SFGAdv Media Announcement Sneak Peak?
still trying to think of a good signature...
vacoasterfreak said:
all of this arguement is null and void, lol...what does it matter...im excited about the new coaster...you guys can gripe all u want
Yeah, exactly. Whether or not this is a smart move for Six Flags is a moot point. We aren't the executives calling the shots there. In any case, we shall see what kind of effect this decision has on both SFGAdv and all of SF.
Rob Ascough said: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.
Not that I really want to get involved in this battle, but comparing Morey's Piers to SFGAdv is comparing apples to oranges. With SFGAdv, a person is considered in "attendance" if they pay the ticket price (or season pass) and walk through the gate. What exactly constitutes a person "in attendance" on an open pier ? If I come off of the beach and grab a soda from a stand on the pier, am I considered a guest of the park ? How about if I decide to pay the $6 to ride The Great Nor'easter 1 time ? It doesn't make sense to compare an open "pay for everything" location with a theme park with an admission charge, especially when you consider how the Wildwood boardwalk has way more to it than just amusement park attractions.
Haha no I'm not giving Patrick the finger 
I can't wait to ride it.
The bottom line IMO is that good roller coasters, wood or steel, are what bring people BACK to amusement parks. Jeff made a really good point that MF has had a much bigger impact on CP than TTD has. TTD may bring people into the park, but it's rides like Magnum, MF, Gemini, and Raptor that keep people coming BACK to the park. I'm one of the few people that think TTD is the greatest thing since slicest bread, but from my own observations I see most people say that MF "will always be the best ride at CP".
I haven't been to SFGAdv, but the only two words uttered by my friend who did go there were Nitro and Medusa...clearly this ride is going to have an initial positive impact for the park, but does it really have staying power like Medusa and Nitro?
Do I think this is a good move for SFGAdv? Of course not, I'm a CP fanboy :). Regardless, my concern is more with the insane roller coaster war the industry is fighting. Parks that are nowhere near each other in regional competetion seem to be fighting with each other for the guest. What's the deal? Do bigger coasters really result in net zero gains for parks?
Busch doesn't do it...they succeed...
Paramount tried it (SOB)...mixed results...
Indie parks certainly dont't do it and manage well
Outside of CF, smaller attractions added to VF, WoF, and Knott have all resulted positively for the company
In the end, I suppose parks like CP, SFMM, and SFGAdv can handle the gi-normous coasters, but what does it mean for the future of theme parks?
Rambling ranting remarks over.
making small improvements this year, but IMHO
to bring up attendance they will need to greatly improve their security. I know many
families who do chose to go to Morey's just for that reason. I can't wait to ride this new rocket, but I don't look forward to all the line jumpers.
Kris Wempa said:
If I come off of the beach and grab a soda from a stand on the pier, am I considered a guest of the park ? How about if I decide to pay the $6 to ride The Great Nor'easter 1 time ? It doesn't make sense to compare an open "pay for everything" location with a theme park with an admission charge, especially when you consider how the Wildwood boardwalk has way more to it than just amusement park attractions.
I wondered this myself for a long time but was told by someone with very close ties to Morey's that they have a sound way of calculating their attendance so that one person dropping by each pier for ONE ride doesn't count as three guests.
If you've ever been to the Wildwood boardwalk on a summer weekend, you'd see how 3.3 million people/year is a very conservative estimate.
Rob Ascough said:
I wondered this myself for a long time but was told by someone with very close ties to Morey's that they have a sound way of calculating their attendance so that one person dropping by each pier for ONE ride doesn't count as three guests.If you've ever been to the Wildwood boardwalk on a summer weekend, you'd see how 3.3 million people/year is a very conservative estimate.
I have spent probably no less than about 8 weekends during each of the past 7 years down there. My parents own a townhouse in Wildwood Crest. I also wasn't implying that 1 guest would count as 3. However, a guest stopping by to ride just 1 ride probably WOULD count as a guest. To compare this to a park like SFGAdv is ridiculous because you can't show up, pay a fixed price like $6 to get one ride on Nitro and then leave. It doesn't work that way. Also, the boardwalk gets customers who were doing other things like swimming or sunbathing on the beach. It's not like somebody passing by SFGAdv who is hungry would be like "Hey, let's stop at SFGAdv to get a quick bite to eat.". Apples and oranges. Dorney Park or even Hershey Park (although more of a stretch) are valid comparisons, but I don't buy the Morey's Pier one.
