Shapiro at it again?

Wednesday, January 17, 2007 11:41 AM
Ok, so I know some of you guys don't like Screamscape, but it sounds like Six Flags is considering implementing the dreaded no re-entry policy in the US, since apparently it has worked well in Mexico.

Now I know that certain folks on here are Shapiro fanboys, but this would just be totally ridiculous to implement this type of policy. This is just another example of how you shouldn't run theme parks and major league sports venues in all the same ways.

Any more thoughts? C'mon, Gonch--you're the biggest fanboy of Shapiro that I know of--how does this strike you? :)

*** Edited 1/17/2007 4:43:04 PM UTC by rablat5***

+0
Wednesday, January 17, 2007 11:46 AM
My reaction: most sporting events don't last a full day. I suppose if there were no re-entry at a cricket match, then you'd have something.

My meta-reaction: it's screamscape, for goodness sakes. Wake me when something real happens. *** Edited 1/17/2007 4:47:19 PM UTC by Brian Noble***

+0
Wednesday, January 17, 2007 11:53 AM
Wasn't this discussed last year?

It's cool in the morning, Your wearing a jacket it warms up, You go to the car to drop it off.

It's not raining but rains comming later in the day. you go get umbrella.

If SF goes with this policy. I'll never visit again. Period.

Chuck, who don't consider it a big loss anyway with their service levels.

+0
Wednesday, January 17, 2007 12:06 PM
This must be an attempt to counter the counterfeit hand stamping gangs. ;)
+0
Wednesday, January 17, 2007 12:07 PM
If they want me to switch my yearly trip to SFOG to a yearly trip to - say - BGE, this is a good way to get me to do so. There's my thoughts on it. *** Edited 1/17/2007 7:44:47 PM UTC by Vincent Greene***
+0
Wednesday, January 17, 2007 12:10 PM
I mean, How FAMILY FRIENDLY is this? You need more diapers for the diaper bag. ect.

Really, why implement any NEGATIVE POLICY when your reputation is already in the crap hole?

Chuck, thinking they are just trying to make another buck by charging for readmission for anyone stupid enough to do it and force people to eat at their way overpriced food and snack joints.

+0
Wednesday, January 17, 2007 12:10 PM
It may be Screamscape, but it's not like we didn't get our warning about this policy last year....Shapiro has obviously been WANTING to implement it, so I don't find this "rumor" lacking in credibility in the least.

I think it's directly geared toward making people either: buy food, drinks, sweatshirts, etc. AT the parks...or, you could just bring your stuff with you and rent lockers...either way, it's more money for SFI.

In another way, I think it kinda leads people back to a shorter duration of visit...."we're going to the car anyway, let's just go homwe and come back another day"....

+0
Wednesday, January 17, 2007 12:14 PM

C'mon, Gonch--you're the biggest fanboy of Shapiro that I know of--how does this strike you? :)

Well, if that isn't calling someone out for a fight, then I don't know what is.

My reaction?

I wish I cared. :)

1. Seems like quite a bit of speculation at this point. (see BN's "wake me when something real happens" comment)

2. I have no plans on hitting a SF park anytime soon.

3. I'm not the type of visitor who leaves the park to eat lunch out of my trunk or whatever, so I honestly don't see it affecting me *if* it is implimented and once I get to a SF park.

4. The rumor states it worked well in Mexico, so why not?

Good enough?

+0
Wednesday, January 17, 2007 12:22 PM
I'm sure it worked well in Mexico, but then again, isn't that country known for border jumping? SF probably can't track illegal entry any better than the USA. What's another fence, especially one not guarded with guns.
;)
+0
Wednesday, January 17, 2007 12:30 PM
Actually Gonch, Last year it was POSTED on some SF parks websites last year prior to opening and removed after the uproar.

Chuck

+0
Wednesday, January 17, 2007 12:44 PM
Yes, I know that, Chuck.

I still don't care. :)

+0
Wednesday, January 17, 2007 12:44 PM

Lord Gonchar said:

3. I'm not the type of visitor who leaves the park to eat lunch out of my trunk or whatever, so I honestly don't see it affecting me *if* it is implimented and once I get to a SF park.


