SFGAm green lights the season meal pass.

Looks like they are going to try this. I have to say, it's a pretty good deal if you frequent the park alot. I guess SFSTl is the other park that is going to test it.

SFGAm meal pass

That's a really good deal. It would pay off in 2 or 3 visits.

I wish it was being added to all SF parks, I'd gladly pay $59.99 to be able to eat 2 meals at the park every trip all season.

Hmmm.

$75 Season Pass
$70 Parking Pass
$60 Meal Pass

$205 for unlimited visits and lunch and dinner every day.

That'd be worth it just to not have to buy groceries for the summer. ;)

Agreed. That's about as good a deal as any. Not everyone will need a parking pass either. I assume that the bus runs by the park?

Heck, drop off the kids everyday on the way to work and pick them up at the end of the night. You won't have to give them any money for food.

If it is abused, the park could lose money on this deal.

Many parents do treat the park season pass like a daycamp enrolment. They'll definitely see the value in this.

But $60 for lunch and dinner on each visit is a hell of a deal.

I thought it was going to be a "pay $50, get half-off meals" or something.

FOr most people, this would probably be about break-even. For a few, it's going to end up costing the park money...and those few weren't the ones bringing in lots of dollars to begin with. Odd decision, IMO...not pricing-wise, but benefit-wise...no way to cap the expense.

I'm with 'gator. This is a real head-scratcher from the park's perspective.

Yea. How are they going to make money with this?

I think we have to assume they know how many times the average passholder visits, how many times the average passholder eats and what the average passholder spends each time they eat.

In turn they can easily figure out how much the average guest is spending on food each season.

Based on the pricing of the meal pass, I'm gonna guess it's less than $60. ;)

Of course. But, how many of those annual pass holders (a) won't bite because they can do the math more or less in their heads or (b) significantly increase their in-park dining because "it's free"---to the point of moving from the black to the red.

Most other parks that do something like this for frequent visitors use it as an upsell, but ensure there is enough marginal cost in each use that they at least cover their costs. For example, something that might have made *more* sense is a program that, for $30, gives you a 50% discount on your food. Then, at least they have marginal revenue coming in to cover product and labor for anything above the break-even line. Even smarter would be something that still generates a little marginal profit beyond the break-even line, especially if the program encourages pass holders to eat more often in the park.

Edited to add: I suppose SF could be banking on people who plan to come X times, but really end up only coming Y times (Y < X). And, that probably describes most pass holders. It will be interesting to see if this spreads to other locations after this season, or dies quietly. Thats why they call it a test, after all.

Brian Noble said:
It will be interesting to see if this spreads to other locations after this season, or dies quietly. Thats why they call it a test, after all.

Yeah, exactly.

Grr. That's, not Thats. Sigh.

Brian Noble said:
I suppose SF could be banking on people who plan to come X times, but really end up only coming Y times (Y < X).

This is exactly the scenario that came to mind when thinking of how SF could benefit. I've actually screwed myself this way buying a season pass before. Bought the pass early in the season and had every intention of visiting several times, and then stuff happened...and I never made back to the park.

When virtually all of the costs of the meals are "sunk costs", the marginal cost of an additional meal is almost nothing from the customer's perspective....the end result is that all that previously-acquired data on how many times people eat in-park during the season, and what they order, etc., all becomes useless data, irrelevant to how people will behave now that they no longer have to pay out-of-pocket for food.

One of the reasons I find this debate interesting/exciting is because SCOTUS is having some of the same topics come up in regards to the health care debate re: the Affordable Care Act. How much health care will peole consume as the costs are adjusted? Hard to say....

Another angle that came to mind could be the fact that food costs are pretty cheap.

I mean look at the list of foods on the SF Site:

BBQ pulled pork sandwiches, chicken strips, cheeseburgers, chicken sandwiches, pizza, grilled chicken Caesar salads, hot dogs, pasta, chicken dinners, turkey leg platters, corn dogs, wraps and more.

Not exactly steak and lobster. It could take quite a few uses before the park actually starts losing money on the offer.

Also, if you look at the page it sure seems like drinks aren't included. If this is the case, that could be the magic bullet.

Food costs are going up everywhere (fertilizer, feed, etc.) so that argument isn't quite as strong as it would have been a couple years back.

That being said, I *love love* the point about drink$. Those things are pure cash...

Drinks are not included, so that's where they'll make it up. I doubt there will be that many people that just don't have a drink. That said, I'll just get a cup of water with every meal.

rollergator said:
Food costs are going up everywhere (fertilizer, feed, etc.) so that argument isn't quite as strong as it would have been a couple years back.

True, but frozen chicken strips and french fries bought in large quantity and tossed into a deep fryer isn't exactly breaking the bank.

It'd take quite a few of those to break the $60 cost barrier.

Everything on that list is exactly the kind of thing any of us can get dirt cheap in bulk at the local warehouse clubs. At the commercial level, the cost has to be so low that it's crazy.

And yeah, drinks. :)

Not many vegetarian options there. :)