KI Guy

I've been about the biggest critic of Fast Lane there is on these forums. I am curious though why people buy it. I understand the thought process for buying Fast Lane for a special, single trip if due to scheduling someone has to go to Kings Island on a very busy day and something else can't be arranged. I do wonder what the appeal of the season long Fast Lane is. Is it primarily...? 1) The freedom to go on very crowded days and still get to ride the rides you want to? 2) The ability to re-ride over and over on not busy days. 3) Some kind of flex/clout thing that makes someone feel special. Don't dismiss this; there are people like that. For me there is almost no appeal since I generally go to Kings Island as much as I want and ride as much as I want. I don't have much of a desire to ride anything more than once or twice. Afterall, it is Kings Island, and I've been there many, many times just as most passholders have. The pass is just access for something fun to do with friends. I can understand it from the standpoint of someone who is fairly rich and just wants to have the best experience whenever they can, but I don't believe that is the majority of season long Fast Lane. Fast Lane would just shorten my day, and I would "get through" all the rides more quickly. The waiting in line is just part of the time spent at KI with my friends and family. For those of you who have season long Fast Lane—what is the appeal?

To give you all an idea as to how poorly the company is doing right now... In 2006 Cedar Fair bought Paramount Parks for $1.24 billion which equates to roughly $1.98 billion today. That was just 5 full parks plus 3 small properties. Today all of Six Flags 24 full parks plus water parks and small properties is worth just $1.66 billion per their market capitalization. They are really in the position to be taken over by someone or some group (private equity ) with deep pockets.

Their teacup ride is a lot better than the pretty much mini version KI got to save money.

I understand your point, from what I'm seeing though Orion was $30M which if adjusted to inflation from 2018 would be $38M today. Kings Island has never built a single attraction of this magnitude cost-wise. The closest the old Cedar Fair parks have come to this in terms of investment dollars for a single attraction is Millenium Force which would cost $25M or $46M in today's dollars. The most ambitious attraction I know within the Six chain would be X at Magic Mountain which would cost $45M in 2002 or $80M!! in today's dollars. Rides this ambitious are few and far between!

I first went to Dollywood about 20 years ago and the level of growth for that park since then is truly amazing. The ride that most sums up their approach to rides might be Mystery Mine. That was when they really hit their groove. Those heavily themed not uber intense rides are what they do best. They seem to be operating with a budget and imagination that Six Flags will never reach. If KI were ever put up for sale Herschend would not be a bad buyer at all. I'd just want them to put in a thrill machine every so often.

I can understand that. They fully believe what they are doing now maximizes revenue and it's a very tough sell to switch to a rent collection model when the anticipated dollars from that are fewer than the amount they'd generate from food sales. The incalculable value of better park food and happier customers (vs. higher food revenue) would not win the day at any corporate board meeting. I am curious though how much of it would balance out as I'm confident that third-party operators could generate more money at least given some time and could pay higher rent than what we would think initially. This is a more theoretical than anything. I know they're not going to do it; I just would like to see it in action because it works so well for the private, smaller parks I've been to.

What I'm proposing is novel at large parks which is why I didn't provide any examples of large parks doing it. If you are again trying to conflate what was done at Cedar Point—the license deals for the park to sell Chick-fil-A, Johnny Rockets, Subway, and Chickie's & Pete's with what I'm proposing—again, that is not at all the same thing. Separating the park from operations is entirely the point. Was the Kings Island Chick-fil-A ran as effectively as a real Chick-fil-A? No, not at all! Each restaurant has to stand on its own two feet. If you know of a large park that has third party food vendors not operated by the park I'd like to hear about it. Your assumption is that my model would not work because no large parks are doing it. You are trying to somehow disprove the viability of something before it's even been tested. You also assume that scale and reduced cost of goods sold provide a nearly insurmountable advantage in the restaurant business. If that were the case, you there would be almost no independent restaurants out there today. Lastly you are not seeing or are dismissing disadvantages of the park's current model. The current model crushes flexibility that might be beneficial in the restaurant business. For example, a private business might decide it is in their interest to pay its employees more than Kings Island's existing food server wage. It might decide that it will have waitstaff that will work on tips. It might decide to have sales or promos. It would have expertise in its business and allow for specialization of its staff that the current model doesn't support. Most importantly the human factor is big. There is next to nothing that incentivizes performance under the current model. A private business might offer employees bonuses for throughput or seasonal bonuses. The manager and owner will truly care how the business does since they will be personally affected.

