Six Flags Announces Nation's Best Theme Park VIP Program
Still though, I agree, it may drive food sales a bit. I doubt you'd make everything up right there but that's why you have your gen admission tickets.
Charles Nungester said:
My length of stay, number of visits and reasons for going back are not *WHAT THEY HAVE*. It's all dependent on *HOW MUCH ENJOYMENT* I get from my visit.
Ditto.
Usually about 3pm when it cost me $10 to get two large sodas is when I START ENJOYING MYSELF LESS.
I personally don't dwell on whether I paid $2 or $3 (or $4 if I'm at a SF park) for a drink - it just doesn't make a difference to me. It's even less noticable when there's plenty to do and I'm in the moment enjoying myself.
Make my day ENJOYABLE from start to finish and I'll stay from start to finish and end up spending more (Probably) and actually NEVER GET A BAD FEELING about the place.
To me prices have nothing to do with how much fun I have at a park. If money were the ultimate concern and more specifically the saving of said money, I probably wouldn't be at the park in the first place.
Sure Operations and such have a effect on MY ENJOYMENT factor. Still I've gone and had great times in cheap parks with little to do. JUST BECAUSE I NEVER FELT TAKEN!
I've never felt taken at a park and I've had great times at the parks that charge $15 for parking and $4 a drink. I'm not there to play budget boy. I'm there because I dig parks. They could charge me twice as much and I'd still find a way to go.
Year 2001. SFNE
We already had SFKK passes so Cost was never a issue. Not even for parking.
We arrived about 9.30, OK Parkings 10 bucks, We planned for that, No problem. Except only 1 of 8 lanes are open getting us in the park at 10.20 Yes it took almost a hour to get in the parking lot on a Wensday in early June.
Strike #1
After a couple SROS rides and some other things I flip Rob a 10 spot and tell him to get us a couple large cokes. Im fully expecting to get a couple bucks back and he hands me .50 Now I fully expected to pay 2-3 bucks for a drink and to find it was 4.75 was just plain rediculous to me.
Strike 2
We had met up with some other enthusiast through URC and one of them had never been there. Rob and the other guy wanted to ride scream.
One of three towers are going and after twenty minutes of fast laners cutting for 4 of each 12 seats we just bailed. Pissed and aggitated
Strike 3.
I honestly believe the only reason we ended up having a good time at the park was because it rained about 530pm deserting the park for the final 3 hours. 3hrs in which we got 25 rides on Supes, 2 on Cyclone and even walked on Scream that now had two towers going with a deserted park.
They've gotten two or three new coasters since that visit, still I get the feeling I don't care if I go back.
I wasn't dwelling on anything, I even walked up to get fast lane passes when we got there but by 10.20 the daily alotment was gone. We had gotten there at 930
Chuck, who actually enjoyed SFGADV because they were running at capacity and had most major rides open save for Robin.
Give me good food, and I'll buy no matter what the cost. If I'm on vacation, I'm not looking to be cheap. I can be cheap at home.
YMMV. ;)
Charles Nungester said:
We had met up with some other enthusiast through URC and one of them had never been there. Rob and the other guy wanted to ride scream.One of three towers are going and after twenty minutes of fast laners cutting for 4 of each 12 seats we just bailed. Pissed and aggitated
{SNIP}
I wasn't dwelling on anything, I even walked up to get fast lane passes when we got there but by 10.20 the daily alotment was gone. We had gotten there at 930
This brings up an interesting point, all the Fast lanes were gone within an hour and a half, yet apparently there were still enough FastLaners to significantly affect waits? Was SFNE just that efficient at handing out passes or what? I've always wondered what percent of people actually buy (or in this case get free) these passes relative to actual attendance.
just wondering, jeremy
The moral of my story is. Why should I go again, Pay 59.95+ 15.00 parking and then pay 49.95 for a Q bot if the service hasn't changed?
Im told by a couple locals that it hasn't and the only way they can really enjoy the park is on the Gold Bot.
No thanks, While Compounce might not have as much to do. I certainly found it more enjoyable and friendly.
Chuck
Some people care more about price than breadth of offering. Other people don't. The price-conscious are never going to be convinced that a few extra bucks here and there doesn't matter to some people. The price-tolerant are willing to ignore the cost of something, within reason, as long as they personally see value in the experience; they believe there are enough people "like them" that these parks can make a go of it.
A reasonable person could hold either point of view, and neither side will convince the other that they are wrong.
In Six Flags' specific case, the issue is clouded by the perception that they incompetent. For example, with Chuck's three strikes above, two deal primarily with operations. If all three towers were operating for scream, or the entry into the parking lot were smoother, he may not have minded the existence of fastlane or the parking fee.
The question for six flags---and all parks, really---is that you have to decide which customer you are pursuing: the price-conscious customer looking for economy, or the price-tolerant customer looking for an impossibly-large set of things to do. Successful examples of both business models exist: the "mid-majors" that bundle things into one price and fight like hell to make that price look reasonable, and the "big league" that charges captive-audience prices for everything, but work like hell to provide perceived value for those prices.
Most Six Flags properties appear to be neither of these yet. But, they've decided that, corporately, they want to be in the big leagues not the mid-majors. They've sold off most of the parks that just can't play in the big leagues, and they are pricing those that remain aggressively. The only question that remains is whether each individual property can successfully work like hell to provide value to their customers.
I did mention that part of the revenue lost from providing "free" drinks is recouped elsewhere as somebody else also mentioned. Imagine this. A park charges $8 for the food at a meal and $3 for the drink -- $11 total. Another park charges the same $8 for the food but nothing for the drink. Some visitors might decide that since the overall cost of the meal is $3 less, they will eat a second meal at the park instead of waiting until they leave and eating elsewhere.
