Six Flags considers selling more parks.
In the grand scheme of things it is a business, and Shapiro and Snyder know that. Parks can only operate at a loss of so long before it is time to unload them, no matter what the public says. Sometimes in business you have to step on a few toes. SFMM has been the major problem for the SF chain in recent times as they have had major issues with reliability of rides and downtime of rides and not enough maintenance to cover the entire park.
I know SFMM is in the 3rd largest market in the country, but it is time to cut bait on that park and set sail with the parks in the chain that are performing.
Today we are seeing chains like Paramount leave and Six Flags is downsizing, Cedar Fair is having trouble with their new gains. Smaller parks like Kennywood are being bought out.
Mamoosh said:
I think Shapiro should close SFA, sell off the rides, bulldoze what's left, and sell the land for housing.
There's only problem with that theory--Prince Georges County has a huge amount of houses in default right now due to the mortage fallout. Say you get rid of the park, then what?
Do you build a whole lot more big houses (that people can't afford--the D.C. suburbs are ridiculously expensive), or retirement communities like the ones that are across Central Ave. right now?
I know, how about Evangel Church (across the road and to the left of the park) builds a Super Mega Church, because God knows the two Mega Churches (on the same property!) they already have aren't large enough!:)
How about a huge shopping center? Oh, that's right, there's already a huge shopping center right down the street called the "Boulevard at the Capital Centre".
In short, I don't see there being much of a want for the property, or I think it would've been sold off already, or at least some of the excess property. You could be right though, and maybe someone is salivating over the sale of the property. I just don't see it.
Here is my comparison:
I have always hated the Cleveland Browns and still do. However, when Art Model took off with the team and moved to Baltimore I was shocked like many people. I mean Cleveland has a huge fan base, as big as any team out there. It would be such an enigma if SFMM is ever gone.
btw- Where would all of the California thugs go to hang out if SFMM is gone!!! Just kidding!
Maybe SF should take a note and threaten to move their parks unless they get new favorable stadium leases and tax incentives out the wazoo. CF certainly seems to do a better job in navigating the political waters to come out on top (witness: parking tax, Cinci buses, maybe even Santa Clara...).
Selling off parks that are cash flow positive does not help SF unless they get unreasonably high prices for them. Otherwise, while they get $$$ to decrease the debt, they also get decreased cash flow to make debt payments in future years. They sold off parks last year and it doesn't seem to be helping their situation either in 2007 or 2008.
This Isn't A Hospital--It's An Insane Asylum!
Intamin Fan wrote a lengthy novel outlining reasons the following probably won't happen:
Mamoosh said:
I think Shapiro should close SFA, sell off the rides, bulldoze what's left, and sell the land for housing.
I think Moosh was being facetious. Y'know, to get under...someone's...skin. Shh! ;)
People here can state all the statistics they want, but all the GP knows is that Coaster X went in a few years ago and the admission price for Park Y went up all of 2 dollars. They're going to wonder what they're getting along with a big price increase.
rct, I think Riverview lasted a few years beyond the Great Depression. Parks like that and Euclid were more victims of urban flight of the 60s than the depression.
Intamin, I think moosh's post was more a matter of placement than content.
Under Shapiro/Snyder SFI has succeeded in pricing their customers out of what they consider to be an affordable experience,which is just one more reason(among many) that attendance numbers are dropping no matter what strategy they employ.
Lord Gonchar said:
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.
Here's the main problem, as it's been said before - they can't deliver on the quality of goods and customer service even at their current level, let alone raising it to a 'Six Flags over Upper Middle Class America" level.
Consider the fact that people are already shelling out that price range for a full day Flashpass or V.I.P. Experience at these parks - the only thing they are getting is the same old SF mediocre experience laid out on a red carpet - do the employess working at the various rides, food, and shops treat these people with a less sinister attitude since they are paying for an improved experience?!?
To prove they are already overpriced and should drop their prices considerably, compare them to the quality of the Busch, Disney, Universal parks which are almost in the same price range - the quality of these competitor's parks and customer service is more in line with the gate prices they are charging. Even CF parks which are in the same price range as SF are far better values in terms of quality (ie. more efficient ride operations). You can't charge Hilton rates for a Motel 6
"Here's the main problem, as it's been said before - they can't deliver on the quality of goods and customer service even at their current level, let alone raising it to a 'Six Flags over Upper Middle Class America" level."