The rollout would not need to be a full change to third-party operations in one season. Six Flags could have a pilot program with one location at the larger parks and see how it goes. Just because something has not been done doesn't mean it is not a viable or preferred path. All innovational moves weren't the "wise" move at the time. Kind of, there are more options than there were in the 90's and 00's, but I don't know if I would say the food situation is much better overall. The lines are longer and the prices are less affordable when factoring for inflation. And before someone says "all restaurants are like that," go to Indiana Beach or Knoebel's, and look at their food prices. Two years ago at Knoebel's, I got a half chicken dinner with two sides for $12. For such small operators without "cost efficiencies" they seem to be able to keep the prices down! There are benefits to this that I haven't yet mentioned— think of the reduction in headcount. How about the steady income from rent? Food would be one huge issue to no longer worry about, they could focus more on park maintenance, appearance as well as ride operations— KI's ride ops are great, other parks not so much. An over emphasis on "cost efficiencies" has gotten them where they are now. Cost efficiencies mean rewriting guidelines for keeping pizza 10 more minutes under the heat lamp before throwing it away. It means using frozen fries even at a place dedicated to french fries. They mean limiting the number of people refilling syrup in the soda fountains. Because of the meal plan, the goal is to get you the cheapest food possible with the ultimate goal of being just good enough that people still purchase the food plan. Specific reasons are not necessary, but I'll give you one anyway. The restaurants that are actually going to make it will be open every day the park is open. The main reason that the food would be better is that someone will care, because there will be consequences if they don't. That's the main reason anything ever gets better.

Yes, Kings Island needs food to be delivered on a large scale but so does everything with large crowds. They are not so unique. Decentralizing food service incentivizes performance. With a meal plan the park has their money already. Any food they serve to someone with a meal plan actually costs them money. The most senior employee "in charge" of each restaurant's livelihood is not dependent on each sale. Selfishly, why should he or she care how much food is served or if a customer is happy? The performance of one restaurant is minuscule in the grand scheme of Kings Island not to mention Six Flags. For an independent operator the performance of that restaurant is their entire business. Park operated eateries are not a rule but an industry-wide norm. With any sea change, someone is always first. Disney popularized pay-one-price admission. Kings Island brought back the roller coaster. The business and the business model changes. They aren't having the best time with food at present; I'm suggesting a way to improve it.

What does the size of the park have to do with the business model for how the park makes money on food? The number of eateries would stay the same, the operator would just change from the park to third-party vendors. Scale doesn't effect the viability of the business model; Oktoberfest in Munich provides food to crowds of 120,000 and is served by independent vendors. Market factors would very much solve many of the problems. Each eatery would have to make money or it wouldn't exist. Each would have to be competitive on price and quality compared to the other restaurants in the park. No, what the Cedar Fair has tried is having chain restaurants under license operated by park employees. When I say "third-party vendors" I don't mean chain fast food places. If you go to Indiana Beach you won't see one chain restaurant. They're mom and pop restaurants you won't find elsewhere—not tacky at all. Eat a hamburger at the Bluejay Cafe or a corn dog at Pronto Pup and maybe you'll understand.

Yes, I miss them a lot. 1. Downloading an app for a new park is inconvenient and still is not as good of a map as a paper map. A guest should have the option of going phone free for the day if they want and yes that includes physical season passes. 2. I collected the paper maps and for 15 years and built up a very nice collection. They were my "record" of what parks I went to and when. I'd very much like to see them back. Seeing the new ride for the year on the map was always nice.

