Shapiro at it again?

Even though Kennywood's food prices are reasonable, the only place where the lines get long normally is at the Potato Patch. Even there, it's not too big of a problem. So even with KW's prices, they still manages to have enough places and staffing to keep the food lines moving well.

With Six Flags prices being what they are, they should be able to provide enough food facilities and staffing to prevent long waits. This would translate into more of their (orerpriced) food being sold. The added revenue would very likely greatly exceed the added cost.

Just another example at Six Flags of how not to run a park.

Wow!

I still don't approve of $8 funnel cakes. Back in 2000 at SFAW they were $4.50, still too high. Even if money was not a concern for me, I would not want to endorse Six Flags food pricing. I would still fill up before entering the park and would limit my food consumption in the park as much as possible. Maybe if I stayed all day and evening, I would have one food item and a drink but that would be all. Compare that with KW or Knoebels where I would plan on two meals in the park plus some snack items and drinks.

Six Flags would get at most around $10 from me for food and drink. KW and Knoebels would probably get about $20 to $25 for this.

At big parks that keep their prices moderate (by park standards) I would probably spend as much as at KW or maybe a bit more (even though I would get a bit less). I understand the economics of the major parks enough to recognize thet they do have to charge enough to support those expensive attractions and remain profitable. Its just that Six Flags has become too far out of line with their food pricing and needs to rethink this. If they want to have high prices, then they need to offer something that justifies this.

Two things here:

1) You're still not getting it. Re-read Lord Gonchar's post on the previous page regarding pricing and profit. It will help to explain why Six Flags may very well be getting more PROFIT from your $10 than Knoebels is from your $20. Even if you're putting forth less money, Six Flags may be actually keeping more of it than Knoebels.

2) If Six Flags' pricing is so "out of line," then why are there always long lines at the food stands? People are obviously willing to pay it...

-Nate

---

Six Flags would get at most around $10 from me for food and drink. KW and Knoebels would probably get about $20 to $25 for this.

---

You're not the first to say that and I still don't get it.

I go into park knowing I can spend X amount of dollars. Fortunately it's usually an amount that lsts the day, regardless.

We get what we want/need throughout the day and leave.

If I have $100 at a lower priced park and only need $60, I leave with $40. (they left money on the table)

If I have $100 at a higher priced park and spend all $100, I leave with nothing. (they maximized their profits from me)

Heck, I can even understand the idea of feeling a sense a value and spending a little more of that $100 at the lower priced park because of it - even if that usually isn't the case for us. (an extra game, a souvenir or some candy thing on the way out)

But the idea of spending more money at a lower priced park baffles me. It makes absolutely no sense. Just because a park is lower priced, I'm not going to hit the ATM and score another $20 to give to them.

It really makes absolutely no sense to me. I'm speechless. (for a change ;) )

That's because you have no principles beyond that of dispassionate consumer. You just want what you want, and are willing to get it up to the limits of your resources.

Arthur, out of his principles plus his status as an informed consumer, chooses to reward parks that price "correctly" with additional business, and tries to punish parks that price "incorrectly" with reduced or no business. Correctly and incorrectly as he defines them, of course.

I do the same thing in some situations. I do my "bulk shopping" at CostCo, not Sam's Club, despite the fact that Sam's is closer and cheaper. Why? CostCo pays their employees a living wage, including health benefits. I spend a few extra dollars, but feel good about it. Likewise, my next car is very likely to be a Toyota Prius. Economically, this is stupid; the purchase price premium is never recovered in lower fuel costs for most drivers, let alone the unknown but likely higher maintenance costs. But, I'm going to buy one anyway, because I'd like to try to burn less gas.

What makes Arthur's point, well, pointless (and Sam's the largest bulk warehouse chain in the universe, and hybrid vehicles a niche market), is the simple fact that *most* consumers care only about maximizing their own utility, and nothing else.
*** Edited 1/23/2007 8:03:09 PM UTC by Brian Noble***

Yeah, I suppose. But even still do you buy *more* than you need at CostCo to reward them. He's already doing what you explain by visiting KW instead of SF. I do the same thing with Wal-Mart and Target/Meijer, but I don't go to those other stores and buy more than I need/want just to make a pointless point.

If you really want to 'reward' the lower priced parks, then let them raise prices to SF levels and still spend the same $20 there...odds are you'll be giving them more profit that way. :)

---

do you buy *more* than you need

---

No, but theme parks don't work quite the same way as consumable and capital goods, because they are entirely discretionary; you don't need them at all.

