What SFWOA could have done

They should have never made Sea World and Geauga Lake one gate. All they did was confuse the Sea World crowd and miss out on extra admissions. Many people just believed that the sea life park was gone, or different enough not to bother with. And I think the parks operating individually would have given better customer service than the fiasco that was caused by combining the parks.

------------------
I'd rather be in my boat with a drink on the rocks,
than in the drink with a boat on the rocks.

Actually the only time I almost had fun at SFWOA was summer 01, and the only reason for that was the fact we had a party the night before and woke up drunk and knocked a few back while waiting for our ride and tix. Along with drinking from the time we entered the park to the time we left the park. I guess its proof alcohol makes everythign seem better.

Asphalt sux, I don't care if concrete gives off a blinding glare, it has never bothered me and I rarely wear sun glasses.

As far as SFWOA getting better I hope so but the park will still not be tops on my list even though its the most conveinient being about 20 min - 1/2 hr away, I still prefer CP, CLP, which are both about and hour from my house and even KW which is anywhere from 2hrs - 2 1/2 hours away.

I never understood combining the parks either. "Let's double the expense but keep charging the same admission." Where's the logic in that? I can see them needing to create a better value proposition for the public to compete against CP and the zoo I suppose, but it still seems like throwing away a lot of cash.

------------------
Jeff - Webmaster/Admin - CoasterBuzz.com - Sillynonsense.com
DELETED! What time does the water show start?

I said the same thing a long time ago. I felt that combining the gates was a terrible idea. My guess is that they felt they had no choice because of the loss of the killer whales. I mean, that was Sea World. It would be like an amusement park with 3 jr. woodies and a Magnum losing Magnum.

However, if they were going to combine the parks they should have shut down the Sea World gate or made it available to Season Passholders only just to save money on the staffing.

I still think they may have been best served to keep the wildlife side closed the first year, eat the loss, and plan properly for opening it the year after. They rushed things and it was painfully obvious.

First the company didn't know that it was going to have the option to buy SWO as soon as they did. It was going to happen, but it wasn't known how fast. And what if SFI was outbid by a land developer? There was too much unknown around 98-99 for the company to plan it's growth around.

I thought the 2000 season was an excellent year for the park. Much improved service numbers, more rides, best revenue in park history. It was the purchase and subsuquent merger of SWO that hamstrung the park. First the marine park should have been a seperate gate (but how can you run a marine park without a whale?). Or they could have let the property sit for a year (but SFI wouldn't allow for such wasted potential at removing you from your money). Instead they throw the two parks together with little planning or followthrough, toss around some big plan ideas, and raise the ticket price to just under the Point. In the end 3/4 of the parks management leaves and the resonance is felt today.

Edit: Even though the "bad" rides were put in before the flagging of the park it was still Premier that put them in (except for RWB). I would go as far to say that X Flight was a bad idea, especially sice the company knew from day one that they would not operate it according to the design specifications.
*** This post was edited by meangene 8/17/2003 12:26:30 AM ***

What they should have done is when they acquired the SWO site was shutter it, for at least a year,and have some definitive plans made. IMO combining the two parks when they did was premature. If they are trying to replace what Seaworld had, they're not going to do it. They're not Busch. What they have now is a conglomeration that doesn't quite work,for what appears to be the lack of a long term plan.

I think they should have built from scratch in Columbus! :)

------------------
God wants spiritual fruits, not religious nuts!

What I hate is whatever type of concrete The waterpark at SFKK has. I couldn't keep my eyes open for more than five seconds or my vision would go white and I couldn't see for about ten seconds. And I also had a headache from the squinting.

On topic , I think what they did was just fine.

------------------
I'm so friggin' sick of people who think the Crystal beach Cyclone would have been a great coaster. Woohoo ! I just rode this great ride , and Now My arm is broken and my tailbone is Bruised!

I still don't see why SF bought out SWO in the first place. Sure it meant doubling their park in size but they never really did anything with the extra space. They just lost a ton of money on the whole deal and got nothing out of it. SFWoA could be making so much money right now if they just charged to get into the Sea World half of the lake and the water park. Then they wouldn't have to jack up the prices for everything else in the park so much. Maybe they could afford to open all their rides and pay for employee training. What they could have done was acquire SWO, change the name, tell no one of the change of management, and keep charging for admission to the park. That probably would have solved all thei money problems. That way they could keep building rides with the money they got from all three of the parks.

At least they put a sweet DDR machine in though.

------------------
Riding on top of the world with Cedar Point

I dunno... how many people would really pay extra for the Wild Life side of the park if it was still separate?

When Busch sold the park, they did so for a reason. I am sure that reason had a lot to do with the fact that the park didn't pull the numbers it was expected to pull. Of all the Sea World properties, it was the only "seasonal" one (as far as I know), and perhaps it didn't make sense to spend money on the park? Or perhaps Busch made more money by selling the park then they would have had they operated it for another decade or two? When Busch sold, they took the whales, which many will argue was the "main attraction" at the park. With poor attendance before Shamu was pulled, it was probably unrealistic to expect attendance to remain once the whales were pulled. Six Flags probably took a gamble and thought that the bonus of "Sea World" would pull enough extra people to the SFO gates to justify the expense of buying the park.

------------------
-Rob
A.C.E. member since 1990
Posting @ Coasterbuzz since 2000
E.C.C. member since 2002

If they would have made more money on two admissions than on one. All they would have to do is get something to replace the whales, which they did anyway. As long as Sea World was making $1 a year, SFWoA would be making $1 more a year. Any money they made on Sea World would be pure profit.