They could do it very easily without much backlash; they'd just have to phase in the change by making meal plans unattractive. If the guest "decides" not to buy it they won't be as upset. 1. Slightly lower the food prices across the board so that the meal plan is less attractive. Make sure this is announced to the media. 2. Increase the meal/drink plan price to where it is no longer the "deal" people think it is. If they doubled the prices of each how many people would buy them? 3. Quietly remove the meal plan by announcing mid year that it will no longer be available the following year. Regarding food... every time I go to Indiana Beach—which has independent food vendors—it makes me wonder why Kings Island bothers to be in the food business at all. Why not just have independent restaurant operators paying rent? Yes, they'd lose flexibility on the operating calendar since the vendors will depend on them to be open, but the market competition just results in better food and better service. If the restaurant isn't up to the level of it's competition it fails. Why bother with it at all—just become a landlord and collect the money.

Because more can be done with a blank slate. The current vehicles force you to only look forward so the theming can never be 360°. It also is limited to nearly fixed speed. There can be no drop scare or variance in speed like on Blazin' Fury at Dollywood. Think of the Calico Mine Ride at Knott's or Fire in the Hole at Silver Dollar City for a different kind of experience they could have made. Ideally they'd have a big budget and a clean slate, but that wouldn't be in line with what they've been doing for 8 years or so. It can still be a great ride for sure. Maybe the theming will be great enough that the rest won't matter. If it's on the level of the Phantom Theatre, they'll have winner on their hands.

The Boo Blaster ghost was not a cool as the several Pepper's ghosts in Phantom Theatre. It looks like they're re-using the ride mechanism and track. I've got to say that's a little disappointing.

The market cap is low enough that it could be scooped up by a deep-pocketed buyer. Considering the Paramount Parks were bought for about $2 billion dollars in today's money, ($1.24 billion in 2006 dollars) $5.2 billion is incredibly low. It just goes to show how bad off they are financially.

Okay, but where is the family addition on the level of White Water Canyon or Adventure Express or even Italian Job: Stunt Track? Why only retheme half of Planet Snoopy? Since 2018 each addition, including family additions, has been less than it could have been. I understand they're a mature park in a much less innovative/more mature industry than it used to be, but did some switch flip after 2017 that said they don't need to put in as much money?

Am I really though? The average park guest doesn't care all that much if they've changed a couple restaurants or retracked a coaster; that's just upkeep at the end of the day. Coasters need to be maintained, restaurants need to stay up-to-date. It's the super enthusiasts who spend time talking about (or even specifically notice) slight improvements to a restaurant menu or a new coat of paint on a building. In terms of raw dollars invested into the park the numbers don't seem to be in-line with historical levels.. Correct, it is not all about thrill rides. Unfortunately, their family additions have also been lackluster compared to what they did in the past. They have been doing just enough to check a box because they are not being given the historic levels of investment money. Upkeep and refreshing of decor is general upkeep. Of course, marketing will sell it as an addition as they probably should. They can only work with what they're given. I'm glad the park had a 50th anniversary celebration, but the park should have several shows regardless and did historically. Those weren't really replaced so it wasn't a long-term benefit at the end of the day. Comparing KI to other SF and (legacy CF) parks is not my barometer; it's comparing KI to its past self and under that measure they are not keeping up.

They've been trying to save money and get the same ROI. It just doesn't work that way. 2018 Nothing 2019 A worse version of the old antique cars 2020 Cheapest Giga(ish) coaster they could get by with. 2021 Nothing 2022 50th celebration without major investment 2023 Worse (cheapest) version of Der Spinnen' Keggers and Skylab 2024 Half-baked revamp with Camp Snoopy - Cheapest coaster they could get by with. - Cheapest play area they could get by with. 2025 Cheapest Water Coaster they could get by with. Lack of investment has consequences. Those old (steel) coasters they rely on to bring people in and fill the park out don't last forever either. They're probably not even keeping up with replacement rate at this point. Kings Island used to be world class in everything!

