Six Flags Announces Nation's Best Theme Park VIP Program
It's a perfectly reasonable question to ask.
I'm talking about post offices, McDonalds, Best Buys and gas stations- things that the majority of society frequent. I'd toss theme parks into that category. You're talking about luxury hotels, gourmet grocery stores and private jets- things the majority of people don't relate to. I wouldn't put theme parks in there, unless you're talking about Discovery Cove, which is obviously an exception to the norm.
Getting back to what was said earlier...
kpjb said:
You’re speaking of a $28K car vs. $50k. The equivalent would be entering the park with a $29.99 coupon or entering and paying the $50 gate price. Of course they’d treat you the same.Go back to that Acura dealer and tell him you want to buy a new NSX (assuming they still made them… stick with me here.) They’ll go through 5 tubes of Chapstick while kissing your ass.
The service department is totally different scenario. We’re talking sales here. If I make and appointment for my C-Class (which I’m 2 weeks overdue for, by the way) and some guy makes one for his $450,000 SLR, the service department will treat us both well, and on time. Pay $50 to get in the park, pay $250 to get in, the burgers are the same. The maintenance done on the rides is the same. The toilets are just as dirty.
I'd like to see what happens if you walk into an Acura dealer and ask to buy a new NSX, since they've been out of production for a while ;)
You're right about the service but wrong about the buying experience because no matter what you're buying, the salesman is going to be just as eager to sell you something. In fact, I think people buying cheaper cars are treated better than people buying expensive boutique cars. Someone buying a BMW z8 or a Ferrari 612 Scaglietti knows what they want- it's the person buying a BMW 330, a Benz C320 or an Acura TL that is cross-shopping and likely needs to be convinced.
It's not like Salesman Frank is going to see you looking at a Ford Focus and treat you like a piece of crap while he waits for someone looking to buy a Ford GT to fuss over.
*** Edited 3/28/2007 8:51:25 PM UTC by Rob Ascough***
You're taking this conversation outside the realm of reality and making up a bunch of scenaerios that make absolutely no sense in regard to the context of this conversation.
No, with the exception of the private jet, every single example I gave you is real and relevant. They just don't support your argument, so you attempt to dismiss them as irrelevant. That might work in the Junior Debate team, but it won't work here.
Let's extend the hotel example further. Marriott owns many different brands. Often, there are two instances of Marriott-branded hotels located very close to each other. One has one front desk staff member per 100 rooms. The other has three. One is cheap, the other is not. There are other differences, of course, but this is one. You can stay in the less expensive Fairfield Inn, with the 120-count sheets, the styrofoam cups, and the free broadband and local calls, and wait 10 minutes to check in. Or you can stay in the JWMarriot, with the 300-count sheets, the ceramic coffee mugs, and the $10/day internet and $2 local calls, but check in in two minutes.
One company, two experiences, two prices, both in the same zip code. Why do they do this? Because it's good business.
I won't argue that it's fair. Hell, it doesn't even matter if differential pricing/access is or is not common to other areas of my life (even though I claim it is). All that matters---THE ONLY THING---is whether or not Six Flags' profits go up or down after raising its prices, implementing LoQ, and doing all of these other "guest-hostile" but revenue-producing things. All of this other philosophical navel-gazing is fun to hash out here in armchair-CEO land, but at the end of the day, profit rules.
In Six Flags' specific case, the answer to "more profit or less" is not yet clear, but it sure seems that the early returns---guest spending increasing faster than attendance decreases---suggest that Six Flags may well be on the right track.
Is unequal treatment of customers good, bad, fair, unfair, nice, mean, or neutral!
These questions do not matter. The question is: is unequal treatment of customers profitable?
Lord Gonchar said:
If I can't groan at a 'chance' then there's even less reason to groan at an outright opportunity. You can't stand in line for Nitro and groan at the people using Q-bot because you (at any moment in the day) can go get one and do the same thing. I might get a FastPass. You can get a Q-bot.
Well, not to throw a wrench in your argument Gonch since I agree with you, but it is possible to run out of Q-bots. I've seen it happen twice at GAdv. They actually had signs that said something to the effect of "due to the popularity of the q-bot system, in an effort to provide an enjoyable experience for all of our guests, q-bots will be unavailable for the remainder of the day"
On the subject of skipping lines outside an amusement park... don't forget rental cars. I usually go with Budget, especially on my trips to California when I fly through LAX. There's a shuttle from the airport to the rental car (it's like a mile so I guess I could walk). The first thing the shuttle driver does is ask if there's any FastBreak members (i.e. frequent shoppers that give them a lot of money). If there are, he takes them to a special drop-off point BEFORE anyone else. So already we are waiting longer while THEY grab all their luggage and whatnot and get off the shuttle bus (even though I can see the building right over *there* and can walk there faster, I'm not allowed to get off). Once they're off the bus, they more or less get right in a car and go. No lines. Meanwhile, I stand in line for roughly 30 minutes to get a car that I RESERVED!
