What's going wrong at Cedar Point?

RatherGoodBear said:
I can't see park guests agreeing that they should pay prices comparable to a Rascal Flatts concert, although dollars per hour would make an interesting marketing campaign.

Two things on that:

1. It's all about perspective. I wouldn't pay 1/4 of that to see Rascal Flatts, but I'd pay twice as much for a day at the park. Everybody is going to have things that are and aren't of importance to them. The point is that in the big scheme of things amusement parks don't feel overpriced to me. Most times they feel underpriced.

2. I worked in a carpet store many moons ago and we had a period where it seemed everyone balked at flooring prices and tried to haggle. The manager had the bright idea to put up a board that compared other fabric things we buy without flinching and get a lot less use out of (ties, towels, etc) along with their prices - adjusted to a "per square yard" format for easy comparison, of course. You'd be surprised at how many people looked at that board when in the store and how quickly the 'hagglers' dropped in number.

It does seem like an angle the parks have missed - selling you on the idea that it's not just a stop at the park, it's a day's worth of fun. The thing about some of the other options I mentioned is that you don't often do them alone, you tack on other things to make a day (or night or whatever) of it. For example, dinner and a movie. So the price of a night out or a day of fun is probably actually even more for some of those other options.

Regarding the NFL...

You have some points there...even though I still think the comparison is valid. But how about MLB? Those teams play 81 homes games over the course of the same general 5 months that parks operate and draw between 1.4 million (A's) and 3.7 million (Dodgers) paying ticket holders per year. (source)

In 2009 the average cost for four to attend a MLB game (tickets, 2 beers, 4 small drinks and hot dogs, parking, 2 of the least expensive souvenir caps) is $196.89. The high was $410.88 (Yankees) and the low was $114.24 (Diamondbacks).

For the record the league average premium ticket price is $96.93.

Here's a really nice PDF chart that lists the prices of each item individually so you can see where you'll pay $8 for a beer or $25 to park.

Some of these MLB teams can 'operate' for 80-some days out of the season and command an average cost of $300 or $400 dollars and still draw 3,000,000 people. (and some can't seem to give away tickets and still draw a crowd)

I still don't believe the price of visiting Cedar Point (or any park, really) is a problem and I think it compares favorably to alternative options.

janfrederick said:
To clarify, you mean "big ticket" entertainment (or upper-level).

Yes, compares favorably to other "big ticket" options.

Perhaps the problem is in getting people to see a day at the park as a "big ticket" option?

Just like you sometimes can't compare Disney to other parks, I don't think you can compare sports to other entertainment. It's a huge industry in this country, and for literally millions of people, the teams they root for are part of their identity. Between the college bowl season and NFL playoffs, there's a lot of money being made and people are literally nuts over how their teams are doing or how their college team is ranked.

I think with passion like that, you can get away with charging more for everything from tickets to parking to food and souvenirs. Look no further than how charged up people in Santa Clara are over the stadium issue. Some of them are willing to sell their children to get the 49ers to build there. Would they feel the same about giving CF any incentives to stay?

I know there's no way to document this, but I wonder how many people who spend 400-500 at a sporting event without blinking would complain about spending 40 or 50 dollars to get into an amusement park.

GoBucks89 said:
Attendance is down at Tiger and Indians games because the teams are not very good (some would go as far to say they both suck).

Demonstrably false. The Detroit Tigers ranked 4th in MLB home game attendance in 2009, and 3rd in 2007-08. Not bad for such a "not very good" team in a market decimated by job loss. Even more so when you consider that, per the chart Gonch linked to above, the "fan cost index" for Tigers games is above average.

I stand corrected (with the Indians performance of late, baseball has dropped off the radar). But I think the Tigers attendance is consistent with the point that fans follow good teams and don't follow those that aren't. The Tigers finished second in the division in '06, '07 and '09 making the playoffs in '06. So their attendance was up because they actually were competitive. And often times, your attendance in one year is affected by your performance the year prior because of the impact on season and advance ticket sales. Then if you look earlier in the decade, the Tigers' attendance was down relative to the rest of the league because the team was finishing closer to the cellar of the division.

There are exceptions to the fasns-don't-follow-bad-teams rule. The Browns and Cubs are two examples of that. But many teams (I would guess most) do not have that luxury. How they do in terms of followings will depend on how good the team is. Same is true for colleges as well and with respect to certain sports at certain colleges.

I think the sports comparisons are valid even if they are not necessarily apples to apples. Its all part of entertainment dollars of which folks have a limited budget. In any given year, people look at the entertainment dollars they have to spend and need to budget/allocate them amongst the various options available. And though I think comparisons to Disney from the parks' perspective are often times not valid, from the consumer side they are because my guess is one of the reasons folks go to CP (and other parks in the area of their home) less often is because they spend time at Disney parks instead. When I was a kid, few folks had been to Disney or even took vacations via airplane. So those dynamics are different now.

