Shapiro says significant change in store for Six Flags
Posted
Mark Shapiro has been chief executive of Six Flags for a little over 24 hours, and already the ideas are flying. He's talking about collaborating with Microsoft on creating an Xbox "village." Maybe he'll ask "Nightmare on Elm Street" creator Wes Craven to design a haunted house for the chain's 29 theme parks.
Read more from The Washington Post and Bloomberg via The Seattle Post-Intelligencer.
The company also said that no formal bids for the company were made, and will therefore the board has decided not to sell the company.
Read more from Reuters.
Never go to Times Square, then ;).
When you put yourcompany up for sale and no one bites, one would think that would be time for a reality check. Unfortunately the new management seems to not have a clue about reality, at least from the information we are being fed.
KTB said: "Lets see.... cut back on rides, more cheap-to-produce shows and concerts. More merchandise tie-ins. Isn't that what Disney tried? Isn't that why "California Adventure" was/is a big faliure and why Paul Pressler and his crew were all asked to leave due to declining attendance and poor customer feed back? "
Exactly. And that relates to SF: First year DCA attendence was 30-40% of projections. Even today, with a VAST majority being park-hoppers and pass holders the place is still a dismal failure (I could go on and quote more stats and figures but...) This is a valid comparison....the public has an expection and certain desires they want filled when spending their money and their day at a park. If those aren't being met, then you're in trouble like SF as a company and Disney's Ca. Adv. are. SF's answers are still being overlooked. They certainly aren't further catering to teenagers and alienating the family unit, etc.
If SF was smart they'd pay Will Cook a $50mil consulting fee and have him teach EVERYBODY in the organization how to please their customers. I think that would be a much better use of $$ then an "XBOX Village" and would pay more returns in the long run!*** This post was edited by Peabody 12/15/2005 3:17:20 PM ***
PKI does it. Gillette Top Gun. The antique cars had John Nolan Ford billboards. The lawn was by John Deer.
Heck Even Holiday World has sponsored attractions and food vendors.
I quit going to Cincinnati Cyclone Hockey Games because the Scoreboard showed a 20 minute pre game commercial and then a commercial every break in the action.
I really think that some corperations marketing departments have jumped the shark and IM more likely not to buy their product from them shoving their name down my throat all day and night.
Same with Politics. We have a candidate running for Governor here in Ohio thats already advertising for next novemebers election. Unless hes the best candidate for my views He definetly won't get my vote.
Still, If a company is willing to submit some money to maintain a ride, That should leave some money for the parks to pursue other attractions.
A little bit of advertising never hurt anyone. It's when it goes overboard like the whole attraction being about SCHICK MACH 3 that I draw the line.
A few small examples. Newspapers and magazines. You would not be able to afford the cost of a newspaper or a magazine if they ripped out all the advertising. Does that mean that magazine companies should stop printing magazines?
A little bigger, television. TV programs require advertising to bring the content live to you or at a reduced cost. Imagine paying what one would pay for HBO for each of your channels and you get an idea of what no advertising would mean to the landscape of television.
Much bigger is the sports franchises who build new stadiums. Those new stadiums are getting hard to build with public funds so private companies have to be called in to foot the bill. That means slapping their name somewhere in the building. Should sports teams not be playing anymore?
On to parks. Many parks, including Six Flags already have corporate sponsors for their rides. Look at Disney. Every single ride in the park has a corporate sponsor. Lets take out the corporate sponsors and instead up every patron's admission by 30 bucks per park next year. How many people do you think are going to be able to afford that Disney vacation now?
I see nothing wrong with corporate sponsorship. If I dont want to watch it, I just tune it out like every other red-blooded American does and talk about something else with the people I am waiting with in line at the park (or wherever I might encounter an ad). Corporate sponsorship makes things possible, and affordable to the average American.
I personally think theissue with that is: How are more or different corporate tie-ins going to bring HUGE new revenue, or change guest satisfaction?
