KI Guy

Kings Island has faired better than any CF park over the last 9 seasons. I'll give you that. Regardless, even ignoring that Soapbox Racers is a budget friendly off-the-shelf-model that would never be considered world-class, that is a net add of 1 coaster over 9 seasons. That is probably not even replacement rate over time given that all their steel coasters are 9 years older than they were when they put in Mystic Timbers in 2017. It's not a straw man. I gave you two other examples of KI going above and beyond in the past and I could give you more. I'm explaining a mindset that seems to be waning. Kings Island always had world class, unique attractions and now it seems they are just trying to get by. It goes far beyond ride additions as we've discussed. Not necessarily even size, but at least more exciting or different. More investment, more effort, some pushing of the envelope... It all matters. It was done for a reason in the past, and it was not that the park was not "mature" yet. It was because it's necessary to keep your good reputation and quality which drives people to the park year after year.

I don't mean spending $20-40M every year which would probably be what a modern-day Coaster War would cost per year. I mean adding something nice almost every year with marquee attractions every few years. For their premier parks specifically, by not adding every year and not continuously wowing guests with new attractions they are taking a calculated risk. They are saying that their existing attractions can draw people in as they did the previous year. They might, but what about the long term? Steel coasters don't last forever and historically have not had the staying power of wood coasters. When you don't invest and replace your park ages and gets stale. Kings Island is feeling that right now. Congo Falls, Invertigo, Boo Blasters, The Bat, Flight of Fear, most of the waterpark, (The Vortex and Firehawk already) all are quite advanced in age and will need to be replaced in the short to medium term. There is a level of investment they have to do just to maintain their quality level/image. My argument is that they are not doing that right now. Cedar Point's supposedly frivolous time of the coaster wars is still paying off for them. It cemented a reputation on everyone who lived through that time. It made them who they are, and their marquee attractions are still mostly from that period. Cedar Point without Millenium Force, Magnum, Maverick, and yes Top Thrill (otherwise why revamp it) is not the same level of park. Had The Beast been built to 5000 ft with no second lift hill and double helix finale no one would have batted an eye at the time, but would that coaster still be as beloved as it is today? If Banshee were 1000 ft shorter would people still like it the same? If The Racer were only one track (obviously with a different name) would people have complained at the time? I think you get my point.

And that has absolutely nothing to do with the rides. If it did, you'd expect a different list of attractions installed under his watch than mostly B&Ms (GateKeeper, Valravn, Banshee, etc.), with a couple others thrown in (RMC, GCI, etc.). The most notable failure of his tenure was also the greatest departure from that formula - a dark ride at CW. Ouimet realized that the rides have far less to do with the "best day" experience than, well, pretty much everything else. Yes, you need to keep the ride lineup fresh, but most guests don't know nor care that, for example, Orion and Diamondback are similar. All that matters is that they're fun. It's a mindset. The mindset that says "Let's cut hours and open the new ride late (again) this year to save money" is the same mindset that says that this tried-and-true ride will be "good enough." Amusement parks that don't invest and innovate have to go down market. Also, GateKeeper was definitely innovative when it came out; the Wing Coaster model was fresh at the time. Although there were still a lot of B&M's there were RMC's, Copperhead Strike, Hangtime, higher quality flat ride packages, nostalgic elements added, gate revamps, etc. Yes, because that park is, compared to most CF parks, very immature in terms of ride lineup. Dollywood doesn't have an invert, a hyper, a giga. So obviously they'll install more things over the next ~decade than pretty much any CF park, and that is not due to mismanagement by CF. It's because the majority of CF parks are very mature in terms of ride offerings. I don't buy that argument because 52-year-old Kings Island is not that much more mature/developed than 40-year-old Kings Island. They used to add something nearly every year coasters, non-coasters, water rides, family rides and pretty much always on time for opening day. Cedar Point did the same and you'd be hard pressed to say they were not a mature park. Uhhh... That ride is a direct replacement (combo dark ride & roller coaster) of the original Fire in the Hole, which debuted 52 years ago. What exactly is innovative about replacing a half-century old ride with the same thing? When the original Fire in the Hole opened in I972 dark rides were still very in vogue at amusement parks. That's only 2 years removed from Disney World opening and nearly every park wanted something at least somewhat like what could be seen at Disney. For a seasonal, regional amusement park to double down on a dark ride in 2023 to the tune of 30 million dollars.... yes, that that is definitely against the grain. Few seasonal parks would take that chance and Cedar Fair would almost certainly not given everything they do has to be safe/formulaic to get the approval of their shareholders. If a $30 million Phantom Theatre is built, I'll retract my statement.