That's just a minimalistic example within the company. There are other car rental companies out there that charge more for the same darn car. I guarantee you the lines are shorter because the rates are higher and not as many people go there. The reason I go with Budget is to spend the least amount of money possible, not because I'm a fan of orange and blue.
And before you say that the person didn't make my wait longer, he/she has. Consider this: The rental place only has so many employees that get the cars ready. Usually I'm waiting about 10 minutes for a car to be ready -- all my paperwork is processed I'm just waiting for the car. Well, instead of getting my car ready, they're getting Joe-Fastbreak's car ready because his flight is due in 5 minutes.
As was said, you can find equality of lines if you bury your head in the sand and only look for what you want to see. At budget, you could say that everyone *in the building* waits in the same line regardless if I go with a ford focus or a hummer. And that is true. But if it's my 30th focus, I'm 10 miles down the freeway towards Knott's and haven't even stepped foot in the building because I pay more for the FastBreak service. The same is true for VQing -- everyone in the physical line waits in the same line. Meanwhile, people that have decided to drop a couple extra bills get to wait less.
I'd toss theme parks into that category. You're talking about luxury hotels, gourmet grocery stores and private jets- things the majority of people don't relate to. I wouldn't put theme parks in there, unless you're talking about Discovery Cove, which is obviously an exception to the norm.
I'm not sure I agree. How many people in this country went to a theme park last year? How many bought gas? Theme parks are a luxury, discretionary-spending item, and a high-ticket one besides. They are closer to the Westin than the McDonalds.
Rob Ascough said:
I don't know of anyone that voluntarily pays for anything crappy- people pay for things that are advertised as being good but end up being crappy. Being tricked into paying for something crappy isn't right, nor is it fair.
(Note: Haven't had time to read the posts after this one yet.)
Walmart seems to be doing just fine selling crappy goods.
And who is being tricked here? Are there customers that buy a ticket NOT knowing that they'll be cut by FastPassers? Are there people who don't know they have the option to buy fastpass? Based on the amount of fastpass advertising, I'd say the answer is a resounding "no."
Do people shop at Walmart expecting high quality merchandise? If such people existed, would it be unfair or not right?
Hobbes: "What's the point of attaching a number to everything you do?"
Calvin: "If your numbers go up, it means you're having more fun."
I don't really care what is profitable for Six Flags. I care about my own experience. And I choose not to do business with companies that give me a middle finger.
Now you'll tell me that I am an exception because enough idiots give the money to Six Flags. Good for them, good for Six Flags. Maybe I am.
Rob Ascough said:
Right. At least the free system gives the same opportunity to everyone. If you get to the park when it opens, you have the same opportunities as the next person that got there when the park opened.
I'm just going to use Rob's comment as a blanket statement for responses from Rob, millrace and Brian.
I guess I'm not explaining myslef well enough. I'm not talking getting there early. I'm there at 9am. Great! I got FP's for rides A, B and C. Then I'm stopped. I use those and can get more. I want FP's for rides D, E, and F. But they're all gone. I never had a chance. I could've went to D, E & F earlier but then A, B, and C wouldn't be available to me. I can't participate in the system if I want to.
Even worse, someone else with different timing (or even just one spot ahead of me in the FP line) might have be able to get A, B, C and D. Or maybe even all six. Whatever.
I can't particpate even though I want to.
With Q-bot you can show up whenever you like, decided to use the system whenever you like and use it on the rides you'd like (and all of them).
As a customer Q-bot is more fair to me and my fellow Q-bot users. I can't get more than them out of it (assuming equal levels of Bot) and my use can't take away from theirs.
I don't care how you guys word it, that's more fair to all involved with the system.
As far as those who choose not to get involved with the system - well, each one penalizes them with increased wait times and the dumb luck of the stand-by line. (that's the real lottery! :) )
Brian Noble said:
This question is based on a false premise. Many businesses do not treat all customers equally, and the set that do not is growing all the time.
millrace said:
Which is the basis of the argument! Is unequal treatment of customers good, bad, fair, unfair, nice, mean, or neutral!
