Six Flags Announces Nation's Best Theme Park VIP Program
C'mon a family is getting ready to spend several hundered dollars on park admission. Why not spend a few minutes to get the full scoop. I bet they would check airline prices to get there, hotel reviews for the stay, and prices at the different companies for the rental car. After all that, just show up at the gate and get taken? Doesn't make much sense to me. As for day trippers - why not research? Caveat Emptor.
As for coaster counts validating a persons existance - that has nothing to do with the discussion. The point is some folks value extra service motre than others. If folks do not like the fact that the extra service is offered, they can let the company know and stop going there. Otherwise, it is their park and they run it to maximize the profit as they should. *** Edited 3/19/2007 9:54:37 PM UTC by depotrat***
rablat5:
C'mon, Gonch--have you lost it? How can you criticise a park for advertising their "free parking"?
You must've missed the big debate thread about how 'free' parking isn't really all that free. I maintain that deception is far worse than anything SF has done.
janfrederick:
"Free Parking" is what it is. You don't open up your wallet in two places.
You only pay once at the buffet as well. Does that make every subsequent trip for refill the plate free food? Much like the 'free' parking at amusement parks, it IS a better value, but it's sure ain't free.
And that's my point with that earlier comparison. You guys seem more ok with a flat out lie and the 'perception' of value that doesn't exist than someone essentially just saying, "We want your money"
That's really weird to me.
Heck, I'll let you guys live in my place for 11 months for free - you just have to pay the first month's rent for $14,000. Same idea on a much larger scale.
halltd:
So, when you're researching a park and ticket prices, you would have no idea about the Flash Pass.
Except that it's clearly listed on the website, complete with an explanation and a link to lo-q.
RatherGoodBear said:
Back in the 1960's, when tobacco companies were still allowed to advertise on TV and in the print media, one of the brands had a campaign featuring the slogan "I'd rather fight than switch." That's the way I feel about it. I haven't been to a Six Flags park in nearly 30 years, and from what I've read in here, I see no reason to go back anytime soon.
That makes perfect sense. At least one 'anti-system' poster is. :)
Then again, I don't need to rely on some kind of coaster count to validate my existence as a human.
Nor do I.
And I really don't feel I'm missing out on anything by not going.
Nor do I.
I also don't need to rent Qbots and buy into the VIP experience in ANY park to prove my own self-importance
Nor do I.
-- and I would include myself in the "have" category as defined by a previous poster.
Not me. I don't consider myself a 'have' even in the slightest. (sorry, Jeremy) Not in the monetary or value sense, at least. All we 'have' is fun. :) (and the definition of such will vary person to person)
Here's a question for the restaurant crowd: say you offer the maitre'd your Andrew Jackson-- what happens when the people behind you come in and toss in an extra Lincoln, a Hamilton, or even a second Jackson simply because they "have more" and don't want to wait longer than you? Suddenly you're behind another dozen parties who bid more than you. Now how do you feel? Do you raise your bid, or do you start whining how unfair it is? Or do you just say, "that's business" and go sit your ass in the corner for another hour?
A or C, definitely not B.
There seems to be the idea that people who support such actions or systems have a 'I can dish it out, but not take it" mentality and that seems so far from the truth to me. If anything, it's these people who 'play the game' who are totally ok with the ramifications of being on the losing end.
I can only use myself as an example, but I've used a Q-bot 5 times in my life. I've visited a SF park 15 times. I'm totally ok when I don't have a Q-bot and others do. I've never bought a VIP experience of any kind at any park. I'm totally ok with the system, but as a participant and as an onlooker. I'm guessing that applies to most who support such things.
*** Edited 3/19/2007 10:08:28 PM UTC by Lord Gonchar***
...And the website lists only 6 park in the U.S. that have the system available, out of 50 or more parks that could profit from it.
I think a lot of parks see that "Lo-Q" (More like "Hi-Q", if you ask me.) scams their customers out of a fair and fun filled day at the park. Thank God it's not the norm.