Then they could even make commercails advertising a better park than each other instead of messing with quality parks like Cedar Point. I think they would be a lot better off this way. Then Six Flags could be themed for the "big kids" while Sea World would be for families.
------------------
Riding on top of the world with Cedar Point

How do you figure that it would be pure profit? I would imagine that caring for animals costs at least as much, and probably a hell of a lot more, than maintaining mechanical rides. Plus, Six Flags has to recoup the cost of buying the park in the first place, which I believe was $110 million?

------------------
-Rob
A.C.E. member since 1990
Posting @ Coasterbuzz since 2000
E.C.C. member since 2002

The sale of SWO pretty much paid for the building of Discovery Cove in Florida, FYI.

Busch sold the park in Aurora because they were changing the theme of their other parks and adding rides. They were unable to do this in Aurora because of an agreement they signed with the original owners of Geauga Lake that said they would never build rides there to compete with them. Funtime Inc., the original owners of Geauga Lake at the time, owned the land on the other side of the lake and Sea World entered a 100 year lease on the property. Sea world wasn't originally owned by Busch when it was built in the late 1960's. Busch didn't enter the picture until the mid 1970's when they bought the chain from the original developers.

Wood - anything else is an imitation
*** This post was edited by Thrillerman 8/19/2003 10:15:25 AM ***

Interesting... I thought that the Sea World parks were always part of the Busch organization.

While I don't question the "agreement" that was made between Sea World and Geauga Lake, I have a feeling that the park didn't make a lot of money, as it only operated for a few months out of the year as opposed to the other Sea World parks. Unlike parks with mechanical rides where money is saved by not running the coasters during the colder months, Sea World couldn't "mothball" their wildlife for the winter and save money- they had to care for the animals year-round, even though money only came in during the summer months. I have a gut feeling that Busch made more money by selling the park then they would have had they operated the park for the duration of that lease.

------------------
-Rob
A.C.E. member since 1990
Posting @ Coasterbuzz since 2000
E.C.C. member since 2002

Oh I think your correct Rob in the assessment about being seasonal and more expensive to maintain compared to the other parks. I think the nail in the coffin, so to speak, was the fact that Busch wouldn't be able to develope the park the way they were doing with their other properties because of that agreement with Funtime which carried over to whoever owned Geauga Lake in the future.

Wood - anything else is an imitation

Actually, Busch bought the parks in the late 80's, right when Sea World of Texas was being built. Sea World Texas is also a seasonal park, but they operate into november and start back up in march, so they have a short off season.

SWO simply didn't pull in enough money for Busch. I'm pretty sure it still made a profit though. Six Flags should have left the parks seperate and called it "Six Flags Marine World." Even though "Marine World" is in Vallejo, it would be cool to start a Six Flags marine park equivallent to "Sea World."

They probably should have kept the park closed until they had killer whales. Even if they added flats to the park, it would not have replaced "Shamu." But, the cost to keep all of those animals is unreal. They have thousands of pounds of fish shipped in every day.

The park needs another killer whale and a new sea lion show. If Six Flags could have kept the Sea World staff in tact, they could have had a great park. Sea World knew what they were doing and customer service was outstanding. Six Flags messed up by firing most of them...
*** This post was edited by SeaWorld 8/19/2003 12:25:37 PM ***

The park in Vallejo is already called Six Flags Marine World and is basically a baby-SFWoA. The parks are very similar, down to the way the rides are all clustered in the front, and the animals in the back. But, SFMW seems to have transitioned slowly into what it is today, with its coasters as "something for the thrill seekers to do while the animal lovers go to the zoo" as opposed to the main draw.

I think that's the main problem with SFWoA from a marketing standpoint. The original park was a thrill park - 10 coasters no matter how you crack it is a thrill park. Now, most people who go to a thrill park rarely bring along non-riders or if they do, they're non-riders that don't mind just watching the rides go, or waiting. Waterparks are always additional draws, but there really isn't that much of an audience,based on the original idea of the park (never get a second chance to make a first impression) for an animal park. Plus, don't Cleveland, Toldeo, Cincy and Pittsburgh all have major zoos? So the only draw is the marine animals, but the park is advertised like a full zoo. I think there is just a major philosophy problem at the park and SF needs to sit down, throw all the chips and preconceptions into a pile, and start from scratch. They're making progress, but its progress based on a still-shaky foundation.

------------------
Give me launched or give me ... uh ... more launched!!
--Brett

Some of the Sea World staff members were fired, some transferred with Busch, and some just saw the light and resigned. Impulse-ive makes some good points.

Particularly, the need another whale. I believe they got the one they have now on the condition that they get a mate for it. That has not happened to this point and I would be curious to know what the time frame is.

I think the Six Flags folks need to consider what Walt Disney once said:

"You can dream, create, design and build the most wonderful place in the world...but it requires people to make the dream a reality."

I am not convinced that SFWoA has the right people to make the park what I believe it has the potential to become.

The news items of the last year suggest only that zoning prohibits the construction of rides, not any kind of "agreement." Regardless, SF has obviously applied for variances, and Busch could very well have done the same.

I'd say Busch sold for much different reasons than those some of you have suggested.

------------------
Jeff - Webmaster/Admin - CoasterBuzz.com - Sillynonsense.com
DELETED! What time does the water show start?