Shapiro: Charging for autographs and pictures - more line cutting
I complain about it honestly because I WANT to see them succeed. I have a different approach than you do in how I can possibly do my part in helping this happen. If SF didn't know what their problems were, than how could they improve?
And no, Q-Bot (such a CUTE name, isn't it?) is NOT a service to their guests. It is a disservice to every guest who walks into the park, whether they use it or not. I say this because it clogs the lines because Q-Botters are waiting in more than one line at a time. Everyone waits LONGER for the rides. Even the ones who are doubling up are waiting longer in line than they should have to. They are reselling what I already paid for. One has to go through hell just to get to ride a coaster at most SF parks.
It's not rocket science. It's so transparent, I wonder why some people can't understand how it negativily effects the lines. 1+1=2.
And I'm not even talking about Gold Q-Bot.
BTW, when Q-bot/Fast Lane/Flash Pass is working well, I barely even notice it. What effects lines is low capacity based on running one train. If your running max trains on everything, who gives a rat's butt about Q-Bot? Just keep the lines moving, and you can do whatever you want. Have slow moving lines, and people will notice you letting a half a train full of people going ahead of them.
Besides, the Q-bot arguement is useless. People like it or hate it, and those opinions can't be changed. *** Edited 3/20/2006 5:54:57 AM UTC by DWeaver***
great adventure is my home park, but it doesn't even fall into my top tier of parks [bpb, alton towers, kennywood, hersheypark, knoebels, dlr]. i don't typically encounter the 'bad operations' you speak of at my home park, save for the occaisonal lackadaisical employee or closed [staffing] ride.
i'm sure with the proper resources in place and new management, six flags will succeed. it just seems like you're dogging them left and right, every chance you get.
i haven't seen many suggestions from you, only complaints, for someone that wants six flags to succeed.
i've fired off a few emails with my 0.02 to the 'proper people' since red zone took over AND have gotten responses. something that has NEVER happened before.
i'm not but optimistic for sf's future and it seems like some are nothing but pessimistic. apples and oranges, i suppose.............
*shrugs shoulders*
-Rob Vaccaro
http://www.robvaccaro.blogspot.com
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.
AAA & health insurance, of course! Just because someone is looking for a deal & price shops doesn't mean they're too cheap to buy a 2yr AAA membership or have health insurance for their family.
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).
As long as the smaller parks, which in most cases compete in the same market as the larger parks, can manage to keep their prices cheap with free parking, the larger parks will price themselves out of business if they think $15 or more for parking is going to make them succeed as well as $60 for admission just for a park that's so-called "clean & friendly".
Puh... I've been to smaller parks where general admission was free & the park WAS clean, the atmosphere was friendly, and parking was free.
Kneobels - $33.50 (free gen admission),
Waldameer - $18.95 (free gen admission),
Holiday World - $32.95,
Kennywood - $28.95,
Seabreeze - $20.95,
Martin's Fantasy Island - $19.95,
Canobie Lake Park - $27.00
All prices listed above include any such waterpark and are pre-discount... all parks also have a decent clean reputation with little complaints... they're also on the East coast, the only ones I'm fimilar with.
As long as the smaller individual parks above keep their prices as they are... they will eventually win out over the corporate parks, if the corporate parks start pricing themselves out of the competition.
You cannot have Six Flags just skyrocket their prices setting their own "level of value"... there's a BASIC industry standard in the amusement industry. From roughly 20 to 45 dollars for general admission (pre-discount) at a regional themepark (of which is what Six Flags is). You start charging $60.00 for general admission AND $15.00 or so for parking, you've just priced yourself out of the comfort level and people WILL look elsewhere. Six Flags is no Disney, they're no Universal Studios... their quality is nowhere near it and their value is also nowhere near it, so you can't start charging Disney prices (or more) on a regional park... especially if you're NOT the only game in town.
In the long term this will leave the company MUCH less susceptible to shifts in the economy, their demographics, their creditors, or even shifts in customer tastes/expectations....in the SHORT term, however, there's bound to be some discontent and some griping...do NOT expect that SnyderCo will be swayed by that... ;)
This is all starting to sounds like sour *enthusiast* grapes to me. A personal problem with their pricing rather than an accurate debate on what the market will bear. Because the fact is, you don't know until the numbers are in.
