SFWOA Hyper?
but to keep up with CP what can you do exept build coasters
That is WOA's mistake, they should not try to beat or keep up with CP. They need to use what they have and offer somehting different then CP. Allegiences to CP are just too strong for people. If WOA can offer something different that is the way they need to go.
Free Waterpark, kid friendly, and the wildlife side all set it apart IMHO. For an entire family ranging from toddlers to 60 year olds, WOA is definitely the best value. That is what they need to push.
If you don't want to ride coasters CP doesn't have much to offer. I think they realize this as well and are trying to remedy the situation.
-----------------
All I need is 4.5 million bucks and a half a mile long sliver of land and maybe someone could build me my very own Shivering Timbers.
*** This post was edited by MagnumForce on 9/24/2002. ***
And, as was mentioned in an earlier post, they may want to refrain from mentioning Cedar Point (or the notion that Six Flags is "better" than Cedar Point) in their advertisements from now on.
I think all the points raised here are essentially good ones. It will take time for Six Flags to fortify their niche in a highly competitive Ohio/western Pennsylvania market. I think the public will have to be patient with this new park while a working strategy is planned out. And, as for the comment made "that they shouldn't waste their time because Cedar Point already has four coasters over 200 feet," we all know that's garbage...
Metamorph - true, SFDL didn't add SROS out of the kindness of their hearts but they didn't do it because of supply and demand, either. They did it to increase attendance and sell season passes over the next few years after SROS was built knowing full well they would also eventually have to add a few smaller attractions, like a Top Spin or a Shoot-the-Chutes.
What I don't understand is why you so blindly believed Andyc545's claim that SFDL has another 4 years to go? Unless he's an executive at the park or for Six Flags, how would he know?
-----------------
Mamoosh - aka Trouble Boy!
meangene said:
Why would the company look to dump more money into a park that won't see a return on its investment.
Maybe they would look to dump money into a park to so that they could see a return on the capital that's there. I mean, if it's only going to take a little bit o' cash to make the park work well (spent on things other than coasters, granted) then obvisouly SF should put that investment in. Just because something is failing, doesn't mean you should ignore it until it starts succeeding. If everyone did that, all we'd have would be failing parks and management with nothing to do.
-----------------
Metamorphosis said:
SF should have never bought the park if they were not going to invest in it on an ongoing basis.
That's the biggest load of bull. I want a new coaster just as much as you do, but if SF thought they could make a return on the price of the park, they should have bought it. If they did not think they could get a return, they shouldn't have. Six Flags (and all corporate parks, for that matter (yes, even CP)) does not care about anything other than the almighty dollar in the end. If they could make more long term money by pissing every single guest off (somehow), they'd do it in a second. They do not "owe" anybody anything and they especially do not owe us a new coaster. If they're making $, then they're doing it right (and yes, I know they're in the hole, but if you think you could run that chain any better, you should really go take some humble pills or something).
Sheesh. You'd think they built the park just for you or something.
gets off soap box
-----------------
A rollercoaster? What's that?
I agree, SF does not owe me anything. But the great part about being a consumer is that I am allowed to be disappointed, I can choose where I spend my $, and all I am saying is that I would rather spend my $40 at a park with more to offer and I wish it was SFDL, only 20 min away. Who knows, if enough people express their disappointment (notice I did not say God given right) about a lack of new investment of certain "innovative" rides and attendence drops, then I may get my new coaster sooner than SF intended in their "master plan". No one is right or wrong, but if showing dismay might (even remotely) get me a coaster sooner. I'll give it all I got.
Ps. I also want a golden egg for easter.
One, I believe that WOA, heck any park for that matter, should follow a bad year with a good capital improvement. But that is NOT how SFI runs their operations over the past six years. Preforming parks get the capital. Period. That's how it is in SF land up through this year. And i can't see anything changing because the folks who make the decisions haven't changed. I think it's quite possible that the park can see five mil or so in a variety of capital improvements including this new road, but certainly not enough for any 200 footers.
Secondly i garuntee you that the park is not basing its capital improvements on what CP is doing. They never had. Yes they have the park in thier scopes as the big target, but they are doing it on their own terms (which haven't been to intellegent i must say). Furthermore there is plenty of room in the market for two BIG parks. People have always gone to both parks in one year, some may have passes to one or the other depending on where they live, but most go for the one shot at one and then the other. People are not looking and saying, "i can go to only one park this year, which one will it be???" The local market is drawn to both.
