Six Flags CEO waves the signal flag for families

RobCoasting, I never got to see Dorney pre CF (and havent been to Knotts yet) but I did enjoy my day at Dorney and thought it was a nice park. CF may not be Busch, Universal or Disney but it certainly isnt Six Flags either.

Touchdown, would it hurt you to give Six Flags a chance. When a company is trying to improve, you don't stamp it out and say it's no good and never will be. I thought SFGAdv was cr*p in 2003 too. And don't tell me that you don't shop at Walmart, Target, Kohl's, Home Depot, Loews, or BJ's whole sale. If you say that you only go to Mom and Pop stores and reject the big box stores, and the Fast Food franchises, then I'll say that Drachen Fire is being reinstalled at Bush Gardens.

Besides, I have driven by Dorney Park and find it rather unattractive :-). And Dorney Park, for me, is closer than SFGAdv. Call me ErinGoSFGAdv.

And hopefully Cedar Fair can bring back some of the charm and magic that Paramount ripped out of Kings Dominion. Maybe. Would help by ripping out those stupid mediocre movie posters and removing the headache-inducing movie theme songs everywhere.

- J

"Every day we find something wrong with this company," he says. "It's a total fix-up."

Was that Shapiro in '06, or the rest of us in '00...and '01....and '02... ;)

I can laugh WITH Mark S. now, he seems to be DOING what the old guys just PROMISED... :)

See, Gator gets it! :)

Everyone else feel free to jump on the bandwagon at any time. ;)

Strange how Shapiro is now wanting Six Flags to be like Disney seeing as how Six Flags was originally patterned after Disney (many of the attractions in the early years of SFOT were Texas/Six Flags verisons of Disney attractions).

Erin, sounds like you need to follow your own advice to Touchdown about giving a park a chance. You say you've driven past Dorney but find it unattractive. I infer from that that you've never been in there and don't intend to. Why not give Dorney a chance? If you're not willing or able to, then don't complain about someone else's choice in parks.

Personally, I have no problems with any company trying to make a go of it, particularly in the amusment park business. Lord knows we've had enough bad news about parks closing recently. (And from the article, it appears that Shapiro hasn't shut the door on closing a few more) I'm also all for a park improving its customer service, cleanliness, and atmosphere. I also think they should be getting a fair price for what they provide.

I just can't get into the idea that somehow they're entitled to more and more money from patrons to provide what should be basic services-- cleanliness, service, and security. Services that, frankly, many other parks provide for much less.

If they want to raise the admission price, great. Season pass price, no brainer. It's the idea of Porky Pig's cloven hoof in my pocket everytime I turn around in an SF park that bothers me. For those of you who are willing to part with your cash "just to help SF get back on their feet," good for you. It's certainly your prerogative. Why not just hand over your bank account numbers or cash in your 401K? I'm sure Shapiro would gladly accept it, and it would reduce that debt even quicker. Enjoy your interactive supermarket of entertainment.

I'm inclined to retort, but it feels like we're going to go into the same old, same old, doesn't it?

I personally don't feel that SF is forcing anyone to pay any more than what's basically in line with all the major chain parks (CF, Busch, Universal, Disney, Paramount) - the costs are very comparable acorss the board - even if SF has positioned themselves at the high end of that scale.

What I find so interesting is the idea that when the consumer tries to keep as much of the money on the table in his own pocket, then it's smart buying. But when the corporation does the same thing, they're an evil ripoff.

I mean, technically, isn't visiting a 'smaller' park based on the costs just the exact inverse of what SF is doing?

I suppose it all depends on which side of the fence you're looking over. On one side are people saying things like, "It's the idea of Porky Pig's cloven hoof in my pocket everytime I turn around in an SF park that bothers me." and on the other is SF looking back saying, "God, these people want everything for nothing."

---

I just can't get into the idea that somehow they're entitled to more and more money from patrons to provide what should be basic services-- cleanliness, service, and security. Services that, frankly, many other parks provide for much less.

---

I'm not sure the two correlate. I may have thought so in the past (maybe), but the more I hear, I'm guessing they're totally unrelated.

The parks sucked and they were undervalued.

So how do you fix things?

1.You make the park not suck by adding service, cleanliness and security.
2. You raise the prices to a level more reasonable to what you offer and what the market bears for a similar product.

I dunno. I just don't see what's bad about the situation. They're trying they're damndest to fix things in the park (the first baby steps seem to have been taken from most accounts and seems pretty reasonable for being just 6 months into this thing) and I guess I'll never see how the pricing is so ridiculous - especially when compared with a similar product.