Eating lunch in the parking lot is one thing, but you do realize there are about a million good reasons to go out to your car and come back during the course of a day at the park, right?

I gotta agree with Chuck on this one. I will never give a dime to a park that implements this kind of policy.

+0
Wednesday, January 17, 2007 12:46 PM
Yes, I do, Matt.

I still don't care. :)

+0
Wednesday, January 17, 2007 12:50 PM

Lord Gonchar said:4. The rumor states it worked well in Mexico, so why not? Good enough?

Because contrary to what you might think, Six Flags is a business. ;) ;) ;)

Seriously though. I think a lot of people like to not feel trapped. Personally, I don't usually go out to my car for food either, but if I do bring my pets (Magic Mountain is too far to leave them at home), I do want to go out to the kennels to take them for a couple of walks during the day. If I can't do that, I can't visit.

Anyway, my point is that I think this will probably be perceived by the public as customer unfriendly. And I don't think, if indeed it is being tested in Mexico, that they will know if it is successful or not untill they see if the policy decreases the gate the following year.

+0
Wednesday, January 17, 2007 12:56 PM

FLYINGSCOOTER said:
I'm sure it worked well in Mexico, but then again, isn't that country known for border jumping? SF probably can't track illegal entry any better than the USA. What's another fence, especially one not guarded with guns.

I bet they can. How many people from Mexico get in without passports? How many people get in to Six Flags without a ticket or season pass. The answer, not many. ;)

+0
Wednesday, January 17, 2007 12:57 PM
What is the ratio of people that come into the park versus people that get handstamps to go back into the parking lot?

I'll bet it isn't significant, but that's not my point.

The only reason I can think of for a policy like this is if problems regarding handstamps are significant enough that it makes it not worth it.

Do any Six Flags parks have picnic shelters outside the gates? That would bring a quick end to those.

+0
Wednesday, January 17, 2007 1:07 PM
Its a public relations nightmare, I can see the local news reports now: Little Johnny (age 7) forgot his inhaler in the car so we sent him to go get it while we went with little Suzzie (age 4) on the Merry-go-round, and we told Little Johnny to meet us right by the exit. When we came back, he wasnt there and when we went to the main gate we found our son crying outside the gate. Turns out Six Flags has SEPERATED us from our son and we were forced to pay a RANSOM of another admission ticket to be reunited with him.

Its stupid, stupid, stupid. And on a more personal note, pisses me off as Im one of those "bring a bag lunch" people when Im at a park. I also enjoy the little break midday from the nuthouse before diving back in. Count on me not going to a SF park with this policy.

+0
Wednesday, January 17, 2007 1:08 PM
And to piggyback onto Pagoda Gift Shop's idea...

Here's a fun fact:

Group bookings and season pass sales account for about half of the attendance at SF parks. (source)

Those do seem like the types of visitors who'd be less affected by such a policy. (one-time, special circumstance visitors and repeat pass holders)

Couple that with PGS's idea that the number of 'regular' visitors negatively affected by such a policy is quite possibly not significant. (which I believe may hold a bit of truth)

Maybe the number of people who "just don't care" is actually quite high?

(trying my best to steer this into the realm of interesting discussion as opposed to the same 101 reasons that "I won't visit" or "doomsday scenarios that make the policy unreasonable" that got posted last season)

*** Edited 1/17/2007 6:10:31 PM UTC by Lord Gonchar***

+0
Wednesday, January 17, 2007 1:11 PM
If no one cares, what's the point of doing it in the first place? If the choices are: I'm happy, I'm mad, or I don't care, why take "I'm happy" off the table?
+0
Wednesday, January 17, 2007 1:13 PM
Because the financial benefits of holding your guests captive (lockers, food, etc) outweight the number of people who are no longer happy.

Apparently, the SF crew feels this might be the case.

And because "I don't care" doesn't mean "I'm not happy."

*** Edited 1/17/2007 6:15:02 PM UTC by Lord Gonchar***

+0

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2018, POP World Media, LLC
Loading...