DispatchMaster

No, I will ask you how giving away low/no cost stuff like ice cream and coupons compares in any way to mobilizing an unnecessarily-massive, unnecessarily-expensive crane that takes an unnecessarily-large crew, each getting paid union wages, and an unnecessary number hours to set up and operate? All I've been saying is that maybe there's a reason other than marketing that this large crane was needed versus a smaller one. After all, wouldn't a smaller, less expensive crane have achieved the same "brand recognition" or whatever? But as far as I can tell, disco and jsus aren't doctors, they're people posting on the Internet. And if someone on the Internet told me to take some unknown medicine whose intended effects seemed unbelievable, and justified it by saying "because I say so", I would go see a doctor, and even then I would get a second opinion. It would be foolish to do otherwise.

That's a straw man. I've not refused to entertain their arguments, I've simply asked for something to substantiate their claims beyond "because I say so". One would think that if their work experience were so vast and topical that they could provide something beyond that. Especially when those claims should be so easy to substantiate, since we're talking about things like media exposure, and not trade secrets. Maybe some people find that convincing enough, but I certainly do not, and that's especially true when making outrageous claims that sort of demand substantiation. Weird that healthy skepticism isn't welcome here.

So, first it's because of media exposure, but you can't show any examples here or historically of media coverage. Then it's to promote a crane company to the public, but it's simultaneously a secret that can't be shared with the public? Seems legit and totally not self-contradictory. And spare the whole "not feeding the troll" nonsense. You've made an unlikely, illogical claim, and have refused to back it up with anything beyond "because I say so". I'm reasonably skeptical, and have provided reasonable alternative, reasonable, explanations based on observable evidence that contradict these left-field suggestions, but it's clear that critical thought is frowned upon here, and instead we're just supposed to take your word for it, "because you say so". So, who's the troll?

And yet you cannot provide a single example of this happening, despite this apparently being a very smart and totally common occurrence. L O L

Can you provide an example of this?

It's honestly stunning that anyone would think marketing is a more logical explanation than the crane actually being necessary. Completely stunning. I mean, of the dozens of people there, how many are in the market for a crane? Or maybe you're suggesting the media coverage is what they were after, in which case show me one singular news story that showcased the crane, Capital City, or anything along those lines. As for why else they'd bring the crane? As I already explained, using observations about the construction site and that particular crane's capabilities, it is very likely that a crane of that lifting capacity and range was necessary given the distance to the foundations from where the crane could access them. As for why they set only those pieces and nothing more, sure, maybe putting those in at that time was part of the announcement, but it's also possible they had more work planned for the crane, but weather prohibited them from proceeding with more, and the crane was needed elsewhere. That would also explain why there hasn't been any painting in recent weeks, since Sandusky has had a fair bit of harsh weather lately. But given the illogical nature of the argument you're making, the burden of proof is on you to show something resembling evidence, so again, point me to news coverage that highlights the crane, Capital City, etc.

Using an overly-expensive piece of heavy machinery is not in any way, shape, or form a practical use of capital. So, again, what's the lifting capacity of the two on-site cranes given the distance, height, and load of the support installation? Because that crane being necessary given those circumstances is a far more likely explanation than attracting media that was already on site.

Oh please. He made fun of folks making silly assumptions that fly in the face of reality, while pointing out that there are practical, business-driven explanations for decisions.

Nevermind, I found video of the installation. First of all, the crane they used was not configured to include the lattice jib, so the max height was nowhere near its max lift height of 384'. But that's all beside the point, as I'll explain. The crane is parked on the opposite side of the photo building, meaning the horizontal distance to the furthest footer is around 150'. Let's assume ID's track is 40' above ground level, and naturally the crane boom must be above that by some nonzero amount, let's say by 10', so as the boom passes above ID's track it's 50' high. That results in the boom having a ~30 degree angle relative to the ground at it's lowest point. That means that at 150' of horizontal distance when the support is being set into place, the boom is extended about 175'. And, as should be obvious, the further the crane's boom is extended horizontally the lower the carrying load capacity. So, what is the carrying capacity of that crane in those conditions? Because it sure as heck stands to reason that particular crane was needed, not for showmanship or grandeur, but simply given the distance they had to extend out into the lagoon and above Iron Dragon with a considerably heavy support hanging from it. So, again, the construction requirements drive these decisions, full stop.

