The Geauga Lake story has made a Chicago paper.
Had they removed the big coasters quicker, kept the water park on the ride side and advertised the park as a family park like they did back in the day, it possibly could have had a chance. But, with the direction it took, I don't see any way it could have made as much money as Cedar Fair wanted it to.
*** Edited 10/28/2007 2:23:57 AM UTC by Intamin Fan***
Intamin Fan said:
And there's a darn good reason for that. The Jump at Great Adventure never worked right and was retired. I don't know if the Jump2 (Giant version) works any better.Evolution when it was at Great Adventure never worked right. It seemed to be running better as Excalibur at SFSTL, but there were still some periods of downtime. Sure, it looks impressive, but the ride is actually quite tame, and I'd be worried about the maintenance issue.
Top Scans are a rare breed in themeparks. Mondial again has a fairly bad reputation. The one at Lagoon someone said will be closed for the rest of the season (or did I read it never opened at all this season?)
Water parks only appeal to the local crowd.I totally disagree with that statement. I've always got my swimsuit with me on any out-of-state coaster trip during the traditional waterpark season. Since most waterparks are part of the admission plan, it's a nice way of breaking up the monotony of going on rides and sweating in queues for days on end.
The four of us had every intention of visiting Wild Water Kingdom at GL this summer, except for all the thunder and lightning that went on for a few hours. By the time the storm finally ended, it would've eaten into our travel time to Sandusky after we changed in and out of our swimsuits.
The issue seems to be more with Great Adventure not maintaining their rides. The Evolution operates better in MO, same with the Mr Freezes vs the Chiller that is being removed. The innovative flat rides seem to run fine at Wonderland.
You may go to a waterpark as a sideline when attending an amusement park, but would you travel far just for the waterpark? Most waterparks feature the same collection of attractions, nothing worth traveling a long distance for when most likely you can find the same thing closer.
Also good point made. Cedar Fair didn't attempt to sell the park. They flat out closed it, and in a secretive way. Why would they attempt to sell it? It wouldn't fit into the master plan of elminating the competition.
*** Edited 10/30/2007 4:10:05 PM UTC by super7****
Jeff said:
They tried to apply the Dorney plan (or to a lesser extent, the Michigan's Adventure plan) and apply it to GL. It didn't work.
But they didn't apply the Dorney plan. Cedar Fair added tons of great new rides to Dorney Park like Whitewater Landing, Steel Force, the rapids ride and Dominator. Nothing was added to Geauga Lake. I'm not suggesting rides like those would have worked (I think Cedar Fair had to make Dorney competitive with Hersheypark and Great Adventure and new rides was the way to do that) but the approach to each park was entirely different. Maybe Cedar Fair should have tried to "un-Dorney" Geauga Lake since the park Six Flags left behind was a lot like the current Dorney as far as rides go.
I'm willing to agree with you that some smaller rides and attractions would've been a great addition to the park, but I don't see how that was going to add the 400,000 visits they needed.
It wouldn't have added 400,000... or 500,000, as I understand 1.2 million was the target figure. There was no silver bullet that would have caused half a million people to materialize overnight. But smaller rides coupled with great customer service- an overall more positive experience- might have done the trick over time. If attendance grew 150,000 each year because the better park generated positive word of mouth, three years would have seen the attendance target reached... or close to it. Don't forget the park did attract something like 2 million at some point. Most of them disappeared because Six Flags didn't provide the quality that Cedar Fair usually does. I've rarely had a problem with Cedar Fair's customer service and cleanliness.
Yes
Did I think Cedar Fair spent too much on the water park?
Yes
Those statements are two independent issues bound only by the common tie to monetary spending. Basically I'm saying I think Cedar Fair did two things wrong and they don't cancel out.
Imagine if Cedar Fair had invested that $25 million more wisely in the future of Geauga Lake. I believe that money could have covered the refurbishment of the entire park. Everything that needed to be fixed could have been, and the waterpark could have stayed as well. Everyone seems to forget that before Cedar Fair added a world class water park there was... a world class water park.