GoBucks89 said:
The Tigers finished second in the division in '06, '07 and '09 making the playoffs in '06.

A side note: The Tigers finished tied for 1st in the division in '09 after the regular season. They lost a 1-game tiebreaker with gave the Minnesota Twins the division.

We'll see if their success continues after losing a few of their big names this offseason.

Haven't read all the posts in this thread, but what few I have make me glad I spent three very fun and memorable days there in 2003 for my first visit, around CM. Great rides, great ops, clean, etc. In short I left extremely impressed, and now I feel that I should leave those memories as is, and not return, at least not now. How depressing to hear the state things are currently in there; high highs to low lows.

RatherGoodBear said:
I know there's no way to document this, but I wonder how many people who spend 400-500 at a sporting event without blinking would complain about spending 40 or 50 dollars to get into an amusement park.

I'm guessing significantly less than the other way around.

Sorry for the double post.

Just happened across this SF SEC Filing which is full of really fun info.

Interestingly, on page 15 when talking about advertising demographics they compare themselves to the NBA, NFL, NHL: and NASCAR. Just struck me as that's exactly the discussion we're having here. SF sees it as comparable - from an advertising standpoint, at least.

Also interesting on that page is the same time comparisons we've been making - except SF gives us the number. The average is 8.6 hours in one of their parks.

At any rate, tons of great info in there for the business minded enthusiast including numbers on exactly how much more they make by branding food joints, some guest satisfaction numbers and to kinda bring it full circle - even the info on how leveraged they'll be after they come through this bankruptcy...and the answer is less than other companies including CF.

^8.6 hours! Really? Wow - I could almost swear reading something about "visit duration" from way way back, like maybe even the late 80s/early 90s that claimed an average visit duration of about 4.5-5 hours...

Peronally, 8.6 is probably about right for me....but I'm surprised the number is that high for guests on average. Maybe that high average is an SF thing?

Robocoaster said:
Haven't read all the posts in this thread, but what few I have make me glad I spent three very fun and memorable days there in 2003 for my first visit, around CM. Great rides, great ops, clean, etc. In short I left extremely impressed, and now I feel that I should leave those memories as is, and not return, at least not now. How depressing to hear the state things are currently in there; high highs to low lows.

Don't believe everything you hear, and certainly not everything you read in an internet forum.

^ Exactly. I've been to parks and had a horrible time when others at the same park on the same day had a glorious time. As with everything out there, your experience may vary.

Scott: Remember that review of Cedar Point (WSJ, I think) where the reporter complained of waiting in line for hours to ride four rides...and it turned out that on that *very same day* you and I had ridden everything in the park except those four rides before Noon...and didn't wait longer than 40 minutes each for those four?

Carrie: Excellent point! In fact--

Robocoaster: Even if you believe everything you read in a discussion such as this one, remember to consider the source and the nature of the conversation. If this thread were about, "Why is Cedar Point such an amazing place?" you would have a very different sounding conversation, and you'd find that the very same people who are talking about what's wrong with the park in this thread would be telling you what's right with the place in that one. You are getting extremely detailed information from the park's biggest fans here, and the result is that by extension you are also hearing from the park's harshest critics. If you had a great time at CoasterMania '09, you should expect to have a great time at the park in 2010 as well.

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

According to the PR folks Shoot the Rapids will interact and enhance the Paddlewheel Excursion ride, whatever that means.

An excerpt from that SF filing.

(The bold facing is mine.) They say expected average stay. So it doesn't sound like it was something actually surveyed. Besides, 8.6 hours is waiting in line for around 4 rides at SF, right? :)

I notice that SF in particular likes to use the phrase "captive audience." I'm sure CF thinks along the same lines, even if they don't come out and say it. I interpret that phrase to mean the parks believe their guests have little or no choice when it comes to things like in-park advertising, food quality, or pricing. So they (think they) can heap whatever crap they want on a paper plate and charge whatever they want.

If a company openly considers me a "captive" or act like they have me by the cojones, I prefer to do as little business with that company as possible.

RatherGoodBear said:
They say expected average stay. So it doesn't sound like it was something actually surveyed.

Ahhh, gotcha. Probably somewhat "inflated" to impress business partners with the amount of exposure they're getting by being in the parks. Or not... but probably. ;)

RatherGoodBear said:
I notice that SF in particular likes to use the phrase "captive audience." I'm sure CF thinks along the same lines, even if they don't come out and say it.

