Theme parks cost cutting = lower quality experience

---

Jeff said:

It is? Other than long-term profitability, the only thing that really matters, what is debatable? Granted, there are a lot of things that go into that, like customer retention, debt management, etc., but I fail to see how cutting back hours negatively affects any of that (in a net gain/loss kind of way).

---

But there you have it- it's what goes into long-term profitability. Any monkey can hold a bunch of data sheets in his hand and point to things that cost money and can probably be eliminated to increase profits, but just because that's the case, should we let monkeys fill CEO positions? (keep in mind I'm not calling any CEO a monkey, I'm just illustrating a point.)

A fast food restaurant can replace he cardboard sleeves that fries come in with paper bags and save money, but that might piss people off because the grease leaks through the bag and onto their pants while driving and eating. Those ball crawl play things don't add profit, but they might convince a mother to take her kids to that McDonalds rather than the Wendy's down the block that doesn't have entertainment for her kids. Maybe increasing the prices of fried chicken will result in some short-term gains, but eventually people will realize their meals are costing more and will go elsewhere. They might not need someone to just fill sodas (after all, that could be done by the cashier), but the longer lines might be a dealbreaker for some customers.

My point? I'm sure there are always ways to cut a few more pennies out of the cost of each sale, regardless of what it is you're selling, but you're talking short-term, not necessarily long term. And the short-term is usually a lot easier to predict than the long-term. Practically anyone can tell you what someone is thinking today or is going to think tomorrow- not many people have the gift of predicting how people are going to think in another 12 or 18 months.

Sorry to double post (unless someone else posts in the time it takes me to write this), but I'm too lazy to go back and add this to what I just said.

I'd think worn-out, grouchy, overworked rideops, fewer rides open due to attrition, increased maintenance costs due to longer operation times and possibly fewer new attractions due to overhead would impact the 'quality' of a guest's visit more than extra hours. But for the moment? Let's pretend all that isn't so. Let's raise another question altogether.

If everything you say about value and longer operating days were true...why would any park feel the need to offer a DISCOUNTED evening admission rate? Hmmmmmm? Wouldn't the people who came earlier still be there, using every minute of their day they could?

-CO

I assume that a discounted evening admission rate is offered to compensate for the people that left the before the evening hours. Those people paid for a full day yet didn't tax the park's resources for the entire day, meaning the park made out big time. Those people that bought discounted admissions for the evening hours? Seems like icing on the cake to me. That means they're making almost double once the sun goes down because the people that paid for the full day admission are no longer there taking up seats in rides and having the staff tend to them.

The problem is, Rob, that all of your arguments dare littered with maybe, probably, might, etc. Using that logic you can argue anything, but business leaders aren't interested in ambiguity. The industry as a whole is so ridiculously high margin and profitable (save for a company that was mismanaged for years), and the reason is that they tend to avoid risk.

In that case, you're contradicting yourself.

You're right, I'm tossing a bunch of ifs, maybes, possiblys and mights into the conversation. I'm not saying those things are going to happen, but I think there is a reasonable chance some of them may happen. I guess you can say that I'm offering up a bunch of risks... things that park managers might want to consider.

Parks are highly profitable because they tend to avoid risk? If that was really the case, why not keep things as they are? After all, what they're doing is obviously working because they're making so much money so they'd be foolish to do something else.

---

Rob Ascough said:
A fast food restaurant can replace he cardboard sleeves that fries come in with paper bags and save money, but that might piss people off because the grease leaks through the bag and onto their pants while driving and eating.

---

Perfect example of how I think you put too much emphasis on the little things that really don't matter in the long run.

Here's another way of looking at it. I like the food at said fast food restaurant. I enjoy eating it and every once in a while I even crave it.

The paper bag isn't going to stop me, the same way the cardboard sleeve didn't get me there in the first place.

I'm of the mindset that people will put up with a hell of a lot to get what they want.

---

Those ball crawl play things don't add profit, but they might convince a mother to take her kids to that McDonalds rather than the Wendy's down the block that doesn't have entertainment for her kids.

---

If that's the case then it did add profit. It was a profitable decision to add the ball thingy. If there were no increase then, there'd be no reason to keep it around.

(in a related real world note, has anyone noticed how many fast food places don't have these anymore?)

---

Maybe increasing the prices of fried chicken will result in some short-term gains, but eventually people will realize their meals are costing more and will go elsewhere.

---

This is my biggest peeve with this whole discussion anytime it comes up.

Raising prices does not guarantee lost customers...ever! And even if some go, as long as the number on the bottom line went up then it was the right move. No business operates with the goal of serving as many people as possible. If that were the case they'd offer their product or service for free (or at cost) and serve the world. "Yay for us, we served a lot of people."

Most businesses run as a way to make money - plain and simple. As sucky as it may sound it just is. On the surface, the simplest concept is serve more people and get more money. But that's not always the case.

I don't understand why you can't seem to get over that hurdle in the argument.

---

...not many people have the gift of predicting how people are going to think in another 12 or 18 months.

---

No but they do have cold hard numbers showing them what people did for the last 12-18 months.

