Six Flags considers selling more parks.
Rye.D.Ziner said:
A lower middle class family of four cannot afford to blow over four hundred bucks for a days visit to SF more than once or twice per year. If they'd ditch the parking fee and lowered food prices those families might attend three to four times per year and it would increase SF bottom line per family over the course of the season.
That makes absolutely no sense.
A lower middle class family can't spend $400 more than once or twice a year (giving SF $400-$800), but if they lowered prices that family would attend more often and the bottom line would increase (giving SF > $400-$800)?
Please explain how lowering prices suddenly gives that family more disposible income.
manofthechurch said:
Please sell SFGADV to Cedar Fair!!!! Please
I love my park and I want the best for it. Cedar Fair is the answer.
Are you 'effing nuts?! I could see it now...OTSR's on El Toro, TWO sets of seat belts on Nitro (along with a trim every 10 feet), KK would NEVER operate both sides again, and old rain stand-by's like Medusa and GASM would cease operating at the first wet mist...the park would legitimately be ruined! And oh yeah, no more Flash Pass.
TTD doesnt have OSTR and KK does. There goes that theory!!
I have a feeling if Kinzel took one ride on ET (if CF owned it) he would condemn it as unfit for operation and a danger to society!
I certainly understand the annoying trim breaks all over coasters but not safety issues.
I talked with someone in the "know" so to speak about what is creating all this and he said "Lawyers." Some insurance companies want to make sure there is absolutely, positively, no way you could ever get out of your seat.
There apparently was a big fallout after some high-profile accidents involving mentally challenged people i.e. the TopScan accident from several years ago.
Bossstl said:
After reading all of this I am actually surprised that SFSTL wasn't mentioned more often as being one of the possible parks they would off load.Heres the thing about SFSTL. Even thought the park has had declining attendance the last few years (see example below), the park has still been profitable, while other Six Flags parks have been in the red. You don't sell off those assets that have a ROI when others cant even do that...That is of course in less your offered an obscene amount of money.
I have a feeling this year will be a make or break year, the park needs to start drawing out of towner's in again.
2007 - 1.320 Million
2006 - 1.377 Million
2005 - 1.377 Million
2004 - 1.35 Million
2003 - 1.675 Million
2002 - 1.75 Million
2001 - 1.86 Million
2000 - 1.9 Million
1999 - 2.059 Million
1998 - 1.556 Million
1997 - 1.75 Million
1996 - 1.8 Million
1995 - 2 MillionThe figures are fairly accurate...
That's so awesome that you have all those statistics. Do you have more parks? I have all of them, but they are from different years. Most of the ones I have are from 2003.
This is the order that I think they are in order of attendance:
SFGAdv
SFGAm
SFMM
SFOT
SFMexico
SFOG
SFNE
SFDK
Astroworld is gone
SFFT
SFStL
SFA
SFDL (Is Gone)
La Ronde
SFKK
Great Escape
SFNO
I would be guessing American Adventures being the last one.
I said SFStL because you can't do anything with SFKK, SFNO, and La Ronde. I think the reason SFMexico has such a high attendance is because they have cheap tickets. They are selling tickets for like $35. I can only imagine that they have discounts on those tickets. However, they aren't putting many new additions at that park.
Isn't it smarter to sell a park that isn't making a profit, or is making barely a profit than a park that is getting the people in the park? I don't know which park is making a profit, and which one is. I think people guess that SF whatever park is making a profit when they have no idea. The more people, the more you think that it's making a profit, but yet you have parks like Mexico where you wonder if they really are making a huge profit, or a loss.
Basically, Six Flags need to start raising prices until each park makes a profit however that is. If SFFT is losing a million dollars a year, they need to work on that park making that million back. They only need to raise the prices for that park. Is there a way for this park to make a profit? If there isn't, get rid of that particular park. Obviously, you have to focus on whatever parks aren't getting the money they should be. Add more stuff to them, or say goodbye. It shouldn't be about the whole chain thing. He needs to be individual with each park.
What happens when you load the park with goodies, and nothing comes about? They added Tony Hawk to SFStL, and nothing really happened. So, they are adding another roller coaster this year.
Why does Magic Mountain not get that high of attendance considering it's an all year park?
Why didn't I know Magic Mountain is open all year?? I should know since I'm a Six Flags season pass holder. Why isn't anyone telling me from Six Flags after Fright Fest at my park that we have a park that's open all year round? People from California have said that they don't market that park that much. When I think of California, I don't think of sun like Florida. Florida is the sunshine state. What the heck is California's slogan? Who cares if it's a year round park if people don't know about it from other states other than California?
On top of that, they are a year round park that's only open on weekends in the off-season. If I want to go there, I have to plan around Magic Mountain's schedule which is weekends only. So, you wonder why Magic Mountain isn't getting the attendance it should be besides nothing open thing. If they market that park as a year round park, they will get a huge profit. They just don't want to spend the money because they give all the parks most likely the same amount of money on marketing.
Marketing is a HUGE thing. If people forget about a particular place, those ads will remind people to go to that park. Disney does marketing all across the US, and so does Busch Gardens. Where are the I want to go to Six Flags commercials, and these are all the parks we own commercial? Hey, if you are visiting some state like Washington, for the capital, how about trying Six Flags America? We were in Maryland which isn't that far from Six Flags America, and the person didn't even hear of that place. This was the tourism guide person. Now, that's funny, and really sad for Six Flags. What the heck are they thinking?? They didn't have brochures for that park.
A lower middle class family can't spend $400 more than once or twice a year (giving SF $400-$800), but if they lowered prices that family would attend more often and the bottom line would increase (giving SF > $400-$800)? Please explain how lowering prices suddenly gives that family more disposible income.