OK, fair enough, but I don't think the most likely explanation is to attract media attention of media that was already there. That's an absurdly illogical assumption that not only makes zero sense, but, again, is precisely the type of thing that Tony made fun of in his recent podcast appearance. But as they say, you cannot reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into. Also, do you have a picture of the crane they used for the support install?

Are you sure that's not the crane that is currently parked on site near the launch track?

You should listen to the recent CoasterRadio podcast when they had Tony Clark on, wherein he basically made fun of the type of nonsensical speculation you're engaging in. The construction requirements drive these project decisions. Is it inconceivable that there were technical considerations that you haven't considered regarding the installation of those supports that drove the use of that crane?

This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, considering the media and public were there to observe the installation of the support columns, and would have witnessed the installation even if they had been using a system of ropes and pulleys festooned to tall trees.

This is a total straw man argument. I never suggested that marketing as a whole does not have positive ROI. I'm asking those that are so certain that out-of-market ad spend would bring positive ROI to substantiate their claims. To that end, I'm pointing out that Cedar Fair (and Cedar Point before that) marketing folks have gone on record stating (read John Hildebrandt's book) that only a very small percentage of revenue comes from outside a regional park's region, and further that despite their efforts to expand their reach via marketing they have never been able to move that needle via additional spend. Or, as you yourself admit, "you have to go with historical numbers, trends, and rely on those that have been there/done that on the effectiveness of such a program". I've provided an example from someone who has "been there/done that" to demonstrate my point. Comparing Kings Island (or any other regional park) to Coca-Cola and Proctor & Gamble is absurd, given the latter two companies' annual revenue are ~28,500% and ~550,000%, respectively, higher than that of KI's estimated annual revenue. And you're kind of making my point for me with regard to Super Bowl ads. An estimated 60% of SB ads don't boost sales, and these are ads for household names like Coca-Cola! And FYI those companies know that ad spend won't generate sales, but they're ok with those ads boosting or maintaining brand awareness. So ask yourself this: If Coca-Cola, one of the most well-known brands on Earth, can't measurably boost sales (something they can track with pinpoint accuracy) with an ad on one of the most globally-watched TV events on Earth, why would it make sense that an out-of-market advertising blitz for KI would generate positive ROI?

So, again, the short answer is that you are unable to substantiate the claim that out-of-market advertising generates positive ROI, despite your claims that it is "evident" and that these things are "trackable". This begs the question that if there's no evidence to support a belief, why do you believe it so strongly? And to be clear, reaching more eyeballs is a good thing only when the revenue gained from reaching those eyeballs exceeds the cost necessary to reach those eyeballs.

What does that have to do with the claims being made here with regard to marketing? If the claims being made here with regard to marketing are so self-evidently true, why isn't anyone able to provide anything so substantiate those claims? It's all "this is true because I say so", which isn't a convincing argument.

Looks nice, but seems like a lost opportunity to not have included Aerial Chase and RFYL in Camp Snoopy, especially because it would serve as a natural transition to Rivertown. I mean, RFYL is a perfect fit for Camp Snoopy.

So if I understand correctly, they're keeping the theater roof and converting everything underneath to Beagle Scout Acres?

So, the short answer is "no, I can't provide evidence to support the claim". You claiming they have said as much isn't the same as showing examples of them saying this, and further, why would a person whose job it is to justify their job's value say anything that contradicts the argument that their job is valuable? It's like asking a police officer if their writing parking tickets has a positive effect on community safety and taking their word for it without asking for evidence to back up a self-serving claim. So, again, where is some evidence to support the idea that out-of-market advertising has a substantial impact on revenue? Someone else mentioned Banshee as an example of a "PR campaign that have had a huge impact", except CF attendance was down during Banshee's debut season... Can you understand why I'm skeptical of this claim?

