAdv but was able to return the park to its 1999 attendance levels (which I see no reason it couldn't), you're looking at a total attendance increase of 650,000 people - almost *three times* the amount of the figure for five wooden coasters."
I have a question for you. Whats the point of having a park If your not going to add anything to the park? Otherwise people are going to stop coming to the park and the park is going to drain money from the company. Either they add things to them or they might as well get rid of them. So in the long run its better with adding a bunch of rides to parks that need them.
-Eric: Major Parks: SFNE(homepark), SFA,SFGADV,CP,BGE,BGA,Kennywood,and Sea World: Track record 65 different coasters ridden #1 is Millennium Force #2 is El Toro and than there are all the others
So according to you people only go to the parks that ad stuff...Someone better inform Astroland about that. They haven't added an a big coaster since 1927...They should close their doors...Nobody will go there.
--George H
coasterdude318 said:
Really? Then why do parks spend millions on steel coasters? Why did Cedar Point spend $25 million on Dragster? Why are B&M rides such popular sellers? The evidence does not support your claim. And really, the claim you're making can be used for any installation in history aside from cheap wooden coasters. Why did CP spend money on Millennium Force when they could have put new wooden coasters into all their parks? Why did Paramount spend money on PC's Top Gun? Why does Busch keep buying from B&M?
Cedar Point is a horrible example to use in this argument. Cedar Point adds expensive $25 million coasters because they are expected to add expensive $25 million coasters. CP is a rare case because they have set a precedent with larger & more spectacular ride additions and now they are caught up in the machine that they created.
MOST parks, and I emphasize *MOST*, would benefit as much from a "cheap" wood coaster as they would from a more expensive steel coaster. Why did Paramount build the Hurler twins in the mid-90's? Why did Six Flags build the Boss at SFStL and add Villain, Roar and Medusa to their new SFO, SFA and SFM properties? They were inexpensive additions they they knew would bring in the crowds. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that those four coasters are more responsible for attendance increases at their respective parks than anything else that SF built at those parks during the past decade.
Now let's look at SFGAdv. Last year that park's attendance was 3.15 million. However, in the past SFGAdv has attracted at least 3.8 million people (1999 figure). If this record-breaking (and very newsworthy) ride wasn't even able to set attendance records at SFGAdv but was able to return the park to its 1999 attendance levels (which I see no reason it couldn't), you're looking at a total attendance increase of 650,000 people - almost *three times* the amount of the figure for five wooden coasters.
You think that a record-breaking Intamin coaster that is undoubtedly going to be prone to mechanical breakdowns is going to result in a 20% increase in attendance at SFGAdv? If you can convince anyone of that, you should become a rep for Ride Trade and sell Intamin rides to other U.S. parks... you'd be very successful. Why didn't Nitro result in such an increase? Why not Superman Ultimate Flight? How is this coaster going to do what the others before it didn't?
And heck, even if the new ride at SFGAdv was only able to boost attendance by 5% over last year, that's still a boost of 157,500 people - just 67,500 people less than the "five park plan" (which is a worst case scenario!). Then figure that people pay more to enter SFGAdv than the other SF parks and you'll see why it isn't a bad deal.
This is exactly the kind of thinking that has caused such a problem at SF on the corporate level. By focusing all their energy upon one park, five other parks get neglected. Five other parks see their attendance continue to plunge. Five other parks will find it that much harder to rebound in the future.
There is more to the success of a park and gross profit than just increases in attendence numbers. The point many of us are trying to make is that SF could have added to SFGAdv a smaller $5/$10 million coaster (whether it be wood or a family steel coaster), made another $5 million in overall park improvements and still left money for another park or two to see significant improvements. Maybe attendence would have increased a paltry 5% or so (compared to your claim of 20%) but it would have set them up for a steady increase in business over the next few years. This new coaster is a quick fix- something that will help the park for the first few weeks of the 2005 season but will ultimately hurt it in the future.
I think it's clear why this ride is going into SFGAdv. SFGAdv is in the biggest market in the country. It has a larger population base than any other US park to draw from. It has virtually no competition from other parks in the market.
I guess Dorney, Hershey and the Jersey Shore resorts suddenly disappeared, leaving SF alone in this market?