OK Gonch: Here's the economic theory behind it: instead of $800 from this typical family (2x$400), said family blows $250 a pop on 4 visits generating an extra $200 for SF. Multiply this by 10,000 typical families of this type and you've got a cool extra $2 Million for the season (imagine 100,000 families which is not unreasonable at some of the coast parks). These families are visiting more often because they don't feel like their wallets have been picked after leaving the park, and they don't need to save up as much money for a day's visit, allowing them to have enough money to visit sooner into the season and therefore even further into the end of the season. During the 2 extra visits they spent in the park, they would have been spending about $100 for the family to attend a movie and dinner out anyway, so they've saved the extra $200 from visiting the park instead on those two extra days - it's the same total amount of disposable income, they are just concentrating it more on the outdoor entertainment industry instead of the indoor type. People are always looking to spend time and money on leisure activities, it's just that there is more competition for this disposible income from things like more home video games (Wii), more sophisticated movies (Imax), more legalized casinos, more malls and lifestyle centers, more FEC's, and more home theaters *** Edited 2/1/2008 5:30:57 AM UTC by Rye.D.Ziner***
But how about this?
Jack the price up more and in turn be able to offer a superior experience.
You're saying that low-mid income family can afford to spend $800 over two visits? Let's make it $800 a visit.
We'll lose a large chunk of those families for exactly the reasons you describe, but we'll retain a few. What we'll really gain is the high middle income families who can easily spend that money but never did because the park experience sucked so bad with long lines and not enough staff or ride capacity to handle the crowds who would now probably visit once or twice a year since the experience is improved.
Instead of dropping prices and having your low-mid family coming 4 times at $250 - how about we raise prices and get a new kind of family to come twice for $800. That generates an extra $800 (instead of just $200 with your plan) - all we need is 2500 high-mid familes to get that cool $2 Million for the season. Then figure that if those low-mid families were already spending $800 the old way, that at least a percentage will still spend the same amount for one visit with the much improved experience and you're up even more.
Just my thoughts. :)
I just can't buy into the Wal-Mart pricing approach working at an amusement park - or any other non-essential, service-based form of entertainment.
Offering low prices and dealing with razor thin margins makes people buy lots of toilet paper & flip flops and allows you to get by on sheer volume in the department stores. It's not going to work in the amusement park.
That's a problem for Six Flags: even if they jack up the prices they can't follow thru with the better customer service, not without a major and total overhaul of their human resources department, hiring practices, work training, job reward program, salaries, etc.
Worse, after burning so many guests with horrible customer service for the last decade who is going to believe them when they promise it?
Six Flags has over the past two seasons focused on many things, including overhauling HR, hiring practices, retention, training, rewards, even wages. They are trying to keep the good workers and weed out the bad ones. Of course, with any job filled mostly by teenagers, some of them wont want to be there. Some companies are really good at getting past this (Chick Fil Lay? *spelling)... perhaps SF could get tips from other companies on that.
The goal before was to get as many people as possible through the gates. The goal now is the same, but then to keep those people in the park, keep them happy, and get them to spend money. IMHO, Shapiro is on the right track with the company.
He just needs to get rid of the underperformers. Six Flags can be really nice, but with a few less parks.
If It Ain't Broke, It Must Be Fixed
Why didn't I know Magic Mountain is open all year?? I should know since I'm a Six Flags season pass holder. Why isn't anyone telling me from Six Flags after Fright Fest at my park that we have a park that's open all year round? People from California have said that they don't market that park that much. When I think of California, I don't think of sun like Florida. Florida is the sunshine state. What the heck is California's slogan? Who cares if it's a year round park if people don't know about it from other states other than California?
people who work for the company don't even know that haha..
If It Ain't Broke, It Must Be Fixed
That's a problem for Six Flags: even if they jack up the prices they can't follow thru with the better customer service, not without a major and total overhaul of their human resources department, hiring practices, work training, job reward program, salaries, etc.Worse, after burning so many guests with horrible customer service for the last decade who is going to believe them when they promise it?
The confounding factor in all that is the overwhelming debt load which meant no real time to implement Part 1 (creditors are funny like that), and reduced marketability because of Part 2. People may complain a little about all the in-your-face advertising at the parks, but those marketing agreements are really helping SF when they so desperately need dollars. Other forms of entertainment are doing much better growth-wise (pro sports franchises have been skyrocketing in value, for example).
So lets see:
KEEPERS: SFA SELL: American Adventures
SFGAD (Sell Extra Land)
SFNE
SFMM
SFGAM
SFSTL
SFFT
SFOT
SFOG
SFDK
SFKK
White Water
SFNO
SFM
GREAT ESCAPE
(Extra Land around parks & Remove more unreliable rides)
Spinout said:
Teens have money someway, and somehow. They can get a Wii that costs $300 or something like that. Why can't they buy a $125 season pass? Oh, yah I forgot that most of them are around $70. They are at the mall on Saturdays. It's crazy in those malls, and they don't look like they are dressed down. They are spending money!!
All they gotta do is not buy a A&F or Hollister sweater and theres your SP to SF.
I would bet that when all is said and done, SF will be back to what it was originally in the early 90's. Only about 6-7 parks in major markets. The keepers would probably be most of the original parks. My thoughts. SFGAd, SFGAm, SFStl, SFNE, SFOT, SFOG all stay. It could be possible that SFFT would also stick around depending on what the chain needs. SFFT would be a big throw in to a company purchasing a group of parks as it is a very good park and in a very good market.
You must be logged in to post