Doing the tried and true and never innovating is how mature industries/major players in those industries go from a small growth or a plateau to a decline. If you are not innovating someone else will. That might not be a rival park, but someone will do something for the same pool of disposable income. Thinking only in terms of stock price quarter to quarter is a recipe for disaster. Matt Ouimet understood that making memories is the key to the long-term health of the business. The strategy was "the best day ever" not "adequate given labor costs." If done correctly the kids of today are the parents of tomorrow who will bring their own kids. You can't cut corners and expect to maintain the same level of goodwill that's been built up over 50 years. I am seeing a lot more innovation out of Herschend than Cedar Fair or Six Flags. Spending $30M on a dark ride in Fire in the Hole at Silver Dollar City is not doing the tried and true. That is cutting against the grain. They don't need to re-invent the wheel every investment, but they need to use a little more imagination and have some variety. Right now, the strategy seems to be [insert next in line B&M coaster model every 5 years] with very little in-between.

I would say almost anyone who has been visiting regularly with passes. Most might not know manufacturers, but after riding they'll think that the feeling is similar to Orion which itself is similar to Diamondback. Orion is already near vertical, so the drop won't be that different. The 3 or 4 inversions would be the only major difference and they can get those over at Banshee if they want. They seem to have worn into a groove of doing only the safest of the safe with their investment dollars. I have never seen a more conservative environment industry wide than the one over these last 3-4 years. We'll see if that's a good and sustainable strategy because historically, you're either innovating or you're declining.

Don't operate on the assumption that the Cedar Fair parks will utilize the DC Comics or Looney Tunes theming. Six Flags' licensing deal is written so that Six Flags pays for the licenses on a per park basis. Remember that the rights are not to the DC characters as presented in the DC universe movies today, but as presented in the comics which is undoubtedly less relevant in the short-term. I just don't see much of a value proposition there. Even if the additional cost for the license for additional parks is super low, the cost for effective theming would be high. There might be some additional merchandise sales, but DC gets a good chunk of that revenue. Licensing deals for theming make sense to me in three cases, none of which apply well to the Cedar Fair parks: 1) Kids' areas: Kids love theming to their favorite characters, and they always have. With a few exceptions such as Dollywood this is almost a requirement for a good kids' area these days. I don't see Looney Tunes or Marvel being more relevant enough to retheme all their Planet/Camp Snoopy areas. 2) The park is owned by the same company who owns the characters/media franchise: When Time Warner owned the Six parks they also owned Looney Tunes and DC. It was in their best interest to promote their characters because the benefits of doing so made them money even outside the parks and strengthened their brand. Promoting Batman or Bugs Bunny would not benefit the combined Six Flags & Cedar Fair in this way. 3) The theming is very immersive, and guests visit infrequently: Although some improvements have been made on this front from the old days of Cedar Fair, theming at their parks is more about a story and using your imagination than full-fledged immersion in another world. This is not a knock; it's just business. There is a limited market for the level of theming that Disney and Universal offer. Although the parks are always packed, they sit at the extreme high end of pricing and draw from a worldwide customer base. Visits are infrequent or special occasions. Infrequent visits mean that people tire of theming and the stories involved slower. Seasonal parks are the opposite- they cater to a broad base of customers at a price point. They focus on people from within their region and value repeat visits. Theming elements age more quickly since frequent guests learn everything about the theming and anticipate it. This means theming needs to be revamped often to remain interesting.

^Aren't those 44 removed operating days from Q1 just the days from Carowinds' and Kings Dominion's reveting back to non-year-round operation?

That certainly could affect long term plans. There is definitely a case to not utilize that license which I could get into some other time.

