What Is Up With CF Food Service?

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 12:17 PM
Lord Gonchar's avatar

El Gato Coastro said:
And I would not pay for $3.59 for sugar water. Hell, I won't even pay 50 cents for sugar water. Drinking pop is such a waste.

Well, they expect you to pay $2.50 for a 16oz bottle of the plain stuff.

In comparison, $3.69 for 32oz of the sugared, carbonated variety is a steal. ;)


+0
Tuesday, May 13, 2008 1:44 PM
matt.'s avatar

Brian Noble said:
I think this is another one of those times when the answer of "leave the park or not" depends on your exchange rate between time and money.

Indeed. This is especially true for me if it's my first time at a park. If I'm a first-timer I'm much more likely to give the park food service a chance, especially to save time.

+0
Tuesday, May 13, 2008 8:42 PM

Lord Gonchar said:


Well, they expect you to pay $2.50 for a 16oz bottle of the plain stuff.

In comparison, $3.69 for 32oz of the sugared, carbonated variety is a steal. ;)


Can't argue with that!

But I'll just stick with the free water from the fountains!

+0
Tuesday, May 13, 2008 10:08 PM
coasterqueenTRN's avatar

GregLeg said:
Chipotle rocks.

As for why people would spend more to eat the same thing in the park when they can do down the street? Convenience, for one thing. For some of us, a "reasonable" markup is worth the time savings of not having to go out to the car, drive down to the Subway/whatever, order, eat, drive BACK to the park, find parking (which may be closer than we were before but more likely is further away), re-enter the park, etc.

Especially with the price of gas steadily going up -- you could very well be burning your "savings" driving back and forth...

Now, At a place like Kennywood, where the food outside the park is easy walking distance (partially negating my "hassle" argument ), it's still worth staying in the park because it's not fast-food-chain crap and it's cheap enough


I would DIE to have Chipotle in Charleston!

Greg, I couldn't agree with you more on Kennywood. ;) I like cheap food that's actually GOOD. ;) No, AWESOME! Some parks you just HAVE to induldge in what they have to offer.

Man I can't wait for the Plymouth Cafe!

What I meant before is eating before you enter the park and eating when you leave. There is no way I would leave just to eat unless I was going back to the motel to take a nap and then return later. :)

Like Gonch said, TOO much of a hassle. :) My whole point was I personally like to eat "park" food as opposed to one of the fast food chains in the park.

Now IF Chipotle was in one of those parks........;)

-Tina

*** Edited 5/14/2008 2:14:33 AM UTC by coasterqueenTRN***

+0
Wednesday, May 14, 2008 7:42 AM
Chipotle?

Let me know when real Mexican food comes up on the menu in this topic.


My favorite MJ tune: "Billie Jean" which I have been listening to alot now. RIP MJ.

+0
Wednesday, May 14, 2008 8:32 AM
rsscbell's avatar Quailty goes along way against price. $3.95 for a made before your eyes funnel cake? Yup I'll take it.

Made off site and microwaved (geauga lake) at any price? Yuk! Forget it! Fresh made is alway a "better value" in my opinion.


ROLLER COASTER RD rose twp. jeff co. T843
+0
Wednesday, May 14, 2008 8:54 AM
Chitown, just for you: been to Frontera Grill or Topolobampo recently?
+0
Wednesday, May 14, 2008 6:22 PM
I only eat at Casa Bonita...
-Geewhzz
+0
Thursday, May 15, 2008 5:22 AM
coasterqueenTRN's avatar Well Chipotle to me is a step above fast food even though it's not as "mexican" as your typical local mom and pop establishment. :) I appreciate REAL mexican food just like the next person. :)

Chipotle to me is in a class all it's own. It's MUCH better than Taco Hell, which isn't even real food. It's more like toxic waste wrapped up in a tortilla. ;)

-Tina

+0
Thursday, May 15, 2008 8:20 AM
^I really like West Tenampa here in Huntington, Tina. Pretty authentic and so reasonably priced.

I agree with earlier sentiments that if the quality of the food and service is there, I wouldn't mind the high prices nearly as much.

+0
Thursday, May 15, 2008 1:55 PM
Lord Gonchar's avatar Funny that it was just two years ago that this news headline graced the frontpage of CoasterBuzz:

"Food Prices Drop Significantly At Cedar Point"

(yes, I realize I'm comparing CF in this thread with CP in the news item - still works in general)

So that was abandoned real fast. Why?

I suppose it leads to many of the same ideas expressed already in this thread, but you have to wonder if dropping the prices like they did wasn't a complete failure...or at least not enough of a difference to justify it for whatever reason.

If lower prices worked, you'd think they'd have stuck with it, right?

(the replies to that news item are even more interesting in hindsight as well :) )


+0
Thursday, May 15, 2008 2:06 PM
^ Or people would be complaining that the Subway combo cost $20 instead of $14.

I think as you pointed out Gonch, and so many others seem to agree, it's not just a matter of the price but what people are getting for the price. In this case it sounds like lousy food with even lousier service.