And once again, you omit the fact that along with the $60 admission, you can basically use that admission all year long. Why do you always leave that out? Because that fact doesn't suit your arguement?
LOL! :)
I wouldn't even use half of those on either my SFMM or my Knott's pass, but it's still a good value for me....and while I tend to favor "the Lake Winnie solution", your weekends-only idea isn't at all bad. Still allows for weekday babysitting though... :-/
Charging for pictures and autographs with a cartoon character, though? Not. Gonna. Fly.
Most people have digital cameras that take close to professional pictures. That bit of business (at most parks) is on the way out.
DawgByte II said:
As long as the smaller parks, which in most cases compete in the same market as the larger parks, can manage to keep their prices cheap with free parking, the larger parks will price themselves out of business if they think $15 or more for parking is going to make them succeed as well as $60 for admission just for a park that's so-called "clean & friendly".
Puh... I've been to smaller parks where general admission was free & the park WAS clean, the atmosphere was friendly, and parking was free.Kneobels - $33.50 (free gen admission),
Waldameer - $18.95 (free gen admission),
Holiday World - $32.95,
Kennywood - $28.95,
Seabreeze - $20.95,
Martin's Fantasy Island - $19.95,
Canobie Lake Park - $27.00
Nah, I'm totally with DW still. I think the big thing that you seem to believe is that people automatically pick the least expensive option no matter what. So much so that you claim anyone who charges more will be put out of business. That's so far from true that it's ridiculous.
If that were the case there would be nowhere to shop but dollar stores, everyone would drive a Chevy Cobalt, the only hotels would be Motel 6, the only restaraunt would be McDonalds and so on.
If that were the case there would be nowhere to shop but dollar stores, everyone would drive a Chevy Cobalt, the only hotels would be Motel 6, the only restaraunt would be McDonalds and so on.
Not quite, Gonch... because **IF** Six Flags continues the trend of pricing themselves upwards instead of Cedar Fair's approach to lower it in certain places, it's all a matter of smart shopping too. If you're in a market with a Cedar Fair & Six Flags or Paramount & Six Flags, you may choose the Paramount or Cedar Fair product because the price is right. Yea, I listed smaller parks... only because they're the biggest price difference from Six Flags, if the trend continues upwards
By your analogy, I'll be buying a Toyota Camary that cost $21,000 for last year's model. They release this years model with nothing difference than maybe an MP3 player & a less persuasive car dealer and now charge me $25,000. Same car, little difference. Give me a DVD Nav unit, add some ground effects, and pump a few extra poinies into it and then I'll reconsider the extra dollars.
Same car, new year, more money...
Same thing with Six Flags this year... same park, new year, more money.
I MAY (I stress that) be wrong, but no smoking, a parade, cleaner park promises doesn't quite justify a jack in the prices since it should have been done a long time ago (except the parade, which I need to see to believe)
And once again, you omit the fact that along with the $60 admission, you can basically use that admission all year long. Why do you always leave that out? Because that fact doesn't suit your arguement?
I'm referring to a single-day admission reaching the price of $60.00... not season pass. If a season-pass is that price... fine, but I'm referring to the fact that if a single day's admission is 60 beans, then they have little (not no, just little) chance in the amusement industry to really compete with a loose general industry standard of pricing that puts them ahead of the game with what some would call an inferior product.
**WARNING: ANALOGY AHEAD**
Say you're in a tourist market with 5 FEC's. Each of them offer a variety or variation of mini-golf, laser-tag, rock climbing, and go-karts.
Most of the FEC's will charge roughly $7.00 or $8.00 for the mini-golf, $5.00 or $6.00 for go-karts, $15.00 for rock-climbing, and maybe $10.00 for a session of laser-tag. Not all FEC's have everything, but some have more than others.
Keep in mind each center has a different layout of go-karts, like one with turns, one with tunnels & bridges, maybe one with speed... while the laser-tag might be LaserTron or LaserRunner, while the rock climbing might use Nicros style climbing textures or maybe Trango style... and the mini-golf can vary from the great Harris Miniature Golf architects to Atlantic Miniature Golf, or maybe your own independant style.
Now, you pit those 5 FEC's in the same market & your QUALITY is no better than the rest except maybe a more enthuiastic staff... how do you price yourself?
A dollar more than everyone else? Two dollars? Three or more?