Again, to me it seems like you're looking at it exactly backwards. This isn't guessing that in the next few years people won't spend enough (both money and time) to warrant keeping the park open until 10, it's about seeing that for the last few years people actually haven't spent enough money and time to make keeping the park open those last two hours worthwhile.

(and for the record, McDonald's could open the drive-thru window, take my cash and throw and handful of loose fries into my car leaving me to scramble about trying to dig them from between the seats and I'd still go get them ;) )

*** Edited 4/24/2007 8:36:35 PM UTC by Lord Gonchar***

I'm not sure I understand the hostility just because we're coming at this from different angles. What happened to it not ever being personal? Maybe I'm not having a hard time crossing a hurdle simply because I happen to disagree?

I think you underestimate the customer, who you seem to view as some kind of machine that mindlessly tosses its money about. Going by my many experiences, customers pay attention to the small details that I mention. I'm not sure if I believe in God but I do believe that, if he exists, he is in the details. See, if the cardboard sleeve got replaced with something else that not only didn't do the job but ended up messing things up for me, that would be reason enough for me to take my business elsewhere. It's no secret that there are plenty of fast food restaurants working for my business, so why would I put up with mediocrity?

You seem to think that people will put up with hell to get what they want. I seem to think that any customer relationship is a fragile one, and all it takes is one slip to fracture it. I don't have any reason to believe I'm wrong when it comes to that.

I'm not an idiot- I know that more customers doesn't always equal more profit, but I believe that it is a good thing to have more customers rather than fewer customers, just because more customers means more potential sales. There are cases where it makes sense to make more money off of fewer customers, but I believe there are exceptions to the rule. You seem to think that I'm not capable of seeing that, but I am. I'm just playing the other side of the debate, that's all.

As for the ball crawl thing, we seem to agree so I'm not sure why you think that we don't. I suggested that the ball crawl didn't contribute directly to profits because it costs money to install, money to maintain and doesn't create an admission fee, but since it leads to more sales, it does add to profits. It doesn't generate revenue but it helps in the big picture... which is exactly why I said to Jeff that making profit isn't as black and white as it seems.

---

Rob Ascough said:
I assume that a discounted evening admission rate is offered to compensate for the people that left the before the evening hours.

---

Which kinda pokes a hole in the argument that the people will rise up and revolt over shorter operating days, doesn't it?

---

Those people paid for a full day yet didn't tax the park's resources for the entire day, meaning the park made out big time.

---

And? Didn't feel ripped off. How'd that happen?

---

Those people that bought discounted admissions for the evening hours? Seems like icing on the cake to me.

---

Unless you realize that SO many people left--satisfied with the time they spent at the park--that they actually have to market another program to get more people IN the park during said hours.

---

That means they're making almost double once the sun goes down

---

By what new math? If they spent half a day at full price AND just as much on food, games, souvenirs, etc...that might be true. But a discounted rate and no meals isn't double at all.

And even the most circumstantial findings prove that true. Watch how many food stands and game stalls close during your typical late hours. Why? If there were lines trailing to the midways and money to be made, who'd do that?

I could poke more holes in your argument--but I'll let the other good posters tug on these and make them bigger.

-CO

No hostility meant. It is never personal. :)

I'm not paranoid! Everyone is after me! :)

-Tambo

I'm only debating the veracity of your POV. Nothing else.

Suppose closing early really does make a lot of sense. Why is this just happening now? Were the CEOs of yore too stupid to realize easy profit when they saw it? Did today's managers have the forsight to enroll in the Lord Gonchar school of business?

And if the amusement industry really does operate on high profit margins, why such a scramble to cut costs? Could it be a symptom of a larger problem? could attendance levels in the past support long hours but not anymore?

If so, isn't cutting hours just putting lipstick on a pimple?

---

millrace said:
Suppose closing early really does make a lot of sense. Why is this just happening now? Were the CEOs of yore too stupid to realize easy profit when they saw it?

---

Well, as I pointed out earlier Carowinds was only open until 8pm (and not on Friday's) 24 years ago.

It's the only example park given in the original post that I could find a decent frame of reference on. In fact, as far as I can tell it was that way as recently as 1990.

So to answer the question of why now? Because sometime in the 90's someone got the bright idea tha longer hours meant more money. They tried it for a while. Turns out it didn't. Now it's being fixed.

This change isn't the problem in the big scheme of things - it's the fix.

That pesky 'frame of reference' thing again. :)

And to play on that further, why aren't we complaining in the other direction?

Why the hell close at 10pm? Why not midnight? Why not 2am? That'd be offering me even more for my money and as a customer I'm looking to get the most for my money and when I do I'm happy. Then, of course, happy customers means more money for the parks, so logic dictates that a park staying open until 2am would make them even more money.

Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?

*** Edited 4/24/2007 9:15:51 PM UTC by Lord Gonchar***

I guess I just hang out at different parks than most of you (thankfully- just kidding).

My points of reference are Knoebels and Hershey-- two parks of different sizes and different types of ownership. Yet both have retained closing times of 10 PM most summer nights. Based on the talk here, these parks either are miraculously making money between 8 and 10 PM, or else their management is too stupid to realize they aren't.

