Six Flags considers selling more parks.
It has little to do with destination park issue, either - even when WDW had just the two resorts when it opened, it has been packed - so has Disneyland which has been around since the 50's and is no where near the destination now that WDW is.
This utopian upper class SF park is already being experimented with for several years to some degree by SF: for a while now SFGAdv has been doing season pass appreciation nights and even full days for about four to five times per year. For the price about ninety bucks for a season pass, you can enjoy the experience the way Gonch is describing, including a nice cross section of pass-carrying GP's and a less stressed, consumer-friendly staff. Even the packs of rotten tweeners are more courteous and behaved, and there's no need to line jump. Simlilarly, they offered 'exclusive' experience, limited-sale ticket events like the Sean Hannity freedom concert - for about 75 bucks you can enjoy a weird concert event and basically have the same experience as the aformentioned exclusive pass nights.
We have bought passes for the last few years with the intent of only going solely to these exclusive pass events (once you've experienced them, your spoiled) during the season, but once in a while we pop in for the evening if there is a good concert or with the intent of just riding during the last few hours when the lines are shorter. Have pass sales skyrocketed from these events? I don't know the answer, but it's obviously not solving their financial problems.
*** Edited 2/3/2008 5:59:03 AM UTC by Rye.D.Ziner***
Rye.D.Ziner said:
matt is exactly right - think about it Gonch:
I wasn't disagreeing with anything Gonch was posting, all I was doing was entertaining some of Gonch's (generally) good ideas and speculating in a "why if?" fashion. Following the train of thought.
I'd also vehemently disagree that Cedar Point is the Walt Disney World of the Midwest. If anything, Walt Disney World is the Walt Disney World of the Midwest. *** Edited 2/2/2008 10:39:46 PM UTC by matt.***
matt. said:
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, 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?
No. I think those people would do something else alltogether. I guess my business approach doesn't necessarily just price against other parks, but rather stakes a place within all forms of leisure entertainment bought with disposable income.
Does that make sense?
Rye.D.Ziner said:
Even they have recognized that they've hit a ceiling on gate prices - do you think that if they double their gate price and theoretically drop the lines on the big 5 to less than an hour's wait, they will compensate for the reduced amount of folks spending money on food, games, shops, etc.? If not, there's half of the people in the park, so it's the same revenue on the gate. Unless they skyrocket the price of the food and merchandise, where will the extra money come from?I'm sure they've examined every scenario including that one and realized it's not likely.
That's where it becomes a balancing act and no one can know what will happen until someone gets the balls to do it.
The main flaw is assuming that doubling the price cuts the crowd in half. Perhaps doubling the price only cuts the crowd by 40%? Perhaps doubling the price cuts the crowd by 60%? There's no way we can argue that beyond broad assumptions.
So how about we do it this way - per cap dollars.
Let's face it - revenue is just attendance x per cap.
Traditionally the parks have strived to increase attendance as a means the grow revenue. My argument is that the time is passed for that mentality. I say the biggest regional parks have long ago met their 'terminal velocity' point where there's no way they'll draw more people to the park.
CP peaked at something like 3.5 million in the 90's and have been hovering between 3 and 3.5 million since then. There's no way they'll EVER do 4 million in a season. It's just not going to happen. So what do do when you can't grow attendance but still want (need?) to grow revenue?
There's only two halves to the equation, so it shouldn't take much to figure out where the growth has to come from...
Per Cap spending. :)
That's a whole discussion in itself. How do you raise the per cap numbers. So far CF and SF have tried to do it inside the gate and all they've done is piss people off with middling results.
I say that inside the park isn't the best place to get those per caps up. I say it's at the gate. That's the crux of my argument.
Your argument seems to be that we'll raise attendance numbers - but by lowering prices and getting the same people to return more often.
That makes sense, but I ask how these parks which are already stretched to the breaking point with capacity, offering subpar customer service, generally getting by by delivering the least that they have to will really benefit by putting more people in the parks.
You can argue that SF probably can't deliver a better experience to even a smaller crowd and my logic is that they'll never offer it a larger crowd then.
It seems simple to me. The big parks are underpriced and have been for way to long. When a day at Knoebels ($37) or Holiday World ($40) or Indiana Beach ($46) is in the same range as CP ($43) or SF season passes ($50) and those parks in turn are priced less than places like Hershey ($48) and BGE ($57)...
...something is clearly out of line.
There's a reason all of those other parks seem to be doing so much better than the big regionals of SF and CF - they're priced correctly.