I can't think of a Six Flags park that's said to have truly awful wooden coasters.
I never said it was a chain of truly awful wood coasters. I said that the majority of them are mediocre at best.
*** Edited 9/21/2004 9:21:44 PM UTC by Rob Ascough***
~danimales, opening up pandora's box...
*** Edited 9/21/2004 9:40:21 PM UTC by Danimales***
Badnitrus said:I for one can't wait to see what Six Flags Great Adventure is putting in next year, the anticipation is killing me.
Keith, SFGAd is adding an Intamin rocket coaster. There are pictures all over the net, and numerous threads about it. I'm surprised you haven't seen them!
JC "look harder" C.
Are you sure this isn't a Gerstlauer though? I still don't believe it.
+Danny ;)
Keith "I'm really talking about Intamins" M.
-Keith "Badnitrus" McVeen
Rob Ascough said:
Cedar Point is a horrible example to use in this argument. Cedar Point adds expensive $25 million coasters because they are expected to add expensive $25 million coasters.
Oh, I see. Because CP has already added a $25 million ride, it's easy for you to dismiss that point by claiming that sort of expenditure is "expected" by CP's public. That's absolute BS. Which park hasn't set a precedent with larger and more spectacular rides?? Which major parks haven't focussed on one-upping their own collection every time they add something major?
MOST parks, and I emphasize *MOST*, would benefit as much from a "cheap" wood coaster as they would from a more expensive steel coaster.
You continue to claim this but don't respond to my questions. If that's true, why do parks ever add expensive steel coasters? Why is Dorney removing a wooden coaster to replace it with an expensive floorless? Why are B&M rides such popular purahases if a wooden coaster (at a fraction of the cost) will work just as well (if not better, according to your claim)? Just because YOU get excited about a wooden coaser doesn't mean it's the best possible addition for any given park.
Why did Paramount build the Hurler twins in the mid-90's? Why did Six Flags build the Boss at SFStL and add Villain, Roar and Medusa to their new SFO, SFA and SFM properties? They were inexpensive additions they they knew would bring in the crowds. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that those four coasters are more responsible for attendance increases at their respective parks than anything else that SF built at those parks during the past decade.
Please. If you're going to make that claim, you should at least check attendance figures to back that up. I have a very difficult time believing Roar gave SFA a bigger boost than S:ROS or that everyone who came to SFO in 2000 came just for Villain and not that new floorless and impulse. That's honestly one of the most ridiculous claims I've ever seen on these boards.
You think that a record-breaking Intamin coaster that is undoubtedly going to be prone to mechanical breakdowns is going to result in a 20% increase in attendance at SFGAdv?... Why didn't Nitro result in such an increase?
Nitro did result in an attendance boost. Medusa resulted in an even bigger boost (to the 3.8 million figure I posted). The addition of Viper resulted in an even bigger boost (to nearly 4 million, if not above that). So why would you assume that the park couldn't even reach levels it has reached in the past with the addition of a world record-breaking ride? SFGAdv didn't get nearly the publicity from Nitro and S:UF that they're going to get this year.
By focusing all their energy upon one park, five other parks get neglected.
Nobody said the other parks are getting neglected. There's still money to be spent. They're just plopping down one huge, signature ride that could easily result in a record year for the park. I mean, come on - SFGAdv has neared 4 million people/season in the past. Why would you think they couldn't do it again?
The point many of us are trying to make is that SF could have added to SFGAdv a smaller $5/$10 million coaster (whether it be wood or a family steel coaster), made another $5 million in overall park improvements and still left money for another park or two to see significant improvements.
And how do you know that would have resulted in any significant attendance increase at all? All you know at this point is that the park is adding a new coaster. You have no idea if there's any additional money going into internal improvements. And as I said above, there's still millions of dollars to plug into other parks.
I guess Dorney, Hershey and the Jersey Shore resorts suddenly disappeared, leaving SF alone in this market?
What I said was the other parks in SFGAdv's market are hardly any competition for SFGAdv. And it's true. Dorney attracts about a third as many people as GAdv. Hershey attracts about a million people less. The Jersey Shore parks (if it were even competition, which I'd argue it's not) attract even less.