The *theory* goes that they can't provide acceptable service the NUMBER of guests that they have. Too much demand for the product, so to speak. So one way to reduce the number of guests in the gate is to increase the price until demand drops to the level where you only GET the number of guests you can serve acceptably. That has an added benefit of generating some sorely-needed income.
Largely, it's an argument that hinges on economics. Feeling that amusement parks should be a "right" is something parks could do in the First Golden Age...back when the US population was less than a third of what it is now, and amusement parks dotted the landscape like CRAZY in places like Ohio and PA. And when the parks were a source of "side-income".
If the midways are filled, lines are 1-2 hours, everybody is buying Q-bot to make the day managable...then the demand is greatly outweighing the supply.
Supply and demand is economics at it's most basic.
If they raised the price they'd reduce the demand and theoretically be able to offer much improved service to the smaller customer base.
- Free fasspass system to reduce line waits if desired
- Interesting queue lines, many preshows on the queues can be considered as part of the overall ride experience
- Delivering high quality attractions worth the wait
- Great customer service which includes an emphasis on cast member training
I'm not saying you're theory is wrong, and it would be a fun experiment to see if it could actually work, but it's too risky given their track record and current situation. I wouldn't even dare suggest it if I were Shapiro, however given their current attractions lineup which doesn't hold a candle to parks like Disney and Universal - considering a one-day ticket to SFA is currently about fifty bucks, will people really pay between seventy-five to a hundred bucks for a day at a place like SFA, even without crowds? I'd bet not.
a one-day ticket to SFA is currently about fifty bucks, will people really pay between seventy-five to a hundred bucks for a day at a place like SFA, even without crowds? I'd bet not.
Stop and think about it for a second. Somewhere between a million and two million people pay that $50 each season.
You're trying to tell me that by the time you double the price, there's no one left who would pay that.
Give me a break indeed.
At what point does the bottom fall out then?
$60?
$75?
$90?
Where is the number that all of a sudden makes a million people say, "No thank you."
Disney has been managing these size crowds forever with enormous success at slightly more than a gate price for the larger SF parks for several reasons:
- Free fasspass system to reduce line waits if desired
- Interesting queue lines, many preshows on the queues can be considered as part of the overall ride experience
- Delivering high quality attractions worth the wait
- Great customer service which includes an emphasis on cast member training
LOL! The best part is you said that with a straight face.
Why can Disney do it? They have four destination parks that attract about 40 million people a year from all over the world. The have full resorts. They have tens of thousands of hotel rooms. You get the idea.
I think your first problem is comparing the regional parks (like SF) to the destination parks like Disney and Universal. There is no comparison. The very act of comparing the Orlando business model with a regional park's business model shows how much you don't get it.
What else should I have expected from the guy who thinks the way to make more money is to drop the price of something that's already overdemanded?
Theoretically - let's say that regional parks start to trend towards higher gate prices, with business models that compensate for greatly lowered peeps through the gate with higher cost visits across the board. In other words, the model for Gonchland that you've advocated for for a while.
Do you think, theoretically, that if that became predominant it would open up a new competitive market for smaller, less attraction-rich local parks with lower overhead? In other words, something closer to when
?
rollergator said:
amusement parks dotted the landscape like CRAZY in places like Ohio and PA
In other words, if we saw in the future a profitable SF or CF corporation with a 25% (or more) reduction in yearly attendance, that 25% is still a pretty big number of peeps, right? Do you think there could be a viable competitor(s) to come into those markets and offer something to those people who are now not going to the big chains? I'm thinking places like Idlewild, Beech Bend, the boardwalk parks in CA, Dutch Wonderland, some of the parks in the Dells, Canobie, etc - parks that could offer a good portion of day's worth of fun with a handful of major rides and attractions. I guess what I'm getting at is that many of today's current megaparks started out this way, but as they've grown into places with 10+ coasters and such there's a vacuum at the bottom (less expensive) of the park experience, and the transition of the major regional parks into more exclusive places is more or less a natural progression.
Answering my own question here but I think the demand for that sort of thing could grow but logistics may be tough in this day in age. Land prices, NIMBY factors, the current amount of credit available for such a venture.
Sorry for the wordiness.
They tried to sell SFMM the first time around & it didn't work,mainly due to local outcry against it.
Don't kid yourself. It didn't sell only because no one offered them enough money.
You must be logged in to post
