What SFWOA could have done

All any of us can do is speculate why the park was sold. I happen to know for a fact that there was an agreement with Funtime because I've seen it in print and was told about it many years ago. It doesn't make any sense to own an amusement park and lease the property you own to a developer who wants to build another amusement park next door. It was in all the papers a few years ago when the park was sold. The stipulation was in the contract Jeff, it's just anybody's guess as to why Busch actually sold the park. It could have been for all of the above reasons.

Wood - anything else is an imitation

*** This post was edited by Thrillerman 8/19/2003 5:19:00 PM ***

As far as Zoo's Cleveland and Cincy supposedly have two of the better zoo's in the country, although I don't beleive either have marine animals other than seals and a few walrus, But what do I know I hate zoo's and animals

But I don't care about a zoo,

I want to have fun and ride coasters. Now If you live where I do about 20- 30 min from SFWOA and have a choice of an 1hr ride to CP, a 1 hr ride to CLP, a 2 1/2 ride to KW, or a 4 - 4 1/2 hr ride to PKI what would you choose. I wouldn't choose SFWOA.

I'd imagine that Busch sold it for the same reason that anyone would sell anything. Money.

If they could make more money owning the property than by selling it, there'd still be SWOh now.

I also would have disagreed with the combined gate deal. I question if the animal park could've survived without killer whales as it's premier attraction, but there's got to have been a better way.

Have separate gates, but a discounted two-park admission (like $30 each, or $45 for both.) Let season pass holders go to both, but charge others separately... I don't know exactly what I'd have done, but it's sure not working this way.

I'm sure that there were many people who went to both GL and SWOh, but now can do the entire park on one average day. Unless the place is hella-busy, there's no reason to go back twice to visit both sides separately.

Oh, and I still think they need a shuttle ride (besides boats that can't operate in the wind) to go back and forth. A monorail, sky ride, anything.

------------------
Rejection is one thing, but rejection from a fool is cruel!
-Morrissey

Am I the only person here who actually thinks that combining the parks into a single gate was a good idea?

Look what it did for the park: Geauga Lake and Sea World have very different but somewhat overlapping audiences. Combining the parks gave Six Flags the ability to market a single gate as a park that literally has something for everybody. The combination is awesome, and while there is no way that the combination can bring in the same total number of heads as the two separate parks did (because the duplication is now lost) the result is a park that can do much better on the numbers that Six Flags is really interested in: length of stay, repeat visits, and...as a consequence of those...per-cap spending. Why make people visit your two parks when you can shake more money out of them by combining the gates so that they don't ever leave? :)

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

Combining the two gates was a really bad idea because you can do both sides of the lake in one day if you want. I don't see how keeping people in the gates longer increases spending.

If planned right, a non-season pass holder can go to Six Flags 10 times, ride all the rides, and go through the haunted house once while spening absolutly no money at all. Of course this means going on "bring a frend for free" days and eating lunch in the tent next to the parking lot. My point is that keeping someone in the park longer doesn't mean they are going to spend more money on things like food or extra rides.

The number of repeat customers will decrease if they can do the whole park in one day. Splitting the parks up will cause them to come back again and again.

When do you actually go to the park when one person goes to the wildlife side, on rides the coasters, one rides flat rides, and another visits the water park? I just go for the Villain anyway.
------------------
Riding on top of the world with Cedar Point

But Dave, combining parks hasn't brought better numbers. Attendance was lower (according to People Who Know(TM)) than what it was the last year it was Six Flags Ohio.

After years of going to SeaWorld growing up, it was very obvious to me by the time I was a teenager how different the audiences were between Geauga Lake and SW. I think combining the two parks diluted the "brand" of what each offered.

As for the sale, Busch did a lot of things to try and boost numbers prior to the sale. They experimented with winter events, offered a season pass at single-day prices, etc. Those aren't things you do because everything is going swell. I still think a seasonal operation that incurs a major year-round expense (i.e., animals) is something that lacked appeal in a competitive environment for your leisure dollars.

