Shapiro: Charging for autographs and pictures - more line cutting
See, and that's the faulty logic that the old regime used year after year as they made excuses for one losing season after another. Somebody has to wake up and say, "ENOUGH". Not next week, but today.
"How could a theme park NOT be profitable"?
I don't know, ask Paramount.
"Shipiro has said that he is going to get the parks to do all of those things we know will make SF a better overall experience. Even if the park is up to the same standards as say, Hersheypark, why would I want to spend around $25 more to see for myself? Why would a family of 4 or 6 want to spend much more money? We can get what SF is planning to offer cheaper at a park that has already been offering it for years. CP, GL, HP, BGW, BGT, USIOA, ect".
But your speaking for yourself *as* an enthusiast. You really can't speak for that family of four because obviously people still venture out to Six Flags.
It still comes down to a matter of choice and personal taste. *YOU* may decide there is nothing SF could ever do to win back your hard earned money, and you'd be perfectly justified. But you can't apply that to everyone.
Why are Best Buy retail stores always so friggin crowded, when you can obviously but cheaper and higher quality products elsewhere? Sometimes it's covenience, sometimes it's the seduction of the *brand* name, and sometimes it's just personal choice. *** Edited 3/18/2006 4:30:44 AM UTC by DWeaver***
DWeaver said:I don't know, ask Paramount.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I thought the issue with the Paramount parks was not that they weren't profitable but that the industry wasn't as high-growth oriented as the rest of the company's holdings.
Or was there something official that I missed that said the parks were losing money?
They need to raise Season Pass prices some (half a day's ticket price or so), but they are only locked into those current prices til late spring. Tiered services like at other parks/chains seem like an excellent way to do it: Home park, home park + water park, multi-park + parking, etc. There is already a "Premium" pass at SFA, which I read somewhere is what's required for passholder events. BUT to counter they need some Family Pack option like Buy 3, Get 1 Free to make it more affordable for the families that seem to be their desired demographic. Most of the parks in my region are charging about of half of SF's parking so that may have been a bad move, but overall it does hit a family less hard than it does an individual enthusiast, perhaps fitting with their game plan.
I think the general public won't remember what last summer's prices were, but in deciding a destination may compare on the net that Hershey is $42/ticket/day while SFGAdv is $60 (or buy in advance or grab a coke can for a discount). And parking fees probably won't occur to them until they show up. But SF does need to make the improvements significant and obvious enough to spread by word of mouth.
First off, I sincerly think that most of you all dont have a clue about "how much is too much". You keep talking about this mythical "family of four" who has now been "priced out" of going to the parks. Crap! Crap, I say! People pay for what they want. And an additional even 100 dollars isnt going to stop the once-a-year vacationer from going.
I also disagree with your assements that amusement parks compete with baseball games (and the like). Amusement parks serve a special niche, fill a special desire that most leisure-time activites do not. Sure, you may be able to say their competion is skiing, parasailing or surfing, but going to the bowling alley aint the same thing (and I love to bowl).
Moreover, the "cheap babysitting" problem, IMO, wont even be solved by tripling the price. It would still be horrendously cheap compared to other, more supervised, options like camps. Even 200 bucks for a summer with kids out of their hair is money well spent to many parents.
And let's not kid ourselves. People who are struggling to keep the lights on, keep food on the tables, are not going to parks now. The "undesireable" teens that you see in the parks are overwhelmingly *not* from "broken" homes. They are sporting Jordans, Sean John, Parasuco's, etc., not becaue they beat up some other kid and stole them, or knocked over a liquor store, but because mom/dad/auntie/grandma got it for their birthday. Park attendees are by far people in a position of privillege and this price increase will not be the apocolytic downfall that many here are sheriking about (Geez, is everybody waitng to rush out and get their copy of "Chicken Little" or what?!?)
I will say that you all have gooten this right htough: people will complain if changes dont happen. But guess what? People have BEEN complaining, yet somehow there seems to still be people coming in the gate.