SFMM got Thomas Town and X2 redone, why would they want to sell it. If they were going to sell why not just sell it how it is.
Bolliger/Mabillard for President in '08 NOT Dinn/Summers
SF: $38.07
CP: $38.71
Busch: $47.47
Universal have their park numbers not listed.
Disney lists their number a percent increase over pervious year and based on per room spending at the resorts: $218 per night .
Both SF and CP have a lot of growth potential if you compare them to Busch, Universal and Disney.
Lord Gonchar said:
No. I think those people would do something else alltogether. I guess my business approach doesn't necessarily just price against other parks, but rather stakes a place within all forms of leisure entertainment bought with disposable income.
I also had that thought in my head when I was typing out the post but forgot to mention it. I guess I just still feel skeptical that other forms of entertainment can completely fill the gap that could be created by out-pricing such a large group of people, especially when so (relatively few) people go to parks in the first place, even when they're doing well. In other words going to a park is such a, I dunno, marginal activity already it seems like the people who are still going today would still like to go in the future in some capacity even if they are priced out of the traditionally popular parks. But it just may be a case of you having really awful taste in parks and mine being much better and our biases towards certain parks may lead us to somewhere closer to the middle.
I just find it hard to believe that if SFGAdv's ticket price jumped significantly, for example, there wouldn't be some sort of strong demand nearby for a less expensive option - whether or not that option would actually materialize is a different thing.
I'll also add that just because parks may have seen some infringing on their influence in recent years, I don't see why that trend is completely inevitable or has to be completely one way. I dunno, I'm certain the industry is going to look very different in a small amount of time - I'm not sure smaller, less expensive facilities are an impossibility in the future. *** Edited 2/3/2008 12:30:31 AM UTC by matt.***
Threads like this typically mention a) a reduction in attendance at CF and SF parks, and b) continued mediocre to poor food and customer service. What reason is there to believe that there'd be any improvement if the price were suddenly greatly increased and the crowds were even moderately decreased?
If they want me to put out a whole lot more money, they need to put up.
Lord Gonchar said:No. I think those people would do something else alltogether. I guess my business approach doesn't necessarily just price against other parks, but rather stakes a place within all forms of leisure entertainment bought with disposable income.
Rye.D.Ziner said:
Even they have recognized that they've hit a ceiling on gate prices - do you think that if they double their gate price and theoretically drop the lines on the big 5 to less than an hour's wait, they will compensate for the reduced amount of folks spending money on food, games, shops, etc.? If not, there's half of the people in the park, so it's the same revenue on the gate. Unless they skyrocket the price of the food and merchandise, where will the extra money come from?I'm sure they've examined every scenario including that one and realized it's not likely.That's where it becomes a balancing act and no one can know what will happen until someone gets the balls to do it.
The main flaw is assuming that doubling the price cuts the crowd in half. Perhaps doubling the price only cuts the crowd by 40%? Perhaps doubling the price cuts the crowd by 60%? There's no way we can argue that beyond broad assumptions.
So how about we do it this way - per cap dollars.
Let's face it - revenue is just attendance x per cap...
CP peaked at something like 3.5 million in the 90's and have been hovering between 3 and 3.5 million since then. There's no way they'll EVER do 4 million in a season. It's just not going to happen. So what do do when you can't grow attendance but still want (need?) to grow revenue?
There's only two halves to the equation, so it shouldn't take much to figure out where the growth has to come from...
Per Cap spending. :)
That's a whole discussion in itself. How do you raise the per cap numbers. So far CF and SF have tried to do it inside the gate and all they've done is piss people off with middling results.
I say that inside the park isn't the best place to get those per caps up. I say it's at the gate. That's the crux of my argument.
Your argument seems to be that we'll raise attendance numbers - but by lowering prices and getting the same people to return more often.
That makes sense, but I ask how these parks which are already stretched to the breaking point with capacity, offering subpar customer service, generally getting by by delivering the least that they have to will really benefit by putting more people in the parks.
One more point to consider:
In 2006 CF cut admission cost and some food prices. That same year SF jacked up admission (& parking & food prices). Attendance fell, percaps increased, revenue was flat--in BOTH chains
(Also, in 2007 CP raised its admission price by $1 just before Halloweekends. Attendance went through the roof)
Even if CP could handle 6m people, there is probably no way to lower admissions enough to get that many people there. (Even if admission were free there is a considerable cost in time and $$$ to get people from Chicago or Indianapolis to drive there)
For some reason, after the 2006 "we want families b/c they spend more" SF has changed to "we need to get attendance up." Presumably there is a reason for them concentrating on that half of the equation.