It was an exciting time for the park. Diamondback was and remains the most significant ride added to the park since The Beast. You have to consider that nothing of that scale had been built since S.O.B.—which in all honestly was kind of a dud—and probably Flight of Fear before that. Regardless, it was kind of cool to have two hypercoasters in the park at least for those brief couple months. The food prices were expensive but more affordable than today if you knew what you were doing. I think two slices of LaRosa's was about $5.99 or $9 in today's money. Now that would be $16.29 (with two breadsticks) which is absurd. When folks talk about Kings Island's value being higher than in the past that's really only true when speaking specifically about the gate price. The food is more expensive and the expected number of rides per visit is fewer due Fast Lane. The park had a larger calendar Summer/Fall in those days and there were more days during the week where someone could ride everything in just a few hours. There was much more emphasis on the kids' area in those days and the Nickelodeon IP was still much more relevant than today's peanuts. The kids area got much more attention and investment in those days and it was updated more often. There has been good and bad since then, but anyone who tells you that the park is much better now is probably not seeing the full picture. Halloween Haunt was a lot better then than it is today and it was of course all inclusive. Today's park does offer Winterfest which is a nice thing not offered in 2009. In short: Today: Slightly better rides, more affordable pass, Winterfest. 2009: More expansive Summer and Fall calendar, Fresher Kids' Area, more rides per visit, more affordable food, better Haunt, better entertainment and special events (thanks Don!).

I'm curious—and maybe this is a future Tower Topics show—but do you consider the present to be the lowest point in Kings Island history?

Questions that need answers: 1. Are very affordable—say sub-$150 passes—still a sustainable business model chain-wide/industry-wide? If so, what is the replacement? (Very?) expensive season passes, no season passes? ★One thing I'll say is that I think sometimes the very concept of a pass devalues the product. Historically a day at a pay-one-price amusement park was a special day, not a place to kill a few hours on a Wednesday or a place to get rid of the kids. Going all the time makes it less special, i.e. valuable. 2. Are fast lanes a net positive? Positives: appealing for big spenders i.e. additional revenue. Negatives: Devalues season pass and daily ticket in terms of number of expected rides per visit, potential hostility and hard feelings from single ticket and standard passholders. 3. Are meal plans a net positive for overall profit of food sales all things considered? Are there other business models that would be better, (no meal plans with more affordable/better food, switching to a being a landlord for private restaurateurs)? 4. Is the current park clientele part of the problem? If the clientele is a problem are payment plans for passes a net benefit? ★★ One issue that seems to be way out of whack is that the park seems to want to cut hours. Historically, cutting hours was the same as cutting revenue. With a few exceptions, if the gates were open they were making money. That doesn't seem to be the case anymore and it doesn't lead to great attitudes towards customers in general.

@disco2000 We can infer based on what we see. Land is not at an ultra-premium like it is in Silicon Valley where CGA is. Look at the nearby Beach Waterpark—that would never sit for almost a decade if the area land were THAT valuable. Also KI brings Mason a lot of money and it helps distinguish it from any other upper middle class suburb. Mason wants it there. Your example of the Cincinnati Open complex parking kind of helps my point. It is a highly specialized and under-utilized piece of land in terms of how often it is used. Land doesn't sit vacant for anything if it's valuable enough—it becomes housing developments, retail, or office parks. The land makes money at all times. Of course things can change and the park's future is not guaranteed; I just don't see it being in any significant danger of closing any time soon.

Unfortunately they're already doing that. See CGA and Six Flags America. Also notice the lowered level of investment chainwide. Kings Island is not one of those parks that would be scrapped out and sold off for housing development. It's one of the best performing in the chain and the land still has its most potential being operated as an amusement park. If the chain keeps operating as it is parks are going to be lost regardless or at least change hands.

Let the buyer beware is a thing but it's usually the credo of the sleazeball business. If they were sent emails to encourage them to buy a 2025 pass they have a legitimate complaint... not legally it's just not treating your customer right.

I'm actively rooting for bankruptcy and a sell-off at this point. Freeing KI from these clowns would be worth it. Selling passes before the announcement was unethical. That's just not how you treat a customer. Anyone else?