If it's one dollar more, it won't make much of a difference. If it's two dollars, people may want to see the quality first... and if it's anything more than that, don't you think they'd rather spend their money on one of the other FEC's and save themselves the extra money for what could otherwise be used on maybe another round of Go-Karting or even a refreshment at the stand?
Fact is fact & the FEC analogy is true because I see it here where I live that each place is relatively the same & we have around 4 of 'em as well as in the Lake George, NY resort region where there are around a half dozen. Each stay competitive with one another by keeping it within a couple dollars of one another... otherwise, you charge too much, you've priced yourself out of the competition & out of business.
This can be applied to the amusement industry just as easily.
*** Edited 3/20/2006 7:21:14 PM UTC by DawgByte II***
Um... hello? The single day admission and the season pass are one in the same dude.
Shapiro is clearly trying to encourage repeat visits for 2006, that's as clear as day to me, and a smart move to hold the company over until 2007.
DWeaver said:
Charging for pictures, in today's world? Please...Most people have digital cameras that take close to professional pictures. That bit of business (at most parks) is on the way out.
Well DW, according to the article that accompanied the first post in this thread, it's Shapiro who envisions charging for pictures and autographs of characters. That bit of business may be on the way out of every other park, but SF apparently is just discovering it. If he was misquoted or taken out of context, I haven't seen any kind of correction issued. But that is the price you pay when you issue a press release every 27 minutes. I think you should do your part to eliminate the debt and buy that official licensed SF autograph book, DWeaver.
Right now it's true you can get a season pass for the price of a single day, but don't expect that to last for too much longer. And I wouldn't be surprised to see chain wide passes eliminated as well.
I don't understand why that was the sacred cow in this whole repricing thing. If they could implement all these other changes at the drop of a hat, why are they "stuck" with season pass pricing for this year? That's the one item whose price I wholeheartedly agree needs to and should have been raised. And I like the tiered system that people have suggested here.
Gonch, I don't agree with your Cobalt/McDonald's argument. Of course not everyone goes for the least expensive option. But those who buy a Lexus or go to a five-star restaurant in Philly are hoping for more than a Cobalt or a Big Mac. On the other hand, if all I want is a Cobalt or a Big Mac, I certainly don't expect to be charged for a Lexus or Filet Mignon. McDonalds can claim all they want their burgers are "undervalued" Filet, but until they show it, they're just ground chuck.
SF is the same way. When they show they've increased the value of their parks (for real, not in their own minds), then they can charge accordingly. If people want to pay upfront for potential, that's all well and good. I won't tell you how to spend your money. If I choose not to spend mine the same way, don't come back and say I'm hoping they fail.
Um... hello? The single day admission and the season pass are one in the same dude.Shapiro is clearly trying to encourage repeat visits for 2006, that's as clear as day to me, and a smart move to hold the company over until 2007.
Maybe for the bigger parks like Magic Mountain & Great Adventure (I don't know, I didn't do my research on that) ... but what about the medium sized parks like Elitch, Darien, New England, Kentucky, St. Louis & so forth? Their daily v. season is different.
If season passes are on par with one day's admission, that simply isn't fair for the one-time park goer who's just a casual fan vs. one who'll milk it for everything its worth.
The other thing you seem to be doing is treating the parks like they're next to each other (and not just with the FEC example) - the truth is when it comes to amusement parks and the casual park goer - people stay at home unless they're already traveling.
People do not comparison shop amusement parks (expect in rare examples when two parks are equally close and can both be considered 'local')
The best example of this that I can give is the far-eastern PA/Southern Jersey area. If you live in that area, you have a several 'local' choices even if I don't stretch as far as you're trying to. SFGAdv, Dorney, Knoebels, Sesame Place, Clementon and so forth.
By your logic Knoebels should have put all of the others out of business by now with their superior value. Yet the most visited park in the area (by double the attendance of the next closest) is SFGAdv.
So why is that? I suspect two major reasons:
1. The GP doesn't assess amusement park value in the same way enthusiasts do. Quite simply with the parks in question, the attendance of the parks raises accordingly with the number of 'big name' rides the park offers. I argue that the GP sees SFGAdv as a better product than Dorney and Dorney better than Knoebels and so on, just based on the size and scale of the rides they offer.
