Shapiro at it again?

Similar policies in different entertainment realms than amusement parks work because they're different. It doesnt cost $50 to get into the community pool. Nobody spends 8-10 hrs at the concert, but most people I know do at amusement parks. Comparable forms of entertainment to amusement parks aren't really so comparable.

To flip it on its head, you can leave the skislope and come back. Just sayin'.

This becomes doubly retarded if you're discussing a park with a built-in water play section. You're gonna tell me I gotta get a locker or tote my wet clothes around? Uh. No. *** Edited 1/17/2007 8:28:01 PM UTC by Vincent Greene***

^^Ahhh, the blurring of the lines between Burke's reign and Shapiro's.

Two different things entirely.

But at least it made for a funny. :)

*** Edited 1/17/2007 8:28:09 PM UTC by Lord Gonchar***

---

You're gonna tell me I gotta get a locker or tote my wet clothes around? Uh. No.

---

Well, I suppose if they impliment such a rule then...

Uh, Yeah. :)

(Do you really think that many people don't get a locker and run wet clothes back and forth to their cars? I'd say that's yet another example that affects very few. My experience is that most people get a locker when doing the waterpark thing.)

Gonch is on a roll! ;)

Anyway, whatever happened to providing a great time for guests? Including allowing them to pop in and out of the park during the day? Sure it comes down to numbers, but the overall numbers really come from keeping people happy even if it means holding off on squeezing out a few extra nickels and dimes.

*** Edited 1/17/2007 9:06:33 PM UTC by janfrederick***

The lines between Burke's regime and Shapiro's should NOT be *blurrable*....there should be a VERY strong de-Mark-ation. Policies like this, while not affecting too many, and maybe even boosting profits *slightly*, smack of the old management, and SEEM to suggest the notion of "the more things change..."

From a purely business-oriented, profit-seeking, bottom-line approach, I think Mark and Danny would be BETTER off with a small twist to that saying..."the things change more"...

Nonetheless, as someone with little *invested* either way, it will at least be fun to watch the outcome...

Okay, so if 'shirtless mike' enters the park with a shirt and loses the shirt they'll make him go to his car to get another one and charge him for a readmit?
:)

Can SF make a policy so large it itself cannot work it?

---

Anyway, whatever happened to providing a great time for guests? Including allowing them to pop in and out of the park during the day? Sure it comes down to numbers, but the overall numbers relly come from keeping people happy even if it means holding off on squeezing out a few extra nickels and dimes.

---

Still rolling. :)

That's actually a good point. But is being able to go in and out of the park truly an essential part of having a great day? I suppose it could be, but I don't think it has to be.

Again, I can only comment from my POV as a dad who visits parks with his wife and two kids aged 9 and 5 - we don't generally leave the parks. The last two times I can remember leaving in recent memory is staying on-property at CP (and that's a no-brainer), and at PKI during Beastbuzz - a 17 hour day can wear on you, but even still we only did to go check into our hotel. The years we stayed the night before we did the whole day without a stop.

I really want them to do this, just for the experimental/observational factor. I mean when SF raised prices last year the sky was supposed to fall and all the usual suspects claimed SF was dead in the water and they wouldn't visit, that it was too expensive and well...SF did just fine on their bottom line. (just fine meaning no worse than before)

I'd like to see this go into play, just for the sheer fun of being an outside observer to the experiment. :)

You don't care? But you want them to do this?

Sheesh :)

---

Lord Gonchar said:I'd like to see this go into play, just for the sheer fun of being an outside observer to the experiment.

---

You probably didn't pull wings off of flies or burn ants with magnifying lenses when you were a kid, but liked watching other kids do it didn't you? ;)

I can't belive they are considering it again after all the backlash they got last year.

I don't think in itself it's a big deal as I never went back to the car once during any park visit this year (except Morey's but that's different) but I think it's more of the issue of knowing you can't go back to the car that's a problem. What I mean is the principle behind such a rule and that they would actually consider it again. I was very angry at SF last year after they raised the gate price, took away the Safari in admission from Great Adventure and had this no re-entry policy plus the $10 to $15 parking fee increase. They added the safari back in and of course dropped the no re-entry. This year they raised the price of admission again (online admission was $39.99 last year $49.99 this year) and took away the Safari included in admission and it's $9.99 extra. So last year for $39.99, you could get into the park with the safari, this year it's $59.99. A $20 price increase (or $10 if you don't go to the Safari) and no re-entry this year possibly? What incentive do I have to visit the park as a non SP holder? I already have a ticket I paid next to nothing for on EBay for next season so I'll go but I am very annoyed this is even being considered again.

Plus since Freefall and Riptide are being removed so in addition to these price increases I get less rides to chose from and have to pay more to get in?!?!

*** Edited 1/17/2007 9:12:06 PM UTC by YoshiFan***

Actually, YoshiFan brings up the park that, to me at least, poses the biggest challenge to this new policy...

Let's say I want to go to GAdv, but, as a sensible person, I want to take the kids thru the safari during the heat of the day, and enjoy the AC in my decked-out Sixmobile. After we've spent an hour or so driving thru with the "natural" animals at the safari, we decide we're ready to rejoin the *other* animals, inside the main park...what then?