We're talking about the largest seasonal amusement park in the country here. We're talking about a park that drew nearly 4 million people as recently as five years ago. To think this park couldn't handle a $25 million ride is ridiculous. To think a park of that size would do just as well with a $4 million wooden coaster is laughable.
-Nate
*** Edited 9/22/2004 4:48:18 AM UTC by coasterdude318***
coasterdude318 said:
Oh, I see. Because CP has already added a $25 million ride, it's easy for you to dismiss that point by claiming that sort of expenditure is "expected" by CP's public. That's absolute BS. Which park hasn't set a precedent with larger and more spectacular rides?? Which major parks haven't focussed on one-upping their own collection every time they add something major?
Let's see... SFMM added Scream after adding Deja Vu and X. SFGAm added a Mardi Gras section after adding Superman. SFGAdv added Superman after adding Nitro. Carowinds and PKI have added family rides after adding major coasters. Do you need more examples?
Not all parks make it a habit of one-upping themselves with each passing season. Under normal circumstances, parks usually alternate by adding family rides in between thrill rides. How can you be so blind as to say that CP isn't expected to add larger and more spectacular rides each time they break ground for something? Were you around these boards in 2002 when many of the CP fanboys were complaining about the park adding an Intamin Impulse because it didn't stack up to Millennium Force? When was the last time that CP didn't build a coaster that was the "-est" something? Not since Magnum.
You continue to claim this but don't respond to my questions. If that's true, why do parks ever add expensive steel coasters? Why is Dorney removing a wooden coaster to replace it with an expensive floorless? Why are B&M rides such popular purahases if a wooden coaster (at a fraction of the cost) will work just as well (if not better, according to your claim)? Just because YOU get excited about a wooden coaser doesn't mean it's the best possible addition for any given park.
Dorney removed Hercules because it was a nightmare to maintain and a very unpopular ride. I supported that decision. The ride was a dog, plain and simple.
When did I ever claim that a wooden coaster would work BETTER than a steel coaster? Don't put words in my mouth. What I said was that wooden coasters make a good alternative to the steel coasters that get added to most parks year after year.
Please. If you're going to make that claim, you should at least check attendance figures to back that up. I have a very difficult time believing Roar gave SFA a bigger boost than S:ROS or that everyone who came to SFO in 2000 came just for Villain and not that new floorless and impulse. That's honestly one of the most ridiculous claims I've ever seen on these boards.
I suppose more ridiculous than claiming that SFGAdv's new coaster will increase attendence by 20%?
Nitro did result in an attendance boost. Medusa resulted in an even bigger boost (to the 3.8 million figure I posted). The addition of Viper resulted in an even bigger boost (to nearly 4 million, if not above that). So why would you assume that the park couldn't even reach levels it has reached in the past with the addition of a world record-breaking ride? SFGAdv didn't get nearly the publicity from Nitro and S:UF that they're going to get this year.
How on Earth did Medusa result in a bigger attendence boost than Nitro if it was built BEFORE Nitro? Besides, I never said that SFGAdv will never reach its past attendence numbers, I just doubt that a record-breaker that is going to be prone to breakdowns is going to do the trick. The park needs family rides to satisfy families, not just thrill rides to satisfy teenagers that spend a LOT less money in the park than families.
What makes you think that the park is going to want the press that this ride generates? What kind of press has TTD generated for CP? In the past two years, it has made headlines because it was down half the time during its opening year, the breakdowns have caused 4+ hour lines and the launch cable shredding and causing bits of metal to hit riders in the face. Why you think a park would want that kind of press is beyond me.
Nobody said the other parks are getting neglected. There's still money to be spent.
What other parks do you see getting money to add new noteworthy attractions? Tell people in Houston that SFAW isn't neglected and see how they respond. What about SFDL?
And how do you know that would have resulted in any significant attendance increase at all?
And how do you know it wouldn't have done that?
What I said was the other parks in SFGAdv's market are hardly any competition for SFGAdv. And it's true. Dorney attracts about a third as many people as GAdv. Hershey attracts about a million people less. The Jersey Shore parks (if it were even competition, which I'd argue it's not) attract even less.
