Shapiro at it again?
Amusement parks live and die on their reputations. Look at the Magic Kingdom in Florida, that park has not added a new ride (not refurbed a ride nor a new show) since Pooh nearly ten years ago and really only added a new ride (since Pooh took over Toad's building) since Splash Mountain 15 years ago. Yet this park continues to be the most visited park in the country for one reason: reputation.
On a more negative point, you also have GL, which CF is having a hard time bringing back the crowds because the park lost its reputation.
My issue is that this move is just another way for SF to piss off their customers because even if they dont usually leave, no one likes being imprisoned. Of course I guess I should expect this from Red Zone, because they did the exact same thing to the Redskins. Living a year in DC, I cant tell you how many people complained about how there was no way to avoid paying a parking fee to get inside Fed Ex Field (all people arriving from the Metro had to take the Schinder owned bus, and pay $10+ to the gate instead of walk a few blocks in the name of "security.") And yes, these people had stopped going to the games as often because the bus was seen as a hassle, and a fee that wasnt worth the trouble.
Even though you dont think it would affect you since you dont leave the park, think about this, people do in fact leave and if they are forced to stay that means longer lines on the rides and at food stands and less tables as well ending of course (since this is SF) in more trash being on/around the midway.
Finally, even though this wont affect me on a consistant basis (since I to live in Cedar Fairio) if this policy is put into place I will think twice about making a trip to an SF park. If the rest of the industry can afford to let people come and go why cant SF?
*** Edited 1/20/2007 4:30:01 AM UTC by Touchdown***
2022 Trips: WDW, Sea World San Diego & Orlando, CP, KI, BGW, Bay Beach, Canobie Lake, Universal Orlando
That right there is what I consider the key question. SF seems to be the only chain making excuses these days. While I'm with Gonch on having faith in Shapiro, I too have to take these things into consideration. Perhaps it's the ridiculous debtload that's the reason behind all this, but so many other parks offer re-entry and still come out ahead. I also won't settle for the argument that SF parks are the only ones plagued by unruly (or unprofitable) guests, nor will I believe that this will alienate them anymore than it alienates anyone else.
Seriously, I blame it on the season pass prices and the employees. While not all SF parks have poor employees (I find the 2 in Texas to be some of the best parks, period), they tend to get that reputation more than anywhere else. Shapiro would do well to try and combat that problem.
As far as season passes, no wonder they attract such unprofitable crowds. Many of the unprofitable crowd are season pass holders milking them for all they're worth. Raising 1-day admission prices won't solve that problem as most of those guests aren't paying the single-day admission price and though they've been raised, the season passes cost but a few dollars more and for a whole season of admission, they're still steals in my book.
It just seems as if Shapiro is reading too far into the problem and trying to solve things too quickly through means that may very well be unecessary. It's like he thinks it's gonna take a truckload of effort to alienate a demographic that most other parks can live with (albeit to a slightly lesser degree) when in fact he could solve the debt problem through far more basic means. To be truthful, alienating a certain demographic might in itself be unecessary. I know SF has behavior problems alot of the time and in some cases vandalism, but would it not be more beneficial to simply make them behave by enforcing the rules better rather than eliminate the demographic altogether?
In the end, it's the workforce that bothers me most and it just seems like he never really addresses that issue. I'll keep my faith in him, and I can sure as heck live with this policy should it be implemented, but I would hate for him to alienate the very people he's trying to attract. I can't predict that that's what will happen, but I refuse to rule out the possibility that this may be taking things too far.
Sirloin, who maintains faith in Shapiro, but who wants to ensure it's warranted. *** Edited 1/20/2007 4:56:38 AM UTC by sirloindude*** *** Edited 1/20/2007 4:59:51 AM UTC by sirloindude***
13 Boomerang, 9 SLC, and 8 B-TR clones
Lord Gonchar said:
Well, assuming we play along that the comparison is valid:
I sold a lot of sodas and snacks. I sometimes ran out before the show ended. Let me reiterate that I sold them at a very reasonable price.Did you ever try upping the price? Who's to say you still wouldn't have run out if you sold them at twice the price? You have the control sample, but no experimental sample. Just because you sold out doesn't mean you're running at the maximum profit level.
I love your input Dex, but you got to get over the idea that selling to the masses is always the best business model. It becomes even less true as the product become less and less essential - like amusement parks.
Lord Gonchar, sir, haven't you ever seen a Frank Capra movie? It's all about helping one's fellow man. ;)
Lord Gonchar said:I love your input Dex, but you got to get over the idea that selling to the masses is always the best business model. It becomes even less true as the product become less and less essential - like amusement parks.