This Isn't A Hospital--It's An Insane Asylum!
matt. said:
I'd also vehemently disagree that Cedar Point is the Walt Disney World of the Midwest. If anything, Walt Disney World is the Walt Disney World of the Midwest.
I never thought it either until I moved to the midwest and heard that quote from several locals. I didn't realize how well reknown the park was throughout the upper midwest as a regional destination, but the attendance numbers don't support their claim - from an attendance standpoint I'd have to agree that those people are obviously going to WDW, but for sheer scale of park and resort it is sort of a mini WDW in it's early years, complete with campground and seperate waterpark (minus the mouse, animatronics, and lots of theming!)
matt. said:
I just find it hard to believe that if SFGAdv's ticket price jumped significantly, for example, there wouldn't be some sort of strong demand nearby for a less expensive option..
Yeah, I see what you're saying, but I just don't think it'd happen like that. I think we, as enthusiasts, overplay the importance of amusement parks in people's lives.
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.
You would think so, huh? Me too. But people aren't exactly clamoring for that sort of thing. In fact, many small places like that are closing.
I'm not sure smaller, less expensive facilities are an impossibility in the future.
Impossibility? Of course not. Not even a rarity. But what is a smaller, less expensive park? I suspect the FEC's are covering a decent portion of that market across the country.
RatherGoodBear said:
Threads like this typically mention a) a reduction in attendance at CF and SF parks, and b) continued mediocre to poor food and customer service. What reason is there to believe that there'd be any improvement if the price were suddenly greatly increased and the crowds were even moderately decreased?
Blind faith. ;)
Captain Hawkeye said:
In 2006 CF cut admission cost and some food prices. That same year SF jacked up admission (& parking & food prices). Attendance fell, percaps increased, revenue was flat--in BOTH chains
That's true.
Rye.D.Ziner said:
Upper middle class and affluent people have more choices with their leisure time like vacation homes, country clubs, yachting/sailing, shopping sprees, and backyard aquatic oasis pools to enjoy possibly even with their own small waterslide. Look at the people around you in line at any SF - if you outprice most of them, are the Paris Hilton's of the world going to rush the gates to fill their place?
Again, your perspective seems to be off a bit. Upper-middle class and Paris Hilton are not even close.
In 2006 the median income in the US was $48,201. 19% of households earned $100,000 or more. (source 1, source 2)
Captain Hawkeye said:Even if CP could handle 6m people, there is probably no way to lower admissions enough to get that many people there. (Even if admission were free there is a considerable cost in time and $$$ to get people from Chicago or Indianapolis to drive there)
For some reason, after the 2006 "we want families b/c they spend more" SF has changed to "we need to get attendance up." Presumably there is a reason for them concentrating on that half of the equation.
Why not just like "Season Pass Nights" mentioned a few posts above.. have a hole day or say MONTH long promotion where OUT OF STATE customers get half off gate or SP prices and Neighbouring state customers get say 25% off (Since some neighbouring states are minutes away from parks). Hell, even host a "You get in free if you can show ID from another state, province or country day" andjust see how many people will flood the park. Considering the Zoo the happened in GA at SFOG, I would be surprised if that DIDNT happen again anywhere else but in Georgia where people will have learned not to go because they are already prepared for 2% of the city to show up.
Lord Gonchar said:
I think we, as enthusiasts, overplay the importance of amusement parks in people's lives.
But then I'm not the one thinking they'd be willing to fork over 90 or 100 bucks to pass through the gates of a Six Flags park. :)
What would CF and SF have to do to improve the experience to get people inside the parks at basically twice what they're paying now?
If they have to build millions and millions of dollars worth of rides or make other major capital investments, they'd be no further ahead of the game than they are now. The increase in price would just be paying for additional expenditures, and not be making any more profit or paying down debt.
Ѕіx Flαgѕ Đαrієή Ĺαkє said:
have a hole day or say MONTH long promotion where OUT OF STATE customers get half off gate or SP prices and Neighbouring state customers get say 25% off (Since some neighbouring states are minutes away from parks).
SF already does 'outer market' pass pricing at some of their parks. Our passes to SFStL were $45 last year.
RatherGoodBear said:
What would CF and SF have to do to improve the experience to get people inside the parks at basically twice what they're paying now?
Probably not a whole lot as I think they're underpriced to begin with.
It seems that parks like CP think they're reached a point where people won't pay more to come, but they seem to base that on nothing concrete.
I've been through it before but in 2000, the gate at CP was $38. $38!? In 8 seasons they've moved their price $5.