It's good, fair and makes sense and is how it's always been. It's another example of how park's often seem to be 'behind the curve' in their thinking.
Sorry, but if it comes down to it, I'm going to make sure the guy giving me $50 is happy before I make sure the guy giving me $20 is. I'm going to make sure they guy who spends $20 with me every week is happy before I make sure the guy who buys my product once a year is.
And hey, that's the basis of my 'less customers, higher margins' thing I wonk about all the time. If I can only serve one of three people to my full potential, I'm keeping the high roller and losing the scrubs. More than likely a percentage of the low spenders will still want my product and/or service and will still come back.
But I'm getting away from the point a little too much there.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with a business doing what makes sense for them. In these cases making sure the people who spend a significantly larger amount of money are sure to come back first and foremost. Who wouldn't?
You're taking things beyond the context of the debate. It's not about me having an issue with you making sense- it's about your points not making sense. I'm talking about how it not being fair that Six Flags is willing to sell your place in line to another Six Flags customer- you're talking about people taking private jets to avoid traffic and shopping in specialty grocery stores. Like I said, that would work if we were talking about comparing the Lakemont experience to the Universal experience. We're talking about comparing the cheap Six Flags experience to the expensive Six Flags experience. Not cars versus jets, not Wal-Mart versus Whole Foods. Six Flags versus Six Flags.
I'm also talking about pricing that isn't fair. Unlike you, I'm not content to sit back and think it's okay for companies to charge people for ridiculous things- especially when they negatively impact some other paying customer's experience. I can't just sit back and blindly think that every decision every CEO makes is the right decision- CEOs, presidents and board chairmen make bad decisions just like the rest of us. You talk of discussing things in an armchair-CEO world but I'm not doing that- you are. You're the one claiming that profit is the only thing that matters, and that companies should do whatever it takes to achieve profits.
I agree the money does rule, and profits do matter in the end- but there are fair and right ways to go about achieving profit and unfair and wrong ways to go about achieving profit. Any way you slice it, selling a place in line in front of another guest is unfair to that other guest. Instead of coaching me on the difference between a Marriott SpringHill Suites and a Ritz-Carlton (I know the differences, thank you very much), why don't you address that plain and simple fact that I've been mentioning each and every time I post? Screw the never-ending talk about thw quest for endless profit and tell me whether or not you think it's FAIR to stand in line for something, only to have the company that owns the place suddenly allow someone to pay to get in line ahead of you? To hell with profits for the time being, how about what's right for ALL paying customers and not just the suckers with cash they're willing to burn?
Well, not to throw a wrench in your argument Gonch since I agree with you, but it is possible to run out of Q-bots. I've seen it happen twice at GAdv. They actually had signs that said something to the effect of "due to the popularity of the q-bot system, in an effort to provide an enjoyable experience for all of our guests, q-bots will be unavailable for the remainder of the day"
It's a bittersweet loss.
I guess you can be denied a bot.
On the positive side, it proves that people aren't as against the system as some would like to think.
Running out of Q-bots on a single day!? Yeah, that system will go away sometime soon. (:rolleyes:)
It's also an arguement for the efficiency/effectiveness of the system. There are limitations and ways of keeping a predetermined level of balance.
The guy spending $20 just might spend more in the future.
Suppose I go to the store because I ran out of garlic and I am in the middle of cooking. I only have time to buy one bulb of garlic for 20 cents but I am treated like crap because I didn't spend $50. Do you think I'll choose that store again when I plan on making a larger purchase?
I agree the money does rule, and profits do matter in the end- but there are fair and right ways to go about achieving profit and unfair and wrong ways to go about achieving profit. Any way you slice it, selling a place in line in front of another guest is unfair to that other guest.
Perhaps. But maybe the business is doing a favor by letting people in at the current gate price even though many people are willing to pay above and beyond that instead of just making the gate that 'above and beyond' price in the first place and shutting out the low spenders?
Using that twisted logic - SF is doing the less wealthy and the tightwads around the world a favor! ;)
(notice the winky on that last one - it's a joke... kinda ;) )
;) :)
millrace said:
Suppose I go to the store because I ran out of garlic and I am in the middle of cooking. I only have time to buy one bulb of garlic for 20 cents but I am treated like crap because I didn't spend $50. Do you think I'll choose that store again when I plan on making a larger purchase?
Well now you're taking it to a weird place.
First off, I wouldn't treat you like crap, but the other customer would receive priority attention - all other things being equal.