My experience is that both parks manage to retain a decent crowd until later-- nothing like mid-afternoon of course-- but a fair amount of people who are spending. And most of them are "families"-- usually several generations of them, not just teens.

At HP, the shops in Rhineland and Tudor Square are packed between 9 and 10 most nights, not to mention the crazy ass line at the Kettle Corn stand and the mob in the Chocolate House. If the park were to close right after dinnertime, how many people will be buying snacks? They could just wait and buy a Kit-Kat at a mini-mart on the way home.

At KG, they serve scores of people at the soft ice cream stand and the outside Alamo AFTER the posted closing time of 10. The evening show at the amphitheatre usually doesn't end until at least 9:30, and the ferris wheel routinely runs until at least 10:30.

I know my experience of mostly visiting 2 parks doesn't compare to that of "non-enthusiasts" who hit hundreds of different parks each year. But I think it's valid to ask "What are these parks doing that the others aren't?" Then again, why should I bother traveling any distance to some of these parks if I'm only going to end up sitting in a hotel room at 8:00 watching a repeat of Dancing With The Stars?

Talking about good business-- hasn't it been a trademark of business over the years to see what works for others and somehow incorporate that (or something similar) into one's own business? And I don't think it's just an "enthusiast" thing that the GP doesn't notice or care about. The GP notices cuts in hours and customer service at every other kind of business-- why do people think they're clueless when it comes to amusement and theme parks?

And they stay open precisely BECAUSE they're packed. I'll quote me on that.

---

If there were lines trailing to the midways and money to be made, who'd do that?

---

At the parks where they aren't? They close. As well they should.

Your HP example doesn't explain why a half-empty park should avoid closing early. You could arguably say it affirms why they should.

-CO

*** Edited 4/24/2007 10:30:14 PM UTC by CoastaPlaya***

I have been following this thread for some time now and have read every post--both arguments have very valid points. However, speaking as one who, when visiting Kings Dominion (ever since I was 5), usually attempts to arrive around opening and stay until close, cutting hours affects me. My favorite time of day at parks is after the sun sets and the lights come on, and the park is generally less crowded. There have been many times when I've left in the late afternoon and felt I spent a good full day there, however I will miss the option of staying a full 12 hours if I so choose. I have noticed in the last few years that the operating schedules for parks have gotten shorter, and it's unfortunate. As a customer, I do feel cheated. I used to leave work in the afternoon,get down to KD and close out the park. Now that's not possible. It's disappointing when businesses do things like this--I do understand that it may boost bottom line profits, but I've always felt that catering to the customer is the best way to run a business. To me, less park hours make the already high gate prices less valuable...especially to those who actually take advantage of the hours from opening to close.

And, if memory serves, Kings Dominion has closed at 10 on weekdays in the peak months since the 70s...until recently (in fact, if I'm not mistaken they may have opened earlier than 10 at some point). If I were an armchair CEO I suppose I could look at this more objectively, but as a longtime paying customer, I think it sucks. It's not going to ruin my world or anything, but I find it disappointing that as businesses grow, customer satisfaction seems to become somewhat less of a priority than it should.

Then maybe the question these CEO's should be asking is why their parks are empty by 7:00 when HP and KG are still packing them in? Maybe it's too difficult to figure out how to get people to stay and just easier to change the hours.

I am generally a late afternoon/evening park attendee-- I spend my 6 hours or so at the park, it just happens they're from 4-10, not 10-4. And no, I don't expect the park to cater to my own personal whims-- I just noticed that everyone in favor of shorter hours happened to mention their attendance habits as well. Mine are just as valid as theirs.

By Jeff's own example, no matter what the closing time at CP, the last two hours have thin crowds. Which does relate to a comment I made in my first post in this thread about people "having" to leave before an event is over. Or maybe having to spend so much time in a shadeless concrete heat trap makes people ready to bail by 5 or 6 o'clock.

Funny how amid the talk about ride ops getting enough sleep and how closing earlier is more profitable for parks, this site is sponsoring/promoting an event including ERT that starts at 10:30 PM. Oh wait, it's at a park that actually stays open.

---

RatherGoodBear said:

I know my experience of mostly visiting 2 parks doesn't compare to that of "non-enthusiasts" who hit hundreds of different parks each year.

---

Hilarious! Thanks for the laugh.

All this debate has got me thinking… Since so many seem very interested in hard data that the decision makers use…would it be fair for us to use the hard data available to us when questioning the decision makers?

Without any knowledge of current stock prices/trends…I think it would be easy for anybody so interested to track “FUN” performance over recent times. Again…I’ve no clue if it is doing good, bad, or is neutral (it was neutral a year or two ago when I got out and put my money into better returning investments).

One of you guy who cares about this stuff…tell me if these guys actually know what they are doing…and point me to the gross profits I’ve been missing by pulling out of FUN. Seems there is a simple grade card available. It is the stock (partnership) price.

God, it is always the same debate here. The cheapscates vs the corporate butt kissers.

Personally I like night rides and I don't see why I should factor corporate profits into my opinion. And while they are at it, they need to get rid of twilight passes that clog up the park at the best time of day. :)