Adding small attractions was the key to sustaining attendance at the park. Instead management favored the opposite strategy: removing rides with no replacement. Who wants to go to a park if it is stagnating and removing rides instead of building and improving?
My reason for bring up the 1975 attendance numbers was to show that smaller improvements add real value and returns an increasing amount of customers. Yes, Sea World did exist across the way during that time but what was that relationship exactly? Sea World provided national marketing for a regional park, but no agreement existed between the two parks. In order to increase attendance Geauga Lake would have to increase marketing to achieve higher numbers again. I believe this is the weakest area of Cedar Fair's strategy.
In this Senior Thesis many alternatives are given to the Cedar Fair plan. It basically outlines a successful plan for the operation of Geauga Lake. You can see how many things Cedar Fair did were opposite this plan. You can also see how unsuccessful Cedar Fair was.
To summarize 1975 was an model year not only because Sea World existed across the lake providing good marketing, but also because attractions were being added each year. This good example shows a stark contrast to the Cedar Fair era. Two wrongs don't make a right and Cedar Fair put their money in the wrong place. Sea World can be replaced by effective marketing. Adding or repairing small attractions every year is an effective way to improve a park.
edit:url *** Edited 10/30/2007 5:59:25 PM UTC by Zima***
To summarize 1975 was an model year not only because Sea World existed across the lake providing good marketing, but also because attractions were being added each year. This good example shows a stark contrast to the Cedar Fair era. Two wrongs don't make a right and Cedar Fair put their money in the wrong place. Sea World can be replaced by effective marketing. Adding or repairing small attractions every year is an effective way to improve a park.
I'd give you that 100% if the current year on my calendar read 19-anything.
But it doesn't. It reads 2007. As in "after Six Flags screwed the entire model" :)
If SF had followed the business plan you're accusing CF of not following - there's a good chance we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place.
I still maintain CF holds the least amount of blame in the series of events that closed the park. They were just the ones left to clean up - others decisions before they even got their grubby little hands on the property did WAY more to ensure no future for Geauga Lake.
"Well, we no longer have the animals, but hey, we made new marketing posters."
Looking at the first report Zima linked to, you can see that prior to SW opening the park did a little over 426,000 in attendance.
In just the first 9 years SW was open next door, that number grew to 906,000 - more than a 112% increase. (an additional 480,000 guests in the 1978 season compared to the 1969 season)
It took GL 81 years to get to 426,000 and just another 8 to double that number.
But the real proof that SW was the cause comes in the attendance numbers that follow. The park peaked in 1988 at a just shy of 1.1 million. In the 11 seasons after the artificial boost that SW gave them, they were only able to add another 190,000 guests - much more on par with their historical numbers before the added draw of having Sea World across the lake.
Just my take, of course. :)
If you ask me, the real misunderstanding of all involved was just how important SW was to GL's popularity (and growth in the 70's and 80's)
They grew quickly then because more people were coming. More people were coming because SW moved in next door, not because of a kid in a dog costume.
When SF put up 4 new coasters for 2000 - obviously that's going to draw interest...and hey, Sea World is there too, we can go see Shamu! It's the perfect storm. That's also the year that SF supposedly did 2 million, correct?
But Busch wants out. There's no growth for them in Ohio.
Sea World isn't nearly as exciting of a draw without the Sea World trademarks. And in three short seasons, Six Flags is doing whatever they can to get the hell out. One can only assume business went south fast - why else the sudden backpedaling?
Again, there may be additional, smaller influences - but it gets pretty hard to ignore the sudden rise in popularity when SW moves in and the sudden decline when they move out.
Had they done a little research, they would have seen what numbers are acceptable for a park like Geauga Lake. Then they could have reacted accordingly. They said a couple years ago they underestimated the effect of the animals. In reality, I think they underestimated the effect of the Sea World brand.