Knoebels RAD price in 1998? $21.50. In 10 seasons they've raised their gate $16.
Holiday World's pricing in 2000? 22.95. In 8 seasons they've raised their gate $17.
Hersheypark pricing in 2000? 32.95. In 8 seasons they've raised the gate $16.
Busch Gardens Williamsburg pricing in 2001? $38.95. In 7 seasons they've moved their gate $17.
I see a trend here. It's not about what the big regional parks of CF ans SF need to do to get people to pay higher prices - it's about what they haven't done in the past decade.
There's no reason the listed gate at CP shouldn't be in the mid-to-high 50's at ths point.
Both chains have priced their season passes similarly out of proportion.
It's not about what they have to do to make people pay that - it's about what they neglected to do to make people pay that.
Lord Gonchar said:
Rye.D.Ziner said:
Upper middle class and affluent people have more choices with their leisure time like vacation homes, country clubs, yachting/sailing, shopping sprees, and backyard aquatic oasis pools to enjoy possibly even with their own small waterslide. Look at the people around you in line at any SF - if you outprice most of them, are the Paris Hilton's of the world going to rush the gates to fill their place?Again, your perspective seems to be off a bit. Upper-middle class and Paris Hilton are not even close.
In 2006 the median income in the US was $48,201. 19% of households earned $100,000 or more. (source 1, source 2)
It was exaggeration to make a point - obviously you'd never see a Paris Hilton in regular lines because she would be on the v.i.p. experience flashpass tour or rent out the entire park for an evening with friends. I've spent time living in upper middle class to affluent towns - these people generally don't go to places like SF; their tweeners might go as dropoff kids until their teen years, but they have more choices later in life and lose interest with the other diversions described. Having also lived in middle class to low income areas, I've noticed those people do go to SF in droves, and I'd imagine in sheer cencus numbers, there are more of the latter economic class of people in the States.
For those who feel that economics is a heartless business - it is. But it IS the world businesses operate in, and investors don't really want to hear much about what's *FAIR*. Forgot who it was that said it first - "life's hard, buy a helmet".
Lastly (for this post), matt. said:
" If anything, Walt Disney World is the Walt Disney World of the Midwest."
Truer words have NEVER been spoken...it's also the WDW of England, Brazil, and MANY other places. Find me a regional that draws a decent percentage of guests from outside a 200-mile radius and I'll call them WILDLY successful. Disney is alone in the U.S. by drawing guests from other COUNTRIES...their position is unique, and always has been. The $500M investments in parks like HRP and IoA - virtually a drop in the bucket when compared to what Walt did, when you compare "equivalent dollars".
But do you think that's because of the people or the parks?
I've spent time living in upper middle class to affluent towns - these people generally don't go to places like SF; their tweeners might go as dropoff kids until their teen years, but they have more choices later in life and lose interest with the other diversions described. Having also lived in middle class to low income areas, I've noticed those people do go to SF in droves
Perhaps park visitation is dictated by the way SF prices themselves? Or the product they offer. Or the way they sell themselves?
...and I'd imagine in sheer cencus numbers, there are more of the latter economic class of people in the States.
I dunno, it depends on the definitions. The cold, hard census numbers show that 50% of households in the country make more than $48,000 and year and 50% make less. They also show that 19% make six-figures or more. I guess that puts 1/3rd of the country in the $48,000-$100,000 range. My guess would be that defines the middle class.
And if you look at some of the academic models, I'd be correct.
Thompson & Hickey put the lower-middle class in the $35,000-$75,000 range and the upper-middle class from there to over $100,000. The middle class represents 47% of the people in their model.
Beeghley say 46% of familes fall into the middle class and that a household with a man making $57,000 and a woman making $40,000 may be typical. (that's defining middle class with a $97,000 income)
I dunno, man. Seems like the bulk of what gets definied as the middle class could easily afford higher prices at amusement parks.
Paris Hilton at the park. (jump to the 2:00 point) :)
I've been through it before but in 2000, the gate at CP was $38. $38!? In 8 seasons they've moved their price $5.
Knoebels RAD price in 1998? $21.50. In 10 seasons they've raised their gate $16.
Holiday World's pricing in 2000? 22.95. In 8 seasons they've raised their gate $17.
Hersheypark pricing in 2000? 32.95. In 8 seasons they've raised the gate $16.
Busch Gardens Williamsburg pricing in 2001? $38.95. In 7 seasons they've moved their gate $17.
This shows me that, those they say small parks offer more bang for the buck, is way off base.
You must be logged in to post
