Shapiro at it again?
It's easier for chucky to swear off the flags, he doesn't live near any of them.
Lord Gonchar said:
Maybe the number of people who "just don't care" is actually quite high?
I doubt it. I really do.
And here's my next question, is this really enforceable? If I go to SFGAdv am I no longer going to be encouraged to walk my dog if he's in the (very nice) kennel?
What about medical emergencies? What about people who got into the park but forgot their cell phone in their car? Or their wallet? Or medication?
If I win one of those huge stuffed animals am I not allowed to take it out to the car and come back? This isn't going to increase locker revenue, those are too big to fit into a locker.
If I go on a water ride and have some dry clothes in the car can I not go get them? What if I have a doctor's note saying I have a rare condition which requires me to not be in wet clothes for more than 30 minutes? Are you going to question the legitimacy of my condition or are you just going to let me go to my car?
How am I going to be notified of this change? If I've been doing this for years at my local SF than I hope it's going to be spelled out on huge signs up front before I go in...otherwise a lot of people who "just don't care" or going to be people who "just didn't know." Are you really telling me park security is going to look me in the eye and tell me I'm S.O.L.?
I guess what I'm getting at is that I really think instead of a full on ban, this is going to be more like prohibition, which is really even crappier. In other words there are definately going to be convincing ways to regain entry into the park but the fact that I'm going to have to play "the game" and more or less ask for permission/beg makes me not want to bother going in the first place. Other places to spend my money.
If this is ever put in writing or officially announced I think it will be high time to plaster this all over Digg, Fark, and anywhere else with high visibility. I'm sure there will be legions of people willing to call their local Six Flags and tell them what they think of the new program. If it does happen, of course.
Wasn't one of the purported reasons for SF wanting to do this last year was for security? To keep certain elements from going to their vehicles for weapons or to abuse certain illegal substances, then re-entering the park to cause trouble?
But then if many of that undesirable element are already season pass holders under the Six Flags "buy one day, come until the next century free" plan, how does that stop them from re-entering? Unless they plan on charging re-entry fees to season pass holders as well. Then you'll see the Papa John's hit the fan (provided by Home Depot of course).
Maybe the number of people it would affect is small, but remember all it takes is one loudmouth to complain, and the media would love to jump on a story like that. Remember the too tall kid at the trick or treat maze?
If SF decides to implement a re-entry policy, other parks would be smart to publicize the fact that they DON'T charge you to leave and re-enter the park.
Seriously, how hard could it be to sneak in a bag of weed in your pocket and then find somewhere to take a couple hits while inside the gates instead of the parking lot? I know I've seen it a few times, and it wasn't at SF parks, actually.
Here's a question, if substance abuse is that big a problem shouldn't the first thing to go be alcohol sales in the park, instead of recreational pot smokers in the parking lot?
But oh wait, what's the profit margin on 3 or 4 beers.....
how does that stop them from re-entering? Unless they plan on charging re-entry fees to season pass holders as well.
That assumes SP holders could re-enter. I'm guessing they couldn't and that a pass can only be used once per day. In which case the system still works. I only mentioned them as 'unaffected' as those are most likely the types of visitors who visit for short period and/or often.
Remember the too tall kid at the trick or treat maze?
Yup. And what followed was one of the most attended Halloween seasons SF has ever seen. (even with the no re-entry after 6pm rule in effect)
Thanks for the publicity whiny girl! ;)
If SF decides to implement a re-entry policy, other parks would be smart to publicize the fact that they DON'T charge you to leave and re-enter the park.
Yes, they would. Especially parks close to a SF where a decision of where to visit might have to be made by potential guests.
Brian Noble said:
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.
No, they're not the same in time, but that doesn't lessen the importance of the scenarios being proposed in this thread.
Let's use a baseball or football game. Say you enter and hour before the game, watch 3+ hours of action, take another half-hour to an hour to get back out.
