Shapiro at it again?
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.
Bullseye, Dexter. I think you hit the major issue. It's all about public perception. I agree with Gonch that in the long run, it's unlikely to affect SF's bottom line, and most park patrons will not be affected. However, it's bad publicity for a company that is constantly giving itself bad publicity. The first thing that SF needs to do is change its image. Make people want to come to the parks again. They don't need to add new rides every year. They need to take what they already have, clean up the mess, and convince people that they've changed. When you read about policies like this one, you immediately think, "Just great, how are they going to scr#w me now?"
From what I hear, DC is very accommodating. It is a very exclusive experience in which you are treated very well. The admission price includes parking, food, and drinks. People with a high income require a much higher standard than SF could give, imo.
Maybe I am feeling a little threatened by this new idea if it is fact what SF has in mind, and if it in fact would work. What if every other park followed SF and changed into my 10-years-from-now-hypothetical-park? What if the average family or coaster enthusiast couldn't afford to go to any parks but maybe once every 5 or 10 years because of it's exclusivity?
I don't like Gonch's future idea of where Six Flags is heading. It would exclude some people on a budget who visit the park every year. I don't like the idea of regression; I like the betterment of humanity. Life should be getting better for everyone overall, not worse.
sws said:
When you read about policies like this one, you immediately think, "Just great, how are they going to scr#w me now?"
Bullseye yourself, sws. I couldn't put it any better than that.
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?
One year to change the numbers. Probably closer to 5 for the real changes (training, staffing, corporate culture, etc.) to really sink in enough for the effect to be noticeable.
It's not like you walk in and go, "Hey! Guess what? From now on we're going to offer excellent customer service!" - and suddenly it happens. (which I think is how some of you guys think it works)
Fixing the real problems with SF - the hospitality problems that Gator always points to (correctly, mind you) is an ongoing process. It's not an overnight quick-fix.
I don't like the idea of regression; I like the betterment of humanity. Life should be getting better for everyone overall, not worse.
Well, who can argue with that. Hugs and kisses and puppy dogs win every time. ;)
I think this is where the conversation usually turns to technical talk about commodoties and defining luxury items and drawing the line of what constitutes a necessity. I'll skip it all this time and leave it at this:
Not all things are meant for all people
If Six Flags had reasonable prices (say 25 to 50% above street instead of double), they would have gotten more of my money.
As for the idea of making people WANT to spend their money instead of forcing them to do this once in the park, KW does a good job here by keeping prices reasonable and maintaining good quality. I would say that KW food and drink prices average 40 to 50% lower than the Flags.
I wouldnt expect a big megapark such as SFMM or SFGAdv to have Kennywood prices but wouldn't prices in the range I mentioned earlier be more appropriate. People do expect to pay more at an amusement park but they don't want to be gouged.
Six Flags needs to realize that they are not upscale or once-in-a-lifetime parks and never will be. That's not their niche. The destination parks (Disney, Universal, Busch) are more in line with this image. Six Flags needs to recognize that their main business is the local and regional clientile that visits the park once or twice annually.
And one more thing -- raise those season pass prices. Give the one or two day visitor a better experience and help prevent the parks from becoming hangouts for the wrong kind of crowd.
Arthur Bahl
Loyal fan base are NOT the ticket purchasers, BTW, even if you "Go every year"
It would also give them another perk of the pass, and would make your arguement about going 10 times a year moot since in that case you'd still be allowed re-entry.
Either way, I say go for it, Mark! It'll be fewer whining crybabies in front of me in line at the Papa John's after I've power ridden all my favorite coasters! :) Oh, wait, these people weren't in line anayway because they went to their car. Whoops! ;) :)
Disclaimer: the last paragraph was meant for humor only, so don't take it personally!!
I don't like Gonch's future idea of where Six Flags is heading. It would exclude some people on a budget who visit the park every year.
I happen to agree with you, because I am a consumer too, and of course I'd like to pay less for what I consume rather than more.
However, SF's job is *not* to bring fun to the people in a really superlative and affordable way. It's job is to earn money for its shareholders. One way to do that is to bring fun to the people in a really superlative and affordable way. But, there may be other ways that work even better. If this rumor holds water (and I'm still not convinced that it does) then Six Flags is looking to explore one potential way.
Will it be successful? Who knows? But, again, if the Mexico story is to be believed, apparently it can be.
StLCPfan said:
I don't see how the increase in per capita spending this might force will balance out the decrease in income at the gate.