*** Edited 3/19/2007 10:41:26 PM UTC by dexter***
Sorry, To many places that aren't trying to jack prices and not providing sub par service
Chuck, who doesn't have a Cre-Ho Shirt and don't need one, I've only gotten about 12 new credits in the last two years and had a blast and got out of debt, NOT DOING IT.
Arthur Bahl
I really believe that so few people will do it that it won't affect the GP in line. It will, however, help out people that are seriously time-constrained.
That's good customer service in my book.
Hi
SF should just come right out and make a statement on the front page of all their websites, and park brochures; If you come to one of our SF parks, and only pay for parking, and general admission then that's all we need to provide. Anything above, and beyond that will cost you extra.
My opinion, That's just flatout pathetic, and extremely close to the absolute truth anymore.
Rob Ascough said:
^^ It's not twisted logic, although your example very clearly illustrates what I'm getting at. Parks offer ERT to coaster enthusiasts, which is something not offered to members of the general public, but that ERT never comes at the expense of the general public. Virtual queing is, in essence, a park closing an hour early and offering that time to coaster enthusiasts. It means guests that paid for a park experience lasting until 9:00 suddenly got an hour of time taken away from them because a group of enthusiasts that paid for ERT are going to move in and enjoy that time instead. Of course, we know that doesn't happen- if ERT is scheduled for enthusiasts, it's either before or after the hours set aside for regular paying guests.Would it be fair if paying guests were kicked out of a park early so enthusiasts would get to enjoy the coasters with minimal lines? If you don't think that's fair, how can virtual queing be fair?
You missed the point entirely. I'm not equating ERT sessions with virtual queuing, only the *experience* earned by one group that's not open to everyone. The fact is, you want something extra, your going to have to pay for it, and each business gets to decide what that extra something is, fair or unfair.
Let's define this clearly. Virtual queuing as defined by the parks who use them, is a time saving method open to *everyone*, whether the park in question charges for it or not. If you choose to use it, you are reserving a place in line, sanctioned by the park. They get to define this, not park guests.
This whole "it's not fair to the people who can't afford it" is a bunch of BS IMO. There are things you can afford in life, and some thing that you can't...period. Don't blame the business for setting a price you can't afford or choose not to use.
The terms have been defined, and are available to *everyone*. Either you buy into it or you don't. It's REALLY simple.
If a cut-in-line service worked in such a way that it didn't downgrade another persons experience, I would have no problem with it at all. I used to have to wait in line for 1 hour for Roller Coaster #4 before flashpass was used, and now I have to wait 2 hours.
Just because Jeff and Gonch disagree with my position on the subject, and they are more vocal because of a podcast, doesn't mean my view is wrong. Pay-to-cut is wrong by my perspective. Maybe people who can afford it just don't care because it doesn't affect them. It affects me and turns a potential good experience into a negative experience.
I'll repeat it - Someone gets screwed when it's all said and done. I'm happy for you that it's not you.
A perspective is the same as an opinion, just because you disagree doesn't make the other person automatically wrong or misinformed either.
I'm not arguing whether it's fair or not, right or wrong, only that it is a reality, isn't going anywhere, and I happen to think it's a wonderful option. The bottom line is, if you don't like it, tough. You'll either deal with it, or you won't support a park that offers it.
That cuts through all the BS, and defines it perfectly, like anything else. Six Flags is offering an option, on *their* terms. If everyone felt like you do, the option would not exist.
Still fun to go through the motions with the debating though. :)
And this season that reality slipped into Dollywood. Next year we should probably see it at SDC. Who will pick up the system in 09 and beyond?
These other parks can't be seeing the millions in additional revenue and not at least considering thinking about looking into the options. :)
"And this season that reality slipped into Dollywood. Next year we should probably see it at SDC. Who will pick up the system in 09 and beyond?"