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

I wouldn't count the season pass for single-day price plan against them. They do the same thing at BGT when it's so packed you can't breathe your own air...

-'Playa

------------------
The CPlaya 100--6 days, 9 parks, 47 coasters, 2037 miles and a winner.....LoCoSuMo.

That's what I was trying to say, Jeff... I think that the year-round costs of a non-year-round park made the park less of a profit machine than Busch wanted. I don't doubt that the park made a profit, I just think that it didn't make enough of one to justify keeping it part of the Busch chain.

Look at what Busch did in the 90's and early this decade- added three major coasters to each of their Busch Gardens properties (a big deal, considering that only one new coaster was built at a Busch park in the 80's), as well as made other improvements such as new themed areas and major attractions such as Rhino Rally. They added heavily-themed (and therefore, quite expensive) mechanical rides to Sea World Orlando and added two big-time coasters at Sea World Texas. Lots of heavy spending must have had an effect on the company's cash flow. I am willing to bet that some of Busch's ambitious expansion didn't bring in the numbers (and therefore, the revenue) that they had hoped, and when cash became an issue, they decided to do something they had most likely comtemplated before. Which was, sell their Ohio property. It must have been an idea that had been around for quite some time- doesn't it seem strange that, at a time when EVERY Busch property saw major investment, the Ohio property was left behind?

I agree with Dave that the idea to combine the two parks into one was a good idea, but perhaps in the long-run as opposed to the short run. I believe that, if properly managed over time, SFWoA could become a major destination park... Six Flags probably intended this to happen, even if they weren't able to do it right away, thanks to their lack of desire to make guests happy. While the change from two parks to one has definitely diluted each of the brands, it has created one that offers a lot more than the two did as separate entities.

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

I realize this might be out of the question and sneaky and backhanded but I still believe that the basis of the problem with the place is a horrible first impression. What about if they made a name change? Dropped the Six Flags part from the name, maybe Lands of Adventure* (*a Six Flags property) or something like that. Something as simple as a name change might imply to joe-blow park goer that there's been a major managerial change at the park, and they might give the place another chance (based on its truely great selection of rides, slides and animals) and maybe with a better "first impression" this time around, SFWoA would become a destination park, especially with CP expanding in that direction. Ohio could become the summertime Orlando of the North with the right planning.

Folks more knowledgable than me in business, is this something that's even possible (even though it would require Six Flags to admit they screwed up which will probably never happen)?

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

Under normal circumstances, I would agree, but considering that the park has been Geauga Lake, Six Flags Ohio and Six Flags Worlds of Adventure in the past 5 years, it might not go over to well. A little confusion could be a good thing, but a lot will just keep people away as they wonder "what the hell is going on there?"

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

If they change the name but don't do something about the management then it is pointless. Even joe-blow park goer isn't an idiot and can tell if the park is clean and friendly or not.

You're actually suggesting that they change the name of that place AGAIN?????

Hell, that's part of the problem...I still say they should have made it Six Flags Geauga Lake and been done with it...when they renamed the park "Six Flags Ohio" they were bringing the Six Flags brand name into a region where the Six Flags brand was virtually unknown. People went to Six Flags not knowing what to expect...and Six Flags blew it. People expected an amazing new park, and they got Geauga Lake. Expectations were not managed, and now that the park sort of has its act together, nobody seems to notice...

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

Which makes me wonder if, one day down the road, the Six Flags name will be detrimental to more parks than it is beneficial, considering how the name has been tarnished by many half-assed "upgrades" of parks in the past?

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

Astute observation Rob. I have often thought that Six Flags is dilluting a once lofty name with the likes of Six Flags Kentucky Kingdom, WoA, etc. I am sure the company considered it a valuable way to get brand recognition but if I am the managers at Magic Mountain I am not sure I want to be compared or likened to the folks at Kentucky Kingdom.

