Shapiro at it again?

---

That argument only works Gonch because you're comparing the most expensive option at Knoebels with the biggest discount at Six Flags. If people are savvy enough to find Six Flags discounts online or on soda cans, they should be smart enough to figure out that Knoebels will sell you 10 dollars worth of tickets for 9 dollars on weekdays...

---

All I did was look at each website and report the listed price of a ticket that let me ride all day. Seems like the approach the average park visitor would take if they were making a choice. Ride all day privledges cost $5 less at Knoebels. I don't see how you can dispute that on paper, to the average, once-a-year visitor SF looks like it offers a lot more for the money.

---

And why would the same family who feels ripped off that Knoebels only has 3 coasters be OK with riding only riding a "few" coasters, catching a show, a flat or two, and getting some Cold Stone ice cream at SF? A family not looking to do the circuit, i.e., the same activities you describe above could do so for much less than $34 a person at Knoebels.

---

That magical perceived value thing is the key. These big parks know most people aren't doing everything they have to offer. It's just not possible. But the fact that it's there and available and the choices for the guest are more numerous means a lot. I'd bet the house and car and the kids that if you ask 100 people who visit amusement parks once a year that have never been to either of those parks to look at their websites that 90 of them would be more interested in a trip to SFGAdv after taking in the info.

---

I'm not convinced SF offers so much more for the same price. I don't usually do the POP at Knoebels, and I get plenty of rides in spending only 20-25 dollars on tickets. Great Adventure could have 600 rides, but if the reality is I'm only going to get on 5-6 of them at the most, who cares?

---

Perceived value again. You know not to do the POP at Knoebels because you go there quite often. And the number of ride things makes no sense. If the average visitor does 12 attractions in a day, then no park needs more than 12 attractions. It's not about what you do, it's about what is available to do.

We all know a better day will be had at Knoebels, but to Joe Sixpack... 14 roller coasters, Wiggles World, those pictures of big rides, the characters and parades - those go a long way. Maybe if Joe Sixpack would actually visit Knoebels he'd have a better time, but you have to lure him there first and on paper (or website as the case may be) Joe sees all that SF lists to do for $39 or all that Knoebels offers for $34.

---

I'll grant that Knoebels can't charge big chain prices for their food. Believe it or not, their prices are "slightly premium" for the typical ice cream stand or burger joint in the area as well.

---

Thanks for that. :)

---

It's true that Great Adventure outdraws a park like Knoebels 3.something million to 1.something. But who ever said that Knoebels WANTS to draw 3 million plus a year?

---

You know, I guess I don't know that they want to. I'm just going off the assumption that growth is good for business. But now that you mention it, I doubt they could do three million. Triple the traffic to and through that park and it'd be ugly.

But that just goes back to the idea that it's not a valid comparison to a park like SFGAdv. They can't charge those prices, they can't do that traffic. It's a whole different beast.

(it might be time to state again that this is not a slam on Knoebels - the example was made previously and I'm just continuing it)

Rob, I like your take on the budget thing. I don't go to a park with a budget in mind either. I just spend money on whatever I think is worth spending money on. In a way, we're all on a budget in that we pass things up we'd like to have in order to save the money for something we'd like to have even more, but it's more just a personal opinion of whether the benefit of having the item is worth the cost.

For instance, I would love to have my own wooden coaster and my own set of flying scooters. A heft sum of money is needed to purchase these items and that sum is justified, but I can't afford it. However, I can afford a $20 t-shirt, but unless it's really cool and I really want it, I'm not going to buy it. If I had an unlimited supply of money, I might feel differently, but I don't really need anymore t-shirts, so I can afford to be picky. :)

^"But now that you mention it, I doubt they could do three million. Triple the traffic to and through that park and it'd be ugly."

Phoenix Phall Phastpass? ;)

Seriously though, GAdv doesn't handle 3M all that well either...compare it to the other parks SF has that do those kinds of numbers... LOL!

---

I don't go to a park with a budget in mind either. I just spend money on whatever I think is worth spending money on.

---

And we're calling the Gonch family dinner lavish!? ;)

You know I was kidding about the lavish thing. :) My point was that what you considered reasonable for a meal was not the same for me. When I "buy whatever I feel is worth buying" at a park, I still come away spending less than you probably do on just yourself. :) *** Edited 1/24/2007 6:12:09 PM UTC by Acoustic Viscosity***

I'm just playing with you. :)

I'm also understanding how it's more about the 'value' to you. But I do think that someone who visits the local park once a year doesn't see it the same way.

