Six Flags Announces Nation's Best Theme Park VIP Program
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?
I'm sure the store will not shed a tear either. They will be glad to let you go to another store, because they know it's only a matter of time before you will find something wrong with the next store.
If your crying over service when your only spending 20 cents, what does that say to them? Chronic difficult customer alert!!
Businesses all over write of difficult customers all of the time. Expectations to the chronic difficult customers will never be met. It's unfortunate that you can't please all of the people all of the time, but it's better to cut your losses before they fester.
As a business owner I have made the mistake of trying to cater to a chronic difficult customer, and let me tell you its not worth it. I'd rather focus on the customers that appreciate my services, its more fulfilling (personally and financially).
-Tambo
Some parks might use better operations and lack of pay-to-cut as a selling point to grow. That park in southern Indiana is another good example of this.
Arthur Bahl
But what if that garlic-needing customer is actually someone who regularly drops $200/week at the store when they go shopping for their entire family, and the bulb of garlic was one of those, "damn, I can't believe I forgot that last time I was here" purchases. Considering the customer is actually a big buyer most of the time, would the company still be wise to let that one slip away?
Here's the thing that happens when you allow people to pay for something more like virtual queing: you create a good experience for them when they pony up the coin for it, and create a not-so-good experience for them when they don't. I can see some customers perceiving it as the company only really caring about them when they're willing to give them more money.
Suppose I go to the same gas station on the way home from work every day. Most days I tell them to fill it up (this is New Jersey, where people aren't allowed to pump their own gas) and I get pretty good treatment- sometimes I get my windshield washed, and the attendant is always quick to get me in and out. Yet one day I happen to need only $10, and when I tell the employee that, he tells me to yield to a customer behind me that needs his tank filled and that he'll get to me when he gets to me. If that happened to you, would you go back to that gas station? If your answer is yes, you have a pretty high tolerance of poor service. If your answer is no, I ask you why you're willing to put up with that sort of thing at an amusement park. What makes an amusement park different from a gas station in that regard?
As for the person (sorry, I forget who it was) that says they needed to shop at Wal-Mart... I'm sorry! I understand there are certain times when one might have to shop at a store like that- the point I was making that many Wal-Mart customers were put in a position where they needed to shop at Wal-Mart because of Wal-Mart in the first place. Assume the following:
1. Wal-Mart's low prices drive a local pillow manufacturer to move production to China, putting a few thousand people in a small Iowa town out of work.
2. Wal-Mart hires the unemployed factory worker but only pays him half of what he was making at the pillow factory - or - local fast food chain hires unemployed factory worker for half of what he was making at the pillow factory.
3. Wal-Mart/fast food restaurant employee has no choice but to shop at Wal-Mart because he can no longer afford to shop anywhere else.
That's where I was going with that.
*** Edited 3/29/2007 1:13:48 PM UTC by Rob Ascough***
Another problem with Wal-Mart is that some people don't have much a choice. It is easy for me to avoid Wal-Mart. Actually, shopping at one would be a chore because the only one I know about is 10 miles out of my way.
But in my grandmother's hometown in rural Iowa (which is, incidently, home to a pillow manufacturer), Wal-Mart drove nearly all the other stores out of business (through predatory practices), and now people have to drive 50 miles to avoid Wal-Mart or suck it up. Especially bad for somebody looking for the morning after pill.
all I am trying to do is illustrate there are right ways and wrong ways to make a profit.
millrace said:
I take exception to radical corporate libertarianism that assumes that unending profits at any cost is always "good" in all senses of the word.
I said:
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.
And that, in a nutshell, is why the three of us are posting on an enthusiast board when someone who is just about our age is the CEO of one of the largest chains in the industry. He's a heartless bastard, we aren't, so he "wins".
(Big ol' ;) for the humor-impaired.)
^ I get your point, but not all CEOs are heartless bastards. Many of them are good, intelligent people that know how to balance the need for profit with respectable business ethics. It's the few uber-greedy ones that set things moving in the wrong direction. *** Edited 3/29/2007 1:24:51 PM UTC by Rob Ascough***
Arthur Bahl said:
Different parks, different philosophies. I hear about more and more people, bypassing SFNE to go to LC even though LC is smaller. This park continues to grow stedily and it will be interesting to see what the attendance level will be ten years from now.