Suppose you have a McDonalds and an Irish Pub right next door to each other. Obviously, both of them serve a "hamburgers and fries" kind of meal. I can go into McDonalds and order a plain burger and walk out. In the Irish Pub, I would most likely sit down and eat a complete meal: hamburger, fries, maybe an appetizer or a beer. It's obvious that the average Irish Pub guest spends more on a meal than the average McDonalds guest, but that doesn't hide the fact that they compete for the same customer. For any given meal, I could go to McDonalds or the Irish Pub, but I wouldn't go to both. That means that people have to decide between one or the other and therefore, the concept of competition exists between the two.
I get what you're saying, and its something I've thought about many times before as I'm strolling the Wildwood boardwalk. But if you want to talk about something ridiculous, its the fact that SFGAdv and Morey's Piers are not competitors because of their pricing structures.
Rob Ascough said:
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.
Wood coasters are obviously viable options for certain parks, and the right ride for the right park in the right market can do very well. That's not what you originally argued, however. You essentially claimed that a wooden coaster can work as well (if not better) for any park in the country (minus Cedar Point). You also argued that it's stupid for a park to spend millions on a steel coaster when they could get two or three wooden coasters for the same price. I felt (and still feel) that's entirely incorrect. Wooden coasters just won't work in some markets, and in many others won't work nearly as well as some other (steel) coaster. In this particular case, I don't think a wooden coaster would work nearly as well as this rocket coaster has the potential to. To think a wooden coaster is as marketable as a record-breaking steel coaster is an odd belief, I think, and that's what I was arguing with.
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.
That's not a point I fail to grasp, it's a point you never made until now (and is a point that's rather irrelevant to the original argument). SFGAdv obviously has some problems. Attendance has been on the decline for the past few years. So what does a park do in that situation?
If it were me in charge, I'd do exactly what SFGAdv is going to do. I'd build something hugely marketable that's going to virtually guarantee a major jump in attendance. Then, the park needs to make sure all of its problems (the ones that turned people away in the first place) are fixed so those people who came to ride Hugely Marketable Attraction #1 become repeat customers. Then, turn the park into an entire resort (hotels, golf course, camping, etc). Essentially, it's the same strategy that's worked well for Cedar Point, except Cedar Point didn't need to earn any customers back. Therefore, even if this new ride doesn't raise attendance by 17% in one year, (a) it sets the big plan in motion, and (b) it has continued drawing power that will keep new people coming in, especially once it becomes a resort.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.
You're right that people have stopped visiting SFGAdv for the many problems you listed. But the park needs to do something huge to draw them back in initially to see that things have changed. An apology and a promise that things have changed isn't going to cut it.
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.
That's quite an assumption to make, especially given my explanation above of why this ride makes sense. Like I said, just wait and see (and check your PM's for the rest).
Regarding competition, the Dorney-Hershey-SFGAdv market is plenty large enough to support all of those parks and then some. But when you're in SFGAdv's potition and taking the lion's share of the population, you really don't worry much about competition from the other parks. Dorney won't become a 3 million guest/year park anytime soon. If 50,000 people decide not to visit Dorney in favor of SFGAdv, that's a much larger hit for Dorney to take than it would be for SFGAdv if 50,000 people decided not to visit in favor of visiting Dorney. To continue the hardware store analogy, it's a much bigger deal for a Mom & Pop store to lose a repeat customer than for Home Depot to lose one.
The Jersey Shore situation is more difficult to understand, I think. Basically, I do not believe that when people want to go to an amusement park, they frequently decide between SFGAdv and the Jersey Shore. If people want to go to an amusement park, they go to SFGAdv (or Dorney, or Hershey, etc). When people go to the Jersey Shore, it's because they're going on a vacation and happen to drop into one (or more) of the amusement piers. If you're choosing between two things, then those two are in competition. I don't believe people (enthusiasts aside) frequently choose between the Jersey Shore and SFGAdv (part of that being because it's difficult to just visit the shore for a day like it is SFGAdv). Your SeaWorld/WDW comparison is an invalid one because both parks are vacation destinations. A more accurate comparison would be Dorney and WDW. Do you think people often choose WDW over Dorney (or Dorney over WDW?).
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?