If Dorney gets 1 million people a year, that is 1 million people that are spending their money at a CF park rather than a SF park. To say that a park like Dorney isn't competition for SFGAdv is a very ignorant statement. Just because the two parks don't see the same crowds doesn't mean that they don't compete with each other.
You complain about me not referring to actual information... what about you? Have YOU seen a list of park attendence numbers? If you did, you'd know that Morey's Piers in Wildwood attracts almost as many people (3.3 million last time I checked) as SFGAdv. How is that not competition? Morey's Piers gets almost the same crowds without B&M and Intamin coasters, they get crowds because they know better than to spend $25 million on a coaster when there are two dozen other things wrong with the park. What about all the other Jersey Shore parks? Surely they get some pretty big crowds. Combined, the Jersey Shore parks probably see three times the attendence numbers that SFGAdv could ever hope to see.
We're talking about the largest seasonal amusement park in the country here. We're talking about a park that drew nearly 4 million people as recently as five years ago. To think this park couldn't handle a $25 million ride is ridiculous. To think a park of that size would do just as well with a $4 million wooden coaster is laughable.
We're also talking the flagship park of a company that is riddled by debt and poor management. We're talking about a park that is already turning a profit while many others in the chain aren't. We're talking about a park that would benefit greatly from other improvements at this time.
A record-breaking steel coaster will undoubtedly pull in more crowds than a wood coaster in its opening season. But while you look to what will happen in 2005, I will look further than that in the future and try to imagine a better long-range plan for the park.
Rob Ascough said:
Let's see... SFMM added Scream after adding Deja Vu and X. SFGAm added a Mardi Gras section after adding Superman. SFGAdv added Superman after adding Nitro. Carowinds and PKI have added family rides after adding major coasters. Do you need more examples?
Scream! was the larg-EST floorless coaster on the west coast. SFGAm's Mardi Gras section is not a coaster, but a themed area with a family coaster (remember when Cedar Point - the park you claim is always one-upping itself - added Camp Snoopy and Woodstock Express?). The same goes for the Paramount parks. SFGAdv's S:UF was the first flying coaster in the east. You don't have to go higher to one-up your last installation.
Were you around these boards in 2002 when many of the CP fanboys were complaining about the park adding an Intamin Impulse because it didn't stack up to Millennium Force?
CP fanboys have nothing to do with the general population. Regular people who visit Cedar Point don't expect something bigger and more exciting every year. Later in your post you rant about how SFGAdv needs family rides, but you give CP a free pass by claiming CP is expected to add thrill rides every so often so it's okay for them. What about SFGAdv (which added a popular Sponge Bob film this season)?
When was the last time that CP didn't build a coaster that was the "-est" something? Not since Magnum.
See Woodstock Express & Disaster Transport.
Dorney removed Hercules because it was a nightmare to maintain and a very unpopular ride. I supported that decision.
Agreed, but then why build a super expensive B&M when a wooden coaster would work "just as well"?
When did I ever claim that a wooden coaster would work BETTER than a steel coaster?
When you claimed the wooden coasters SF has added are more responsible for growth than any other addition.
I suppose more ridiculous than claiming that SFGAdv's new coaster will increase attendence by 20%?
Why is it ridiculous to claim SFGAdv's attendance could return to a level it was previously at (which is actually 17% over last year)?
How on Earth did Medusa result in a bigger attendence boost than Nitro if it was built BEFORE Nitro?
Because Medusa raised attendance more over the previous year (1998) than Nitro did over the previous year (2000).
Besides, I never said that SFGAdv will never reach its past attendence numbers, I just doubt that a record-breaker that is going to be prone to breakdowns is going to do the trick.
You insinuate GAdv will never reach its past attendance numbers by claiming it's ridiculous SFGAdv's attendance could grow by 20%. In addition to that, what do breakdowns have to do with attendance jumps? The park is going to promote the hell out of the ride whether it's broken or not (and it's jumping the gun, I think, to assume it will be as problematic as TTD). Ride breakdowns really aren't going to affect attendance numbers much, if at all.
What makes you think that the park is going to want the press that this ride generates?
I dunno, why do you think I'd assume SFGAdv would want press coverage of building the largest coaster in the world? Did CP do poorly attendance-wise because of difficulties with TTD? (Answer: no).