Secondly, how in the hell could I offer different treatment in that situation? Push you out of the way and physically kiss Mr. $50's ass!? It just wouldn't happen.
What could happen in a real world situation is something like my excusing myself from you (and your $20) to take a phone call from the $50 guy inquiring about his purchase then return to you after that.
Or if the repeat customer is at my counter and I'm dealing with him and the one-time customer gets in line behind him, I might not walk away from the first guy to find someone to help the second. But in the opposite situation I could excuse myself from the first guy and run to the back a say, "Mr. Repeat is out there. Someone go take care of him now!" before returning to Mr. One-time.
It's not unreasonable and as much as you guys don't think so - this happens every day, every where. You're not beng treated like crap by any means, but the 'more important' customer got priority service right in front of you.
EDIT - I can even tie this to Rob's car example. (damn, I'm smooth)
Say I'm the dealership manager and I'm dealing with a couple who pulled in in an old beater mulling around the $15,000 cars. I see a well dressed couple pull in in a $80,000 car and head towards the $100,000 cars on the lot. I excuse myself with a, "I'll let you look a bit" and get inside to get someone immediately on the other couple. They get priority treatment.
The flip works the same as the example above. That same guy probably isn't going to leave the $100,000 sale to get someone on the other people. They might have to wait a little longer before someone helps them.
If it has to come down to it the $100,000 sale means more than the $15,000 sale. In a sense the people spending more money are more important to the company. If you're willing to drop a $100,000 sale for a $15,000 sale - remind me never to hire you. ;)
And that's really the jist of such discussion. You wouldn't do business with someone who thinks that way and I wouldn't expect a business to see it any differently.
Whether you find it unfortunate or not, when doing business (and it is the amusement industry) - money is the goal. If the goal is goodwill to all - that's charity.
*** Edited 3/28/2007 9:42:03 PM UTC by Lord Gonchar***
millrace said:
Because something is profitable, doesn't automatically mean it is good....I care about my own experience. And I choose not to do business with companies that give me a middle finger....Now you'll tell me that I am an exception because enough idiots give the money to Six Flags.
In a business, there is no notion of "good" that is meaningful. There is only profitable and legal. Anything that is both legal and profitable is good. Anything that is legal and even more profitable is better.
That said, I think you are EXACTLY RIGHT for deciding not to patronize Six Flags. Of course, someone who decides they will still patronize them is exactly right too. Each of us makes our own purchasing decision based on where we see value, and, to a lesser extent, what corporate values we choose to support. Those decisions cannot be "wrong", because each of us has a different way of valuing things.
If you are not the exception, and enough people choose to stop patronizing Six Flags for this and other reasons, then Six Flags will either see the error of their ways, and fix them, or they will go out of business. However, if you are the exception, and enough people choose to patronize Six Flags with these new policies, and Six Flags makes more money with these policies than they did before, then these policies are here to stay.
Of course, a business' values can impact it's profitability. As an example, which I've offered before, I do not shop at Sam's Club (or, for that matter, WalMart). I gave up my Sam's Club membership, and bought a Costco membership instead. I did this despite the fact that CostCo memberships cost more, their prices for products are higher than they are for the same product at Sam's Club, and CostCo is farther away from me. The reason I did it is that Sam Walton is Satan's Spawn, and his companies are the Devil's Playground.
However, I recognize that, in the marketplace, my decision is Quixotic at best. Given the choice, more people patronize Sam's than CostCo, because they can get what they want for less money, and corporate values be damned.
Rob A. said:
I can't just sit back and blindly think that every decision every CEO makes is the right decision- CEOs, presidents and board chairmen make bad decisions just like the rest of us....You're the one claiming that profit is the only thing that matters, and that companies should do whatever it takes to achieve profits....To hell with profits for the time being, how about what's right for ALL paying customers and not just the suckers with cash they're willing to burn?
Except that the CEO of a publicly-held company is duty-bound to do EXACTLY THAT. Their ONLY JOB is to maximize shareholder return. To do anything else violates their fiduciary duty, and can land them in court or worse. Of course, there are many ways to improve shareholder return that do not necessarily reduce costs to run the business, or increase prices for the customer. For example, paying your employees a little more allows you to hire better people, and provide better service, and that could lead to more profits. Likewise, reducing prices a little bit could attract enough guests to make up for the decrease, and in turn increase profits.
And, of course CEOs sometimes make the wrong decision. But, the only sense in which a decision is "wrong" is that it leads to reduction in profit, or turns out to break the law (c.f. Enron).
