SFGAdv Media Announcement Sneak Peak?
Haha no I'm not giving Patrick the finger 
ShiveringTim said it right- I'll be riding this one right after I go to Dorney to ride Hydra, which looks to be twice the ride at half the price.
JC
Wait til they release the balloons and blow up some fireworks... *** Edited 9/22/2004 6:50:40 PM UTC by FLYINGSCOOTER***
Great Lakes Brewery Patron...
-Mark
Rob Ascough said:
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?
That's not a contradiction and it doesn't support your original point. Do record-breaking rides often result in attendance boosts? Yes, because they're highly marketable. Is it necessary to add one every other year because they're "expected"? No, absolutely not. Would a smaller (and less marketable) ride result in the same attendance increase? Probably not.
Again, I never said that the park's attendence would never reach 3.8 million/year... I just don't think that this new coaster is going to pull that off, by itself, in one single year.
That's fine...but then why would you think a far less attractive and far less marketable wooden coaster would do better?
Ummmm I dunno... if the ride was widely-publicized operational issues, it will keep people away?
How much of an effect do you think that really has? How "widely-publicized" do you think a ride's day-to-day operation becomes? If there's a major incident, it's newsworthy (but even that won't necessary affect attendance). You're an enthusiast. Of course you're well aware of TTD's problems. That doesn't mean the general population is, or even cares. The only reason this argument is taking place is because you refuse to think like a member of the general population in favor of thinking like an enthusiast.
So you're saying that TTD did nothing whatsoever to tarnish CP's squeaky-clean image? I beg to differ.
No, I don't think the vast majority of people care. And I also don't think it had an effect on attendance at all.
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.
How do you know that? Last year SF did a pretty decent job building family rides and investing in internal improvements to all its parks. I really don't think SFMM is slated to get anything major this year. I'd expect that $60 million to go toward lots of smaller attractions at many parks (which is, not surprisingly, exactly what Six Flags said in their conference call).
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.
Fine, but it seems that the majority of park chains (Six Flags, Cedar Fair, Busch, Paramount) agree with me on this. Six Flags is the one with access to market surveys, not you. If the biggest complaint about SFGAdv was that there wasn't enough for families to do, I'd have to assume they'd be getting an expansion similar to what SFGAm got this year. However, the fact that a large coaster is going in seems to suggest that what the park needs is a high capacity thrill ride with high marketability to bring people through the gates.
Just because Dorney is a small park (or Hershey for that matter) doesn't mean that its no threat to SFGAdv.
Are your local "Mom and Pop" hardware stores a threat to Home Depot?
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.
It's not a fair comparison because I do not believe people generally choose between SFGAdv and the Jersey Shore. As I said, the Jersey Shore is a vacation destination for that market. People go to play on the beach, gamble, etc and happen to wander into the parks while they're there. If people are going to go to an amusement park, they choose between Dorney, Hershey, and SFGAdv (and it's clear which park wins there). For the same reason, FEC's aren't really competition for amusement parks.
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.
Wait and see.
I'd love to respond to everything you said, I really would... I'd also love to keep going at this.
You've been selective in what you choose to respond to all along. Why should I be surprised now? I mean, let's face the facts here. You love wooden roller coasters. You're obsessed with them. That's fine, but that obsession is obviously clouding your judgement. Wooden coasters will never be as marketable as a ride like this new rocket coaster.
Finally, to address Pete's post ("TTD did not have a huge effect on CP's attendance, it only resulted in a modest increase."), I don't think Cedar Point intended on TTD boosting its attendance by any major amount. Cedar Point's attendance has been (in general) pretty stable over the past few years. TTD brought a 3% increase but it's 2003 attendance levels were still only equal to those of 1999.
When a park is essentially meeting its potential (that is, essentially drawing in as many people as possible) it can no longer expect attendance boosts from major rides. However, new attractions are still added to maintain that attendance. I think Top Thrill Dragster was added with the intention of maintaining Cedar Point's attendance at around 3.3-3.4 million people, and it succeeded in that.
SFGAdv, on the other hand, is not meeting its potential. This is a park that's currently attraction more than half a million people less than it did five years ago. Thus, a major new attraction has the potential to have a major (positive) effect on attendance. I think SFGAdv's strategy is a good one, as long as they can manage to turn those visiting because of the new ride into repeat customers. I also think this could easily be the first step toward making SFGAdv a destination resort, as I know there are (or at least were) plans to do so.
It may be true that SF could have better spent that $25 million elsewhere, or it may not. SF apparently has good reason to think it's a good investment. Given how much could be riding on this investment, I'd have to think they're pretty sure of what they're doing. I am positive, however, that building five wooden coasters at five other random parks would have been a stupid move, and that was where this whole debate stemmed from.
-Nate
*** Edited 9/22/2004 6:49:39 PM UTC by coasterdude318***
I am a diehard wood coaster fanatic and I'm the first to admit that. But I am also a steel coaster fan- one that happens to believe that Medusa and Nitro were two of the smartest moves that any theme park has ever made. They went a long way to establishing SFGAdv as one of the premier theme parks in the country and the effect they had on the park can still be felt to this day.