For the record the popularity of SFNE has also exploded in recent years, and while I agree with you that SFNE is losing some customers to LC, a lot of LC's and SFNE's growth is coming from some very large, untapped markets.
I live almost exactly between both parks, and if anything, I'd say LC is benefiting from the successes of SFNE just as much as they are benefiting from SFNE's failures.
Just sayin'.
(actually the pillow factory is more of a distribution warehouse, the company is based in Washington. I don't know where the actual pillows are made)
Actually, I'm pretty sure that everyone knows where I stand on most things, even though I have an amazing propensity to appreciate the other side of the coin. If you DON'T know where I stand on the issues, you haven't been reading too cosely over the last 6-7 years... ;)
So I wonder when my local supermarket will have a "premium" fast lane for those with more than 15 items and an extra 6% to shell out? And when they do, I wonder when I'll ever come back?
I wonder when those self-check out lanes will start offering 6% discounts (which is basically the same as raising rates for having a premium service like having an actual person check out your groceries)? ;)
I drop a lot of money in a lot of stores. There are a lot of stores out there. Not to difficult to win my loyalty. Sure there is a market for premium crap. But there is also a market for crap in my price range. Seems like there are problems when the two worlds collide.
Are we trying to say that Mark Shapiro is a heartless bastard because he rasied the prices and created additional revenue streams for a company that is two billion dollars in debt, but in the process created a mild sense on inequality for some in the park?
Are we really considering that these types of people are getting paid huge salaries as a 'pay off' to their conscience and not because of past successes, proven track records, leadership abilities and qualifications? (for the most part, there's exceptions and bad apples everywhere)
Who defines the moral line that makes a profit 'good' or 'bad'? Because so far in this thread, with the possible exception of Wal-Mart, there's not one example (real or hypothetical) that seems out of line to me - certainly not crosing some imaginary morality line.
Anyhow...I loved THIS: "I drop a lot of money in a lot of stores. There are a lot of stores out there. Not to difficult to win my loyalty."
I think what we're seeing is that the PICs (people in charge) are deciding that they'd rather have a FEW customers drop a LOT of money in a FEW stores. For that to happen, you need exceptional customer LOYALTY.
Like you, it isn't hard to win my loyalty. Treat me decent. The single bulb of garlic might be an extreme example, but it does point out that I'm not always coming into your business with a few Benjamins to drop. But sometimes I will.
I'm very loyal, and QUITE vocal (as if you hadn't noticed?) ;) Also, I'm intelligent, and can sway others to view your business in a positive or negative light with just a few well-chosen words.
...so, even though I may not always be your biggest SPENDER (and probably very rarely ARE), if you treat me well....then as a loyal and *vocal* customer I may easily become one of your biggest ADVOCATES...and that has a hard-to-quantify value as well...
edit: Gonch broke my ^arrow^ reference...he really IS heartless... ;)
Love ya man... :)
*** Edited 3/29/2007 4:31:32 PM UTC by rollergator***
By the way, I read Al Lutz's article yesterday about a possible "boutique" Disney park (scroll down). I think it fits in nicely with what we've been discussing here. So how would you feel about Disney opening a very special park that is out of most people's price range? http://www.miceage.com/allutz/al032707a.htm
janfrederick said: So how would you feel about Disney opening a very special park that is out of most people's price range?
Honestly, I see that more as a Discovery Cove/park buyout/ERT kind of thing. It has NO impact on the regular guests who are doing their day-visit thing, therefore runs no risk of alienating the biggest market segments...
Which is where I'm at least *wary* about the VIP/Qbot thing in terms of reducing overall attendance. Twelve percent was quite a big drop...one that often gets overlooked in the excitement of the 13% increase on per-cap.
rollergator said:
I'm very loyal, and QUITE vocal (as if you hadn't noticed?) Also, I'm intelligent, and can sway others to view your business in a positive or negative light with just a few well-chosen words.