If a company openly considers me a "captive" or act like they have me by the cojones, I prefer to do as little business with that company as possible.

Well, I'm sure it's origins are perhaps as sinister as you think, but it's a pretty standard business term that seems to have more to do with advertising than anything else.

So yeah, an audience that due to their circumstances are forced to see and entire advertising message. I suppose you could connect the dots and apply the logic to other things like food service and I'm sure it's done to some degree...and it makes sense to. That's why drinks at all of these places I've been making comparisons to are four, five, even eight dollars - because of the captive audience. In fact, that's the link that seems to tie them together so nicely.

I'm sure you do business with plenty of people who see you as a captive audience member. You're captive:

-Waiting...anywhere (the bank, the airport, the supermarket, the doctor's office, the bus stop and so on)
-On hold on the telephone
-In any cab, airplane, elevator or any means of transportation out of your control
-In public restrooms
-When you're pumping gas
-Even in the classroom anymore

And if you think about it, I'm sure you can think of a time in all of those examples where you've personally seen advertising at one time or another.

They say expected average stay. So it doesn't sound like it was something actually surveyed.

Yeah, but it means what is says - expected average stay. It's most likely not a magical number pulled out of the air, but rather a reasonable estimate based on past experience. The same way it's not unreasonable that they list the NFL as 3.1 hours or NASCAR as 4 hours in the same chart.

I'd like to believe that SEC filings don't include entirely fictional numbers.

They are talking about people who don't have season passes most likely, especially at destination parks like Magic Mountain or Great America where people might include the amusement park visit for 1 day of their vacation to the Los Angeles or Chicago areas. Even the smaller parks I imagine would see a large number of single day attendees wanting to see and do everything they can. It's the people with season passes and locals who get either free or heavily discounted tickets through their places of work who feel that 3 or 4 hours is good value.

If a company openly considers me a "captive" or act like they have me by the cojones, I prefer to do as little business with that company as possible.

Then you should probably avoid any "event" that requires you to physically attend it to enjoy it: and that's pretty much any form of entertainment outside your own home you can imagine short of "a nice hike."

(And even then, an enterprising soul might be able to profit from the fact that you are far from home---after all, that's how Yosemite got started.)

Well, Brian, I think we have different interpretations of the word "captive." I'm not averse to spending money when I go out. I go to numerous minor league hockey games, and if I feel like it, I'll buy a beer or two or something to eat from one of the concession stands. I know they're overpriced, but I also know that if I don't feel like spending that much, I can stop off for something less expensive within a few hours after the game on my way home. And I have done that.

What I have issue with is the "only guy in town" syndrome, like the gas station that charges 30 cents a gallon more because they're right next to the interstate. Or the plumber who decides to double his rates because it's an emergency. I think that's the game the parks like CF and SF play. If you don't like paying $12 or $15 for a meal that's mediocre at best, where else are you going to go? They know the other choices are either non-existent or extremely inconvenient.

And I still haven't shaken the idea that SF even considered the idea a while back of charging re-admission for anyone leaving the park for any reason at all. So yeah, those kinds of businesses I try to give as little of my money as possible.

You know, I think Rideman Dave is absolutly right in his example of how all the little things add up to a big problem. It IS extremely annoying to have to wait forever for the train.

The vibe in the park has changed from what it used to be. It is hard to put a finger on it, but I think it must be all the cost cutting. There used to be an atmosphere in the park that made guests feel the park would go to great lengths to make sure they had a perfect and fun day. Now it is more like here are the rides, go enjoy them but if we are a little short staffed and things may be a little slower, so what, we already have your admission money. And between rides we'll try to empty your wallet with a bunch of low value stuff. You may leave feeling ripped off, but so what, we need to service our debt. Maybe that is a little extreme, but there is certainly a change in how the park feels compared to the 70's and 80's.

Matter of fact, I have to say Holiday World reminds me a lot of CP in the 70's.

On the Cleveland economy, sure it has taken a big hit, but how do you explain the astronomical attendance increase at the Cleveland Zoo in 2009. Could it be that the Zoo offers value? Could it be that the Zoo offers a quality experience at a total experience cost where guests leave content that the money they spent was not a ripoff?

And the Cleveland Cavs are another example where they have great attendance success. Does quality at the Cavs game sell in this poor economy? Well, you can get a more expensive burger there this year, but it is from a new Michael Simon buger joint. More expensive, but outstanding quality. Guess what, the burger joint is packed.

Cedar Point seems to be in a rut where they are one dimensional. Excellent rides, but they forget about the ammenities. From what I've heard from others about Kinzel, I can certainly see his mark in that situation.