I've said so much about Six Flags pricing before. This includes the high non-discount admission prices (expecially at SFMM and SFGA), $15 parking, some of the highest food and drink prices, and the pay-to-cut Flash Pass. If they want that kind of pricing the bar needs to be raised high regarding what the park offers. Meanwhile CP has a regular admission $20 less than the two parks mentioned above, parking that is $6 less, lower food and drink prices on the average, and no pay-to-cut. Also, their upcharge rides are outside the gate in a separate area.

Everyone knows that CP effectively drove Six Flags out of Ohio even before they cut their prices, just by having a better park. What do you think would happen to SFGA and SFMM and their pricing if DP and KBF had room to expand.

Everyone keeps mentioned Holiday World and Knoebels, hypothetically, would you pay $60 to get into those two parks?

---

This includes the high non-discount admission prices (expecially at SFMM and SFGA)

---

Ok, but anyone worried about the cost in the first place will easily find the online price at SF's own website - it's not exactly hidden. Looks even to me.

---

$15 parking

---

When I'm taking the family of four to the park for the day - $6 doesn't mean dick. It's $1.50 a head.

---

some of the highest food and drink prices

---

I agree, but I also understand (as I said in the last post) that they're still in line with chain park prices across the board. Yes, they're at the high end, but it's not like they're in another league. A large Coke at SFGAdv is $3.99 this year. What is is at CP or PKI or BGE or IOA or WDW? Probably less, but no so much less that it's ridiculous. It's not like those other parks are serving large sodas for 1/2 the price. The price differences over the course of a day at any of those parks is marginal for a family of 4 - and by marginal I mean $10 a head for the day at most.

---

and the pay-to-cut Flash Pass

---

Which is an optional cost. (and also not line cutting, but we've been through that one a zillion times too) All of the other chains offer some sort of VIP package or pass (for a fee) that allow true line cutting.

So basically I can expect a price difference of around $50 total for a family of four when comparing any two major chain parks. That's $12.50 a person. I'm sorry if it sounds smug or elitist - but who the hell bases their choice of amusement park trip on twelve bucks!?

---

What do you think would happen to SFGA and SFMM and their pricing if DP and KBF had room to expand.

---

Absolutely nothing.

So much for no retort, Gonch. ;)

^^ I can't speak for Holiday World, having never been there, but right now, no I wouldn't pay $60 to get into Knoebels. Of course, by the time it does cost that much to get into KG, the big boys will be probably charging well over $100. speaking of the "perceived value" people are so fond of mentioning in here, I perceive far more value from parks like Knoebels, Kennywood, and DelGrosso's than I would most any SF park.

You don't agree with me, well that's certainly your opinion. So let me have mine and lay off!

Yeah, yeah, I know. It's like a drug, I just can't help it - I'm addicted. :)

I totally get where you're coming from with the perceived value thing. In fact, I think that's exactly what parks like that do so well. The downhome, good deal, "we're showing you a good time, not making money" thing. That's such a hard thing to argue against, but that's also why I have so much fun trying.

There's no denying that there's a value to that. Whether it's a better value is debatable and I suppose depends solely on each individual.

I like chain parks. Flat out. I'm not a nostalgic type. I'm not a historian type. I'm not a purist. I can appreciate what parks like Knoebels, Kennywood, Conneaut and the like do, but I can also appreciate what the big parks do.

Right now the asking price for what the big parks offer feel every bit as fair to me as the asking price at the smaller, homier (?) locations.

I think coasterguts question is a very interesting one. I think your response (RGB) is even more so.

I take that as quite simply, no amusement park experience is worth $60. It's not so much that an SF park expects $60 a head, it's the idea that any amusement park expects $60 a head.

Assuming that's a correct take on it, I also think it's in stark contrast to the average park visitor. I'd expect the opposite. I really think there's a lot of people around here (and that isn't directed only at you, RGB) who'd be surprised at the sheer number of people who commit to a day at the park regardless of price.

Then again, maybe that's my own jaded view and I'd be surprised at the sheer number of people who make big leisure decisions based on a few bucks.

I suppose that's the crux of the whole neverending debate, isn't it.

All I know is parks like SF, Busch, CF, Disney, Universal, Paramount run attendance numbers that blow away the numbers these small parks do. Regardless of the quality of experience or value of experience people aren't exactly running in droves from the big chain parks to smaller, more economical solutions. It makes me think that price isn't much of a factor in the equation.

Just tossing it out there, cause, well, you know how I am... ;)

IF (subjunctive case) KieranCo had *not* bought parks and land and built (unnecessary) rides ALL over creation, and the company was not in debt to the tune of 2B+, then would Shapiro NEED to be raising prices so drastically JUST to try and turn things around...probably not as much, the expenditures will be going down over the next couple years...

By the same token, prices DID need to come up, both the competitors' pricing AND the SF balance sheet made that abundantly clear...

