DispatchMaster

Indeed, you are way below the average per cap, just like most pass holders. It's been a while since I've looked at our spend that closely, but I know we regularly spent well more than that on lodging alone for our "big" 4- or 5-day visit to CP every year than you spent for an entire season. Lodging was always around $250/day all-in. Add in season passes (used for probably 10 days per year), and the pretty significant in-park spend on everything else, which was around $150/day at minimum, and, for our family of 3 or 4, we were well north of $100/person/day, with our daily in park per cap including admission somewhere around $80. But we were not the average pass holder in terms of per cap. Most are probably much closer to your per visit/cap, hence my critiques of the sense of entitlement. And in chasing the higher volume at lower margin guest, they've pushed us out, which seems like a poor strategy, as I doubt we're alone. But if they are able to compensate with higher volume, more power to them in their race to the bottom.

My MO has been pretty consistent, which is that season pass holders and/or the most frequent guests, generally speaking, do not generate much per cap revenue compared to annual or semiannual guests, and therefore should not be catered to in terms of perks, etc. My argument here is consistent with that.

Of course someone who's been visiting the park for two decades wouldn't find value in this service, as it's obviously not targeted at people who are intimately familiar with every square inch of the park. This service is geared toward helping infrequent or first time visitors, and by improving their day can help turn those infrequent visitors into more regular visitors.

I've been waiting on my router to reboot.

This. If Kroger, which has been monopolizing the supermarket sector for decades, and has been abusing their market position to maintain low wages and maintain profit margins in excess of inflation in the last few years, is allowed to exist, there is simply no rationale to prevent the CF-SF merger. Regional parks do not compete with one another, they compete with other entertainment options, and this merger does not affect that competition at all.

In that case, I agree, because the "leaner operations" so-called strategy has been percolating since Ouimet's departure, and it's a laughably shortsighted strategy given they're in the business of providing entertainment. It's the equivalent of a movie theater using folding chairs instead of power recliners. Sure, it saves a nontrivial amount of investment up front, but is antithetical to long term success. Relying on pass holders who will purchase passes no matter what will only work for so long.

This view made my heart drop. I know it's early in construction so things might change, but they absolutely decimated the ambiance of Race For Your Life Charlie Brown. Hopefully they'll replant a lot of trees, but not only am I not hopeful given recent budget choices, but even if they do it'll be another couple of decades before the flume will feel like a voyage through the woods.

From where I sit, these types of cost-cutting moves were happening long before the SF merger, and given that the merger hasn't actually happened yet ("expected to close in the first half of 2024, following receipt of Six Flags shareholder approval, regulatory approvals, and satisfaction of customary closing conditions" per CF's release), I don't think this move has anything at all to do with the merger, if that's what was being implied.

Wait, they're only letting you into the park 3 days a week? Well, why didn't you say so? In that case, you have a legitimate complaint! I didn't suggest otherwise. Brand reputation is not directly linked to revenue. Walmart and McDonald's don't have a great "brand reputation" of providing high end products, but they generate a ton of revenue, because people continue to buy the junk they sell. My point was that their customers complaining online won't implore Walmart to stock high end items, nor will it force McDonald's to sell artisan Wagyu beef. That will only happen when people stop buying their crap. Which has been my point all along here. The Prestige Pass provided access to the park during the Summer and HW/Haunt, in addition to Premium Parking, single-use FL, bring-a-friend tix, and access to a VIP area. That's why it cost more than Gold and Platinum. That you see Prestige Pass as providing bottled water is just absolutely wild, especially given the price difference between Gold and Prestige. Even at in-park prices, you'd have to drink a ton of water just to break even. I mean, to each their own, and if you really think bottled water is worth $200/season, well, more power to you I guess. But if that's the case, you are one hell of an outlier. I cannot for the life of me understand how you can write that, and then write this: Let me put it in your own words: How is that qualitatively different?

And guests are getting what they purchased: Unlimited Summer visits Unlimited Fall & Halloweekends visits Preferred Parking Along with the ancillary, amorphous perks that accompany what they purchased. That some of those changed is not evidence otherwise. If their replacing bottled water with tap water (or whatever) "greatly reduces the value" to you, then we are simply not operating on similar planes of mathematical logic, and frankly, you seem like a customer that would never be happy, ever. And therefore obviously not a customer that they should worry about catering to. Oh, come on. A tiny fraction of customers whining incessantly on the Internet will not measurably harm their bottom line.

If this is all it amounted to, I wouldn't have a criticism. What I'm primarily criticizing is the histrionics, where people are calling the company "unethical", or suggesting they're engaging in "bait and switch" tactics when that is clearly not the case, unless of course we change the meaning of what "bait and switch" actually means. Also, complaining on a forum does nothing, and complaining to the vendor while continuing to give them your money does little more than nothing. They don't care, nor should they. Giving them your money tells them you still value the product sufficiently to buy it. So, they'll continue to either reduce what is offered, or raise the price, until that changes. No amount of complaining will change that. OK, here you go: "the action (generally illegal) of advertising goods which are an apparent bargain, with the intention of substituting inferior or more expensive goods." They advertised a season pass which provided the following (taken from the 2024 CP SP page): Unlimited Summer visits Unlimited Fall & Halloweekends visits Preferred Parking In addition to those, there are additional "perks" they list, after which they clearly and plainly state those additional perks are "subject to availability/change". That some people apparently plug their ears and sing "LALALALALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALA" at that last part is not evidence of "unethical" behavior of the business. It simply demonstrates ignorance on the consumer's part.