+0
Thursday, May 15, 2008 3:29 PM
eightdotthree's avatar ^^ They didn't really lower any prices anywhere that I could tell, nor were there any carts on the midway selling 99c cotton candy when I was there.
+0
Thursday, May 15, 2008 4:12 PM
I totally agree that leaving a park to eat makes no sense in the case where it's one you've never been to before (and sometimes with ones you have).

You probably will lose easily 1/2-hour or more walking to the car, driving to the establishment, ordering food and sitting down to eat. So then you have to drive back to the park and now you're in triple section Z, adding another ten or more minutes to the time lost.

+0
Thursday, May 15, 2008 4:18 PM
rollergator's avatar ^LOL, I fly to some distant city, then pay for hotels, rental cars, and sometimes even park admissions...all for a few hours in a park hundreds or even thousands of miles from home. NOT leaving the park at that point to get food elsewhere...

Also wanted to note (again) that food and beverages DO cost more for the park than the average fast-food joint in the neighborhood. There are alot of hidden costs for the park - transporting stuff around the park, refrigeration and electricity being run to all the food stands/restaurants, etc. That all adds up. So when you see what appears to be a 100% surcharge, it probably works out to be considerably less for the park's bottom line.


You still have Zoidberg.... You ALL have Zoidberg! (V) (;,,;) (V)

+0
Thursday, May 15, 2008 5:06 PM
Lord Gonchar's avatar

rollergator said:
^LOL, I fly to some distant city, then pay for hotels, rental cars, and sometimes even park admissions...all for a few hours in a park hundreds or even thousands of miles from home. NOT leaving the park at that point to get food elsewhere...

Maybe that's why I don't often feel beat-up by the jacked-up prices?

On any given trip after incurring the cost of dragging the family thousands of miles, visiting multiple parks, staying at hotels, paying for gas - the general expense incurred in doing stupid stuff like this - an extra buck tacked on to the price of a drink really doesn't hit that hard...kind of like a mosquito bite when you're being shot at. ;)

I dunno. It seems like the arguement back when we first really started seeing the price jumps with SF was that the price alone were "unacceptable" and over time opinion has evolved into "unacceptable with considerations" - that sounds like the slow, gradual acceptance (or conditioning) that someone (me :) ) predicted way back when.

Now that probably sounds like a whole boatload of hypocrisy and contradiction from the guy who started this thread.

For me it wasn't the price I had a problem with, nor the price/quality/service ratio. It was the service...period.

To say the price is bad because of the quality of product and service would imply that the inverse logic is that if the price is low enough that reduced quality and service is acceptable and I disagree with that entirely.

If I were only paying $2 for the same drink that I paid nearly $4 for, this thread would still exist. A lower price wouldn't change my POV on the situation.

The scale that measures good service doesn't slide based on price - service and product is either good or it's not.

CF's is not. It's not at current pricing and it wouldn't be if they slashed prices by 50% across the board.


+0
Thursday, May 15, 2008 6:03 PM
Mamoosh's avatar Even though I continue to sing the "Perceived Value" song few parks are listening.

Take for example the locker policy at Six Flags. I'd rather have a few bucks rolled into the price of my ticket and the lockers be free -- even if I never use them!

Parking? Let me park for free and jack the gate price $5.

Heck, I'd be willing to pay $30-40 for an all you can eat/drink option for the convenience of never having to worry about pulling out my wallet -- even if I don't end up consuming that much food!

+0
Thursday, May 15, 2008 6:37 PM
Lord Gonchar's avatar I agree Moosh. But I think the parks are afraid of turning people away from the gate in the first place.

One or two freebies rolled into admission works for some parks. Rolling the entire visit into admission would probably make people balk at the ticket price.

$129 - everything included (parking, drinks, three meals, free lockers, even a game or two on the house)

It'd be an interesting experiment. :)


+0
Thursday, May 15, 2008 7:18 PM
I am assuming that the lower pricing of 2006 did fail miserably, as they seem to have jacked prices back up very quickly!

I sent a comment to the park and much of it dealt with the food quality and pricing.

There are always going to be a group of people willing to pay whatever price is posted to eat at parks. On my visit Tuesday, I walked past the SUbway twice within an hour of park closing, and saw lines both times! Either the people waiting in line would not be able to get food on the way home (probably due to so many busses in the lot), or due to people being too dumb to wait. I really hope the former is the truth.

Here is a quote from my comment that probably applies to most of us:

"Unfortunately, I've had too many bad experiences over the years to justify paying your inflated prices for anything but a handful of items. With your prices going up, I have ZERO incentive to give you a second chance."

While most of us will probably either cut back on food purchases or continue to not buy much food, most of the general public will probably continue to pay inflated prices for poor quality food and sub-par service.

-Sam

+0
Thursday, May 15, 2008 7:26 PM
rollergator's avatar ^"...most of the general public will probably continue to pay inflated prices for poor quality food and sub-par service."

If that is the case, as it seems to be, then where's the incentive for the parks to spend more on either their food purchases (i.e., better quality) or on increased staffing (for better food service)?

If it were MY business, which it obviously isn't, I'd probably at least TRY to do better in terms of quality and service - but there's NO way you'd see me cutting price...the opposite is probably closer to the truth.


You still have Zoidberg.... You ALL have Zoidberg! (V) (;,,;) (V)

+0

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2021, POP World Media, LLC
Loading...