Six Flags considers selling more parks.
There is Splish Splash on Long ISland but thats only a water park and maybe in the future the new 70 acer amusement park being built on long island btu really nothing else to go to.
Yes there is dorney but for me on long islands its just too far away.
IN places like ohio and california where there is a lot of parks that might not work but with gadv where there is a big percentage of people where gadv is the only option it will work.
Rye.D.Ziner said:
^give me a break: 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
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.
I don't think they will pay those high prices either. The parks need to have less discounts off of the prices they have NOW. Why give $20 off $55? That's too much money. $35 is not that expensive, and it's nowhere near what Disney price is. Disney doesn't really offer really high discounts like Six Flags does.
As in regards to the service, it's not the crowds that has anything to do with the service unless it's buying your tickets, or getting your season pass for the first day of operation. It's always about the rides not opening, or not enough workers. What do you expect? When people are getting in the park for a mere $35, how can you pay a lot of people to work the rides? It would be okay if those people were going to the park for 20 straight days in a row, and they the park had an attendance over 14 million. Also the season passes have always been too cheap.
I know some of this stuff is obvious, and other parks like Cedar Fair have discounts. They need to get away from that. They aren't just giving $3.00 off a ticket. They are giving huge amounts off. Obviously, with more discounts you will get more people to the park. However, this is a business, and it can't be a giveaway park every single day it's open.
They also should get rid of some discounts in the book like Bring a Friend for Free, and Bring a Friend for Half Price. The friend goes free, and they don't have to buy a season pass. Half price is also pretty cheap. Don't forget about doing that book-it thing every single summer. Kids read, and they get free tickets. Come once free, and don't come back till next year! What in the heck does Disney do? Are they that nice? I think not.
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).
LOL, wow did that name strike me, and hard. A few friends that were in my incoming freshmen classes at UF in 1984 had Beeghley for their Honors seminars. I always wished I had taken one of his classes...but my advisor had a class that wasn't "filling up", so I got (mis)led into Augie Burns' seminar instead.
*** Edited 2/4/2008 8:47:56 PM UTC by rollergator***
Lord Gonchar said:
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.
Who says they can't grow attendance? There are rides at that park that aren't that great in my opinion. Some better rides would equal better attendance. I personally don't like Disaster Transport, Troika, Tower ride, Skyhawk, Sea Dragon, Matterhorn is a little slow, Shoot-the-Chutes Ride, Magnum, Irong Dragon, S&S Tower, Monster (It wasn't that great to me, but I'll try it again.), Millenium Force, Intamin Drop Tower 1, Mean Streak, Sky Buckets are iffy, and so on.
You might think that Cedar Point is the greatest park known to man, but who in the heck says that all the rides are great, and they can't improve them. I think they can expand that park even. Some better rides might equal better attendance. There are plenty of rides they don't have. Look at Canada's Wonderland thrill rides. They have some rides that no other park is daring to put in there park, and people must like those rides. I'm not saying I like the Mondial Space Roller, but it's something different.
Who says that every ride at that park is so great? More advertising always helps. Rather than advertising regional, how about advertising like Busch, Universal, and Disney do. It seems like you are short-changing Cead Point.
Spinout said:
Who says they can't grow attendance? There are rides at that park that aren't that great in my opinion. Some better rides would equal better attendance....(long rant about rides at the park)...
It seems like you are short-changing Cead Point.
You missed the point entirely. It has nothing to do with the park, the rides or the quality.
A park like Cedar Point in a location like Cedar Point's with a schedule like Cedar Point's will never draw 4 million people...ever.
In fact, there's seems to be a magical attendance ceiling for North American regionals - as far as I know - none have ever hit 4 million in a season.
The point is most of the big regionals have reached a point where attendance growth is not an option.
Some better rides would equal better attendance.
But 'better' for who?
I personally don't like...
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. See, here's where we start going wrong. Better in YOUR opinion (or mine) doesn't mean better for everybody. Which means it isn't necessarily better for attendance. For example...
...Irong Dragon...
Did you know 'Irong' Dragon had more riders than Top Thrill Dragster? Or Raptor? Mantis? Wicked Twister? See for yourself. And oh yeah--those 'iffy Sky Buckets' outdrew every coaster but Magnum.
For all we know, the 'kids rule' pitch might be the RIGHT idea.
-CO
*** Edited 2/4/2008 9:10:48 PM UTC by CoastaPlaya***
NOTE: Severe fecal impaction may render the above words highly debatable.
- Hersheypark can't be considered a "small" park.