Yes, because the ride only exists to initially draw them into the park. If it's not open (or if it's having trouble), people may get upset, but there's tons more to do at SFGAdv than this new rocket coaster. Those people are going to find something else to do and (assuming the park's problems are fixed like they should be) will still be satisfied enough to return next year, perhaps especially because they couldn't ride the new coaster. I wouldn't expect nearly as many problems as TTD had. I think some things have been learned since that ride's installation.
I once said:Think about it- for the price that SF is spending on this Intamin monster at their most attended property, they could have built new wood coasters at SFGAdv, SFMM, SFOT, SFAW, SFGAm and SFNO and seen attendande increases at ALL of those parks. Money spent on 6 wood coasters instead of ONE steel behemoth is money well spent.
When did I ever argue that a wood coaster would be a BETTER investment for the park than a record-breaking steel coaster? My point of my argument, as I just proved, was that Six Flags could have spent the money they are spending on this ride on improvements and new rides at a large number of their other parks. I also said that money spent on wood coasters would be money well spent. Those two main points are what I am still saying, regardless of how you chose to twist my words around or put new ones in my mouth.
Diversity is a good game plan for theme parks. It works well for Paramount's flagship park (PKI) that adds thrill rides AND family rides, coasters AND flat rides AND darkrides. The point I am making is this:
1997: Batman & Robin: The Chiller
1999: Medusa, Blackbeard's Lost Treasure Train, comprehensive flat ride and kiddie ride packages
2001: Nitro
2003: Superman: Ultimate Flight
I know there is the Spongebob attraction that belongs on that list somewhere but the point I am making is that SFGAdv's new additions throughout the past few years have been primarily thrilling and not very family-friendly. I truly believe that this is one of the main reasons that the park has experienced a decline in attendance. While thrill-seeking teenagers and coaster enthusiasts have had a lot to get excited about, the same can't be said for families with small kids that aren't quite ready for rides such as Nitro and this new coaster. Wood coasters seem to be more "approachable" to younger audiences as they are generally less-intimidating than large steel coasters and that is why I can't help but wonder if a wood coaster and a nice family ride package (including things like a Sally darkride and some Zamperla flats) would have been a better alternative for the park at this point in time.
I fail to understand why you think this new ride is going to help the park "win back" all the customers it lost because of other problems. How is a new coaster that is "highly marketable" going to tell people that they can go to the park and experience clean bathrooms, good food, friendly employees? How is a new coaster going to change what people usually see when they get to SFGAdv: a sign that indicates a dozen or so rides that aren't open (like Viper, Chiller and any number of flat rides)? Marketing is a good idea and having something to market is an even better one, but there is an offshoot of marketing called "Positive Word of Mouth" and that will ultimately do more for the park's long-term attendance figures than a series of commericals with a dancing old man followed by a few quick shots of a new coaster launching riders at 100+ MPH.
Yes, it's true that I make assumptions. Sometimes I make pretty big ones. But as someone that generally has the "outside track" rather than the inside one, that's all I can do. I look back to years and years of being told that things are going to improve at SFGAdv and I can't help but be skeptical about changes that are mentioned for the future. Two years ago, it was said that Rolling Thunder would be rehabbed... that rehab was limited to a new paint job and little else. When things like that happen time and time again, it is awfully hard to get excited about anything. If money happens to be spent on other park improvemens, I will be the first to go to the park and mention them all in a detailed trip report. But at this time when there are nothing more than rumors flying around, don't get irritated with people like me that play the role of the skeptic or the cynic.
As I mentioned earlier, the Jersey Shore is in competition with SFGAdv (and vicer versa) because they offer the SAME PRODUCT in the SAME REGION. Regardless of how they figure their yearly attendance or how they charge for rides, they offer the same thing to the same group of people and when some of those people have to chose between the two, they are competition for each other. The same goes for Dorney... regardless of how much lower Dorney's yearly attendance is, they still compete. It's what they are doing with Hydra. It's what Hershey and Clementon did with Stormrunner and Tsunami (respectively) this summer. If Dorney, Hershey, the Jersey Shore and even Clementon weren't competition for SFGAdv, there would never be any new rides added to any of those parks.
