The Geauga Lake story has made a Chicago paper.

Right. So why couldn't a park with fewer large coasters make a profit with 700,000 people?

The land in Aurora (Portage County), the SeaWorld side, is only a tiny percentage of the overall property. The rest is in Bainbridge Township (Geauga County). The Aurora tax rate is 91.31 mils, Bainbridge (Kenston School District) is 127.29 mils, which is insane.

I don't believe that a smaller attraction mix could have sustained that park at 700,000. It's counterintuitive to me that fewer/smaller attractions would keep that same crowd.

I think 'Playa has the real answer...

Why's the Dells *packed beyond capacity* while the park in Aurora was foundering? Casino gambling. THAT woulda saved Geauga... ;)

Summer in the Dells is a unique experience. Exceeded only perhaps by summer in Gatlinburg. All the crowds, and all the overpriced crappy hotels, but without the dozen waterparks.

But Jeff, there is at least some evidence to the contrary. This last off season, they stripped out X-Flight and Steel Venom, while introducing virtually nothing new on either side of the park. Yet more than a few people here have indicated that attendance seemed to be up this year. It's anecdotal, but unless Cedar Fair actually breaks out the numbers, it's the best we have to work with.

The inelastic demand curve goes both ways. If adding lots of expensive new rides doesn't help attendance, then stripping out rides won't necessarily result in reduced numbers. The fact that GL didn't even throw park-goers a bone this year while chop-shopping two of the most visible, newest marquee attractions, and still enjoyed a boost in attendance suggests that there was a lot of room to work with in reprofiling the park. I'm guessing they could have carefully moved down to 5 or 6 coasters and a much smaller footprint and still drawn 500,000 - 700,000, if done right and with thoughtful introduction of smaller, replacement rides.

But we don't know that removing those two rides was enough of an expense reduction. It's not unreasonable to assume it wasn't since they decided to end the ride park entirely. Of course, that makes another assumption that you don't subscribe to the conspiracy theories.

I don’t understand this black and white all or nothing thinking. I don’t think that CF bought the park thinking for sure they were going to shut it down, but it is not like that exit strategy never crossed their minds either. They were probably first liking the idea of the 2 for 1 sale (CP and GL) and when that did not work and they got all the Paramount Parks too, then it was no longer worth it. I also really don’t think you can blame this park’s failure on the decision to remove the animals. SF:WoA’s surge in attendance was due to ridiculous construction that while it was enough for a temporary spike in attendance, it still did not put it in any position to compete with CP. SF ruined the park and CF gave it its best chance and then bailed before they were in too deep. Probably CF’s biggest mistake was thinking the 2 for 1 park special would pay off. Not only did GL’s attendance drop off, but their income per person probably did too.

---

SF ruined the park and CF gave it its best chance and then bailed before they were in too deep.

---

That's what I think. :)

Exactly. Sure they could have done more, but how long should they keep bailing water out of a sinking ship?

---

Lord Gonchar said:

---

SF ruined the park and CF gave it its best chance and then bailed before they were in too deep.

---

That's what I think.

---

I don't :)

CF gave Geauga Lake it's "best chance"? Meh. I don't think so. They maybe gave it A chance, but definitely not it's best chance.

---

Mark Small said:Exactly. Sure they could have done more, but how long should they keep bailing water out of a sinking ship?

---

SF didn't kill Geauga, A bad buisness plan killed Geauga both by SF which didnt have the capital to invest that they did and CF by not instituting plans to get a ROI.

There are all kinds of things that are not THROW money plans that CF never even tried. Never gave a look at and never implimented.

Im right Gonch, You know I am :)
Chuck, J/K Going to close the Beast for the season tonight :)

Busch killed Geauga Lake. Duh. :)

Busch crippled Geagua Lake.

SF broke its crutches.

CF didn't buy it a wheelchair.

:)

SF did ruin the place. They put how many coasters in in ONE year? Wasn't it four? Ok, yeah that will bring in buisness, but why clutter the place so fast? Besides GL was meant for families, SF tried to hard for GL to be like CP. The size for GL is small and family friendly. CF was pretty much just cleaning up the mess that SF left and of course that will take a few years to clean up the mess, they just never got the chance to better the place up after cleaning it up.

---

halltd said:
CF gave Geauga Lake it's "best chance"? Meh. I don't think so. They maybe gave it A chance, but definitely not it's best chance.

---

Maybe it was their best chance.. in which case the people leading the company should be job hunting right now. I find it hard to believe a group of supposedly well-educated and insightful business minds couldn't come up with more than they did.

The SF model has been to take a small park and turn it into a bigger one and it seemed to have been working to some extent, but then they tried it in CP's back yard. They directly tried to compete with CP and that was just silly. That is the one regional amusement park that is just too damn big. They even had ads in Sandusky claiming a superior park. I don't know what they were thinking, but they could have built another 4 coasters and would have still had to give away the gate to try to keep up with attendance. The locals did not seem willing to let the monsters needed to compete with CP get built even if SF was willing to go that far. Does anyone really think that once CF put the fair market value back into the gate prices that GL would have been able to sustain its attendance in CP's back yard? Seriously, that is just silly. I think CF realized this and tried a two prong approach. A. They tried the more family minded approach with the water park stuff over new coasters. B. They structured the pricing to appeal to two demographics: the locals who wanted a cheaper family day at the park, and the coaster weirdos who wanted CP+ something. It did not work because the park was too much for the locals and too little for the CP fans. The lesson that should be learned from this is that if you want the regional destination you better own your reagion or have a region that is big enough for the both of you. Why anyone would put that much money into building a park that is half what is right next door just boggles my mind. In the end, CP killed GL, but SF is who decided they should compete. *** Edited 10/31/2007 6:13:50 PM UTC by RavenTTD***

Sometimes coaster people have problems realizing that the taller the ride, the smaller the potential audience is likely to be. If you're parked on top of a huge population center or an established resort town, that may change the numbers a little. But otherwise? No one really cares.

Or it may be even harder to comprehend that DP's waterpark brought the people that bought the coasters. Same is true for Mount Olympus and Hades. Same is true for HW...only they've said so out loud. Think you'd have a Voyage without a few African-themed slides growing the attendance first? Maybe not.

Gator: I can't speak for Chicago, but I only have to drive a half-hour to hit a very large, Vegas-grade casino where--much unlike Vegas--smokers can still smoke. I'd still have to drive another three hours to hit Wisconsin Dells. I'd dare to say it ain't the dice...

-'Playa

Edit: Added two words *** Edited 10/31/2007 6:20:50 PM UTC by CoastaPlaya***

---

Lord Gonchar said:
Busch crippled Geagua Lake.

SF broke its crutches.

CF didn't buy it a wheelchair.

---

Now this, I can agree with. :) It makes much more sense than some of the wacky theories I've read lately.

See what I mean about is too, is not?

---

That's what I think.

---

---

I don't

---