11th post down on page 3. I'm not going to type it again. :)
Do they really want to make the Six Flags experience a LUXURY?
Every park is already a luxury. It's not a necessity and it's something you spend disposable income on. SF seems to be aiming to be a luxury for a certain type of customer while other parks generally cast their net wider.
"Not all things are meant for all people." What comes to mind here is more the line from the British pop singers' answer to "We Are the World". I'm sorry that I don't remember the name of the song, but it's about Christmas and starving people in Africa. The appropriate line here is "Tonight thank God it's them instead of you." That is a HORRIBLE attitude, and I cringe every time I have to hear that line when the song is played in public around Christmas time.
In all honesty, I wasn't even being that nice. There's an incredibly small percentage of people in the world who can get whatever they want. Even someone making six figures a year can't run out willy-nilly and buy everything they'd like to have. Not everyone can have everything. All these money grabs by SF just means there's a segement of people who can now check it off of their list as well. No biggie. There's plenty of things I'd like to have/do that I can't afford.
Arthur Bahl said:
If Six Flags had reasonable prices (say 25 to 50% above street instead of double), they would have gotten more of my money.
Hate to break it to you, but assuming the theory that SF is trying to redefine their customer base is correct, then you're exactly the demographic that they're looking to dump. You complain and talk about how the park is going to lose your business...it seems they're not only quite ok with that, but that they're also encouraging it themselves.
dannerman said:
I fully expect that if (when?) this goes into effect, season passholders will be allowed re-entry by swiping their pass.
I wouldn't. Isn't it already technically the rule that a pass shouldn't be scanned more than once a day? (or is it another chain?)
I still think (as I talked about somewhere along the way in this thread) that SP holders are among the least likely to be affected by a policy like this.
But I need to get back, so I'll be quick about it: Gonch said in response to my conclusion about profitablility..."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."
Agreed, but I think SF needs a quicker upturn that the marginal 2-3% that is likely to result in the scenario that I'm foreseeing...and from the looks of it, that's probably what you're forecasting as well.
It's cool when we can be both interested AND disinterested at the same time. I think that's kinda what allows us to BE good at "the predicting game"...and it's more fun than either weight-guessing OR frog-jumping... :)
You still have Zoidberg.... You ALL have Zoidberg! (V) (;,,;) (V)
The closest Six Flags to me is SFA near Washington, DC. If I currently had the financial means to travel that far and stay overnight, I would still prefer to go to HP, KD, or BGE. I just don't perceive SFA as being a high quality experience regardless of the pricing. BGE or HP would fit this image more as far as I am concerned. Remember, it's image and location as much as pricing that can make a park appeal to a certain demographic.
Arthur Bahl
Lord Gonchar said:
dannerman said:
I fully expect that if (when?) this goes into effect, season passholders will be allowed re-entry by swiping their pass.I wouldn't. Isn't it already technically the rule that a pass shouldn't be scanned more than once a day? (or is it another chain?)
I still think (as I talked about somewhere along the way in this thread) that SP holders are among the least likely to be affected by a policy like this.
Gonch, you are correct that SF has that policy (and I'm not 100% certain, but I think CF has it as well, IIRC). But you have to remember why that policy is there at the present time.
Consider this scenario:
Me & 9 of my friends pool together for a season pass (so we each chip in 25ยข ;) ok, ok, it's not that cheap.. but still.. we're looking each $10/each counting the parking pass). Now, I take the pass, go through the metal detectors, etc. I get in the park. I then go get my hand-stamped for re-entry, covertly give the pass to a non-hand-stamped friend (in the bathroom or something out of view with no cameras). I go back through the handstamp entrance, he goes through the main entrance. Now *HE* goes out (I stay in the park until all my buddies are there.. it'd be suspicious for the same person to keep coming and going through the handstamp exit). He does the same thing, etc, until all 10 of us are in the park. If the pass can only be scanned once, that eliminates the problem.
Now, fast forward to 2007 (or 08?) where there is no re-entry. Period. That's no longer a factor, so you can now give SP's unlimited entries per day. Even if I go out to give it to a friend, I'm going to be waiting outside the gate until HE comes out and gives it back to me. Not worth the hassle anymore. Further, it's an added "perk" that can be added to the long list of most-people-won't-care things they already "give" with the season pass.