- Sure, CF and SF parks are probably underpriced, but I don't think a sudden 50% or greater increase in admission price would be meekly accepted by the GP. Oil prices, they had to put up with. Food and everything else that could blame higher prices on increased delivery costs because of those rising oil prices, they had to put up with. Paying more to get into a theme park because the owners decided they were charging too little for the past few decades, I don't see them putting up with.
- Irate customers in Sandusky or Valencia being told to fork over 75 or 80 bucks a head don't give a rat's ass what the poor shmucks in southern Indiana or the woods of northeastern PA are paying to get into parks that don't have near as many "rollie coasters." And few people beyond an enthusiast forum have any clue of what parks other than their home park charge.
- I'd like to hear Augie Burns' take on all of this. :)
RatherGoodBear said:
Hersheypark can't be considered a "small" park.
Agreed - and they've had no problem raising prices as necessary.
Sure, CF and SF parks are probably underpriced, but I don't think a sudden 50% or greater increase in admission price would be meekly accepted by the GP.
Who says it has to be overnight...or even sudden?
Irate customers in Sandusky or Valencia being told to fork over 75 or 80 bucks a head don't give a rat's ass what the poor shmucks in southern Indiana or the woods of northeastern PA are paying to get into parks...
Nor should they. What park in their right mind would use that as PR/justification for price raises?
RatherGoodBear said:I'd like to hear Augie Burns' take on all of this.
OK, but be prepared for a TON of economics, sociology, history, politics, and the way they all lead to "marketization" or "socialization" as determined by the forces of man and the forces of nature. Go here for further reading (but only if you're heavily into theoretical discussions of how we got where we are today):
http://www.humanities.mq.edu.au/Ockham/y64l12.html
This whole field of study has evolved SO much over the last couple decades....who knew then that environmental ecology would lead some of our more enlightened individuals to think of the Earth as a case study in the "Tragedy of the Commons"?
P.S. The most amazing thing I learned in college - NO discipline can be studied in a vacuum. Not even amusement park theory. ;)
The reasoning behind alot of the more "proletarian" views about amusement parks is that there ARE many who seem to think of a ride on a roler coaster in much the same way they perceive clean air and water - that it's a public good that cannot be seen as exclusionary. Forced to wonder where those individuals would place a decent education on the scale from "inalienable right" to "luxury item"... ;)
*** Edited 2/5/2008 12:13:52 AM UTC by rollergator***
SF has 7 right now. It doesn't make sense to have SFStL, SFGAm, and SFFT be combined gates.
CF has currently 8 combo parks,5 of which are former paramount parks.
It limits those parks to people who have passes or willing to spend a full day admission to go to a water park, instead of having the options of going to one, the other or both during a day trip or making the trip into a multiple day trip.
For the most part Disney, Universal, Busch and Herschend water parks are second gates which have a separate admission price then the dry parks (except Seasame Place and Wild Adventures).
Look how SF and CF burned themselves with GL, a park that should of been 3 separate gates that were combined into 1, now it is just one, a water park. *** Edited 2/5/2008 2:02:04 AM UTC by otterkpr***
oh and Sea World San Antonio, like 6 miles away, is a combo park. san antonio also has splashtown. the area also has schlitterbahn.
the park would lose money if they charged more for the water park.
If It Ain't Broke, It Must Be Fixed
Combo parks
SFFT is $46.99 ($31.99 online)
SWSA $50.99 (45.89 online)
Theme park only
SFOT is $47 (29.99 online)
Water park only
Schlitterbahn is $37.99
SFHHT is $24.99
Why are the combo parks price roughly the same as the theme park only price, and the water park prices are not that much lower then the discount SF prices, in the case of Schlitterbahn the price is almost the same as both combo parks prices.
When I looked this up I was more surprised that SF is offer $15 TO $17 off the gate price if bought online. *** Edited 2/5/2008 3:40:28 AM UTC by otterkpr***
If It Ain't Broke, It Must Be Fixed
The question is: "what do I want to pay for a day or two's worth of fun for my family?"
And, that question is going to have answers that differ sharply by region. Asking someone in Southern Indiana what they'd pay for a day of fun is different from asking someone in SE Michigan, which is yet again different from asking someone in, say, the Bay Area.
Comparing parks from different regions to one another just doesn't seem like the most sound strategy, because for most people, that's not the competition. Only enthusiasts who travel to ride think that way.
