DispatchMaster

Yeah, it appears to be in the same vein as CP's Engine Company Spirits, which sells only alcohol-based beverages.

Right, and that's exactly the problem with their strategy! Pass holders do, of course, get a tremendous amount of value out of their purchase. But that's just another way of saying that pass holders produce far less profit per visit compared to the once per year (or whatever) visitor. And they are wrong to use that as their long term strategy. Matt Ouimet understood the business quite well, and the way he distilled it down was quite simple - the parks are in the business of making memories, and more broadly, leveraging those memories to create long-term, generational visitors. Many of us love going to these parks because we have great memories of visiting as kids, so we seek to recreate, relive, and share those memories and experiences with our kids, so they can share it with theirs, and so on down the line. It's a long game, not a short one. But the chain isn't making moves that indicate they are concerned with the long term vision of the parks. Decimating live entertainment, neutering operations, and especially moving their product down market price-wise are all short term moves that reek of the "must produce increased profit margin each quarter" mentality that is unavoidably a race to the bottom, because, at a certain point you've tapped out the market in terms of population, so they're beholden to generate revenue from that fixed population. Lowering ticket prices just means they're targeting customers who are seeking "value" at the expense of attracting customers who are willing to pay a premium for a more premium product. And those customers willing to pay for a more premium product will instead go create lasting memories at the chain's competition, and thus create generational visitors, none of whom will ever set foot in a CF/SF park.

Anecdotally, I know a lot of people who have visited Pigeon Forge in recent years, and people that have frequented the area for many years have commented on the region's increased popularity. As word of mouth about the area continues to spread, DW will no doubt benefit. And good for them, it's nice to see well-run properties reap the rewards of wise investment and understanding that they're in the business of creating memories, rather than the current SF/CF approach, which seems purely transactional with no long term strategy. That said, DW is not going to siphon off guests from "nearby" SF/CF parks, because there really aren't any. What SF/CF should be worried about is their regional parks losing to their regional competition - other entertainment options.

Individually, no. But I speak from experience that it feels good to not hand over hard-earned money to an entity that doesn't value your business. Spending that money at Dollywood is a wise choice, and I'm sure you guys will have a great time there! I'm jealous!

I wouldn't expect it to change until enough people move from "hesitant to" to "unwilling to". Hard to say when things will reach that tipping point.

I am deeply skeptical that this move will result in substantial growth with the existing CF management team. I mean, they've done nothing but diminish and cheapen the product for the last several years, so it seems much more likely that CF will become more like SF than the other way around. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm not holding my breath.

Indeed, and I think the KI team not knowing who their audience is might be the most accurate and charitable way to look at it. When you're deeply involved in a long, substantial project, it's natural to not view the day-to-day happenings as anything more than mundane, uninteresting details. I doubt Tony Clark is super jazzed about queue foundation concrete curing, but that team understands that enthusiasts will find that interesting enough to warrant a picture and a few words.

Even if they can't easily produce video that often (it's easier said than done), it would be trivially easy to add a few extra pictures and provide some basic accompanying context in the update. "Here are some footers. This is the station platform, where guests will load. Here's where the queue will be." Instead they share a single picture that looks like it may have been shot with a Razr V3. It's not that hard. We're enthusiasts, we're easily entertained.

An 87 word paragraph accompanied by a 0.14 megapixel picture of ~8 feet of track is an absolutely embarrassing excuse for a construction update.

Parks in "neighboring states" don't compete with one another, so why wouldn't they put a same or similar ride in two parks? Beyond that, parks get (or should get) cap ex commensurate with their respective markets, so that's probably what Paramount was doing.

But, as you mention, these attractions help round out and balance what the park offers in terms of variety. The continued lack of investment in these areas is a massive factor in our family no long being pass holders.

If upper management is wondering why the small, off-the-shelf addition to their kids' area wasn't included on an arbitrary list, they are wildly incompetent managers, and we should be far more worried about upper management than their marketing team.