Also, let's say that SF decides to have a $5 same-day-only re-entry ticket you can purchase on your way out (cost of a locker, anyone?). If me & my buddies tried that now, paying $5 to leave and come back, SF would still gain $45 ($5 for each of the 9 of us not on the pass) every time we pulled the stunt. After a while, they'd actually get MORE money than if we each all had our own pass, so who cares? Those people wouldn't have paid to get in anyway. At least you get $5 out of 'em. And that would drive the per-cap up, since it's the same pass being used, so only 1 visit but $45. :) ;)
Plus, when they finally raise the price of the SP to 2.5x gate price where it should be, it's another factor for the visiting-2-days-and-MAYBE-3-but-we're-not-sure-yet families to buy a season pass and go for that third day of fun in the park. Besides an extra day, you also get the "freedom" to come and go, and even save some bucks on outside food you got at the hotel's continental breakfast and/or the convenience store up the highway when you filled the gas tank in the morning. Sounds great for families... except for those uber-cheap ones that save up for years for a visit to their local six flags. ;)
I kid! I kid! I was in the save-up-for-summer-vacation boat with the budget-pinching on the vacations when I was growing up, too! Many times we had a family of *5* sharing only ONE 20oz soft drink on a 95 degree day with a you-can-get-2-items-if-you-split-the-second-with-your-brother meal! Also, we raided those continental breakfasts like they were going out of style! The only exception was if there were signs saying limited supply and/or "first come, first served" - then we were polite and left some for the other patrons. :)
I think it has more to do with the fact that they don't want to count your admission as coming in twice to the park. That would be cheating? I wonder if Disney bases there attendance if I come back to the same park in the same day. I know they have to up MGM, and EPCOT, but what about if you leave Magic Kingdom, go to MGM, go to EPCOT, and come back to Magic Kingdom?? Do they up Magic Kingdom up again on the attendance, or not? Most likely they are upping EPCOT, and MGM. How can you not? There are reasons why Disney gets the highest admission besides it's doing the best job. They have multiple parks in one place. Put four Six Flags in one place, and it will the same exact thing. That's why they keep you there for a week long. You can't possibly ride everything in one day.
As for per cap, I can't understand why is it only $36.00 per visit. Is this considering all the season pass holders too?? It doesn't make sense at all. If parking is $15.00, and admission is $54.99 at Six Flags Great America, how in the heck is it $36.00???
It might have been that $20.00 off in August which is ridiculous price that has done it. That's my reason for why the cap is so low. That admission price should be lower, and the discount should have been lower. It was $46.99 to get in, and $6.00 off per person (like Medieval Times), the per cap wouldn't be so low. Season passes should be higher, and food should be lower.
If beef sandwiches, pizza, and hamburgers were in the $4.00 range, I would buying them all the time at the park, and so would a lot of people. That's not bad at all. Our carnival charges $4.00 for everything, and we make a bundle of money. How about a funnel cake for $5.00? Is that reasonable instead $8.00. Do you know how much they would have made if the funnel cake was only $5.00 instead of $8.00. It would be a lot more money coming in than now.
Now, I will probably just eat two double cheeseburgers at Mcdonald's or something huge before I come in, and than eat when I leave. That's all. That's if that does happen. If prices were cheaper like I said, I would buy everyday I'm there if there is no-rentry. It's not a big deal to me. That's not a lot of money. My per cap would be up $125. How good is that to Six Flags?? They can only get $36.00 per person??? This is with there stores also. The prices are outrageous now though. People have a way to getting around this if they feel that they have to.
Do you know how much they would have made if the funnel cake was only $5.00 instead of $8.00. It would be a lot more money coming in than now.
Pure speculation and flawed logic.
As long as the percentage of people not buying at $8 that would have at $5 is lower than the percentage of price increase, you make more money. (and then some)
What if they went even lower? Why stop at $5? By you logic if they lower it more they'll make even more money, right? So they should be $3, not $5.
But, wait! Why not lower it to $1 each and make even MORE money!?
Are you seeing the pattern here?
So let's take it even further and pretend that $5 funnel cakes would outsell $8 by such a large margin that the park had "a lot more money coming in" - as you put it.
We'll use nice round arbitrary numbers for this example to keep it simple too. :)
Let's pretend that a given shop at the park sells 20 $8 funnel cakes per hour. That's $160 of revenue (not profit, mind you)
To end up just even on revenue (and not with "a lot more money") that same shop needs to sell 32 funnel cakes at $5.
But the story doesn't end there. What about profit?