I still think word-of-mouth is an overrated idea.
And with all due respect, I think you're giving your own influence too much importance. Even if you could convince everyone you talk to to not shop somewhere, how deep does that *really* run.
Not to mention that word of mouth applies both ways. So the 'low spender' customer isn't happy and him and his 5 friends no longer visit a given business. But the 'high spender' customer is and him and his 3 freinds become loyal customers. The business ends up ahead on the 50/20 example.
Obviously if you change any of those numbers ever so slightly things may go out of balance, but that's what we've been saying all along...the key is to knowthat balance or find that balance and run with it.
Which is where I'm at least *wary* about the VIP/Qbot thing in terms of reducing overall attendance. Twelve percent was quite a big drop...one that often gets overlooked in the excitement of the 13% increase on per-cap.
Three things.
1. I still think the drop is fine when considered alongside the per cap increase. Granted you can't lose 12% every year, but what guarantees they will?
2. I don't think the drop had anything to do with 'upcharge admission' or 'inequality' within the park and had everything to do with piss-poor operations and customer service.
3. I think that drop is also based on the previous year's guest experiences and I base that on the fact that some of the SF parks were seeing the highest crowds of the season come fall. If they were pissing people off in 2006, attendance (in theory) should have dropped as the year went on. If they pissed people off in 2005 then that matches the upward trend parks like SFGAdv saw last year.
janfrederick said:
By the way, I read Al Lutz's article yesterday about a possible "boutique" Disney park (scroll down). I think it fits in nicely with what we've been discussing here. So how would you feel about Disney opening a very special park that is out of most people's price range? http://www.miceage.com/allutz/al032707a.htm
I think it proves SF aren't the only ones who see a market for a higher priced experience. I think it also subscribes to the 'less customers, higher margin' theory nicely. In summary, it's genius. ;)
janfrederick said:
I for one don't see this as having anything to do with morality. They really aren't doing anything wrong here other than to piss off some customers. This isn't the same as lying to pump your stock and then dump it.
Depends on what you're talking about... Six Flags or Wal-Mart? I'd agree with you on the former but not the latter. Six Flags pisses off customers while Wal-Mart pisses all over America.
By the way, I read Al Lutz's article yesterday about a possible "boutique" Disney park (scroll down). I think it fits in nicely with what we've been discussing here. So how would you feel about Disney opening a very special park that is out of most people's price range? http://www.miceage.com/allutz/al032707a.htm
I read that article yesterday. I actually have no problem with a "boutique" Disney park just like I have no issue with Discovery Cove because you're not talking about parks with different admission tiers, you're talking about parks that will offer something exceptional to those willing to pay it.
I've never been to Discovery Cove (next time we're in Orlando I'm going to make sure we go) but I'm pretty sure admission is something like $250, which is ironically (or perhaps not ironically) the amount of money that Six Flags is charging for their VIP program. I haven't experienced either but I'm sure that Six Flags' VIP program won't come close to creating an experience of the quality of Discovery Cove. So right away there's one problem with it.
Again, I think that by offering people a way to "plus" their Six Flags experience, you're basically telling people that pay the normal admission price that they're not getting all that Six Flags is capable of delivering, which sucks because, once upon a time, there was never a need to pay more money to get everything- it was all included in admission. Everyone waited in the same lines, everyone got the same treatment. Now Six Flags is suddenly telling people that they're not getting everything for their standard admission... that only people willing to pay even more will get them to put forth their best effort. I don't see how that can't erode the public's perception of the quality of the product in the long run.
I've since abandoned my "it's not fair" stance... now I'm arguing against the business sense that it makes. To me, this seems like long-term profit being superceded by short-term gains... make a few quick bucks now but give up on the quality standards that will carry the company long into the future. Because sooner or later, people are going to get tired of being cut in line and convinced that the prices they pay aren't enough to get them what they feel entitled to.
*** Edited 3/29/2007 6:25:14 PM UTC by Rob Ascough***
You must be logged in to post