It'll be used in maybe 8 parks by 2008. 8 parks in 5 or so years, with SF, the lowest in "Guest" satisfaction, being the first to test the scam. I don't see that as a success for the Lo-Q company.
I'm very happy to spend my money at the other 42 or so U.S. parks that have resisted adding the Lo-Q scam. I'm glad to know that customer satisfaction isn't going to be compromised at the majority of parks in the U.S., no matter how "profitable" it would be. It's nice to know that most parks understand that pissing off you "Guests" is not profitable in the end.
We'll see how great it works at DW. That's a park well known for positive guest experiences. It's very hard to predict how well the Lo-Q scam will work at such a park.
I can't be the only person who sees the sadness in the Dollywood/Lo-Q story. This means that starting this year, Dollywood is going to downgrade the normal experience guest used to receive for regular admission price by giving some of what they used to get to people willing to pay more. Now there will be more people waiting in lines, both actually and virtually. What used to be 1 hour wait is now going to be 1 and 1/2 hour wait. Rides that weren't designed especially for two separate lines are going to be run less efficiently. People in the "Stand-by" line will notice that they get to stand-by while others board the rides, thus creating different classes fighting to receive a positive amusement park experience...
...And that's a good thing how?
Arthur Bahl said:
Does anyone have any opinions on whether Cedar Point will introduce a widespread pay queue system?
Whats interesting is- the “alleged” reason they took away the free system was because it confused an irritated the majority of people not using the system. Considering this I doubt we will see any pay system there.
On one hand, I think this VIP program is a fun idea, and at $250 is a steal especially compared to other programs. Considering you pretty much get your moneys worth out of it makes it appealing to an average Joe like me ;). The biggest plus is It should have no visible effect on the general populations day, as there will most likely be only a handful of groups reserved for each day. The one downside is I really don’t see how having 50 or so of these a day will help Six Flags Bottom line, especially since it seems they are giving it away not that much above the “regular” cost as some have mentioned.
I even like the idea of a Q-bot for parks I only visit every once in a while to make the most out of my day. While I personally would have no problem using any V-Queue system, what really matters is what effect it has on the majority of the general park population. Now Cedar Points Freeway apparently had it’s fair share of confusion and complaints despite the fact of it being free. If this was the reason why they pulled it, they must have felt it was lowering the overall experience of the “typical” guest and didn’t want to chance loosing them.
Q-Bots-AS profitable to six flags and a value to those who use it might be, I think it must be done well or they stand to loose the “bread and butter” guest. The system needs to be well explained, well staffed, and implemented in a way the general population takes little notice. Shap and Co. can be all happy about the increased revenue these programs offers, but if that just continues to just offset the declines in attendance due to loosing the “regular” guest they really aren’t gaining too much.
I think the following years will be interesting to see how it pans out. What really matter is if the majority of people become accepting of “Q-Bot Culture.”
I think what really bothers some people is that a few of us have the gall to approve of this system fundamentally. How dare we not be outraged at a park sanctioned line cutting system!
Quite frankly, this is *WAY* down the list of things I concern myself with when visiting a park. If it's done right, I never notice that anyone is infringing on my place in line. If it's done wrong, I'll simply decide if it's worth my while to visit the park at all.
That just keeps it simple, and I don't have to bang my head against the wall over such small things.
Lord Gonchar said:
Heck, I'll let you guys live in my place for 11 months for free - you just have to pay the first month's rent for $14,000. Same idea on a much larger scale.
I'm gonna hold you to that... as soon as I have a spare $14k to throw around. But I better not have to wait in line for your chair ride! ;)
Lord Gonchar said:I can only use myself as an example, but I've used a Q-bot 5 times in my life. I've visited a SF park 15 times. I'm totally ok when I don't have a Q-bot and others do. I've never bought a VIP experience of any kind at any park. I'm totally ok with the system, but as a participant and as an onlooker. I'm guessing that applies to most who support such things.