I'm wondering what will happen if SFWoA doesn't get another whale. Will Shouka be forced to leave because she came for breeding purposes? Losing the star of the marine life park would be a major blow to SFWoA and a PR disaster.

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

On the other hand, amusement parks are slowly sort of turning into "hey lets go to Six Flags" instead of "hey lets go to the park". I heard a few times when I was on my recent Dorney/SFGAdv trip things along that line - like Dorney referred to as Six Flags Dorney Park and people just automatically asking me if I'd been to that Six Flags in Ohio (they meant the one with the 500' tall coaster ... not the real one, they didn't even know the real one existed). Of course, these people were complete "GP"ers, down to not realizing Laser went upside down til they were sitting in it, and asking if Talon was taller than Steel Force when standing in line for it. *sigh*

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

Good question about Shouka. The truth is, Shouka is going to be at Six Flags for the rest of her life probably. Yes, Shouka is on a "breeding" loan, but it isn't what you think. If Six Flags fails to aquire a male whale and breed Shouka, then that only means that Marineland France (The park she came from) will not receive one of the calves.

A "Breeding Loan" is simply a term used by marine parks to get the animal faster. Six Flags paid for Shouka...a LOT of money. Definetely up in the millions of dollars. Therefore, she will stay with us. She is on a "Breeding Loan," but it doesn't mean that if she doesn't breed she goes back. As far as Marineland is concerned, they won't see Shouka again. Sea World has done this plenty of times. In fact, one of their whales at the CA park named Ulises is on "Breeding Loan" but will never go back to his home park in Spain.
*** This post was edited by SeaWorld 8/20/2003 11:58:50 AM ***

Well, I am no big activist but it is a shame that an animal that is used to living with companionship is circling in the pool alone. I hope another whale can be acquired, and not particularly b/c it might help attendance.

First there was a stiputaion in the land deed when SW aquired it. The wording was "no traditional amusement rides"... hence the simulator.

SW sold because

1) attendance was lagging

2)the management at the park couldn't control costs

3) it is also rumored by BEC types who believe that Busch Jr really doesn't like marine parks and is looking to change them or get out completely. (which i happen to believe as well)

SFO was a monster success. Public impression was extremely high. 2001 produced the largest number of season passes in park history. It was the first season in which Geauga Lake (SFO) beat Sea World in attendance. And like always the property was a cash cow for its parent company.

Now the funny thing is that WOA has a much larger number of former BEC management. So there goes all that theory of "too bad they lost all that management that was at SWO" Most of the full timers from SWO can't handle an amusement park. It's too different from a marine park in nature and for the most part all the low level full time management have little experience at any park. The remainder of the staff are imports from other SF properties and about five or six old Geauga Lakers.

They should have operated two gates. It was the announced plan in spring 2001. But how can you operate a marine park without a whale? So then the choice is merge or lay dormant until you get a whale. Now can ANYONE believe that SFI would let any property sit fallow for any length of time? Never! So there was only one choice for the company. And they blew it. It could have worked. But instead of merging the parks and taking the best from both systems they told the SWO managment to "come in and fx this place up" (which didn't need management fixing, it needed investment in infrastructure and employee compensation plans which are completely dependant on the parent company in allowing for that kind of spending) while only slightly changing the companies model to accomidate the BEC mentality of the SWO staff.

BEC=spend

while

SFI=ABSOLUTELY NO OPERATING COSTS WHATSOEVER!

The Management of 2001 blew out the budget while putting out an inferior product because of an inability to heed the experience and warnings of the reigning SFO management staff. The park capped out at about 2.5 mil (quite dissapointing) and lead into a fantastic (please note the sarcasm) 2002 year where there were questions as to whether or not they could beat 2000 numbers (which they did). All the while scaring away the SWO die hards.

So there you go.

I don't think that would have been a good idea to keep a separate gate for the two parks. If Busch couldn't operate the park profitably what makes you think Six Flags (of all companies) would be able to do the trick by keeping it (Sea World) operating on its own. Now I don't have a better strategy but keeping them separate would not have really improved things for SWO.