Let's say it costs the park 50 cents to make a funnel cake. Now the 20 funnels cakes at $8 nets you a $150 profit. But the 32 funnels cakes at $5 only nets you $144. So once product costs are factored in you actuallly have to sell 34 funnel cakes at $5 to remain even. It doesn't end there though.
Now also assume that one person making them and one at the counter can cover 25 funnel cakes per hour. That's fine at $8. But at $5 you need to double your staff to cover demand and still offer timely service. (and pay them $7 per hour)
So now those 20 funnel cakes at $8 actually give you a profit of $136. ($160 revenue minus $10 product costs minus $14 labor costs = $136)
To just break even at $5 you now have to sell 38 funnels cakes. ($185 revenue minus $18.50 product cost minus $28 labor costs = $138.5)
You have to actually sell 90% more funnel cakes to make up the 37% decrease in price. And to actually have "a lot more money coming in" (again, your words) - you'd need to more than double your sales.
The key to this all (and I've said this more times than I can count) is to find the best balance between revenue, costs and volume in order to achieve the most profit as efficiently as possible. Often this doesn't translate to selling at a lower price to the customer.
I keep saying, when is Six Flags going to wise up and bring their food prices in line with the other major parks? I would not expect KW prices there but a 25% reduction wouldn't be unreasonable to consider. If they want to attract a higher class clientile, then they should offer more upscale dining options as Disney and Universal do instead of gouging people for ordinary park food.
Of course you know Snyder. He will look at every angle for milking people for everything he can. Thank goodness that I have a decent choice of parks in my area, none of which is a Six Flags.
If Shapiro wants a higher class type of visitor, he should see the example of this in parks such as BGE which appear to have that type of image.
Arthur Bahl
Arthur Bahl said:
If you believe $5 is a good price for a funnel cake, how about $2.75? That's about what KW charges.
Apples and oranges. Do you think KW could sell funnel cakes at $5, let alone $8. Of course not.
They don't sell at $2.75 out of the goodness of their hearts. They've done that magical formula of weighing what the market will bear (volume, costs, volume) and come up with the magic number of $2.75.
As a rule of thumb, the smaller the park and the more rural the area and attitudes, the lower the prices. The bigger the park and the more urban the area and attitudes, the higher the prices. With very few exceptions.
My only problem is that the $2.75 funnel cake at KW probably tastes a hell of a lot better than the $8 one at Six Flags but that's pretty indicative of the chain as a whole in all other aspects, not just food. It's not the cost itself, it's the value (or lack there of) associated with it.
Hitting the nail on the head, I'm hoping, Gonch...
Lord Gonchar said:As a rule of thumb, the smaller the park and the more rural the area and attitudes, the lower the prices. The bigger the park and the more urban the area and attitudes, the higher the prices. With very few exceptions.
hehe, regardless of your views on the *moral aspects* of capitalism, ^that^ is just one of those BIG truths in life....
I would be remiss, however, if I failed to mention that the people who PAY less....generally EARN less. That's how "what the market will bear" is determined in the first place... ;)
I have a friend who used to own a new age-y gift store who has plenty of stories about selling things like "healing crystals" for $35 a pop. Of course wholesale they were less than a buck.
As I mentioned before, people expect to pay more at an amusement park than on the street and most parks' prices reflect that. There is a point, however where the food prices get so high that not only do they reduce food sales volume substantially but they also cause many people to avoid the park altogether.
One reason that Six Flags believes they can get away with this is because in many markets they are the only major park or because they have thrills that far exceed those offered by other nearby parks. Notice that Six Flags has never had a park in Pennsylvania and that they have pulled out of Ohio. The reason: strong competition. If you live in Dallas, where to you go for amusement park thrills? OK, so you swallow the high prices or fill up before you enter the park.
By the way, some park owners show in other ways that they care about more than the bottom line. Once Premier Parks wanted to buy Kennywood and offered a very good price. The KW owners said no and so we have Kennywood today with its historic rides, picnic shelters, great atmosphere, and reasonable prices instead of Six Flags Kennywood with more coasters but also fewer flats and historic rides, poorer operations, and high food prices. By the way, this park would very likely have been in the deal with Darien Lake and Elitchs Gardens had this happened.
Do you really believe that the Knoebels and Kochs would sell out if they were given such an offer? I sincerely doubt it because of the love affair that they have with their parks. Of course these owners don't have to answer to Wall Street as Six Flags, Cedar Fair, Disney, etc. must.
Arthur Bahl
You must be logged in to post