All that list tells us is that Elizabeth is more excited for one ride versus another. Interpreting anything beyond that is meaningless conjecture. "She would have been more excited for Roller Coaster 1 if only KI had sent her a better media packet" is a giant, nonsensical leap that also happens to be insulting to her intelligence. Maybe she prefers the theming of HW's ride. Maybe, as ACE President, she understands that GG is a more interesting debut for HW - considering it's their first family coaster - than SSBR is as an addition to the much more mature KI coaster lineup. Maybe she prefers GG because it isn't KI's bland, off-the-shelf model that has existed at other parks for the better part of a decade. Or maybe she just prefers red track to yellow. There are obviously plenty of earned, valid criticisms of KI's marketing team without resorting to nonsensically blaming them for nearly every perceived negative outcome.

There was absolutely nothing to indicate that was the case at the time. The previous management team would have provided Forbidden Frontier and SRE a much longer runway to establish itself, as that team clearly understood the business CP is in. I mean, FF alone was a pretty big investment, and that level of investment shows that they expected it to last for quite a while. The new management team obviously feels much different, hence the two attractions' removal.

Because, as far as I can tell, the list appears to be the coasters the ACE President happens to be personally looking forward to, which is a pretty meaningless and arbitrary metric. Obviously it's better to be on the list than not, but I think trying to figure out "why" SSBR is not on the list is silly, given how completely subjective the list appears to be. Ask 10 enthusiasts what their most anticipated rides are, and you'll likely get 10 unique lists. See above. That it's not on this list appears to simply mean that Elizabeth Ringas isn't personally looking forward to it. As the President of ACE, she is, no doubt, aware of the ride, so I don't see how marketing would have much, if any, effect on whether or not she is personally excited for the ride. HW adding their first family coaster is bigger news than KI expanding their already well-rounded family-friendly offerings. Then again, if one's preconceived notion is that poor marketing is the reason for all things bad, then of course that's the lens through which everything will be viewed. Objectivity is hard, I guess. They don't build rides for "awareness" of the ACE President, they build rides to entertain guests. And so long as the ride's operating cost per rider metric is met, then it is "fulfilling the plan for the funds".

This is a pretty fantastic idea, and would fit well thematically. I realize there was a lot less to do back in the mid-80's, but I have very fond memories of riding PWE back then, and always enjoyed seeing the park from the unique perspective that ride provided.

Yeah, agreed. It's a family coaster, and while that is a wonderful, necessary addition to the park, it's more along the lines of routine additions than it is some marquee attraction. It would honestly be bizarre if it were highly-anticipated, in my opinion. HW's is more notable at least in part because it's their first family coaster.

The continued self-destruction of Cedar Fair in my opinion.

You misspelled "Ron Howard".

My "puppeteer"? What on earth are you blathering about? Anyway, is it fair to say that your kids won't like this show?

We all do. It's just that as we age, the number of rides until we drop trends toward 0.

Just curious about the demographics here - how many of you complaining about this show have kids? There are already a ton of things for adults to do, and comparatively little that kids can do, and even less that kids and parents can enjoy together. To that end, and speaking from a parent's perspective, this show seems like a crowd pleaser.

Reasons 2,416 and 8,348 why this merger is ominous for the future of CF parks.

Nor do we. Special events and discounted FLP spoiled us to the point where, for the most part, any line longer than ~20 minutes is a big nope for us. Plus, as many incredible memories I have of running around parks in the 80's and early 90's, a fair portion of my favorite moments have been quieter ones in more recent years, enjoying the atmosphere, my kids' enjoyment of the rides, and outrageously-overpriced beer.

Budget aside, 10 continuous days anywhere seems like a waste of entertainment dollars to me. If I were doing nothing but marathoning coasters, yeah, 3 days would be too much. But the family-centric stays we've done there included shows/live E, copious beach/pool/resort time, water park time, etc., and we've never felt we overstayed during our 4/5 day visits. YMMV.