The problem is that WOA has offered a seriously flawed product for two years in a row. The logistics of combining two parks was above the heads of the men and women left in charge of the park last season, and it shows. Lack of leadership, incentive and loyalty has left the parks full time staff decimated. Therin lies the problem and no attraction great enough will save the sinking ship by itself. It may get people into the park, but it won't bring them back. Only giving the customer a good value on their collective buck will bring the attendance back up. To sum up, people are not choosing CP over WOA, they are choosing to stay away from WOA because they do not like or in some cases understand the product offered.
The park elite talked in 2001 like a major coaster was in the works for this year. And then again during 2002. They want it. And they need to make the public thin out and fill that wasteland called a marine park. If that means a new ride or a new whale or whatever, that is what the park needs to do.
Finally, if there is any sort of announcement to be made they have traditionally made it around the end of the calander year. Janurary sticks in my head. But it definatley will come after the season is long done, and probably after the other parks announce. That's jsut the way it has gone under the premier management.
As for SFDL, the park was aquired with FunTime purchase around about '96. IT was a package deal, and the company at the time was just getting their feet wet. It was a sound investment in three parks. Now that the scope of the company has changed it must look at the overall picture and place the capital and wait for the return. When the darien superman sees its return there will be another move for a new coaster or amazing thrill ride. Until that time you have to wait it out in Buffalo.
Also i agree with the folks in Buffalo. They should be pissed because under Funtime they got all the good new rides. That's how it was. DL looks pretty and has good attractions while GLP made the $$$.
The rumors on the attendance vary greatly depending on who you ask. I've heard anything from a miserable terrible SFO would be embarassed number of 1.4 mil to not doing as bad number of 1.8 mil. It's hard to say for sure unless you are the one counting tickets, or turnstiles that is.
Meta - what if Six Flags only awards parks who have an attendance increase with a new coaster? If you decide to "vote with your money" and go somewhere else aren't you actually lengthening the time it takes for a new thriller to arrive at SFDL?
-----------------
Mamoosh - aka Trouble Boy!
"I want a goose that lays gold eggs for Easter...(snip).....and if I don't get the things I am after, I'm going to....SCREAM!".....Bad egg...;)
CP goes for the thrillseekers.....SF can't beat them at that game, so businiess-wise, it would seem to make more sense (and dollars) to go after the FAMILY crowd. Sure, they'll never touch PKI for the "wee ones", but I've driven OH enough to know that's not real competition for SFWoA. Maybe a "clone" of Goliath, Jr....."the Giant of kiddie coasters"...lol.
Metamorphosis said:
I agree, SF does not owe me anything. But the great part about being a consumer is that I am allowed to be disappointed, I can choose where I spend my $, and all I am saying is that I would rather spend my $40 at a park with more to offer and I wish it was SFDL, only 20 min away. Who knows, if enough people express their disappointment (notice I did not say God given right) about a lack of new investment of certain "innovative" rides and attendence drops, then I may get my new coaster sooner than SF intended in their "master plan". No one is right or wrong, but if showing dismay might (even remotely) get me a coaster sooner. I'll give it all I got.
Ps. I also want a golden egg for easter.
I agree that you have every right to be disappointed and to vote with your money. However, saying "Six Flags SHOULD put in a new coaster." or they shouldn't have bought the park if they're not going to put in a new coaster is a little narrow sighted. Even though they may not be as smart as Dick Kinzel or the folks that run Universal parks, the folks that run Six Flags parks are really really smart managers.
-----------------
meangene said:
"Also i agree with the folks in Buffalo. They should be pissed because under Funtime they got all the good new rides. That's how it was. DL looks pretty and has good attractions while GLP made the $$$."
Wasn't that a shame? Geauga Lake was the cash cow but Funtime rarely invested in the park. It took them ten years before they built another coaster (Corkscrew in '78 and RWB in '88) and then a real thrill ride (Texas Twister in '93) while focusing on the kids and company picnics all the while.
If Funtime still ran the park today, Corkscrew would still be there and we wouldn't have seen even half of what Premier/SFI added since 1996.