Regardless of what you think or what you say, wood coasters are a viable option for parks of all sizes that want to expand or at least maintain their attendance numbers. Hershey has had great success with wood coasters- it's why they added two wood coasters within a five-year period. The same goes for Knott's Berry Farm, Wild Adventures and Busch Gardens Tampa. If a wood coaster wasn't a marketable addition to a well-established theme park then why did Hershey follow Great Bear with Lightning Racer? Why did BGT follow Kumba and Montu with Gwazi?
The point that most people except for you seem to grasp is the fact that SFGAdv has experienced a decline in attendance because of factors unrelated to the their collection of coasters. If you truly believe that this new coaster is going to return the park's attendance to 3.8 million/year, that must mean that those people stopped going to the park during the past five years because they didn't have a 400+ foot tall rocket coaster. Do you honestly think that is a truthful statement? If you do, you're alone.
That's because the park's problems have to do with everything else related to the park experience. High prices for bad food. A lengthy list of attractions that are down for the day either due to maintenance issues or understaffing. Customer service people that don't give a sh** about customer service. Dirty bathrooms and overflowing trash cans. Those are the reasons why attendance has declined and those are the things that will need to be addressed before the addition of ANY ride, whether it be a $4 million wood coaster or a $25 million steel ride, begins to turn things around. My reasoning is that the park could spend their money in a more intelligent way by adding smaller attractions while taking on their big problems.
You can type about how the park will undergo other improvements until your fingers fall off but until the 2005 season comes along and proves that, you have nothing to stand on. How many times have we heard that improvements will be made for the xxxx-season only to find that things have not gotten better but instead have gotten worse. If the park is getting a $25 million ride, they are NOT going to invest the $10 million that needs to be invested to make the park an overall better place. You can disagree all you want but unless you hold a seat on SF's board of directors, your guess is just as good as mine. Don't pretend to know what's going on when you are in the same position that I am in. Which is to say, no position at all.
Accuse me of thinking like an enthusiast, but at least I'm thinking here. You dismiss Dorney, Hershey and the Jersey Shore parks as nothing for SFGAdv to worry about when in fact they all pose very significant threats to the park. Dorney sees attendance numbers around 1.2 million because they are located north of Philly and not right in the middle of NJ like SFGAdv. But just because Dorney entertains less people per year doesn't mean that they aren't competition for SF. If Dorney entertains just ONE guest that could have spent money at SFGAdv but didn't, then they are competition. And yes, Mom & Pop stores are still competition for places like Wal-Mart and Home Depot. If you refuse to acknowledge that then I have severely overestimated your intelligence. Being the biggest thing in town, whether you be an amusement park or a retail store doesn't mean that your competition has disappeared. They are still at your feet, waiting to attack at the first sign of weakness. And they do.
I still fail to understand your reasoning regarding the Jersey Shore parks. You think the fact that the Jersey Shore towns are vacation destinations means that they don't compete for the same people that SFGAdv does? That's like saying that WDW's parks and Sea World aren't competitiors because WDW is a resort while Sea World is a stand-alone park.
Your comment to Pete says that SFGAdv has to add this ride to get people into the park and turn them into repeat customers. Considering the problems that these Intamin rides have had in the past, do you really think that is a safe bet? Xcelerator has had problems. TTD has had even more problems. If this thing is indeed larger than TTD, I can only begin to imagine what kind of issues it will have. Repeat customers will be gained by Dorney because they will have a reliable coaster that a lot of people will ride and like... SFGAdv will MOST LIKELY have a coaster that causes people to wait in line for hours only to be turned away when the thing breaks down. You can jump up and down and insist about that being nothing more than an assumption but until this ride opens and proves to be 100% reliable like Hydra will be, you can't fault anyone for thinking that.
*** Edited 9/22/2004 7:32:00 PM UTC by Rob Ascough***
Great stuff.
In the immortal words of Spanky from the Little Rascals; "You guys sure talk a great fight!"
Haha no I'm not giving Patrick the finger
I'll admit that SFGAdv is a pretty good SF park and that they do make minor improvements but what is really needed goes far beyond what has been done in the past.
DWeaver said:
All of the rocket coasters built thus far were in development around the same time Xcelerator went into construction. So to say that Hershey and SFGadv knew these rides were problematic before they signed contracts is so short sighted. SFgadv didn't just go to Intamin this past summer, try *3* years ago!
I wholeheartedly disagree. You think this ride was destined for SFGAd since before June of 2002? I sure don't. I think they saw (and even rode) TTD last year, put in their order for a bigger, faster version of it and said SFGAd is the recipient.
"Hi um yeah, we'll have one of those, biggie sized, with some cheese...and extra pickley pickles. How much? Oh, and...cheese."
JC
If SFGAd's was in planning before TTD was even built, do you think they told Intamin to design everything except the height, just put that one little itty bitty detail on hold till closer to the construction? Or did they just happen to guess a height that wouldn't be broken by 2005? Sucks that they guessed 419 :(.
-Keith "Badnitrus" McVeen
You must be logged in to post