What other parks do you see getting money to add new noteworthy attractions?
After SFGAm and SFGAdv, there's about $60 million to spend across the chain. Where do you think that's going to go? That could build an awful lot of wooden coasters, no?
Tell people in Houston that SFAW isn't neglected and see how they respond. What about SFDL?
"Neglected" is a word fanboys throw around to piss and moan about their park. SFDL is not neglected.
You ask how I know a wooden coaster at SFGAdv wouldn't raise attendance as much as a world record breaker? Because the park choose the much more expensive world record breaker. Do you think SFGAdv really thought a wooden coaster could work better but opted to spend millions upon millions more for fun?
If Dorney gets 1 million people a year, that is 1 million people that are spending their money at a CF park rather than a SF park.
That's assuming that million people would otherwise visit SFGAdv (or that they didn't). The market SFGAdv sits in is huge. It can easily support more than one park, but it's clear which park attracts the largest share of the population. How much competition is a park that does so much worse than another?
You complain about me not referring to actual information... what about you? Have YOU seen a list of park attendence numbers? If you did, you'd know that Morey's Piers in Wildwood attracts almost as many people (3.3 million last time I checked) as SFGAdv.
The Jersey Shore parks are an unfair comparison because they do not charge admission. Additionally, they are several parks combined. Morey's gets crowds because (a) it's in a vacation destination, and (b) it costs people nothing to enter. Morey's crowds could never, ever support a $25 million coaster because most of the people visiting Morey's aren't spending nearly as much money as those visiting SFGAdv. Knoebels can draw almost as much as Dorney Park. Do you think Knoebels could support a hypercoaster and two B&M's in nine years? The "pay-per-ride" parks are in a totally different league than POP parks, and thus the two cannot be compared accurately.
We're also talking the flagship park of a company that is riddled by debt and poor management. We're talking about a park that is already turning a profit while many others in the chain aren't.
Do you know which parks are turning profits and which aren't? Because - surprise! - it's usually the smaller parks that are profitable and the larger parks that are having more problems. It's time to turn that flagship park around and reach attendance levels it used to set.
But while you look to what will happen in 2005, I will look further than that in the future and try to imagine a better long-range plan for the park.
And when you find out the entire chain's plans for 2005, including all the minor improvements that could be made all over, maybe you'll regret speaking so soon. You assume that SFGAdv getting this coaster means they'll get nothing in the way of internal improvements whereas if SFGAdv got a wooden coaster they could get both. Why would you assume such a thing?
-Nate
*** Edited 9/22/2004 6:57:41 AM UTC by coasterdude318***
coasterdude318 said:
CP fanboys have nothing to do with the general population. Regular people who visit Cedar Point don't expect something bigger and more exciting every year.
You contradict yourself. How can you go on and on about how this new record-breaking steel coaster at SFGAdv is going to result in an attendence increase of 20% when you claim that the regular (read: non-enthusiast) guests at Cedar Point don't expect a bigger, more exciting ride every year? You end up supporting my original point: If the general public doesn't expect taller and faster rides each year, there should be no harm in a small- to mid-sized wood coaster being added instead of a record-breaking steel coaster at some point.
Why is it ridiculous to claim SFGAdv's attendance could return to a level it was previously at (which is actually 17% over last year)?
Again, I never said that the park's attendence would never reach 3.8 million/year or even 4 million/year in the future... I just don't think that this new coaster is going to pull that off, by itself, in one single year.
In addition to that, what do breakdowns have to do with attendance jumps? The park is going to promote the hell out of the ride whether it's broken or not (and it's jumping the gun, I think, to assume it will be as problematic as TTD). Ride breakdowns really aren't going to affect attendance numbers much, if at all.
Ummmm I dunno... if the ride was widely-publicized operational issues, it will keep people away? When people know that the park's new attraction can't be ridden, those people stay away. Maybe not in huge numbers but enough to make the 20% increase almost impossible.
Did CP do poorly attendance-wise because of difficulties with TTD? (Answer: no).
So you're saying that TTD did nothing whatsoever to tarnish CP's squeaky-clean image? I beg to differ.