As for that business of admission being charged at the tollbooth, it works well at Idlewild and that allows this POP park to capture some of the atmosphere of parks like Knoebels without having a free gate. It also gives the impression of having "parking included with admission" as opposed to "free parking".
I do agree that bigger parks should charge more for food, drinks and parking than smaller parks. I do believe, however that parks like CP, as opposed to Six Flags, are a better indicator of where these charges should be set. I do concede that CP is a bit underpriced (mainly due to the nature of the local market) as far as admission is concerned. *** Edited 3/21/2007 2:02:01 PM UTC by Arthur Bahl***
Arthur Bahl
dexter said:
...it is reselling a portion of the service that I already paid for.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.
I'll repeat it - Someone gets screwed when it's all said and done.
That's the idea of what I'm saying, and all of you can argue until you're blue in the face about how it's the way things are and should just be accepted, but the fact of the matter is the same. Seems no one wants to respond to those points since everyone ignored them when dexter said them, the same way everyone ignored them when I said them. No one seems to have anything to say about the park selling your place in line to someone else.
At the airport the other day, I approached the counter for the rental car company we always rent from. As has been the case for the past year, there is a HUGE line for regular customers and a really short line for people that paid for their version of an upgrade. No matter how long the regular line got (and it was horrendous- why is renting a car to someone such a long process?), people who got on the premium line were tended to right away. I wasn't the only one in line that was pissed. I'm about to switch to another rental car company in the future, and so are a lot of other customers because this was not an isolated incident. I'm guessing that the rental car company feels it's better to satisfy a few who are willing to pay more for a bunch of other customers that are ready to bolt on them? Sure seems to be the case.
And yeah, it is a park admitting that in order to enjoy yourself completely, you have to bribe the sh*t out of them. You mean to tell me $65 is no longer enough for a decent amusement park experience, even before you add parking, food and drink? If that's the case, I will be taking a lot of my business elsewhere, and so will other paying customers. And once the masses leave, there will be no reason for others to shelll out the coin for $250/day VIP tickets. So then what?
So far....
But, word does tend to get around, slowly....
My guess is that people will become accustomed to having "their place in line" taken before they'll swear off their local park entirely. Sure, some will undoubtedly drop out of the mix, but others will replace them, being totally content with what is NOW viewed as a lessening of the *regular guests experience*.
I had this idea for a candy bar a while back that wouldn't be all that much more special than any other candy bar other than its price of $2. A little snazzy wrapper and I'm sure there'd be plenty of people willing to pay for Eric Hurd's Bliss Bar.
The place where the Six Flags parks could be hurt is with families with younger children. The over-emphasis on big coasters has driven many of them away already but the pricing might keep them away as long as there are other good, but smaller, parks to go to. The little ones just want a good time and many of the smaller parks will deliver this for them. *** Edited 3/21/2007 3:32:57 PM UTC by Arthur Bahl***
Arthur Bahl
Brian Noble said:
So, this thread has gone on for 11 pages, and as far as I can tell nothing new has been said that wasn't already said the very first time SFI increased their day-visitor gate prices over a year ago (or was it two?).
I'm not sure that's enough to stop this runaway train. :)
Six Flags has defined their terms, and you can argue until your blue in the face and it's not going to change. Just like the situation with your car company. You didn't like the service you were getting so you took your business elsewhere. 11 pages of this and still this is the bottom line. Six Flags can't force you to attend their parks, and they have every right to charge what they feel they can get...end of story.
Some will continue to go for the cheap season passes (records sales this year), and use the fastlane and Q-botters (records sales last year), and some will decide it's not for them (Rob, Dexter and many others).
Isn't that the way it always works?
I'm guessing that the rental car company feels it's better to satisfy a few who are willing to pay more for a bunch of other customers that are ready to bolt on them? Sure seems to be the case.
Gonch's first rule of business:
'Tis better to have 10 customers who will pay $100, then have 100 customers who expect to pay $10.
YMMV. :)
Arthur Bahl said:
Will SFKK and TGE go? These aren't the kind of parks that most people associate with Six Flags and I believe that they would be better off under other management.
TGE was called out as one of the parks in the chain that's actually working the best. I don't think Shapiro would say "this park is the model" and then dump it.
Word is also that Shapiro sees a lot of potential in SFKK (well he should) so I don't see that going, either. If I were Shapiro I would look at Holiday World, a park that went from almost nothing to over 1 million visitors in a little more than a decade, and completely drool over the chance to get a piece of that. Obviously something in the market was untapped (and looks like it still is to an extent) so frankly, I would go right for Holiday World's jugular, gleefully.
Is it coincidence SFKK is getting a wicked cool looking water slide this year? Hmmm?
Gonch would NEVER go into a "big box" business... ;)
Lord Gonchar said:
I'm guessing that the rental car company feels it's better to satisfy a few who are willing to pay more for a bunch of other customers that are ready to bolt on them? Sure seems to be the case.Gonch's first rule of business:
'Tis better to have 10 customers who will pay $100, then have 100 customers who expect to pay $10.
YMMV. :)
And your rule of buisness leads to bankruptcy.
100 visitors equals ninety 15 dollar meals purchced in the day. 80 Three dollar drinks.
Nobody said anything about only paying 10 bucks to get in. We said We don't want to pay 60 bucks and be charged another 50 bucks for WHAT WAS SUPPOSEDLY INCLUDED IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Virtual or not, It's reseling your place in line to someone else allowing them to CUT. Which violates most parks policies.
Chuck, who might as well just walk through saying SCUSE ME like the SF chain is known for.
You must be logged in to post