2. The GP doesn't leave 'home' nearly as often as you're arguing. Most of the population in that area would be concentrated nearer SFGadv than Dorney and nearer Dorney than Knoebels. The GP visits to 'their' amusement park - enthusiast travel to amusement parks. The fact that Sesame Place and Clementon lie in the middle of this same popluation (perhaps even closer than SFGAdv) and yet continue their smaller attendance numbers only re-enforces point #1.
Using every one of your arguments directly contradicts what really happens. Heck you can apply the same to almost anywhere that's not a "touristy" spot or a 'destination' style park (i.e. Orlando, SoCal, etc.)
(DISCLAIMER - Of course, all of this assumes that the potential customer has commited to a day at the park in the first place otherwise they need to be concerned with things like Phillies games, Pocono getaways, the Jersey Shore beaches, Atlantic City, and the various cultural, historic and entertainment options in the area.)
Unfortunately, I think the WNY/Falls area does qualify as 'touristy' to a lesser degree and it skews the truth a bit, but even still, which park in your neck of the woods sees the highest attendance? It's SFDL, isn't it? Using your logic (as I'm understanding it), Seabreeze and Martin's should have put SFDL out of business by now. But the two points I believe and listed above aplly as usual and most people visit SFDL.
I'll use my market as well - Pittsburgh. Within 2 hours I can visit KW, CLP, Waldamerr, Idlewild, Lakemont, Delgrossos, and GL.
Which park has the attendance over the others? Kennywood. Which park is closest to the largest population? Kennywood.
Which park can I get into and ride for the least? CLP. Which park actually temporarily closed and is the source of 'will they open' news stories each year? CLP.
Rules 1 & 2 apply again, but none of your theories do.
And yes, GL is suspect in this case, but my logic is that it's an 'overlap' market. They don't pull enough from Pittsburgh because of KW and they don't pull enough from Cleveland because of CP. If that's true then both rules apply again.
Granted there's so much that determines things like this that the two rules thing is oversimplifying it to an offensive degree, but to me, it's the basis of smart thinking regarding such a topic.
The major matters in regards to this discussion are proximity and price. Price can influence the importance of proximity, but cannot override it entirely. In fact, that's the key to maximizing profit - raise the price as high as it can be before it starts affecting proximity.
I don't think SF is to that point yet.
RatherGoodBear said:
Gonch, I don't agree with your Cobalt/McDonald's argument. Of course not everyone goes for the least expensive option. But those who buy a Lexus or go to a five-star restaurant in Philly are hoping for more than a Cobalt or a Big Mac. On the other hand, if all I want is a Cobalt or a Big Mac, I certainly don't expect to be charged for a Lexus or Filet Mignon.
I totally agree with that. I'm working with DawgByte's theory that price is the single most important variable - and it's not.
Another thing to consider is what people are used to paying. I'm surprised they didn't jack up their prices when they spent all that money in the first place. Probably a big reason for that huge debt.
"I don't understand why that was the sacred cow in this whole repricing thing. If they could implement all these other changes at the drop of a hat, why are they "stuck" with season pass pricing for this year? That's the one item whose price I wholeheartedly agree needs to and should have been raised. And I like the tiered system that people have suggested here".
Because they were well into advertising the "pay for a day, get the entire season" marketing before Snyder came in, and right in the middle of selling season passes in general. What were you going to tell the people who bought their passes before the price change vs the people who were in the process of purchasing what you'd been advertising all winter? That could have been a nightmare, and some of ya'll would have stepped on that soap box to complain as well. It's something they could have done, perhaps should have done, but they thought better of it. And there's a matter of setting the new price, something I'm sure needed to be debated.
RatherGoodBear said:
"SF is the same way. When they show they've increased the value of their parks (for real, not in their own minds), then they can charge accordingly. If people want to pay upfront for potential, that's all well and good. I won't tell you how to spend your money. If I choose not to spend mine the same way, don't come back and say I'm hoping they fail".
Now your just being defensive. It's been said all through this thread that people will do what they choose with their money. Just don't tell me what the market will or won't bear without something to back up what your saying. As for the value of their parks, the value has been there for years. It hasn't been used properly and that *will* have to change to justify the price increase. But to think the company is just going to sit around and wait until *enthusiasts* give them the green light that their parks are "now approved to raise prices" is bad business. People are NEVER going to "approve" price hikes. *** Edited 3/20/2006 8:53:55 PM UTC by DWeaver***
DWeaver said:
People are NEVER going to "approve" price hikes.
Especially enthusiasts. ;)
You must be logged in to post