After giving it some thought, I don't think The Vortex spot should be the top priority. Action Zone is in dire need of work. Everything over there except for Banshee is old. Even though Big Bear Mountain, (or something similar as mentioned in the survey), pushes the outer limits of what a family coaster can be, it would not give them much in the way of marketing. Kings Island already has a strong group of family coasters (Racer, AE, Bat, BLSC). In recent years they've lost two unique thrill coasters in a sit-down looping coaster (they now only have one) and a flying coaster. I know this point seems very "enthusiast-minded" but typical guests can tell when things get repetitive without knowing ride categories, manufacturers, or specs. People here often get it backwards; the general public draws fewer distinction between rides than enthusiasts do not more. Backlot and Big Bear Mountain would be very similar to them, just as Diamondback and Orion are nearly the same to them. It's not what a coaster is, it's how it feels. A 300 ft Dive coaster would be "like Orion" but you go upside-down a couple times". If they go for a thrill coaster, the type should be something truly unique to the park. A spinning coaster especially with inversions would do that, a modern launching coaster could be that especially considering Flight of Fear's age. If they go the family route you've got to do something different. A new dark ride in place of Boo Blasters is severely overdo. A large water ride along the lines of the old Kenton's Cove Keelboat Canal could meet the bill, etc.

A real-life example for you... Cedar Fair bought Paramount Parks in May 2006, announced Behemoth for Canada's Wonderland in Summer 2007, and had it opened by May 2008 just under two years from the official acquisition date. According to the sources on their Wikipedia page they committed to buy Behemoth within a few months of the purchase of the park. So, a proven model of a major coaster can be fully completed in under two years if they really want to do it. I can't imagine they can work much faster than that (without spending an excessive amount of money), as I know Cedar Fair was in a hurry to put their stamp on the former Paramount parks. I think most of the time parks have uncommitted 3–5-year ideas for additions/improvements, but they can be delayed, reworked, or scrapped as needed.

You're thinking along the right lines about the world being changed, but I don't think that is exactly right. How many people in Cincinnati had air conditioning in the 1920s? The answer is not a one. Neighborhood public pools were a draw and almost a necessity in those days. I think pool ownership actually peaked in the 60s and 70s rather than today, at least for in-ground pools. There was a stronger and more stable middle class then and people seemed to invest more of their leisure dollars on expensive things for close to home like pools and new cars rather than for elaborate vacations. Anecdotally there seem to be a lot Baby Boomers & Gen/Xer's who grew up with pools than in subsequent generations. They went to their grandparents, or an aquatic center/ water park/ splash park.

I also rode the Houdini Madhouse at Great Adventure in New Jersey. It was definitely worth a ride. I am skeptical though of the appeal for a lot of people after a ride or two once they know what's going on. I can see it appealing to young kids quite a bit since it would be the first and only "upside-down" ride they will do until they get older. Older folks would also enjoy riding with their grandkids. Where I agree is that the park seems to be losing the plot a little bit with the attractions they've put in. Kings Island used to try for a broader audience than it does today. In the Cedar Fair era, most new attractions are either intense roller coasters or kids' rides. Adding "medium" attractions/rides that appeal to a wider audience outside of the coaster enthusiast or small children has not been a priority. Several of the attractions of this nature they have added have been modest or weaker versions of KI rides from the past (new Flyers, new Antique Cars, Cargo Loco, Sol Spin). Kings Island used to invest more into elaborate family rides. In the 80s and 90s alone they added Amazon Falls, White Water Canyon (probably the best family ride in the park IMO), Action FX theater, Adventure Express, and Phantom Theater. Shows were more elaborate and happened more often, special events at the park happened more often as well. I think the problem is that when you are not adding attractions nearly every year as they did from 1972-2011ish, the medium/family rides simply get passed over. Major coasters come every 3-5 years and little to nothing is added on "off" years. Thoughts?

Haha, I won't join the "legalese" subset of the forum. I just wanted to point out that Disney would never word the policy "if we catch you faking a disability you are banned for life." That could put pressure on disabled people and their loved ones to go out of their way to display ongoing proof that they actually have one. "Lying about a disability" is more flexible and shifts the spotlight/ culpability if needed. Disney probably paid crazy money to lawyers and mental health professionals to craft perfect wording for the new policy.