As such, I still think GL could have been a successful park that drew in 700,000 people a year. They just didn't come up with a plan that made that possible. They were operating a park that needed a million customers to be profitable. That just wasn't going to happen. If they had tried operating a park that was profitable with 700,000 customers, it could have worked. *** Edited 10/30/2007 7:05:15 PM UTC by halltd***
And that said, these continuous suggestions about what Cedar Fair shoulda-coulda spent money on ignore the Shamu factor. To make things worse, people are suggesting they do more with less, which already wasn't working. Fewer or less expensive attractions with less attendance... where does the break even point go when you're moving downward? Especially when those taxes aren't going away.
The 1.1 million visitor mark was not pulled out of thin air, it was determined to be the sweet spot where they could maintain cash flow and have something left over for future cap ex.
That's the funny thing about it... the new plan, provided they sell or rent the massive amount of extra land, is the very sustainable business everyone is suggesting, just not with the roller coasters enthusiasts would like to have.
Jeff - Editor - CoasterBuzz.com - My Blog
Is there absolutely no configuration of land and attractions somewhere inbetween to accommodate 700-800K guests? It's difficult to believe the only two possible options are all or (almost) nothing.
These discussions have gone on assuming the "business" decisions have been totally intellectual, complete with facts and numbers to the nth decimal point, graphs and charts out the wazoo. No room for anything "emotional."
On the other hand, I think there are plenty of emotional decisions made by those whose only interest is supposed to be the shareholders or the company. I'm not convinced this isn't one of them. What emotions? How about pride, greed, envy, pretty much all your seven deadlies? I think the original decision to buy the property was driven by emotion as well as business sense, and the decision to "downsize" is as well.
Funny thing is, some of the strongest arguments against the "they didn't try" or "they planned this all along" theories are making me wonder. Constructing the $25 million waterpark in the isolated part of the park might suggest anticipation of unloading the land closer to the highway.
Saying they got all that land they're going to sell/redevelop, and the rides they're now redistributing at a bargain price sounds good now. But to pay the price they did for a park intended to attract 1.1 million guests? Why not let SF (your major competitor) sweat awhile and let the price come down? Unless you're afraid someone else might actually step in and snatch it out from under you and you still have a competitor in the region. Who? I don't know. They might have been worried there was someone or else they'd have let SF pay another year of taxes and maintenance on the place.
CF probably doesn't owe enthusiasts much of an explanation for the 40 bucks or so per cap they spent in the park. But what about the unitholders? They got the same explanation (PR) that was posted here. Maybe my couple hundred shares don't mean squat (but to me they do), but don't the banks and mutual funds who own hundreds of thousands of shares deserve more of an explanation than "it was a business decision, you wouldn't understand?"
halltd:
Gonch, if "enthusiasts" such as yourself are able to so easily see the impact of Sea World on the park's attendance, why wasn't Cedar Fair?
Because I rock. ;)
Seriously - hindsight. It's much easier to look back a see what went wrong than it is to look ahead and figure out what will be right.
I'm sure the CF folks would give you a laundry list of things as well. Missteps, oversights and the such.
RGB:
Saying they got all that land they're going to sell/redevelop, and the rides they're now redistributing at a bargain price sounds good now. But to pay the price they did for a park intended to attract 1.1 million guests? Why not let SF (your major competitor) sweat awhile and let the price come down? Unless you're afraid someone else might actually step in and snatch it out from under you and you still have a competitor in the region. Who? I don't know. They might have been worried there was someone or else they'd have let SF pay another year of taxes and maintenance on the place
No that's the one place I will say emotion played a factor..and it's arguably the one place they f'd up...by buying the park in the first place.
Dick told us on the podcast we did in 2005 he regretted not buying the park the first time he had the chance. That alone makes me wonder if he jumped on GL the second time it was available just to 'get the one that got away' - I suspect it had more than a little to do with it.
But is say it was a 'mistake' with the standard disclaimer I've been adding all along - only a mistake in that they thought they could buy and 'save' the park. It was a great move for the company if you figure the price vs what they're ending up with.
Serendipitous would be the word, wouldn't it? ;)
Jeff said:What does it say about the guy at the top? It says the simple and common sense ROI model he was used to implementing falls completely apart in a more complex situation, which GL certainly was.And that said, these continuous suggestions about what Cedar Fair shoulda-coulda spent money on ignore the Shamu factor. To make things worse, people are suggesting they do more with less, which already wasn't working. Fewer or less expensive attractions with less attendance... where does the break even point go when you're moving downward? Especially when those taxes aren't going away.The 1.1 million visitor mark was not pulled out of thin air, it was determined to be the sweet spot where they could maintain cash flow and have something left over for future cap ex.That's the funny thing about it... the new plan, provided they sell or rent the massive amount of extra land, is the very sustainable business everyone is suggesting, just not with the roller coasters enthusiasts would like to have.
Guess they shouldn't have branded it a small park again then if they wanted 1.1 million.
JMO
Chuck
Jeff said:
The 1.1 million visitor mark was not pulled out of thin air, it was determined to be the sweet spot where they could maintain cash flow and have something left over for future cap ex.
They may as well have pulled it out of thin air because that number didn't do them any good. Based on Gonch's little history lesson, I'm not sure how executives at CF thought the park could ever sustain 1.1 million guests. Did they not even think, "hmmmm, I wonder why Six Flags is selling..." Obviously Six Flags realized they couldn't sustain attendance, so why did CF think they were the white horse?
I'm thinking the better solution would have been to ask, "how can we make this park profitable at the current attendance level?" They most likely asked this question two years ago when the coasters started coming out. But, the damage of the huge investment on the Sea World side was already done. So, the only quick solution they had was to kill the ride side and salvage what they could.
When you buy any business, shouldn't you look at the "now" situation? If I were buying a restaurant, I'd look at current numbers. How many people do we serve daily, how much do they pay, how much profit do we make, etc... If the place was losing money, I'd see how to make a profit based on the current number of diners first. Then I would look to boost "attendance". It just doesn't make sense to me to say I'd be able to pull in twice as many diners right off the bat.
I'm not sure when capitalism because immoral or confused with greed, but if greed were really a factor, don't you suppose they would have "tried harder" to make the place work?
RatherGoodBear said:
On the other hand, I think there are plenty of emotional decisions made by those whose only interest is supposed to be the shareholders or the company. I'm not convinced this isn't one of them. What emotions? How about pride, greed, envy, pretty much all your seven deadlies? I think the original decision to buy the property was driven by emotion as well as business sense, and the decision to "downsize" is as well.
Jeff - Editor - CoasterBuzz.com - My Blog
^ There has always been a line between capitalism and greed. Sometimes it's so fine you can't even see it, and other times it's a huge gray area.
Much has been said about what Geauga Lake's attendance was and what it had to be so I'm surprised it took this long for one of us to bring up the topic of what would have to be done to make the park profitable with its attendance. Cedar Fair realized there were more rides than necessary so they got rid of the two most thrilling coasters- the ones that were least appropriate for a family park. That was a wise move. But if taxes were too high, why wasn't the Sea World side of the park sold? It was basically abandoned at that point. Selling the land would have made the company money and there would have been long-term tax savings. Surely that would have helped the park become profitable with just 700,000 people.
There are many parks that make a tidy profit with that kind of attendance.
"Is too!"
"Is not!"
There are many parks that make a tidy profit with that kind of attendance.
Just not the ones with eight to ten coasters and a full waterpark...especially when the rides AND coasters sit waiting while the waterpark is full.
Water parks only appeal to the local crowd.
Which is why everybody from the #3 and #15 metro areas in America go running to Wisconsin Dells to spend a night after splashing around at the waterparks. If you think Cedar Point sells crappy rooms for overinflated prices? Oh. You. Ain't. Seen. NOTHING. And don't even think you'll find an empty refrigerator box in an alley during peak season. Not even in nearby Portage. You won't.
-CO
(Edited to add a quote)
*** Edited 10/31/2007 1:50:25 PM UTC by CoastaPlaya***
NOTE: Severe fecal impaction may render the above words highly debatable.
You must be logged in to post