Bottom line: If Redzone can close the gap between costs and income to a degree that Snyder feels is *promising* for the future, then someone else will come in and give it a shot. But right now, with increasing corporate tie-ins and increasing revenues, I'd say the financial outlook for SFI is brighter than it has been in QUITE a few years...

Enthusiasts looking to visit parks "on the cheap" (hey, I'm poor too, LOL) can still do so. Takes a little more effort, and SOME more money, but I can't say that THAT many people are going to be UNABLE to afford visiting...for instance, I saw someone post that the $15 discounted admission was returned to SF in parking fees. True enough, IF there's one person in the vehicle (an unusual situation).

In my latest comment, I compared SFGA and SFMM to CP, a reasonable apples to apples comparison since big coasters, and lots of them, are the main draw at all three of these parks. I just perceive CP to be a better overall value when everything is considered.

As for the other parks like KW, KB, etc. these parks are good values because of what they offer for the price. CP is a good value because of what it offers for the price as well. Comparing KW to CP or KB to SFGA really doesn't make a lot of sense because these parks have a completely different character.

It might be all right for destination parks such as the Disney and Universal parks to charge $60 a day. These parks are very unique in character. When travel, hotels, etc. are considered, the admission price is a relatively small amount of the overall cost. Such a price is too steep, however, for the regional parks but no one needs to pay this at such parks because of the abundance of discounts that are available.

---

Comparing KW to CP or KB to SFGA really doesn't make a lot of sense because these parks have a completely different character.

---

I couldn't agree more.

---

It might be all right for destination parks such as the Disney and Universal parks to charge $60 a day.

---

We're still on the same page. :)

---

I just perceive CP to be a better overall value when everything is considered.

---

Ok, and that's an individual thing. Some might find SFGAm to be a better value. Some might find PKI to be the best value. The simple facts are that the actual costs of visiting any of the big parks are very comparable. So much so that the difference in negligible unless you're entire visit hinges on less than $20 a person.

Basically, I think we agree more than we don't. :)

---

Gator said:
IF (subjunctive case) KieranCo had *not* bought parks and land and built (unnecessary) rides ALL over creation, and the company was not in debt to the tune of 2B+, then would Shapiro NEED to be raising prices so drastically JUST to try and turn things around...probably not as much, the expenditures will be going down over the next couple years...

By the same token, prices DID need to come up, both the competitors' pricing AND the SF balance sheet made that abundantly clear...

---

Cutting every corner, Kieran still lost money. Snyder/Shapiro are putting things into place that should have been there the whole time. Maybe the reason SF was so 'cheap' before is because of understaffing, lack of characters, one-train ops and no one cleaning anything. Perhaps SF wouldn't be trying to dig itself out of this hole if the gate price was $50 or $60 for the past few years, but the service was there?

Kieran tried to sell the parks on price alone - we all know how that worked. Redzone seems to want to sell the parks on service and quality of experience - that costs money. Imagine how ugly things would get if they put back in place all the things that 'Kieran and friends' let go, but left the pricing the same - the debt would pile up even quicker.

I'd rather have the 'new' SF experience at $60 (retail - street price $40), than the 'old' SF experience at half the price.

^ Let's just say that "lowest price around" may work for Sam Walton, but won't work for the hospitality industry....Oh, wait, I'm preaching to the choir again... ;)...and even with the filth, the lines, the jacked-up customer service attitude, SF *still* found it necessary to pour ALL the resources into building *one more Tatsu* just to try (in vain) to keep the attendance from DROPPING...."One recipe for bankruptcy please, hold the common sense"... ;)At least if I work for SFI *now*, I feel somewhat more secure...the company is in the hands of "business people" now. *** This post was edited by rollergator 6/16/2006 6:20:56 PM ***

ErinGoBraugh, me not going to a Six Flags this year has more to do with my move this year then anything elese. I lived in WI last year, and SFGAm was the closest "real" park. This year Im living in DC, which still makes a Six Flags my closest park; however I am also 2 hours away from both BGE and Hershey the former of which is my favorite park not in Florida and the later a park I love that provides a good contrast to BGE (mainly it has some great wood.) The other huge perk was that with a Season Pass at both those parks I get free parking and food discounts (huge.) I see no reason to spend a day at what may be the SF park with the worst reputation in the chain, and whose "big three" coasters (Superman, Batwing, and Jokers Jinx) are clones of rides I have ridden when I could drive the extra hour and a half to go to 2 parks where I have never had anything but a great time.

*** This post was edited by Touchdown 6/16/2006 6:51:25 PM ***

---

Let's just say that "lowest price around" may work for Sam Walton, but won't work for the hospitality industry....

---

:)

^ Hehe, I knew you'd like that! Hotel snob... ;)