I think you're right that this coaster will be more reliable than TTD. Hershey's Stormrunner seems to be working pretty good so I have some renewed faith in these Intamin rocket coasters. But the possibility exists that this ride WILL develop problems and that is a problem for the park. If people go to the park for this new coaster (as you seem to think they will) and they can't ride it, they will be mad. They will be upset. And they will be that more unlikely to go back. All it takes is ONE bad experience to turn a customer away, whether you are a supermarket, a car dealership or an amusement park.
This ride is a gamble for the park. An expensive gamble. And while it has the potential to spearhead a period of vast improvements at the park, it also has the potential to dig the park into a deeper hole. Maybe that is why I suggested a $4 million wood coaster... that wouldn't have been such a gamble. Call me the guy that thinks SFGAdv should be playing it safe right now.
*** Edited 9/23/2004 7:47:27 PM UTC by Rob Ascough***
But then again, when they add the Intamin coaster, people will arrive and find it not working and they'll be pissed off and angry.
At least with the tricycle, Great Adventure only had to spend $20 to anger people instead of $25 million!
A giant record-breaking ride makes things way too easy on the marketing folks and way too difficult for the operations folks.
And yeah, Great Adventure really needs to discover the value of a wood coaster but I'd be happy if they would just take care of the one they already have. :)
When did I ever argue that a wood coaster would be a BETTER investment for the park than a record-breaking steel coaster?
Again, you argued that when you said (a) a wooden coaster was cheaper and would draw in as many people as a record-breaking steel coaster, and (b) when you stated that the wooden coasters SF has built are responsible for larger attendance increases than anything else the chain has added in the past ten years. Six Flags could have spent the money they're investing in SFGAdv on putting other rides into other parks, but that doesn't mean that would have been a better idea. I'm not twisting any of what you said, but I'm pointint out the fallacies in your arguments you try to support your points with.
SFGAdv's new additions throughout the past few years have been primarily thrilling and not very family-friendly.
Is that really true? Look back at your list. From 1997 on, they've built four coasters (and now this fifth rocket coaster). You briefly mention the 1999 additions but completely ignore everything that was added that year. Aside from Medusa, there were tons and tons of of family attractions added. They not only 20-something flat rides that year, but they added an entire new kids area (Loony Tunes Seaport) and two kiddie/family coasters. This year they added the Spongebob ride, a new Batman show, and improvements to Wild Safari. In 2000 they added an entire family-friendly waterpark. It seems like SFGAdv has been equally, if not more, family oriented than thrill ride oriented. The park sounds pretty family focused to me!
SFGAdv already has just about every Zamperla ride ever made. They also have a high-capacity dark ride (Houdini) and could never, ever handle a Sally ride with the attendance that park gets.
I fail to understand why you think this new ride is going to help the park "win back" all the customers it lost because of other problems. How is a new coaster that is "highly marketable" going to tell people that they can go to the park and experience clean bathrooms, good food, friendly employees?
This is all laid out in my last post as clear as can be. The new coaster gets people to come into the park, the changed conditions gets them to stay (and turns them into returning customers). The simple "wow" factor of this attraction is what is going to draw people in initially, and (theoretically) the park's improved conditions will win them back. Like I said previously, a promise of improved conditions, friendlier employees, nicer bathrooms, etc isn't going to draw people in. People are going to hear about this new ride and say "Holy $(@&%&, look what SFGAdv just built!" and will want to visit because of that. A wooden coaster is not going to get that kind of reaction (if it were to get any reaction at all). In other words, as I said before, the park needs to (a) make its improvements over the off-season and then (b) build something to guarantee people can't resist visiting and, in the process, become loyal customers again (due to the improvements waiting for them). That's exactly the thinking behind this new addition.
As I mentioned earlier, the Jersey Shore is in competition with SFGAdv (and vicer versa) because they offer the SAME PRODUCT in the SAME REGION.
It doesn't matter if people never have to make a choice between going to the shore or going to SFGAdv. As I've said three or four times now, I don't think people ever make the choice to visit one over the other. If someone wants to go on a day trip to an amusement park, I highly doubt the Jersey Shore is even an considered option. For that reason, there is little competition between the two.
A wooden coaster may not have been much of a gamble, but it also would have done little, if anything, for the park.
-Nate
Badnitrus said:
I agree - I'd say that the only pre-Xcelerator planned rocket coaster was Top Thrill Dragster.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 .
I'm guessing it's Steel Dragon all over again.