A concert or sporting even could conceivably keep you captive anywhere from 3 to 6 hours (or more possibly)
So what are the proposed reasons for leaving the park in this thread?
1. Forgetting something important. Medication, wallet etc.
Well, you're screwed at the sporting event as well. And if you need your medication now, the difference between 4 hours and 10 is non-existant.
Maybe it's just your wallet? Still sucks to sit in the hot sun at a baseball game for 3 hours without a drink.
2. I packed a lunch.
Can't bring your own food to a sporting event. You could remain comfortable much easier without eating for 4 or 6 hours than 12, however, so the comparison isn't perfect.
3. You need dry clothes or a coat or something.
Screwed at the sporting event/concert as well. Grabbed drinks for the family and spilled them all over yourself while sitting down. Enjoy the game, sticky!
Raining? Enjoy the sopping goodness.
Oooh, the temperature dropped, I don't have a coat. Keep shivering.
4. I have a cumbersome souvenir that I'd like to drop off.
At the sporting event, gigantic souvenirs aren't all that common, but we've all seen the guy carrying 4 big foam hands, a couple shirts and a hat out. He lived.
I dunno. Seems like the sporting event is a viable comparison, even if less than perfect. How do people handle being a 'captive guest' in those situations. They prepare and/or deal with it.
Are people who visit parks incapable of those same solutions?
It's too bad SF sold Darien Lake. I'd love to see how the hell they'd enforce such a rule with an onsite hotel. That'd be fun to watch.
You have to buy a ticket to get in, from that point on it just seems completely different to me.
The BIGGEST problem I have is that every member of the public who has done this in the past at an SF park is still going to expect to be able to do it. I still ask, how is the public going to be notified? It's a drastic change in policy that has huge rammifications if people don't realize what's going on, which I think is COMPLTETELY different from a sporting event.
I think it's a completely crappy argument, Gonch. You're right that there are ways to deal with every situation I've come up with but that doesn't make it something I should have to put up with.
Just because it's possible doesn't mean it's right or a good idea, sheesh. *** Edited 1/17/2007 7:06:29 PM UTC by matt.***
You have to buy a ticket to get in, from that point on it just seems completely different to me.
So you're saying your examples of medical emergencies, oversized souvenirs and clothing discomfort don't apply to folks unable to leave a sporting event, corcert or similar situation?
The BIGGEST problem I have is that every member of the public who has done this in the past at an SF park is still going to expect to be able to do it. I still ask, how is the public going to be notified?
I dunno. How is any large policy change anywhere made official? I don't think this would be much different.
I still think it's that very change that pisses enthusiasts off. Not so much what changes are made in many cases, but the fact that change is happening at all.
Just because it's possible doesn't mean it's right or a good idea, sheesh.
Agreed. But just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's a bad idea either.
If it's possible (and I think you're concurring that it is) and SF feels it benefits them in some way...well, then it's going to happen.
*** Edited 1/17/2007 7:18:09 PM UTC by Lord Gonchar***
Eliminating it is a bad idea. Just keep an eye on the system.
Lord Gonchar said:
Because the financial benefits of holding your guests captive (lockers, food, etc) outweight the number of people who are no longer happy.
Does it? Is that because the financial gain of holding guests captive is easier to measure than the financial loss of a reduced guest experience?
It would be nice if everything fit into a nice, easy ROI package, but it's not that simple. It's no different than an amusement park not investing in infrastructure because there's no easy-to-see gain to the bottom line, except this is reversed.
Walt Schmidt - Co-Publisher, PointBuzz
If SF decides to implement a re-entry policy, other parks would be smart to publicize the fact that they DON'T charge you to leave and re-enter the park.
Actually if the parking price increase is any indication the other parks would simply impliment some sort of no re-entry policy of their own. It seems that everytime SF does something the other parks are soon to follow.
Gemini said:
Does it? Is that because the financial gain of holding guests captive is easier to measure than the financial loss of a reduced guest experience?