Will all this stuff works? Honestly, I dont have a clue. My wife has the MBA, I'm just a rocket scientist. But what I know about "kitchen table econmics" from the persective of having more money than I could spend to the perspective of being served with eviction notice, I do not believe that these price increases will be more than a blip in the grand scheme of things. I often see people cry about how movie tickets cost too much. Then I got to the cineplex at noon and find out the midnight screening of the new "Harry Potter" film is already sold out. People will pay for what they want.
Okay, this is getting long, rambly and ranty....
lata, jeremy
--who thinks if the gators lose today *in Jacksonville* RGW should give up his coaster privilleges for the rest of the year!
zacharyt.shutterfly.com
PlaceHolder for Castor & Pollux
And an additional even 100 dollars isnt going to stop the once-a-year vacationer from going.
I think it will... yea, it's my opinion only... but it's not a "vacation" per sa. Six Flags is a regional park serving the regional area. It's just a couple hours drive (average) to the park for most of the country, so it's not exactly a vacation, so as much as a "day at the amusement park".
If they've been going yearly once a year every year since their family started... they're probably used to the price they've been paying every year, and KNOW that it's a fairly inexpensive way to spend a fun family day together.
Now, if you jack up the price a hundred bucks between all 4... that's quite a hike & I don't think that this family-of-four will take it gracefully. It then goes from this yearly (or twice-a-year) trip that they've taken for granted which was inexpensive & fun, to this hike-in-price & offering them little incentives to justify the cost differential to swallow the cost.
They may then have 2nd thoughts & instead make a trip somewhere else, either to a smaller park nearby at half the cost, or just do something entirely different!
You keep talking about this mythical "family of four" who has now been "priced out" of going to the parks. Crap! Crap, I say! People pay for what they want. And an additional even 100 dollars isnt going to stop the once-a-year vacationer from going.I do not believe that these price increases will be more than a blip in the grand scheme of things.
This is what I've been trying to tell 'em for months. ;)
I also disagree with your assements that amusement parks compete with baseball games (and the like). Amusement parks serve a special niche, fill a special desire that most leisure-time activites do not.
I think what you are trying to say here is they fill the "adrenaline junkie" need in a way that bleacher seats at a ballgame do not. However--even for enthusiasts---most of us find the time we spend at parks with friends and family as important to the experience as the rides themselves. Personally, I find it *more* important. Any liesure time activity could potentially provide me with fun times with family and friends, not just an amusement park.
*** Edited 3/18/2006 7:08:57 PM UTC by Brian Noble***
Maybe it just me, but I dont put attending a game/play in the same catagory as an amusement park. And I honestly dont believe "the mythical family of four" does either.
lata, jeremy
-who could have a great time sitting under a tree with a dozen hard-boiled eggs if the right people are around
zacharyt.shutterfly.com
PlaceHolder for Castor & Pollux
The point is that the family just wants to spend the day together doing something recreational - from there the choices are many.
I think the key is not to assume they necessarily have a theme park in mind in the first place.
In that sense, I think theme parks absolutely compete with and belong in the same category as some of the other examples given.
--who thinks if the gators lose today *in Jacksonville* RGW should give up his coaster privilleges for the rest of the year!
Coasters are a right, not a privilege! ;)
all appropriate sarcasm intended...:)
But seriously, win or lose, I *am* going to be riding this year...try and stop me.
Long since been suggesting that there's serious marketing synergies between pro sports and parks. More likely to get someone to pay for an autograph and picture with the hometown NFL/NBA star than with Tweety....YMMV....or not. ;)
No, but what about the hypothetical situation of "We have free time this weekend (or next weekend or tomorrow or whatever), what should we do?"
Precisely. Most "regular" (read: non-enthusaist) families don't assume that they'll be going to an amusement park. They're just looking for a handful of fun things to do over the course of the summer.
-brian, whose own summer calendar is already filling up, *before* putting in coaster trips!
But still... a planned trip now with the internet access for everything will show by comparison that if the rates through the gates are much higher than the previous year (even with discounts), they may reconsider & go or do something else.
Shapiro better hope people are dumber than they look, because I know I'm a smart shopper and I'll take the same or similar product at Wal-Mart vs. the international grocery store which, although similar in size, will charge me more. Some people don't give a rats-behind because of convience or because their money grows on trees. Others will hunt for the better bargain or just shop elsewhere...