I believe you just defined *luxury items*. Yes, profit margins can become virtually limitless - I'm sure any of those "jeweler to the stars" guys can attest to that.
Since amusment parks DO fall into that category, there IS going to be some *give* as to what customers will pay. Not everyone has the time or money available to go to Disney, and regional parks are EXACTLY that, regional. So, without a doubt, the Gonch/Shapiro model COULD provide a larger overall profit, even with fewer overall guests.
But, to make any *significant* positive difference in overall REVENUE (meaning increasing margins while maintaining or improving turnstile clicks), there is a catch...you have to provide an *excellent* product - that's when your price point becomes virtually irrelevant.
If the rest of the industry can afford to let people come and go why cant SF?
Because 'good enough' does not equate 'the best' :)
Think back to IAAPA. Who spoke on the stagnant ideas that the industry lives on and how there's so much potential if we just change the game?
I think that speaks volumes about Shapiro's approach.
Just because it has consistently worked one way does not mean another way won't be better.
I could still type this message on a typewriter and seal it in an envelope, affix a stamp and hand it over to the mailman and that would be something that works...and always has. But rather I'm typing it on the computer and will hit the submit button at the end and it will be instantly available for all to read.
Sure, change for the sake of change is not a good thing, but not changing because it's safe is just as bad. I'd rather take a chance in life, have it fail and go back to the old way than to have never seen what the opportunities were.
Gator said:
But, to make any *significant* positive difference in overall REVENUE (meaning increasing margins while maintaining or improving turnstile clicks), there is a catch...you have to provide an *excellent* product - that's when your price point becomes virtually irrelevant.
To a degree. But technically as long as margins increase at a higher rate than turnstyle clicks go down - you're still moving forward in terms of revenue. The key is the balance between volume and margin. I think that's what these guys are feeling out right now.
Like we (I?) said in last weeks podcast - these guys could limp along like this for years before the whole thing tumbles to one side or the other. As long as they're covering that debt, they're still alive. There's no reason anything has to change this year...or the next...or the next...or the next. And if they would go another 4 or 5 years with similar results there's no reason they couldn't have perfected the formula over time and suddenly have a breakout year. On the same note there's no reason they could never stumble onto a better way of doing things and after several years suddenly fold.
I'm sticking with my faith in Shapiro's approach. Let's just hope another stockholder coup doesn't happen before this has a chance to play out, because if he pulls this off, I still say you'll see a big shift in the industry as a whole as everyone else plays catch-up.
I hope he is not that stupid to go thru with it
Also, public transit has had a no re-entry policy for decades! Have you ever gotten off the subway, gotten your hand stamped to grab a burger at McD's and gotten back on for free? People still ride the subway...
2022 Trips: WDW, Sea World San Diego & Orlando, CP, KI, BGW, Bay Beach, Canobie Lake, Universal Orlando
If I get on the subway at stop 2 and get off at stop 9, I pay the same fare as if I got off at stop 5.. so why should I have to pay again if I get back on at 5 to continue to 9? Nobody questions THAT.
Just like you pay one price to get in an amusement park, regardless if you leave when the park closes or if you leave at 3. Regardless why you leave, it's still your choice to walk out that gate. There are alternatives to any "but what about.." you can think of. They just aren't as self-serving as some people want them to be.
In the cases of hotels and companion parks, how hard would it be to develop some kind of one-time pass? i.e. your room key to the park-owned hotel can be swiped on the way out, and then on the way in for re-entry (a perk of the hotel, for example). Similar with going to a companion park like hurricane harbor... you could pick up a same-day-only ticket on your way out if you have a valid waterpark ticket. Or they could sell a same-day-only ticket on your way out for $5. Still cheaper for the tailgating family than eating in the park. Further, it fixes the season pass "problem" where people don't realize it can only be scanned once per day (due to the SP being used, and then that person stamps their hand and lets their buddy use the SP while they re-enter with the handstamp). Without handstamp re-entry, that's no longer an option. Now it can be another perk of the SP. (most transit systems have a weekly and/or monthly pass which in essence gives you free re-entry)
Oh, and let's not forget that Knoebel's forces you to pay the full admission fee every time you leave the park, and has for years! ;) :) (think about that one before you blast me)
Edit: You're right - public transit isn't a luxury item. So if the non-luxury has a no re-entry policy, why would the luxury item have it? Logic would dictate that the essential service would have it before the optional recreation. *** Edited 1/21/2007 1:54:48 AM UTC by dannerman***
1. Convience for the customers/employees
2. $$$
Washington DC is one of the few places that doesnt do that, and people complain about it time and time again because of how confusing the pricing is (not only based on distance but also rush/non rush times) but how many other subway systems do you know that charge as little as $1.30 a trip?