For example, if you find a free afternoon, you can direct that excess leisure time (plus some extra money) at a theme park you "approve of". Rather than grabbing some lunch before heading to the park, or on the way, you can decide you'll have lunch when you get there. If you are only sort of hungry when it is time to leave, rather than figuring you'll grab something on the way home, or grab some leftovers from the fridge when you get there, you choose to eat before you go---top off the tank, as it were.

So, I can see the argument. I still don't think it amounts to more than a few bucks on the fringe though, and more aggressive pricing is better for the business in the long run.
*** Edited 1/23/2007 8:11:34 PM UTC by Brian Noble***

I think the IDEA, for the *value-priced* park, is for you to feel (again, perception) like you had an enjoyable day, didn't get "wallet-jacked" in the process, and want to return....

Theoretically (I need numbers, BAD) if I go to Knoebels' twice, I'll end up spending more there than I would have visiting SFGAdv once...plus, since I felt SO good about my KG visits, I'll tell friends, who will possibly go WITH me on my next trip.

EVERY park (and every other business) wants to maximize revenue...the question is: How to get there from here... ;)

Fair enough, Brian. Still seems weird to me though.

---

plus, since I felt SO good about my KG visits, I'll tell friends, who will possibly go WITH me on my next trip.

---

I still think word of mouth is a bit on the overrated side when it comes to parks. (mileage varies in locations were there are multiple 'local' choices), but since you've been so kind with your acceptance of the "Gonch business model" I guess I can cut you some slack. ;)

EDIT - upon further thought, I'm not quite happy with 'fair enough' :)

The whole need/want thing is bothering me. I agree that you don't need a trip to the park, but you most likely do need food/drink if you spend the day there. On the flip side, I don't need that DVD or toy for the kids at Target. At this point I don't think we're discussing the visit itself, but rather the purchase made during the visit.

Does that make sense?

*** Edited 1/23/2007 8:25:33 PM UTC by Lord Gonchar***

I agree with Arthur, gator, and Brian here.

Some people may actually end up spending more at a park because of better "value" for your money. It's like each time they decide to spend money, it hurts less than those "other parks."

Personally, with Six Flags, it's a bigger ripoff than just expensive food. Its bad operations, high parking prices, long lines, expensive food, etc. So, since I'm not having the best time, it makes it that much worse (on top of the already high prices) when I spend money on overpriced food. Add in the long lines because of staffing issues, and it compounds it even further.

Some of you can talk business all you want, but do not forget the value of customer service, and also the values of "perceived value" and word-of-mouth advertising.

*** Edited 1/23/2007 8:25:22 PM UTC by rablat5***

---

Some of you can talk business all you want, but do not forget the value of customer service, and also the values of "perceived value" and word-of-mouth advertising.

---

No one will argue that customer service is lacking at SF parks...not evn me and not even just for the sport of it.

I've already expressed my feelings on word-of-mouth in my previous post.

What we're left with is perceived value. I don't discount the theory and I even agree with it. What I don't agree with is the idea that if I want/need two of something, that I only buy one because of the price even if I have the money to buy two or on the flipside that if I want/need one of something that I buy two just because of the price.

That still seems awfully 'out there' for me. Brian's reward system makes sense to a degree, but I have to think (again like Brian said) that this type of customer represent the fringe consumer and quite frankly, for people so worried about money, it seems weird that they'd throw it away to make a point and in the same turn not get something they want/need for the same reason.

My logic would be to buy the one thing I need in the lower priced situation and to use the money save to be able to buy the two I need in the more expensive situation. Instead, of two trips to KW or Knoebels, I get a trip to KW or Knoebel's and a trip to Six Flags and end up even.

*** Edited 1/23/2007 8:35:17 PM UTC by Lord Gonchar***

I might even go a step further and not go to the Six Flags park at all, preferring to go elsewhere if the choice presents itself. Of course if I lived in Dallas, there would probably not be another real choice so I would be stuck with Six Flags if I want to ride big roller coasters. Of course, I could just decide not to ride rollercoasters unless I was traveling elsewhere.

In my case, If I lived in Dallas, I would have occasion to travel to Pittsburgh at times (to visit parents) and I would probably choose to go to Kennywood or Cedar Point to get my thrills. As things actually exist for me, I am nowhere near a Six Flags and I am thankful for that. The ones that are really stuck are the families that have to choose between swallowing the Six Flags prices or giving their children a harsh lesson in economics either at home or within the park. Often they want to do what they feel is best for their children and they swallow the prices.