Last year then the policy was considered with the safari not included with admission, I think they were going to allow you to re-enter if the park if you bought a safari/theme park ticket

I find it jaw dropping that the company puts *We don't care if you forgot to bring your jacket into the gates this morning, you can't go back to your car which is just a short walk away to get it without paying us another $60 to get back in* into their policy.

I have always been taught by the mega-corporations that I have worked for in the front-lines that making you customers happy is the best policy.

Six Flags should do their best to improve their negative image. No same day re-entry is not the best way to do this. They piss me off every time I go, seemingly on purpose. They should fix what is broken before they break more.

Speaking of animals...

I'm one of those people who likes to take the dog places (mostly because we like to do overnighters frequently, and don't want to intrude on the one person who has the capabilities of handling our dog). Pet-friendly hotels or a campground or something to that extent. The last trip to PKD saw us leave and re-enter the park about 3 times to run back to the hotel and let the dog relieve himself. Last time on an overnighter to CP, we left the park approx. six times to let the dog out of the camper due to the heat. If this does get implemented at any parks, count me in with the group of never-going-back-again.

---

Touchdown said:
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 [...]

---

I believe the news report would be more along the lines of: "Parent arrested for negligence after sending 7-year-old son through busy parking lot alone".

---

Lord Gonchar said:

---

You're gonna tell me I gotta get a locker or tote my wet clothes around? Uh. No.

---

Well, I suppose if they impliment such a rule then...

Uh, Yeah. :)

(Do you really think that many people don't get a locker and run wet clothes back and forth to their cars? I'd say that's yet another example that affects very few. My experience is that most people get a locker when doing the waterpark thing.)

---

You have a very rich perspective.

I on the other hand was raised poor and every family I knew as a youth went back to the car for snacks and such and my mother in a million years (god bless her soul) wouldn't pay $7 for a locker. Just because, in your world, people don't go back to their cars doesn't mean they don't. I'm sure it's more common than you think.

And no, this wouldn't lead me to spend more money in the park, it'd lead me to go to Carowinds an extra time or make the trek to VA.

I don't think Gonch is saying HE doesn't care...(he'll have to post to clarify, LOL). I think his point is that SFI has, indeed, identified the "lower-margin customers" as the people they'd be most willing to give up on...

Fewer customers is okey-dokey by Marky Mark, provided that the increased per-caps more than offset the lost revenue of fewer butts paying admission in the first place...

While I think that "the master plan" has its drawbacks (obviously, LOL), it MIGHT in fact turn out to be more profitable to have SOME people pissed off enough to never return, and other (presumably higher-margin) guests feel that their visit was SO good they'd pay double what the others HAD been paying before they left. Q-Bottage seems to suggest they MAY be correct in their assumption...

Come to think of it, the only time I ever left and re-entered a park with a gate (Knoebels doesn't count) was when I was in a park at the same time as Gonch-- except he didn't know that, till now.

Did anyone consider this policy could backfire? What if, when people realized they can't take souvenirs, game prizes, and on-ride photos out to the car without being charged readmission, they decide "screw this, I'm not carrying this s*** around all day-- so we just won't buy any?" Then they're paying people to sit at games and stands where fewer people are spending. Could happen.

I highly doubt you'll ever see Hershey implement a policy like this, not with Chocolate World and a number of shops and restaurants outside the gates but still on-site. Not to mention the traffic back and forth to their various accommodations around town.

So, what IS the real reason SF may be implementing this? Of course it's just to make more money. I'm sure somewhere in those numbers only they have access to, there's a calculation of how much money they think they'll snag from people re-entering the park. But if it really won't affect that many people as some people think, then why bother in the first place?

---

SFoGswim said:

---

Touchdown said:
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 [...]

---

I believe the news report would be more along the lines of: "Parent arrested for negligence after sending 7-year-old son through busy parking lot alone".

---

You sir have way to much faith in the media, blaming a parent is not a story, blaming "big bad business" is one. Besides, most people sadly let their kids walk back and forth to school everyday by themselves at that age, why would a lot be any different?

Dang, just when you think Gonch might not side with Sharpie, he still does! :)

I'm with Dexter on this. Six Flags has a negative image in terms of quality and guest satisfaction. Taking away the freedom to leave and come back within the same day is like a smack in the face to the guests.

Oh and Gonch--making out "just fine" in terms of their bottom line being about what it was last year does not cut it. They need forward progress, not running in place. Sure they made more money off less guests, but they need more guests spending that same amount of money to make some decent headway.

On top of that, these are parks--how many regular parks keep you from going back to your car while you're there, even the ones you have to pay to get in?

If Six Flags wants to better their image to their customers, they should be trying to cater to them more, not taking away priviledges. They should be trying to "do one better" than their competition, not rip their guests off.

It sounds like they are just trying to squeeze even more money out of the guests they do have instead of trying to work on their overall experience--trust me, word-of-mouth advertising is worth a good amount--and get more guests this way.