Personally, I feel that the hyper should be on hold for next year because CP's new attraction would steal it's appeal. But I also don't want 2003 to go without a new attraction either. I'd be happy with a one or two "adult" flat rides.
X Factor
-------------
SFWoA: An Unofficial Guide
http://sfohio.tripod.com
It doesn't matter what CP is doing. The people that care if there is a coaster, or would notice if there wasn't one are the people sitting on this site wondering about it. And i'd say it's a safe bet that anyone of us would stop by to check out the park, reguardless of a new coaster; if we were in town.
The general general public will goto the park based on prior experience and percieved value. Noone is going to say, "well i wasn't going to goto CP but they just built a much cooler ride". The base of attendance is the local market. And people just don't choose between one park or another. If they are interested in going to a park only casually (ie. not getting pass), which most people do, then they goto both parks once. In fact i would say that WOA building a coaster the same year as CP would only encourage the out of towner to come into the area just because they could do two new rides in one weekend. But then you're back talking about some sort of coaster enthusiast.
It doesn't matter if they build it or not if they don't improve the product overall. And even with a new coaster some people will just not go back because of the poor quality (real or percieved) over the past two years.
*** This post was edited by meangene on 9/25/2002. ***
*** This post was edited by meangene on 9/25/2002. ***
Six Flags does have some major corprate flaws. Instead of adding new coasters in the parks that did well, they should focus more on how to get attendence up at the parks that aren't drawing the crowds. Why should they add a new coaster at SFMM, when they got X last year. Are they trying to compete with a park on the eastern seaboard? No. By far SFMM has the most coasters on the west coast, but do they have the facilities to accomidate families from toddlers to age 60? That's what they should improve on, and give the new coaster to one of the parks that need a new attraction to draw crowds. If all of their parks were family oriented (thrill seekers, toddlers, older people, etc.) all of their park's attendance would improve over the next few years.
*** This post was edited by The_Lost_Phantom on 9/25/2002. ***
What they should do is just take a few years off from adding any major rides at any of the parks,that way maybe,just maybe they can build up enough money to equally spend on most if not all of their parks.
I've said it before and I'll say it again,SF has got too many parks & not enough money to support them all,they should've reduced the number of property purchases before they got in over their heads and either way their profits will continue to drop as long as they keep leaving parks out of the budget.
One thing which may have caused alot of their financial problems was their 40th anniversary spending spree in 2001,after building a total of 18 coasters that year chainwide it was a sure way of wiping out the company's budget and now they're in debt partially if not entirely because of it.
This is just my 2 cents of course.
Here in Geauga County, we have a population of about 90-95,000. That is the local market. People around here who have visited the park feel angry, cheated and frustrated. Cedar Point advertises heavily in this area, more than Six Flags. I think people even here would choose Cedar Point because of both their new toy, and how Six Flags has treated them in the past.
Geauga Lake should have never been turned into a major themepark. As they found out, there is loyalty to Cedar Point (and the former Seaworld) and the infrastrucure of the local roads cannot handel it and the ride side was not designed for the millions of people Six Flags wants to pull in. Now that cannot be changed, I realize that. But Six Flags needs to improve and attendence will not shoot to the three million they were hoping for for a long time.
They need to get a new reputation spread by word of mouth. Trusting that the park has changed for the batter and has better customer service is a little hard to do when facing a $8 parking charge.
By the way, PKS closed at $3.82. I remember when it was almost $20.
Mamoosh said:
"What I don't understand is why you so blindly believed Andyc545's claim that SFDL has another 4 years to go? Unless he's an executive at the park or for Six Flags, how would he know?
Actually i never said that. Maybe u mis understood. Just added a little touch that SFDL hasn't recieved a coaster in what will be 4 yrs. That wasn't the point of my post reply though, so i don't know why u are so worried ;)
-------------
-ANDREW-
http://insanerides.fateback.com
Andyc545 - your first post ends with this sentence:
"unfortunatly for SFDL no coasters for 4 YEARS!"
Metamorphosis interpreted that to mean 4 MORE years, and frankly I did as well. If you meant that SFDL wouldn't receive a new coaster in the four years since SROS, you should have said, "Unfortunately for SDFL a fourth straight year without a new coaster."
Thanks for clearing up what you meant to say.
-----------------
Mamoosh - aka Trouble Boy!
You must be logged in to post