We all know the park prices are stupid-high. When you travel to parks all over the place you are probably more inclined to not see the value and also more conscious of finding it. When you visit your local park once a year, it's just the price of a day of fun.

---

Lord Gonchar said: When you visit your local park once a year, it's just the price of a day of fun.

---

...and the inverse of that story is: When the price of a day of fun is too high, you only visit once a year...

....or so goes THAT part of the theory...

Ohioans are just SOOOO different from people elsewhere...LOL!

I do often hear from "regular folk" that "the food prices are too high so we pack a lunch and eat it out in the parking lot." But I think most of them have accepted the admission cost as simply "the price of a day of fun." Also of note is that I can't say I have heard them complain about the quality of the food. I know I'm a picky eater (anyone who knows me will tell ya that), but I'm surprised at what people settle for, just to fill their stomach.

---

Acoustic Viscosity said:
I know I'm a picky eater (anyone who knows me will tell ya that), but I'm surprised at what people settle for, just to fill their stomach.

---

Look at Mcdonalds. Billions and Billions filled.
;)

I'm just the opposite. I don't mind crap food.

I'm the kid who liked school lunches. :)

Moving on...

---

Gator said:
...and the inverse of that story is: When the price of a day of fun is too high, you only visit once a year...

---

But I don't think the average, casual vistor wants to (or does) visit more than once a year.

And that goes back to the Gonch business theory. Would you rather have to serve someone twice to get X number of dollars or serve them once for the same money?

Which leads me to another crackpot idea. How many of those attendance numbers are repeat visits and how many represent unique visitors?

Maybe one parks 3 million guests represent 2 million individuals because of prices and lack of repeat visits, but another parks 1.5 million represents 500,000 individuals because people tend to return two or three times? Which means that in truth, the first park serves 4 times the people that the second does, not just double.

Just another angle to consider. :)

I still don't think it's the prices that kill them. Most people who go to a SF park have a season pass anyways. They go to the park meet Luney Toons and Dc Comics Characters, watch a couple of shows, eat, and shop with no problems.

It's when they go to get on the rides they have the problems either rides running at half-1/3 capacity. Rides that are breaking down all the time. Or rides that the park has closed for no reason with nobody working on them and no staff to be seen. So far it's been SF wants to create a family friendly atmosphere, how can you do that if the reason people visit your park isn't running, or running 1 train and has a mile long line. It's gotta be about the rides, not having 20 costume charcters walking around the park, while at least 5 rides are down. *** Edited 1/24/2007 6:47:02 PM UTC by TSC 2007***

---

It's gotta be about the rides

---

But I don't think it is. Rides are a big part, but the whole park experience makes up so much more. Again, perhaps I speak too much from personal experience, but I went to two big parks this year (PKI and CP) and both times we (not counting the ERT rides) rode fewer than 6 rides in a full day. Mostly by choice. (in the case of PKI ERT added 4 rides and at CP it added 1)

And I still insist we give that once-a-year kind of visitor too much credit when it comes to understanding park operations. They may not be happy when a ride is down or a line is long, but I doubt they analyze the efficiency of ops or number of trains.

If they see the other trains sitting there they will ask why that train isn't running. If the ride is going down a couple of times an hour they get mad and leave, one ride that does this the park is okay but if more rides do this your in trouble.

^^^ I don't mind crap food, so long as the prices are proportional. Of course, there are limits. Lakemont Park couldn't pay me to ever eat another one of their chicken nuggets again. Bleecchhh.

I think word of mouth works very well, especially with kids and teens. One kid mentions how much fun he had at SF last week, the kid he was talking to begs his parents to take him next week. On the flip side, One kid mentions what a bad time he had at SF last week because of long lines, bad food, mean employees, etc., the kid he was talking to asks his parents to take him to a different park the next week. How anyone could agree that word of mouth is overrated is beyond my comprehension.

---

Arthur Bahl said:

Most Six Flags are virtually local monopolies (SFOT, SFOG, SFGAm, SFSL, TGE) or are so much bigger than the competition (SFNE, SFGAdv) that they would naturally be able to get away with what they do.