Yes, the Marketing team at KI knows.

Can you share an example? By what metric have these campaigns "had a huge impact"? Not trying to be argumentative, but these claims seem wildly vague. What was the long term attendance and revenue boost KI enjoyed based on the campaign for Banshee, for example? CF is a public company, and their financials are therefore available. I know they don't always point to individual parks' results in quarterly and annual reports, but when there are exceptions - like gains due to a specific investment - they often do. Are there reports where they mention any modern (post-CF) era attraction's bottom line impact specifically from out-of-region visitors at KI? Because that's the claim that's being made - that the park isn't doing a good enough job reaching these so-called lucrative distant guests. If it is such common knowledge that this claim is true, where is the supporting evidence?

Do you have anything to support that claim? Because as far as I'm aware, via interviews, memoirs, etc., revenue for regional parks is almost entirely from the local region, with anything outside of that being a rounding error at best.

How much revenue will Holiday World realize as a result of a few minutes of banter on CBS Orlando?

LOLOLOLOLOL Yes, season passes offer a package, which guarantees park access through the season with the addition of numerous value-add benefits which are clearly stated as subject to change without notice. The base product - park admission - is not subject to change. So when you go through with the purchase, you are agreeing to all the terms, including acknowledging that the benefits are subject to change or revocation. Again, you are presented with these terms prior to purchase, so once you agree to those terms you also agree that those benefits may change or outright disappear. The only way the asinine TV example makes any sense would be if the box stated those items may be included. Because, again, the park doesn't state that value-added pass benefits are guaranteed to be available. The TOS clearly state they are subject to change at the park's whim. Just like Early Entry. Just like park hours. Just like the availability of your favorite ride. Just like the availability of your favorite funnel cake or whatever. If you do not like the terms of an agreement, why on Earth would you agree to those terms? It's not like anyone tricked you. Worst case, you were too lazy to read the terms of the agreement, but if so, that's on you. Buyer beware. And if you expect businesses to behave differently then I have a bridge to sell you. Yes, that's true. And it happened to us over a couple years, so we did what normal, reasonable folks do in response - stop agreeing to purchase a product that we no longer felt was of sufficient value. Continuing to fork over our hard-earned cash to a company that was no longer delivering what we felt was sufficient value would be flat out stupid. I guess at the end of the day I don't understand why people feel they're owed anything by any company. Every company exists to create profit by generating revenue in excess of their operating costs. Every for-profit company. If a company increases prices to the point that a customer no longer finds value, the customer should stop engaging with the company. Continuing to fork over money while simultaneously complaining about it in "social media posts" is an impotent way to affect change. Vote with your wallet.

You are taking this whole enthusiast hobby way too seriously if you think there's some conspiracy going on when someone disagrees with and argues against your incessant whining. The reality is that you complain an awful lot for someone who will, no doubt, continue forking over your money while continuing to complain. I no longer found value in what the park offered via their pass, so I stopped purchasing it. No whining incessantly on the internet, just spoke in the only way that matters - with my wallet. Hard to take seriously those that "speak" only on the Internet. Good for them, that's how you affect change. But I still don't for one second buy the story that they approached the park in a reasonable manner and requested recompense for their situation, because that has never been my personal or anecdotal experience in my many, many years attending CF parks. But maybe Guest Services sucks now, in which case good for your friends for voting with their wallets. The digital transition began in 1996, wasn't completed until 2009, and all new TVs purchased after 2007 included ATSC tuners. I'm curious, what mountable flat screen TV did you purchase in ~2005-2006 that didn't include an ATSC tuner? And if you could afford one of these rare, super-high-end TVs, how were you savvy enough to justify spending ~$3K on one instead of waiting a year or so for native ATSC sets? No, again, I'm someone who isn't foolish enough to pay someone for a product I don't feel is worth it. Take notes.