Advertisement. And you paid for it. :) (just doing the usual 'bad guy' side of things)
While I don't think this is the right direction for SF to go, ads don't bother me nearly as much as they seem to bother some of you guys. Really, what's the big deal? A sign with a logo. A corporate name attached to a ride name. Whatever.
You know, I must've read at least 100 different "Corn Nuts" signs while in line for rides at SF parks or just at SF parks in general the past few years and never once have I even tried Corn Nuts, let alone purchased them.
The thing with advertising is that you're actually allowed to ignore it. :)
And for the record Times Square (NYC in general) is one of my favorite places in the world. My wife and I actually talk of 'retiring' there when the kids grow up. :)
"This industry relies too much on big rides. We have to diversify," Shapiro, who was recruited by Snyder to run Six Flags, said in an interview yesterday. "We have to focus on more concerts and more themed attractions."
Ohh mighty Zarquon.. how can one be so clueless?
Yep.. I don't go to amusement parks for rides.
Sell your stock now...
he means they need more family themed rides. Dark rides would prob fit into that category. OR flats things like that .
Hey millrace, I'll bet you're very anti-corporation in general, but what do you think advertising really is these days? Can you think of one other way that "corporate America" really gives anything back to the community? I would much rather ride "Superman: Ride of Steel presented by General Steel Corporation, buy your Pre-fab steel building for your church school or retail from us next time!" for a $34.99 admission instead of riding "Superman: Ride of Steel" for a $49.99 admission and read an article in a magazine that cost $15 about how the guy who owns General Steel has nine mansions, five Ferraris and uses $100 bills as fire starter.
Give me easily ignorable advertising and lower prices any day than higher prices and bigwigs with big profits. (Oil anyone?)
What's wrong with more Themed attractions at the theme park chain? What's wrong with concentrating more on concerts? Are you all just whining because you're afraid that SF will never build another coaster? I don't understand the negativity.
I think it is finally a step in the right direction. I like that they have some idea of how to improve the parks instead of just slapping down a new coaster every year or so.
I like Shapiro. He seems like a smart guy.
as for advertising SF being doing this for the last few years SBC Southwest Ampitheatre, Orivlle Reddenbachers Grand Music Hall....they have advertising announcements every once in a while in the park...
for the Haunted House idea I think thats a great Idea. Fright Fest attracts a huge crowd of people who are adults and teens and preteens.
It sound like alot of what Shapiro is announcing is what SFGAM already has.
I hope the do not install Papa Johns Pizza as the parks official pizza yuck. wish it were Pizza Hut.
signed CS6153*** This post was edited by 12/15/2005 9:20:40 PM ***
To raise some cash, Six Flags management is looking at selling some of its land. Last month, Snyder submitted a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission that identified unused and underused land worth a combined total of at least $262.1 million, with land around the park in Largo valued at between $104.5 million to $118 million.
;)
The proof ultimately is going to be in the pudding anyway.
I just dont understand. It seems to me that right there, this new CEO is stating one of the companys problems was an emphasis on thinking that new big rides will fill the gates. Isnt this what everyone's been wanting? Why all the complaining?
It sounds to me like SF may finally be getting all those nice, family themed attractions youve all been badgering them for, for years. The company seems to be restructuring the right way to me, whats the big deal?
For those of you opposed to the Xbox village, if you have kids, why dont you see what they think about it. Im willing to be that will be a successful venture at ANY of the parks it may be installed at. Kids love that kind of stuff, and it opens the door to a new family oriented area besides looney tunes.
One thing he did say, "We want it to be less of a field trip and more of a destination.", may not be the best approach. SF has never been a "destination" and I dont think it needs to be. Each park has a big enough population base to draw from to be successful in its own right. It can be done, and maybe trying to make any of them a destination park will fix most of the problems as a LOCAL SF, but they certainly will never be destinations.
I think we should support this guy and see what he plans on enforcing before everyone jumps on the SF always makes the worst choice bandwagon.
You must be logged in to post