However, if you are really serious about the "to hell with profits" idea, then why aren't you arguing that admission should be set just high enough to ensure that the park's expenses are covered, and to provide an adequate capital expenditure program? Anything more isn't "right" for the paying customers, because then they'd be paying more than they have to.
Of course, I wish I could pay less for my amusement park visits, and I wish that those visits had more riding and less waiting. But, my wishes are immaterial to any for-profit park operator. What they care about is whether their customers choose to spend more money than it costs to entertain those customers---and, the larger the spread between the total revenue and total costs, the better.
Rob Ascough said:
I agree the money does rule, and profits do matter in the end- but there are fair and right ways to go about achieving profit and unfair and wrong ways to go about achieving profit. Any way you slice it, selling a place in line in front of another guest is unfair to that other guest.
Okay, I actually see it another way: You dont "own" your place in line, the park does. Dont believe me? At the parks sole discrection, you can be prevented from entering the line or even once you are in said line, you can be compelled by the park to leave it. Additionally, if any park wishes, they can at anytime give your place in line to any other person they choose. Previously, this was primarily limited to ADA access and the like. Now some parks have chosen to expand this. You have *never* had a claim to "a place in line". It just APPEARED that way.
And I cannot think of a single facet of life that hasnt adopted something similar to this. All the 'loyalty' programs feature this (e.g. Hertz, Hampton Inn, Interval International etc.). Restaurants and ticket places have *always* tried to serve hotel concierges before 'regular people' because of the increased chance of business. Heck, when I bought my appliances from Sears, I was able to talk with their 'contractor sales' department in a nice cushy office with the personal help of a senior sales manager as opposed to those who just walked in and had to deal with whoever was working the floor that day. (Home Depot also has 'contractor only' checkouts which take away a cashier from the 'regular folks'). Banks have special tellers for certain users based on their banking relationships. Yada, yada, yada.
Offering preferred service to those who spend more is far more pervasive than you might have it seem. And I'm not just talking private jets. I'm talking retail sales, casual dining, auto repair, dry cleaning, babysitting, etc.... I cant think of a single type of place where it *doesnt* happen!
Hey, I can feel you if you dont want to support such places. I can even understand you saying it's not "fair" (though I'd question what your definition of "fair" is). But dont be fooled. It's neither new nor limited. It's just a bit more apparent.
lata, jeremy
millrace said:That's a really poor way of looking at it. Because something is profitable, doesn't automatically mean it is good.
Good? Even a liberal wacko such as myself sees that as WAY down on the list of things I can *expect* from a business. Note that I didn't use the word "want".
I think the conversation is kinda funny in that whether or not we WANT something to be true does not, and will not, make it so...
Businesses are predictable in the "maximize profit" concept. In many ways, that IS good. It also has drawbacks. Good, bad, fair, unfair, these are for lack of a better term, judgements. What you can *expect* is that RedZone, like almost every other business out there, will do what it can to make as much money as possible....free from moral judgements.
The world's not fair....except for the World's Fair. Or not.... ;)
I'd jump at it if they actually used the proceeds to buy CO2 credits a la Kyoto, but I've not yet convinced myself that what they are doing is truly effective.
Brian Noble said: And, of course CEOs sometimes make the wrong decision. But, the only sense in which a decision is "wrong" is that it leads to reduction in profit, or turns out to break the law (c.f. Enron).
Me likey this one...
See, where I see this argument as compelling to me is that it puts me squarely on both sides of the fence...it hurts, but makes me evaluate the SF situation in its proper business context.
It seems that many of the most ardent supporters of the "changes" feel that it IS good business. Some of the most ardent detractors, however, fail to argue that it MIGHT be bad business. I am *not* saying that it's necessarily bad business to sell off the low-margin customers, and very well could be "good business" - well, profitable, LOL.
But clearly, there IS a point where you've limited your supply too much (let's just say if there's 1,000 people in the park that NO ONE needs a Qbot). Having too many employees, too much food going bad, etc., can hurt profits if you don't have ENOUGH customers to keep employees busy and product moving.
Snyder, by my guess, apparently believes he can lose another 10-15% of his customers, raise the expected price tag of a day by *another* 25-50%. If he can, and I have less and less reason to doubt that he can, it would be, in effect, good business.
Please note that I've become somewhat more optimistic that the new formula SF will yield better results...my gut tells me the economy is beginning to turn in a more positive direction. Now, how do I make money off these "instincts"...LOL! ;)
*** Edited 3/29/2007 12:15:38 AM UTC by rollergator***
You must be logged in to post