I do not condemn all overcharging. I can understand why popcorn is priced so high at movie theatres. I also recognize the economics of professional sports and would be more willing to pay $4 for a drink at the ballpark than at Six Flags. (All major league stadiums overcharge but this is the norm for them. Many amusement parks charge significantly less than this). I just want Six Flags to be in line with other major parks that are somewhat more reasonable.

By the way, I do not shop at Wal Mart.

As regards why I spend more at KW than I would at Six Flags, it's not to reward the park but because I enjoy the park food and find it reasonably priced. Principles are irrelevant here. I do have the choice at KW to bring food into the park but choose not to because I would rather eat the park food. At Six Flags, however principles do come into play for me because I believe that they are truly ripping people off at their food and drink stands.

*** Edited 1/23/2007 8:38:46 PM UTC by Arthur Bahl***

^ Agreed--I wish they were more in-line, as well. This is one of the problems that I have with Six Flags, and I know that not everyone stands behind me on this (at least on this board). The bad operations, etc. just compound this and make it worse.

If I have to spend the same amount of money on food at Busch Gardens, I still won't like it, but I have a better perception of the place, and I may not feel as bad when/after I do it.

---

Many amusement parks charge significantly less than this). I just want Six Flags to be in line with other major parks that are somewhat more reasonable

---

Name them. (and don't give the same KW, HW, Knoebel's trifecta)

Also, keep them in line with what the average SF offers (a large park serving a metro area, themed to various degrees with dedicated kiddie areas, flat rides of both a modern and traditional nature and 10 to 12 large roller coasters)

I think you'll find that comparable parks are in the same general price vicinity as any SF park. And that $10 or $20 difference that totals over the course of a day is the same $10 or $20 extra you'd spend at a 'value' park just to make a point.

Maybe it's not a case of SF need to get in line with the industry as much as it's a case of the rest of the industry needing to realize they can pull what SF is doing and get away with it?

---

it seems weird that they'd throw it away to make a point and in the same turn not get something they want/need for the same reason.

---

Ah, but they do get something they want in return---a sense of well-being by adding to the "net good" of the world. My claim is just that too few people have that particular want.

Marketers have recently caught on to this game---for example the recent surge in "fair trade" goods, particularly things like coffee and textiles. We'll see how successful this strategy turns out to be.

---

spend the same amount of money on food at Busch Gardens

---

The difference is that the food in a Busch park is usually pretty edible. ;)
*** Edited 1/23/2007 8:50:34 PM UTC by Brian Noble***

^^If you tried the Gonch business model at "Big Box USA", I'd call you crazy, or worse... ;)

But, as we've kinda defined "amusememnt parks" as a luxury item instead of a necessity like, say, toilet paper (well, for MOST people), the *upscaling* is almost undoubtedly THE model to follow. Seems like that works in MOST places...esp. in the kinds of markets SF finds itself in - larger metropolitan areas with little/no direct competition.

So what went SO wrong in Houston?...

P.S. Since I'm not exactly sure where I stand on all of this, I'm not even sure I agree with myself... but I can make a *reasonably convincing argument* for BOTH sides... :)

I see what you mean.

I guess I just don't think it's 'wrong' for a business to try to make as much money as possible - that's why they usually exist in the first place. To me, it's exactly the inverse of the customer choosing to shop or frequent the lower priced place - the end goal is too get as much in the trade as possible.

The parks wants as much as your money as they can get for the items/services they give you in return and you want as many items/services as you can get for the money you give the park in return.

How can one side be 'wrong' for but the other isn't?

I still maintain that parks like KW or Knoebel's would change you $4 a drink in a second if they could, but they can't. So what to do? Call in marketing and slap the word "FREE" in big capital letters all over your website to play to your audience.

(not a slam at the fine folks at Knoebel's - they're playing their hand perfectly if you ask me)

"Maybe it's not a case of SF need to get in line with the industry as much as it's a case of the rest of the industry needing to realize they can pull what SF is doing and get away with it?"

Perhaps, but remember that Six Flags isn't Disney. To me, if they want to have their high prices, I want a quality experience to go along with that. Until that happens (if ever), I'll still have reason to complain.

Even if Six Flags truely gets good, it could take a while for that negative perception to be overcome--just ask GM and Ford. They have improved their product from what it used to be, but the "perceived value" in general is still not as high as, say, Toyota.

---

If you tried the Gonch business model at "Big Box USA", I'd call you crazy, or worse...

---

I'd agree with that. But the second you go beyond the basic products of life, the sky's the limit.

Even still, you could probably find a market for $30 toilet paper if you were really good. ;)

---

So what went SO wrong in Houston?...

---

I blame cowboy hats. :)