2022 Trips: WDW, Sea World San Diego & Orlando, CP, KI, BGW, Bay Beach, Canobie Lake, Universal Orlando
Lord Gonchar said:
I suspect it's a YMMV situation, but I suppose I can give that to you.So how about some speculative (fuzzy?) math?
We've established that roughly half of their business is groups and SP holders. Is it safe to assume these people wouldn't really be affected by a policy like this? I think so. Groups are one-time special event types and SP holders probably spend less time at more visits, are generally less likely to leave and return and probably don't spend as much in the park.
So we have 50% of the guests left unaccounted for.
How many of those people leave the park and come back? I'm sure some would say at least half, I'd bet it's much lower - closer to 10%. Can we just use a ballpark figure and say 20% of the remaining half?
(considering an average day at the biggest SF parks is probably 20,000 people - that's still a whopping 2000 people a day - 167 an hour on a 12 hour day - 3 every minute - leaving the park supposedly with intentions to return)
Now we have to wonder how many would decide to no longer visit because of this policy. Let's go with the now generic standard of half.
What we end up with is an average 5% loss in attendance. Although I'm sure some would put the percentages higher, while I would put them lower, but this seems like a nice "meeting in the middle" to me. I even rounded up on the average daily hours. (I'm really trying here )
As of the latest reports, per cap spending averaged $37.89. To make up that attendance loss each guest has to spend an additional $1.90 while 'captive' in the park.
Think that's going to happen?
*** Edited 1/18/2007 4:03:58 AM UTC by Lord Gonchar***
How many people of that 5% will you lose the following year? Are those remaing people in the park going to spend enough to make up for those people that following year. I betcha a lot of them aren't coming back. They are enthusiasts. They think of Six Flags here, and there.
If they get mistreated, forget it. They will go to your local carnival. It's different with GP. For me at least, if I get mistreated, I'm still coming back. They have the rides I love. I can't NOT go back. They are going to lose the GP instead. You are forgetting about the returning customers, and only talking about the people in a day that day.
On top of that, they blame it on a security threat or something like that for people coming back in. That's the biggest lie ever.
About Disney:
I'm sure that they count each separate admission as an attendance booster. Why not? If it's a different park, what not add it. They have like 15 million people at the Magic Kingdom, and are growing.
This getting high thing is just stupid. They could be in the park getting high in the bathroom. I don't see the difference.
For Fright Fest, it didn't incovenience anyone because it was so darn late anyway. They didn't want to pay more security. It was 7 pm, and 8 pm. The park closed at 11 pm, and 10 pm. Big deal. You can't get in the park for 3 hours, and go out. That's not the problem we are talking about at all. If Six Flags wanted to do that during the regular season, I don't care. Wow, it's 3 hours. However, they want to say, once your out, your out. It's so stupid!!
It's back to Shapiro's boss is a football owner. Let's make it just like a football stadium. Even the food is changing. There is nothing wrong with that, but it's not a football stadium. It's not 3-4 hours. It's the entire day of 12 hours. That's a long time especially if you want to stay the whole day.
Six Flags Magic Mountain still has re-entry. It's there new season, and hopefully the others except Mexico will keep it. I've heard from a Trip Report that Mexico has cheaper food, and it's only $27.00 to get in. This is the reason why they can do that.
sirloindude said:
To quote Touchdown: "If the rest of the industry can afford to let people come and go, why can't SF?"That right there is what I consider the key question. SF seems to be the only chain making excuses these days. While I'm with Gonch on having faith in Shapiro, I too have to take these things into consideration. Perhaps it's the ridiculous debtload that's the reason behind all this, but so many other parks offer re-entry and still come out ahead. I also won't settle for the argument that SF parks are the only ones plagued by unruly (or unprofitable) guests, nor will I believe that this will alienate them anymore than it alienates anyone else.
But SF *is* different than most other parks. With the exception of PKI and maybe a handfull of others, what other parks are smack dab in the middle of where most of their patrons live? There's no way the city of Sandusky is the main source of CP visitors, nor is Williamsburg the biggest source of patrons of BGE, smae with Hersheypark and Hershey. Again, aside from PKI, what parks really depend on thier locals?
I believe it is these locals who are more likely to leave the park and go up the street to Wendy's, if for no other reason than they are more likely to *know* where the Wendy's is. Same with just bringing a lunch from home. They are actually coming from home rather than a hotel, so why not pack a lunch? I think that this 'problem' is indeed more likely to effect SFI parks than it is any other chain as SFI parks are almost solely dependent on very nearby visitors.