To some extent, I suspect that "more" in a park isn't about a higher gate price, it's about attracting and supporting a larger customer base.
otterkpr said:
It seems that SF and CF have hurt themselves by having combo parks. Which under prices their parks by making the water park an attraction instead of a second gate.SF has 7 right now. It doesn't make sense to have SFStL, SFGAm, and SFFT be combined gates.
CF has currently 8 combo parks,5 of which are former paramount parks.
It limits those parks to people who have passes or willing to spend a full day admission to go to a water park, instead of having the options of going to one, the other or both during a day trip or making the trip into a multiple day trip.
For the most part Disney, Universal, Busch and Herschend water parks are second gates which have a separate admission price then the dry parks (except Seasame Place and Wild Adventures).
Look how SF and CF burned themselves with GL, a park that should of been 3 separate gates that were combined into 1, now it is just one, a water park. *** Edited 2/5/2008 2:02:04 AM UTC by otterkpr***
I don't know about the other 2 parks you mentioned (SF), but I know that SFStL doesn't have a whole lot of anything at that park, and the waterpark was to add some sort of rides to it. Another park is Kentucky Kingdom. There also isn't a whole lot of stuff at that park. Than, you also have Six Flags America.
With SFGAm, you have a point. However, they started to raise the prices recently. They are charging $55, and the fact that they have a waterpark for "free" makes more people want to go to that park. Start charging even more money for that waterpark, and you will see less people coming to that park. There is no doubt in my mind that because of that waterpark attendance has increased. Take it away, and it it almost has to decrease. I think it will decrease by a lot. That's a lot of rides to take away. People are going to want the "regular" admission to go down than if they do that, or that regular park will have problems getting people in there.
The whole plan with that waterpark is that are pulling people's chains. They want them to try it for "free", and than they want to start charging for it. Dumping Space Shuttle America (Abondoned Building in 2008), and probably the Go-Karts equals a new Hurricane Harbor entrance from the outside of the park which means you have to pay. I imagine 2009 the people at the park will get a surprise. This waterpark is not free anymore.
It's funny that people think SFMM is a low attended park, but the fact is that they don't count the waterpark as SFMM attendance. SFGAm gets counted as SFGAm, and waterpark combined while SFMM is just SFMM minus the most likely 400,000 people that go to the waterpark.
What I always felt was that you are paying for the waterpark at SFGAm whether you want to or not right now. If the waterpark goes away, will they reduce prices? It was like $45 before the waterpark. You are paying $10 for the waterpark anyway. If they were to lower it to $45 again (which I doubt they will), they aren't automatically getting that moeny that they were getting before.
rct247 said:
I think the safest parks are:
- Six Flags over Texas
- Six Flags Great America
- Six Flags Great Adventure
- Six Flags over Georgia
I don't think that SFOG, and SFOT are that safe. I know for sure they barely own a lot of SFOT and I believe they don't own much of SFOG either. You get all those people into the park, and than you don't own it all. That's a huge problem. Darn investors!
Who cares if those parks are making a lot of money if you can't keep it because the investors are hoarding the money? I don't even know if it's possible to sell those parks. That's horrible that cash cow parks are in investors hands, and wallets.
Lord Gonchar said:there's seems to be a magical attendance ceiling for North American regionals - as far as I know - none have ever hit 4 million in a season.
Except one: Six Flags Great Adventure did it once, on the very last day of the season, 10/29/95 - they just squeaked past four million that day. There was nothing all that spectacular about 1995, the new ride was Viper (ecchhh) - it's just when they hit their peak. Other seasons have come close but they never passed that mark since then. You'd think now, with the park so much more worthy of a visit and able to handle the attendance than it was 12 years ago, it should happen again, but it hasn't.
I see 4 million as something of a max-out number for US seasonal parks too. I don't think any other park has done it.
Spinout said:What I always felt was that you are paying for the waterpark at SFGAm whether you want to or not right now.
If the waterpark goes away, will they reduce prices? It was like $45 before the waterpark. You are paying $10 for the waterpark anyway. If they were to lower it to $45 again (which I doubt they will), they aren't automatically getting that moeny that they were getting before.
The first sentence is what I was try to get at. If you want to go to HH you need to spend $55 to go, if it was a separate gate you can go to it for about $25-$30 (the gate price at other SF water parks). I would expect some people would just going to the water park for the day, but if some one want to go to both you have a combo ticket for $X amount. SF is losing out on the guests who only want or have time to do a water park.
I due understand that smaller parks need a combined gate to compete, but when a park is has consistently pulled in over 2 million guests a year an included water park doesn't help with net profits that much.
You must be logged in to post