After SFGAm and SFGAdv, there's about $60 million to spend across the chain. Where do you think that's going to go? That could build an awful lot of wooden coasters, no?
But what will SF spend it on? Another coaster for SFMM? A waterpark for SFNO? Whatever it is, it will be expensive and a lot of smaller parks in the chain will get the shaft. I'm not talking about JUST coasters, I'm talking about flat rides, darkrides and improved infrastructure that add so much more to the overall amusement park experience. The very things that often get brought into the conversation when people talk about what they DON'T like about SF parks.
Do you think SFGAdv really thought a wooden coaster could work better but opted to spend millions upon millions more for fun?
So what you're saying is that just because SFGAdv made that decision it means that it is the RIGHT one? Parks don't always make the right decisions. Just look at the majority of SF's decisions in recent years.
The market SFGAdv sits in is huge. It can easily support more than one park, but it's clear which park attracts the largest share of the population. How much competition is a park that does so much worse than another?
Its still competition regardless of how you look at it. Just because Dorney is a small park (or Hershey for that matter) doesn't mean that its no threat to SFGAdv.
The Jersey Shore parks are an unfair comparison because they do not charge admission. Additionally, they are several parks combined. Morey's gets crowds because (a) it's in a vacation destination, and (b) it costs people nothing to enter.
So what? They still entertain almost as many guests as SFGAdv does.
Morey's crowds could never, ever support a $25 million coaster because most of the people visiting Morey's aren't spending nearly as much money as those visiting SFGAdv.
No? If I go to Morey's Piers twice in one year, I'll spend $40 on a POP wristband. If I go to SFGAdv twice a year, I buy a season pass for $70. Even when you factor parking into the equation, the out-of-pocket expenses for two days at either park is roughly the same.
And when you find out the entire chain's plans for 2005, including all the minor improvements that could be made all over, maybe you'll regret speaking so soon. You assume that SFGAdv getting this coaster means they'll get nothing in the way of internal improvements whereas if SFGAdv got a wooden coaster they could get both. Why would you assume such a thing?
I guess because I'm an idiot, I suppose? Or MAYBE it's because I have seen too many years of SF adding huge new coasters to their parks and neglecting everything else. Ride maintenance. Customer service. Infrastructure. Family rides. My point is, if SFGAdv adds a new $25 million ride, do you HONESTLY think that they are going to make a slew of other improvements? Ah, you probably do.
I'd love to respond to everything you said, I really would... I'd also love to keep going at this. But I have some other things to do (like work) instead of continuing this casual conversation-turned-fierce battle of the facts. What was a passionate discussion has turned into heated arguement, and it's no longer any fun.
TTD is right on that line, where there are a lot of people who sit and watch the ride because it is too extreme for them. On most days I've been to CP, the line for Millennium Force is longer than the line for Dragster. Dragster is out of the comfort zone for many people, that is why a lot of family groups split up, some people will ride while others sit and watch.
Families are the bread and butter of the amusement industry. Look at PKI. They have had a lot of success putting in family rides. Next year's Italian Job ride will be perfect and should give PKI a great year. It's something really cool, and I'm more excited about it than I am about a bigger rocket coaster.
Also, look at CP. CP is a family resort. They have success with record breaking rides, but throughout the whole day you see tons of people on the beach, in the hotel pools, grilling at Lighthouse Point, drinking and eating at the bars and restaurants and running jet skis or parasailing. TTD is a good compliment to the other things they have, but what drives attendance at the Point is the fact families can go there and have a good time on a vacation doing all kinds of things. CP is spending the equivalent to another Dragster on a new indoor waterpark resort. Not hard to figure out why.
Which brings me to my point. I totally agree with Rob that SFGAdv could have spent their money in a better way. Will SFGAdv get a lot of bang for the buck with a ride that intimidates a lot of people, has proven to be a maintenance intense design, attracts primarily teenagers and could have potentially a lot of downtime, without addressing the things that have caused a 20% drop in attendance at that park? It doesn't make a lot of sense to me, and I have to agree with those that say "what are they thinking".
I'd rather be in my boat with a drink on the rocks, than in the drink with a boat on the rocks.
You must be logged in to post