...can be applied liberally to the amusement industry.
DawgByte II said:
And an additional even 100 dollars isnt going to stop the once-a-year vacationer from going.I think it will... yea, it's my opinion only... but it's not a "vacation" per sa. Six Flags is a regional park serving the regional area. It's just a couple hours drive (average) to the park for most of the country, so it's not exactly a vacation, so as much as a "day at the amusement park".
If they've been going yearly once a year every year since their family started... they're probably used to the price they've been paying every year, and KNOW that it's a fairly inexpensive way to spend a fun family day together.Now, if you jack up the price a hundred bucks between all 4... that's quite a hike & I don't think that this family-of-four will take it gracefully. It then goes from this yearly (or twice-a-year) trip that they've taken for granted which was inexpensive & fun, to this hike-in-price & offering them little incentives to justify the cost differential to swallow the cost.
They may then have 2nd thoughts & instead make a trip somewhere else, either to a smaller park nearby at half the cost, or just do something entirely different!
"Oh, I'm sorry kids. It costs a hundred more dollars to go this year. So, I'm sorry, we're not going. You kids wanna go for ice cream?!"
Somehow, I dunno, maybe I was spoiled or something, but I just don't see that going over very well. That sounds like, "You kids aren't worth a hundred more dollars for irreplaceable memories spent on a day at the amusement park." You seriously think parents would not shell out $100 more dollars for a day of fun? Did you read about those "makeovers" Disney is doing for little girls and the "build your own scary skull" thing they're doing for boys?
Like someone else said, people will pay for something they want. *** Edited 3/19/2006 12:48:14 AM UTC by RobCoasting***
-Rob Vaccaro
http://www.robvaccaro.blogspot.com
comprende?
If the day-at-the-park in-the-end cost $400 the previous years, and now with the additional costs at the gate & in the park costs $500 at the end of the day... that's a 25% increase (these are arbitrary numbers, of course), you don't think that they'd rethink an increase that's hardly marginal by any stretch of the means?
2% maybe 5% increase is one thing... but when you get into double-digit percentage increases, people start to re-think the benefits if that increase is really worth it. It's playing the smart-shopper.
I don't think there are that many dumb-people that'll swallow just any increase. It's not lke gas-prices where you HAVE to adjust to the increase, like-it-or-not... it's something where you got a choice, and if the price is wrong, many people will find another choice to spend their day & money.
*** Edited 3/19/2006 2:07:39 AM UTC by DawgByte II***
Do I have to use the Best Buy analogy again...;)
Like someone else said, people will pay for something they want.
Right. And the trick really is to make more people want to (improve the product). *** Edited 3/19/2006 2:30:53 PM UTC by janfrederick***
DawgByte II said:
A hundred dollars MORE... keyword: MORE... not hundred dollars period... hundred dollars MORE...comprende?
If the day-at-the-park in-the-end cost $400 the previous years, and now with the additional costs at the gate & in the park costs $500 at the end of the day... that's a 25% increase (these are arbitrary numbers, of course), you don't think that they'd rethink an increase that's hardly marginal by any stretch of the means?
2% maybe 5% increase is one thing... but when you get into double-digit percentage increases, people start to re-think the benefits if that increase is really worth it. It's playing the smart-shopper[\quote]
Dude.. we're obviously on different pages with this. If someone is barely scraping by so much that they can't tack on an extra hundred dollars to a family trip; what would happen if their car broke down? or some other emergency? I doubt they'd be going to Six Flags in the first place.
I don't think many people 'price shop' when going to an amusement park either. You're either set on going to a park, or you're set on doing something else. "Ooh honey, Six Flags is 25% more expensive this year and they didn't add anything! So, we're gonna fly a kite at the county park all day instead! Sound good?" No, didn't think so!
I don't buy this, 'we'll find something else to entertain ourselves with' theory. If you're gonna go to Six Flags on Friday because you and you're kids have off, you're gonna go to Six Flags on Friday.