---

That's why I really wish someone would build another mega-theme park near SFGAdv. It would simply start a price competition, which would be good for the consumer.

---

dannerman said:

Here's a thought: Jack the gate price up by $30 (and the SP price according to the same % increase).

Your attendance will plummet, sure, but you'll have the people left who were willing to pay for the Q-Bot (that's the same amount of money they were paying before) but now there'll be virtually no wait! Now everyone is happy!

---

That was basically what I was getting at a few pages back with my theory with where SF was going to be in 10 or so years.

---

dannerman said:

No matter how many high school kids or foreigners you cram in a pizza or burger joint, there's only so fast you can make the food. The lines would be longer, and six flags would make less it profit (as had been shown ad nauseum by Gonch). It's a lose-lose situation.

---

That problem is easily solved by making sure that all of the food stands are open, and that you have enough help at those food stands. Very simple actually.

Offering the worst amusement park experience at the highest price is not a good idea.

*** Edited 1/24/2007 7:32:20 PM UTC by dexter***

---

How anyone could agree that word of mouth is overrated is beyond my comprehension.

---

Clearly.

I don't think it's enough of a presence to significantly affect the numbers.

Hell, it doesn't even work among our incestuous little community here. Overwhelmingly, we agree that SF sucks in general, but how many of us still visited a SF park recently? Even guys like rablat (one of the most anti-SF dudes around here) still visits the park and admits to doing so yearly. You've done it yourself, Dex. You talk about visiting every couple of years.

If knowledge and word of mouth really kept people away, then there shouldn't be a single SF trip report in the forums...but instead there's tons...and we know better!

If first hand experience isn't enough to turn away people who already know about the overal suckitude of things, then do you really think word-of-mouth scares the average potential guest?

DWeaver said: You've got it exactly right Gonch. Sometimes, we just aren't able to take our enthusiast caps off to think like a regular Joe.

Regular Joe thinks, "SFGadv" has 14 rollercoasters, well known costumed characters, will take twice as long to walk through as most parks, of course they're going to charge more".

When the day comes that my selection of a park is based on the costumed characters inhabiting it, I'll know I've been involved with roller coasters for too long. . .

LOL.

Barry J.

---

rollergator said:
...and the inverse of that story is: When the price of a day of fun is too high, you only visit once a year...

---

Claim: many families who would consider visiting a theme park have more money to spend than time to spend it.

Discuss.

More seriously, our summer calendar is *already* packed. We don't get out of school until mid-June, and go back early September. That leaves us with 11 weeks.

My wife doesn't get paid if she doesn't work, and it's nicer when she gets paid than when she doesn't. She works 60% time during the school year, cuts down to 50% in the summer. That eats 5 1/2 of those 11 weeks.

We've got a week in the Rockies scheduled with my in-laws. A long weekend that will probably turn into a week for my brother's wedding in Maine. Now we've got 3 1/2 weeks.

In those 3 1/2 weeks of leftover leisure time, we want to: (A) visit my mom, who lives on a nice lake, several times for boating, water skiing, and tubing fun. This includes more-or-less mandatory visits for family get-togethers on Memorial Day and Labor Day weekends, plus Raft-o-Rama when the whole lake gets silly for a parade-o-boats; (B) go on a couple of nature hikes and maybe camp a night or two; (C) invite the neighborhood over for a cookout; (D) host my in-laws for a week for their annual visit "home" to Michigan; (E) see a baseball game or two (Tigers or Mud Hens, either works).

True, we have all of our weekends, but a lot of those get lost to yard work, my honey-do list, dinners with family and friends, church obligations, ... the list goes on and on.

In the left-over time, we want to visit a few amusement parks.

---

Barry Williams said:

When the day comes that my selection of a park is based on the costumed characters inhabiting it, I'll know I've been involved with roller coasters for too long. . .

---

I guess Disney is way off base with those character dining options huh?

Word of mouth. I believe that would matter most with the smaller, lesser known parks or with parks that aren't too well known in a given area. One park that probably has really benefitted from word of mouth is HW. Think of families in Cincinnati that regularly go to KI or in St. Louis that go to SFSL and who might be thinking of going to another park as well. Then they hear someone talk about about those great wooden coasters at HW or about how family friendly that park is and they decide to go there. They like the park and start going back regularly and they tell their friends about it.