Six Flags Gives Preview of First Quarter Results

---

Richie Reflux said:

In the spot, a dad is giving his son 90 bcuks to sepnd how ever he wants on his birthday. The kid instantly says that he's going to use it to buy a 6 Flags Seasons Pass... Isn't this what they are trying to get away from? Don't they want the parents in the parks spending the money?

---

I've been hearing that one a lot and I was left wondering the same thing. I thought that Six Flags was trying to distance themselves from their old image as a "budget" park that offers cheap season passes and ends up serving as a babysitter for kids and teens? According to that commercial, the park seems to be positioning themselves just as they've positioned themselves for years.

I was never a fan of Mr. Six but I don't think this new marketing is good either.

---

CoasterDad64 said:
^Maybe - but not necessarily. 19% increase in revenue would take more than a $4 bump in per cap spending and an extra 20,000 guests.

If you do the math you will see that using basic numbers, it would increase revenue just a shade over 12%. This is using $30 per cap and $40 gate, with 100,000 guests to start. Of course I made up these numbers.

---

Per Cap spending includes the gate.

This is directly from the SEC 8K filing (with real numbers this time).

2007 2006 % Change
---- ---- --------

Operating Days 156 174 -10%

Attendance (000) 1.22 1.15 6%

Ticket Per Cap $18.56 $17.28 7%
In-Park Per Cap $15.45 $14.53 6%
------ ------
Total Guest Spending Per Cap

$34.01 $31.81 7%

Total Rev Per Cap $40.82 $36.59 12/13%

Total Revenue (000) $49.8 $42.1 18/20%

For comparrison, Cedar Fair's 2006 YTD per cap was $38.71, Six Flags' was $38.07. The revenue's not the problem, it's the expenses.

Edited to try to get the numbers to look right. *** Edited 5/1/2007 5:30:33 PM UTC by CoasterDad64***

6% increase in attendance + 12% increase in revenue per cap = 19% increase in revenue

And yes, I'm with you on the spending thing. AT any rate, more revenue isn't hurting things as long as they maintain or lower expenses. I suspect SF is spending much less on Cap Ex, a good bit more on Operating Expenses and slightly more on Advertising. (just my take, not written or confirmed anywhere that I know of)