-Rob Vaccaro
http://www.robvaccaro.blogspot.com
... and we will, sooner than later see these changes take place; as much as dexter and dawgbyte wouldn't like to believe. and if they can't do it, someone else will. i can't believe people that call themselves 'enthusiasts', people who are supposed to be ENTHUSED about a hobby, not down on it, are so intent/pessimist on seeing Six Flags, one of the world's largest operators of amusement parks in the world, fail. i don't care how bad you've been burned by the parks, as park/coaster aficinados, don't you want to see the parks flourish, not close? Ya know.. I work in the service industry and I people like this. They have one bad experience someplace, and never let it go. No matter what management changes, or anything are brought to the company, said person will never pass up the opportunity to bag on the business. Knowing this, I expected this with the Red Zone takeover, but honestly, aren't we supposed to be ENTHUSED about something like this??? Sometimes, I just read this thread in disbelief.
janfrederick said:
Like someone else said, people will pay for something they want.Right. And the trick really is to make more people want to (improve the product).
-Rob Vaccaro
http://www.robvaccaro.blogspot.com
I can't speak for anybody but myself. No, I wouldn't like to see any park chain fail, or close.
However, I also wouldn't see the SF's latest tactics succeed to the point where it becomes the "normal" park experience (in most every park) to pay $15 (or more within another few years) just to enter the parking lot, $60 to enter the gate (it's coming), stand in line for an hour to pay $40-80 for a doohickey that will save me from waiting in lines, pay premium prices for "official" food and beverages, be forbidden to leave the park without paying a re-entry fee, and in general having to pay premium prices just to ensure the trash is removed, the bathrooms are cleaned once in awhile and the rides and buildings are painted every few years (stuff they're supposed be doing anyway).
And I don't want to hear that SF backed off on the re-entry, and isn't it great that they're cleaning the bathrooms. We're just seeing the first round of increases. Don't kid yourself that they won't keep piling on the costs. They'll keep seeing what people are willing to pay and gladly take your money from you. Everyone in here, everyone, has their breakpoint in what they're willing to pay. It just comes sooner or later for different people.
RatherGoodBear said:
However, I also wouldn't see the SF's latest tactics succeed to the point where it becomes the "normal" park experience (in most every park) to pay $15 (or more within another few years) just to enter the parking lot, $60 to enter the gate (it's coming), stand in line for an hour to pay $40-80 for a doohickey that will save me from waiting in lines, pay premium prices for "official" food and beverages, be forbidden to leave the park without paying a re-entry fee, and in general having to pay premium prices just to ensure the trash is removed, the bathrooms are cleaned once in awhile and the rides and buildings are painted every few years (stuff they're supposed be doing anyway).
I doubt these admission/parking fees would 'suceed' to a point where it becomes the norm. six flags, universal, disney, herschend, busch, and sea world may reach similar pricing schemes soon (including tiered services) but doubt that these fees will extend to the independent parks and whatnot.
i don't have a problem with the 'pay extra doohickies' either. i mean, they are, essentially, available to anyone (so long as you have the money). i see it as a convenience, a perk if you will, even though DISNEY offers it for 'free'.
if you don't WANT to pay for name-brand food/drinks, YOU DON'T HAVE TO. if you don't want to buy a q-bot, YOU DON'T HAVE TO. but the option is out there, and i, for one, appreciate their efforts. i've never heard of leaving and reentering for a fee? that;'s a new one.
yes, trash should be removed, bathrooms should be cleaned, and rides/buildings should be painted on an 'as-needed' basis without 'premium fees' but first, they need to dig themselves out of debt, however possible, and soon. then, then need to start undoing the damage the previous management did, post-haste. which it appears they are doing. you act like 'this is only the first round of increases' is going to be a big surprise. season passes may jump to WDW AP-like prices, and i'd expect to pay at least 30% more for a chai from starbucks or a pizza from papa john's at the park then some no-name vendor. that's just common sense to me, and i'd expect it.
i dunno.. maybe i'm easy to please and all (check my trip reports) but i just don't understand all this doomsaying?
-Rob Vaccaro
http://www.robvaccaro.blogspot.com
You must be logged in to post