Haha no I'm not giving Patrick the finger
coasterdude318 said:
It doesn't matter if people never have to make a choice between going to the shore or going to SFGAdv. As I've said three or four times now, I don't think people ever make the choice to visit one over the other. If someone wants to go on a day trip to an amusement park, I highly doubt the Jersey Shore is even an considered option. For that reason, there is little competition between the two.
Well said ! It seems absurd to me that somebody would consider Morey's Piers or any of the boarwalks as a real option for going to an amusement park. It's usually the case where you are already there for beach/vacation/whatever and happen to hit a few of the rides while you are there. Now, of course you could say that you have 2 options for how to spend your day:
1) SFGadv for the entire day
2) Travel to Wildwood, spend time on the beaches & visit the boardwalk later in the day
If we're going to go that far in what we call competition, we might as well say movie theaters compete with SFGadv because you can choose to see a movie over going to SFGadv. *** Edited 9/24/2004 4:21:02 AM UTC by Kris Wempa***
The point of my original post was to say that a wood coaster is a viable alternative to a park looking to add a new coaster to their ride lineup. I'll be the first to admit that a wood coaster is not neccessarily something that is easy to market; thus the short-term advantages of adding one can often be perceived as few, if non-existant. But while a thrilling one-trick-pony like TTD may lead to some pretty significant attendance increases (although not the 20% that you suggested) during its first year of operation, I truly believe that a GOOD wood coaster- something that people will find just as thrilling 25 years from now as they do today- would better fit the park's long-term goals of increased AND sustained attendance increases. THAT was the point of my original post, and even if I didn't use those exact words, that is what I was suggesting.
Years ago, there was an excellent article in ACE's Roller Coaster! magazine called "A Steel Coaster is Just Like a VCR". (obviously this was written "back in the day" when VCRs were new technology) The article went on to describe most steel coasters as rides that, like VCRs in relation to other home theater system components, seem very advanced and impressive during their first few years are quickly eclipsed by newer models. It makes sense: Magnum was followed by Millennium Force; Millennium Force was followed by TTD. Millennium Force was added when it was realized that Magnum, once the poster child for the latest in steel coaster thrills, was no longer the "WOW" ride it once was and couldn't be marketed as such. TTD was added just four years later because it eas determined that a 400' coaster was more marketable than a 300' coaster. While I am not SURE of those reasons, I'm sure that the marketability that you speak of had a LOT to do with CP's selection of new coasters.
Wood coasters, on the other hand, don't ever become "outdated", as rides that were built just five years ago aren't much more advanced than rides built during the 1920s. The Coney Island Cyclone and the Knoebels Phoenix are perennial favorites not because they are record-breakers but because they give good rides, year after year. I suggested wood coasters because, in the long run, I honestly feel that they will achieve what SF hopes to achieve with steel coasters that are fives more expensive. They may take longer to get the crowds into the gates but I think they will do a better job of keeping them there. For the true popularity of wood coasters, look to a park that has good wood AND steel coasters- Hershey, Knotts, SFOG, PKI... very often, the wood coasters have longer lines than the steel coasters. A true testament to how popular wood coasters can be when they're properly designed and maintained.
I didn't mean to trivialize the additions that SFGAdv made for the 1999 season. I agree that they added a lot of flat rides but it can also be argued that many of those rides have since been removed or are not operated on a regular basis. Evolution is gone. The Frisbee is gone. Houdini is always down when I go. The park gathered a lot of momentum because of those additions but they seemed to lose it somewhere along the way. A shame. They could have had a flat ride collection unrivaled by any other park in the industry, save for Canada's Wonderland. I know that family-friendly additions were made to Hurricane Harbor and the Safari, but since those are attractions that are generally not included in regular park admission, I don't count those. That's like saying that SF built a brand-new separate-admission "family rides-only" park next to Great Adventure and that satisfies Great Adventure's need for more family attractions.
Kris:
If people chose between going to SFGAdv and going to Wildwood (where Morey's Piers IS part of the equation), that IS competition. If people chose to spend their entertainment budget at a movie theater rather than an amusement park, that movie theater is now competition. Competition takes the form of many things in just about any industry.
Trust me... I studied marketing in college. I WORK for a marketing company. This is something that I DO know.
*** Edited 9/24/2004 1:42:51 PM UTC by Rob Ascough***
You must be logged in to post