Unfortunately, if you give some people the possibility to exploit something at the expense of others they'll do it. Third party tour guides were banned from the park last year partly because of their role in encouraging the abuse of this policy. I hope that this change will not cause much of a problem. I'd imagine most of the thoughtless, selfish people who abused this program will know that abuse of the policy will no longer be tolerated and stop for fear of forfeiting hundreds of dollars' worth of tickets/passes and a lifetime ban. I also assume that bans will only come down when the evidence of lying/abuse is undeniable, and the benefit of the doubt will be given if at all possible, in borderline cases for bans. ** @disco2000 Just a distinction here for clarity. I don't believe the thread title is completely accurate. My understanding is that the focus of the bans will be for people who lied about a loved one's disability rather than for individuals who "faked having a disability". Some of those will be one and the same, but I think it is smart of Disney to make the enforcement based on truth vs lying in the program application process rather than making it based on determining whether someone is "faking" a disability or exaggerating its severity.

This is right on point. Some here operate under the assumption that the leadership at Cedar Fair care primarily about the health of the company long-term. Ideally of course they would, but many shareholders (of any corporation) are not that patient and are more greedy that that. The temptation to sacrifice the long-term health for short-term gain is constant. Sacrificing tomorrow's goodwill, (or memories), for a half point increase in the stock price here and there is a dreadful strategy for the long-term. What's more the cost cutting and hours cutting we've seen can only be considered because of the goodwill earned over the decades in the customer base. At some point though the shine from good memories and a golden past reputation start to wear off and people start to evaluate the park for what it is now. This can take some time, but it happens to any business that cost-cuts or underwhelms its customers for too long. "I can't wait to go back" becomes "This place is not what it used to be." As @DispatchMaster indicated it's potentially worse than that. Most people are not diehard amusement park fans so dissatisfied customers could instead spend on any other entertainment or non-essential "nice-to-have" product. A huge vulnerability Cedar Fair faces, assuming the premium product remains the focus of their business model for growth, is that they need a large base of standard "volume" customers to increase the perceived value of the premium products (Fast Lane, VIP, etc.). Without this large base of satisfied "volume" customers they have little to no viable premium products. Why pay to cut when the lines are short? Why buy a food plan when the food is sub-par? In other words losing volume customers is a double hit financially. Perhaps unintentionally this model provides a disincentive to go upmarket. Investing in the park means higher costs which means higher prices. Higher prices means fewer guests. Fewer guests mean fewer people see the need to purchase Fast Lane and premium products-- a vicious circle if they get entrapped in that.

Compared to profitability they would hardly give a rat's "hat" about blowback from fans. I think that the closing of the rides was a drastic attempt to cut costs to make (what was still called) Coney Island profitable. Whether they saw the writing on the wall the whole time is another thing, but the change would never have been motivated by avoiding media/customer backlash. Think of the crappy motel you see with next to no one at it. They operate because they are profitable, but if any money were to put in the place, it would no longer be profitable, so they run with no improvements until all remaining profit potential is gone and they start to lose money. Then they close. This may have been a case similar to that, or perhaps it's been losing money for many years and these changes didn't reverse that. Once the rides left, the company picnics left and that was a big part of what kept the place around over the last 20 years. Few people want to see or be seen by the boss in a bathing suit.

I have fond memories of this show from the night I rode it in 2005. That night there was ice on the tracks and the train was having trouble getting enough traction to make it over the shallow grades of the terrain. After failing to make it through an upward grade in the track the train had to go backwards and then accelerate with more power to build speed to make it over the grade. The best part about this was that the actors, including the main character soldier were being funny ad libbing lines to explain why we were going backwards through the same scenery we had just passed such as "You've gotta go back to move forward I always say."

I'm with you, but if the Cedar Point lines are clogged with people who paid $95-200 for daily Fast Lane or $950 for the season long plan they very well might not care. The "integrity" of the Fast Lane product and what it's supposed to get you is not going to matter as much to them as the revenue it can provide. They've essentially set up a tiered ticket system where on even moderately busy days the regular admission is lousy and the Fast Lane entry is decent. I wish the industry could go back to the pre-Fast Lane way of doing things, but I don't think that's going to happen any time soon.