This is absolutely nonsensical. I don't care how anyone else ascribes value to a product I'm purchasing, just as no one else should care how I value a product I purchase. The fact of the matter is that a point was reached wherein I no longer felt a product was worth the price, so I decided not to purchase it. No accusations of an "evil" company or absurd histrionics alleging "bait and switch" nonsense. I simply didn't buy a thing I felt no longer held sufficient value, informed the vendor about the reasoning, and went on with my life. Reducing what is offered is fundamentally the same thing as an increase in price. It's not personal, not evidence of a lack of ethics, or whatever other emotionally-charged description you want to employ. Behind the cotton candy, the water slides, and roller coasters, these are businesses and they can and should operate as a business. They exist to make a profit, so increasing prices to the point the market will bear, or on the flip side of that same token, reducing what is offered at that price (which, again, are fundamentally equivalent) is just business. On the other side of the equation is the customer, who is and always should be trying to pay the lowest price possible for something. Such as trying to get the cheapest pass price possible, or trying to get as many meals as possible from their meal plan.

It is not a "valid argument" to complain about the poor value of a product and the vendor's so-called lack of ethics, while continually and repeatedly purchasing that product while expecting a different outcome. Some might call that insanity. A company that does not want nor need customers who cannot recognize nor understand what "value proposition" means. Those customers do not generate revenue sufficient to make it worth dealing with their never-ending complaints.

Pointing out that the parks operate as businesses makes me a sycophant? Methinks you have lost touch with reality. An opinion further supported by your resorting to childish, vulgar insults. LOLOLOOOLLOLOLLllOLOLLOLLLLLLOO!!!!!111!1

Is this supposed to be a criticism? If so, it also demonstrates terrible business acumen, because charging as much as the market will bear for something is, quite literally, how a successful business should operate.

Or maybe the park crunched the numbers and decided their operating hours could be cut and it would not affect attendance, revenue, etc. Which is a perfectly reasonable and appropriate business decision.

Indeed, there is clearly a large cohort of people who are convinced complaining about the value of something online is way more effective than, you know, just not purchasing that thing instead. See above. And again, it's always the self-important passholders who visit the park 150 times each season and spend $4 per visit who do the vast majority of the complaining that the park doesn't value their patronage or whatever. It's as adorable as it is predictable. Meanwhile, millions of guests with a much, much higher per cap will visit the park once or twice, have a fantastic time, and come back the following year. It's almost like the park would prefer one guest over the other!

Would you prefer they understaff rides, attractions, and eateries, or pull back slightly on hours? There's no shortage of evidence that a lot of the same people would complain in either case. Worse still, it's often passholders who visit a ton and spend very little (i.e. have a nonexistent per cap) who do almost all of the complaining.

And at that point, some nonzero number of those in the no-longer-renewing group will have designated those entertainment dollars to be spent elsewhere, and it will be that much more difficult to regain those customers. Cheap passes/admission is a race to the bottom.

I don't imagine a Cedar Fair executive would publicly admit that they lost significant revenue as a result of their pricing strategies, so I take those comments with a silo of salt. The fact of the matter is that they took a wildly popular product that was selling beyond capacity and reduced the selling price of that product. I simply do not subscribe to the Walmart-ization strategy. Furthermore, the "also wrong about how many passes were sold" seems like outright, patronizing BS when CF has regularly trumpeted "record season pass sales" and/or "higher season pass mix" in annual/quarterly reports since the introduction of the Gold Pass.

Providing season-long access to a park that was at or near capacity during Halloweekends at a price point close to single day admission almost certainly left a ton of money on the table. If you can't meet demand at $X, you don't lower the price. It might not work at every park (e.g. MA, KI, etc.), but CP could have cranked the gate & pass price up quite a bit before they would have seen a drop off in attendance. Six Flags tried the "give away the gate, make it up on volume") strategy, and they've effectively been purchased by Cedar Fair as a result of that "strategy". Just because it works for Walmart doesn't mean it makes sense in the entertainment industry.

I don't know if you're wrong, because I have zero faith in Zimmerman given his track record, but I certainly hope you're wrong. CP is in no way, shape, or form "tapped out" in terms of revenue. Zimmerman's Gold Pass "strategy" was a mistake. They should never have greenlit a ~$100 season pass at a property that had healthy attendance at higher prices. And Michigan's Adventure is one of the most profitable properties in the portfolio in terms of margin. The reason they don't install new rides very often isn't because MA is neglected. It's because MA does excellent business as-is, and does not need more frequent investment. And CP didn't slow down on new attraction installs because of the Paramount purchase. They slowed down on installs because the park is relatively mature in terms of their ride lineup, and because new ride installs require the removal of an existing ride, given they are constrained by maintenance capacity.

That's the hope, but it relies on each chain recognizing their weaknesses relative to the other chain, which is often not easy.

Isn't that simply stating that the source for the press release were "Cedar Fair" and "Six Flags Entertainment Corporation"?

Not according to this: I think you misread the opening paragraph: