DispatchMaster

Cedar Point hasn't seen meaningful, sustained attendance gains (as a percentage of regional population) in almost 30 years, since the debut of Raptor. Even the addition of HW seems to have primarily shifted some visits from the summer to fall. I would imagine the same is true of KI, though perhaps on a more recent timeline given it's a somewhat less-mature park in terms of attraction lineup. These parks make capex additions to maintain attendance. Regional parks are not going to suddenly attract a meaningful number of guests from 10+ hours outside their region regardless of what they offer. They're not Disney. This is why CF has been looking to enhancements (dining deals, Fast Lane, etc.) to grow per-cap numbers, and acquisition and expansion (TX water parks, E Sports, etc.) to grow revenue and add revenue diversity.

B&M provides very high quality, albeit expensive, high capacity machines that are broadly popular. More parks would do well to spend the extra money to go with B&M.

Attendance can also only go up so much YOY because these are regional parks with a relatively fixed population. So yes, they should absolutely focus on maintaining attendance, but given attendance can only go up so much, they need to extract more revenue from those guests. Which, again, is why it's a smart move to lean toward the family demographic rather than the teenager demo during Haunt.

Correct, and I'm pointing out two things - one, that they're running their business shortsightedly if they're focusing on attendance over revenue (see SIX), and two, that attendance absent revenue growth will tank the stock faster than the inverse.

Which part? Do you not understand how revenue and profit works, and that they are not necessarily tied to attendance? Case in point - MA enjoy some of the highest operating margins among the CF chain, yet have relatively dismal attendance compared to the likes of CP and KI.

They should be motivated to drive revenue and profit, attendance be darned. Attendance is meaningless, after all, if the parks aren't profitable. If the parks could maintain current revenue with lower attendance, that would necessarily result in higher profit margin due to reduced variable costs, like food. Further, even simply maintaining revenue with lower attendance reduces the need for staffing, further increasing profit margins. Put another way, it would be preferable to sell one item for a million dollar profit than one million items for a profit of one dollar each. That's obviously an extreme, impossible scenario, but the point is it's always preferable to get more money from fewer people than the other way around. However, it's also true that CF has recently (post-Ouimet) pivoted to the short term, SIX-esque "strategy" of lowering admission with the goal of short term attendance gains to drive revenue. The better long term strategy would be to drive up the gate price to the point that they price out a segment of their guests in order to attract higher per-cap guests. The Disney-lite strategy. Regardless, my point was that it makes a lot of sense to pivot away from teen-focused haunts in favor of family-friendly events in any environment, but especially so given the chaperone policy.

One possible explanation would be that the park is trying to attract families, who by-and-large tend to be much higher per-cap guests compared to a bunch of teenagers. That's a natural pivot especially given the chaperone policy. More revenue from the same number, or better yet, fewer guests is a wise strategy. It sucks for anyone who just wants haunts, but there is no shortage of haunted entertainment outside of the park.

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?