@DispatchMaster, if you go back and read my post, you'll see that I said "Kings Island is tapped out relative to large Six Flags parks." My point was that there is a whole lot more potential for large investments (to increase revenue) at the poorly utilized Six Flags parks than Kings Island. I do think there is some valid criticism of the cheap gold pass strategy, but I wonder if the thought process was to get everyone at all price points. The more people buying the cheap gold passes (i.e. attendance) the more attractive Fast Lane becomes. Whether a more expensive gold pass would net more revenue is an unresolved question at the moment. And I am not criticizing Cedar Fair's strategy with (small parks like) Michigan's Adventure from a business standpoint; I understand what they're doing. I'm saying that for Michigan's Adventure fans it's hard to believe Cedar Fair has invested in the park like what may have occurred had it stayed under private ownership. This is always the case with corporations and for good reasons. Yes, in other words "tapped out" relative to a Carowinds or a Kings Island. A new install is not as correlated with revenue growth at Cedar Point as it would be Carowinds. Investment goes where they believe there is potential for the largest return on investment. I can see this same strategy taken up with the newly added large Six Flags parks.

For Kings Island in regards to investments I see no reason for optimism regarding this deal: Kings Island is "tapped out" relative to the large Six Flags parks. The New Six Flags & Cedar Fair combo will stress revenue growth where there's potential. There's plenty of room to grow Great Adventure, Great America, Magic Mountain, and Fiesta Texas, and Over Texas. Cedar Point and Kings Island have plateued on revenue except for add-on products like Fast Lane and Meal Plans. The Paramount Park purchase was disastrous for the likes of Dorney, Valleyfair, and Michigan's Adventure. Meanwhile "the new kids on the block" Kings Island, Carowinds, and Canda's Wonderland were showered with new coasters. Even Cedar Point slowed down a little on new attractions compared to the pre-Paramount era. I'm less concerned about aspects other than investments: There's no reason Kings Island's high level of operations performance can't be maintained. Having been to two of the top-tier Six Flags parks, I can say that the good ones are a lot better than a lot of enthusiast circles give them credit for and the "bones" of these parks are just as good as the best Cedar Fair parks. Regarding Six Flags reputation, regular (non-enthusiast) people don't think of Six Flags as low quality. They are just a recognizable name in theme parks.

I get the feeling it's going to happen this time. I don't see any potential upside for Kings Island fans whether it's Six Flags buying Cedar Fair or vice versa.

Better yet, they could transplant existing large trees from the undeveloped periphery to the midways. Even at a cost of $15,000 per tree that would be a mere $1.5 million for 100 large trees.

Correct. Being privately owned they can also do more things they believe to be good for the park without always having to prove that the change will directly result in quick money to board members. Everything in a corporation has to be sold to a committee and picked at by cost-cutters. Vision and originality can be crushed in the name of short-term profit, risk aversion, and due to long approval chains of executives. As an example, can you ever imagine the current Cedar Fair building anything like the Voyage at Holiday World? If even built, it would likely be 2,000 feet shorter and 40 ft less tall. There would be no underground tunnels or 90 degree turns and no interactive queue line. All those cool things couldn't be justified if only thinking strictly about a theoretical short-term return on investment. Another example... could you ever expect a $30 million dark ride like the new Fire in the Hole (Silver Dollar City) at a Cedar Fair park? No way would that ever happen. They'd opt for something like a $15 million version of Wonder Mountain's Guardian (Canada's Wonderland). With a well-run private park there is a willingness to sacrifice some expected short-term return on investment for intangible goodwill and positive reaction from guests. Ultimately, this strategy will net money just as a more tangible short-term investment, it's just hard to show it on paper. If you don't have to constantly speak to a board, then you have more freedom to make these kinds of decisions.

I like it! To keep themed areas in place, I'd put the entrance to the left of the Rivertown LaRosa's. That would leave enough room for a new flat ride at the end of the Coney Mall midway near where The Vortex station was. For those wanting to give Coney Mall more love, there will be plenty of room for that when they get rid of Backlot. I'd like an RMC, or if not that, maybe a larger 140-150 ft GCI twister wood coaster. Either one would have a Shooting Star/Retro 1920's theme and would be painted white.

It represents a great value because of the efforts they put in over the last 15 years. If they had invested in those 15 years as they've done over the last 3 years it would not be such a great value. All past evidence of major amusement parks says (reasonable) investment means profit. If that's no longer the case, then either something has fundamentally changed, or every operator of major parks has been wrong for the last 50 years! Amusement parks are like hotels you either invest or go down market. You cannot coast for the long-term and stay what you were. There are other options for people's entertainment and for a lot of non-superfans that doesn't have to be an amusement park.