The funny thing is, the park that you all seems to think would have the most difficultly with this policy (SFGAdv) I think would be the least effected. Where you gonna go around GAdv? There is nothing there other than a Wawa. Sure, there is the car thing, but I really dont think that that many peopl (percentage basis) currently pack lunches when going to that park. I could be wrong (as long as RGW isnt right ;)) But I think ths is another case of enthusiast overreaction.
Listen, really cheap bastards are going to find a way to sneak sandwiches in if they so desire. People that normally leave stuff in their cars will lug it around or do without. Enthusiasts who are pissed off wont visist...but wait! Arent these the same people who were going to stop visiting when the cutomer service fell off?...or when line-jumping for a fee was leagalized?...or when you had to hock your first born for a parking spot? Didnt SFI lose them as customers about seven "bad" decisions agao? Huh? Oh yeah...right...
lata, jeremy
--"I'm rich biiatch!" (courtesy Dave Chapelle)
2Hostyl said:
Enthusiasts who are pissed off wont visist...but wait! Arent these the same people who were going to stop visiting when the cutomer service fell off?...or when line-jumping for a fee was leagalized?...or when you had to hock your first born for a parking spot? Didnt SFI lose them as customers about seven "bad" decisions agao? Huh? Oh yeah...right...
Your "right" at the end seems sarcastic but acutally, you are....right. How many folks here proudly state how little (if ever) they visit SF parks anymore? I know I'm one, and if there's one actively posting here on the boards there must be plenty of others who share the same sentiment, enthusiasts and GP alike.
I guess the real question here is if this new policy would just piss off people who already don't visit (myself) or if there is a large segment for whom this would be the proverbial straw breaking proverbial camel's back.
And just for the record, regarding a different portion of your post, I've been to a Burger King outside of SFGAdv and a KFC. So there's definately more than Wawa.
2Hostyl said:
The funny thing is, the park that you all seems to think would have the most difficultly with this policy (SFGAdv) I think would be the least effected. Where you gonna go around GAdv? There is nothing there other than a Wawa. Sure, there is the car thing, but I really dont think that that many peopl (percentage basis) currently pack lunches when going to that park. I could be wrong (as long as RGW isnt right ) But I think ths is another case of enthusiast overreaction.
There is a Burger King and McDonald's right next to the Wawa and a KFC down the road. Every time I have been to either of those places, they are always packed (and they are more expensive than your typical McDonald's and Burger King since they know they can overcharge).
Other parks that are primarily dependent upon the local area around them include KW, Rye Playland, VF, (SF)EG, WOF, and many of the smaller parks.
In some metro areas there isn't really a good alternative to Six Flags. Dallas - Fort Worth, Atlanta, and St. Louis don't provide other choices without a long drive of several hours or more.
Arthur Bahl
What's the amount of money I would need to spend for SF to desire my patronage? I only visit SFGAdv every 4 or 5 years because other choices are much more appealing. When I do go, I might spend $30-$50 after parking and Admission. Am I an undesirable in SF eyes? If I could afford to spend $100 or more inside the gates, would I be good enough for SF?
They should be fixing the problems that plague the parks? How many years does it take for them to change departmental budgets to have the proper staff to run and fix the rides, for example? Will having less guests who spend more money really fix what's wrong? A middle-class family who used to go to SF on a budget is not going to be able to afford to go to SF anymore. Turning people away; is that REALLY Sharpio's solution?
It doesn't make sense to me that they are trying to fix what's broken by breaking it more. Treat your guests better, and they'll want to visit over and over. Treat them like crap and they'll take their wallets elsewhere. That's the REAL issue. FORCING guests to spend more money instead of making them WANT to spend more money is simply the wrong way to run a business, especially for an already tainted brand like Six Flags. That's why I think it's a bad idea that will not work.
There is room in the world for entertainment venues that cater to the upper-middle class and above. Whether there is enough from for Six Flags to occupy, I don't know. Should be interesting to find out though.
Arthur Bahl said:
In some metro areas there isn't really a good alternative to Six Flags. St. Louis don't provide other choices without a long drive of several hours or more.
It depends on what your definition of alternative is.
In St. Louis there are plenty of options. I can go to the zoo, science center, Grant's Farm, art museum and history museum for FREE. I can go to a Cardinals game, or if that's too expensive, we have two minor league baseball teams. There are several other pay attractions as well. Not to mention concerts and my personal favorite, the multi-day music festival.
Do any of these provide thrill rides? No. But that's why it's important to define alternative. I find all of these options to be satisfying alternatives.
I also find HW and Branson to be a great alternatives. They may be over 3 hours away, but so is the lake of the ozarks. That lake has to be the biggest single summer destination for St. Louisans. I know countless people who drive 3 plus hours to the lake every or every other weekend in the summer. So it's not out of the question to drive that far for HW or SDC.
You must be logged in to post