Yep! Me too, except my ratio is much more on the short end of the stick. I've used a qbot twice. I don't know the sum total of all the visits, but it's considerably more than 15 since the qbot system went online. I thought it was money well spent when I got it (maximized rides and my "fun level") and when I didn't, I figured "good for them that they can afford to spend it, even though this trip I can't." Heck, I've even gone one step further and politely yielded to a few qbotters at the merge point. I figure they're paying extra, I'm not.
Joe E. said:Whats interesting is- the “alleged” reason they took away the free system was because it confused an irritated the majority of people not using the system. Considering this I doubt we will see any pay system there.
That doesn't mean CP won't add a 'pay' system (they already HAVE the queue pathways for it on some rides). What makes a free system different, is that people can (and do) legitimately feel cheated. Disney is slightly different because everyone knows about Disney's option - a relative few people knew about CP's system. Heck, my first visit to the park was 5 days and I didn't find out it existed until day 2, and didn't find out it was free until day 3! And then you have the frustration from getting cheated out of one because someone else had gotten one for MF earlier, and rode then scrubbed their hand in a bathroom so they could get another one for Raptor (I've personally witnessed that happen. I was not happy). When it's on the same level, it causes more frustration. When you differentiate by money, now it becomes something that has a clear line defining it. Sure, some people (like Chuck ;) ) would still be frustrated, but no where near the way it was with the free system.
2007 Single admission price.
HW $37.95
KI $ 44.95
CP $41.95
KK $39.99
So HW charges $2.00 less then KK, has half as many rides. HW charges $4.00 less then CP, for the love of god CP! If you dont think you pay for "free" parking and soda then you are lost. The bottom line is always the bottom line, you get what you pay for. Their is no free soda or parking, your paying for it. You pay for everything in one way or another. To think otherwise or in this case to bitch because a company(SF) has the nerve to offer a service to it's guests is insaine. Sorry you cant afford the service, sorry the GP now has the chance to pay for the service you have gotton for free.
The technology is out there, old, and I have to believe cheaper then the Lo-Q.
As for avoiding Six Flags, I pretty much do now because, I dont live near one, I tend to enjoy my days at other "branded" parks more so I choose to spend my money there instead, but if I did go to one would probably buy a Lo-Q.
2022 Trips: WDW, Sea World San Diego & Orlando, CP, KI, BGW, Bay Beach, Canobie Lake, Universal Orlando
indyandrew said:
So HW charges $2.00 less then KK, has half as many rides. HW charges $4.00 less then CP, for the love of god CP! If you dont think you pay for "free" parking and soda then you are lost. The bottom line is always the bottom line, you get what you pay for. Their is no free soda or parking, your paying for it.
Nice try but you forgot to add in the parking and soda cost to Cedar Point, Kentucky Kingdom, etc.
For instance:
Cedar Point:
Admission: 41.95
Parking: $9 (?)
Soda: $2.00 (at least for EACH)
So that is a minimum of $52.85 compared to Holiday World's $37.95 (assuming no discount coupons for either).
Considering that such parks probably would otherwise charge around $2 for a large drink (based upon pricing at parks like KW and KG) the overall savings for a typical visitor might be around $8. This means they come out ahead by $3 or $4. Also remember that these two parks have reasonably priced food.
As for parking, LC does charge for parking but HW does not. HW would probably charge $5 is they had pay parking which translates into $1 to $2 per admission. That would leave admission at HW around $32 and that doesn't take into consideration the perks offered at the waterpark. LC would probably be around $30 if it didn't have free drinks.
As for CP, that park is an outstanding value. You are getting a park with the offerings of a SFMM or SFGAdv (and better operations) for anywhere from $8 to $18 less and that does not take into consideration lower prices for other things such as parking and the absense of Q-Bots. *** Edited 3/20/2007 12:03:01 PM UTC by Arthur Bahl***
Arthur Bahl
You must be logged in to post