I dunno, yet again. SF doesn't give me the data, nor pay me to analyze it. I like to think they have people who do though. (although that might be giving these guys too much credit)
Let me just say I do agree with what you're basically saying. But SF is at an advantage as they are the ones with the numbers, not us and they (according to the rumor, mind you) seem to think it's a positive move.
2022 Trips: WDW, Sea World San Diego & Orlando, CP, KI, BGW, Bay Beach, Canobie Lake, Universal Orlando
The comparison, as far as I'm concerned, holds little to no merit whatsoever...I know Shapiro worked for ESPN (big fan of ESPN as well, LOL)...but this isn't apples to oranges, it's more like apples to broccoli.
Disastrous? No, not by a long shot. But can a company with attendance dropping really afford to lose MORE guests? Apparently so, and they ARE sticking by "the Gonch model", fewer patrons paying more - the question that remains is: Will they PERCEIVE they're getting a higher-quality experience for their extra dollars?
You still have Zoidberg.... You ALL have Zoidberg! (V) (;,,;) (V)
Lord Gonchar said:
But SF is at an advantage as they are the ones with the numbers, not us and they (according to the rumor, mind you) seem to think it's a positive move.
I can't help but notice the similarities with Cedar Point here. That's a company that knows how to produce an attractive bottom line. At the same time, the park is criticized for lack of resort amenities, outdated technology, employee housing, and more. Do those things have an easy-to-measure affect on the bottom line? Probably not. If implemented, would they ultimately have a positive affect on the bottom line? Depends on who you ask.
I don't think this is a case where everyone at Six Flags is in universal agreement that this is a great idea. I'd be willing to bet there's a pretty healthy internal debate happening.
Even though I may not agree with a decision, I'm certainly not going to claim that I know how to run an theme park empire. Disagreeing with a new policy doesn't mean I think I'm smarter than the amusement park experts. It just means that I'm agreeing with the people in the company who think like me. :)
*** Edited 1/17/2007 7:48:49 PM UTC by Gemini***
Walt Schmidt - Co-Publisher, PointBuzz
Lord Gonchar said:
4. I have a cumbersome souvenir that I'd like to drop off.At the sporting event, gigantic souvenirs aren't all that common, but we've all seen the guy carrying 4 big foam hands, a couple shirts and a hat out. He lived.
I think the one major difference you aren't considering between the two is at a sporting event you and your group are based around a set of seats. At most times someone in your group will be at the seats and therefore you can easily leave items there.
At the park you tend to be mobile which means you are stuck walking around with everything.
That being said, I also don't really care, other than thinking it is a silly business decision. A more logical business decision would be to ban re-entry to the parking lot. If people have to walk a long distance to get to off site food, most won't, being the lazy asses we all know we are.
Mostly the same effect - far less chance of bad PR as most people are used to parking lots with no in and out privileges. :)
** Hey! Look at that, there was a second page, and people already made my point. So, um, ya, good job with the eyeballs Todd... (shrugs) *** Edited 1/17/2007 7:55:19 PM UTC by Odd Todd***
rollergator said:
At sporting events, while you're "just sitting there", does it really MATTER if you have an oversized souvenir, or a jacket you hang over the back of your seat? No.The comparison, as far as I'm concerned, holds little to no merit whatsoever...
Ok, for souvenirs the argument is weak at best. (even though between lockers, platforms, other group members and just plain timing you can easily minimize the effect of being stuck with large souvenirs, coats, cameras or anything at the park)
But what about the others. The only one I feel has any merit at all is the medical emergency argument.
How is it handled in any other 'captive environment' when this situation arises?
I honestly don't know, but I imagine SF would handle it the same way.
The point is, there ARE other forms of captive entertainment (what a fun term!) and these same problems would arise in those situations, yet no one is out of business and the news isn't filled with stories of death due to medical emergency. Why can't SF handle these things the same way others do and achieve similar results?
You must be logged in to post
