The Interpreter Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 ... Rick Munarriz, a stock analyst for the Motley Fool investing Web site, said the park could try to increase revenue in other ways, such as raising prices for food and drinks. Mr. Speigel said other amusement companies are searching for ways to cut costs. For example, Six Flags Inc. is raising prices at its parks, but also said it would cut $100 million through decreased marketing and cuts in operations. "The last two months everybody's been watching the [stock] markets and commodities to see where things were shaking out for 2008. The people I've talked to throughout the industry, they've all been watching the economic indicators for a sign," Mr. Speigel said..... http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic...ESS06/801220366 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KIBeast Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 Can't agree with Rick on this one. The last thing CP needs to do is raise their drink and food prices. They are already outrageous as it is. I think raising those prices could price themselves right out of the market considering that it seems that this country is heading for a recession. People can't afford to go there now, what would make them think that the GP is going to want to pay more when they are already getting tight with money? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flightoffear1996 Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 See if you have high prices for example and are making $2 profit per sale and 1 out of 10 people buy the product. If you lower the cost to where your making .50 per profit and say 9 out of 10 people buy the product you would be making 4.50. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Maple The Tree King Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 ^Thats a good point, but I'm sure many more factors went into deciding prices and such. Besides as Boddah says... Cedar Fair has the inherent rule of doing what works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KIBeast Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 ^And that's assuming Kinzel and Co. aren't out of touch with reality, which seems to be the case of late. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FOFirehawkFAN Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 See if you have high prices for example and are making $2 profit per sale and 1 out of 10 people buy the product. If you lower the cost to where your making .50 per profit and say 9 out of 10 people buy the product you would be making 4.50. Logicaly this makes but im pretty sure CF bases their revenue on per caps, so if i person spends $10 on something or 10 people spend $1 on something the per cap would remain the same reguardless of actual profit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browntggrr Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 ^And that's assuming Kinzel and Co. aren't out of touch with reality, which seems to be the case of late. Referring to what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastersRZ Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 FOFirehawkFAN, Your per caps analogy is not accurate. If one person spends $10 on items in the park, then the per cap spending is $10 (theoretically). Now, if you have ten people in the park and they collectively spend $10 in the park, the per cap spending is $1. Essentially, per cap spending is an average of how much each park guest is spending while in the park. So, if you have ten guests in the park, they may spend say $150 combined while at the park. That breaks down to $15 per caps. Even though say guest number 8 may only have spent $5, while guest number 2 spent $25. Raising prices does not necessarily mean that per caps will go up. If guests feel like they are not getting good value for their money, they are less likely to spend their money in the park. They would be even more reserved to do so multiple times for say, a soft drink. However, if they feel like they are getting a bargain, they would be more then willing to open up their wallets more then one time to buy soft drinks. Which is better, a guest buying one soft drink at $3.50 a pop, or the same guest buying three soft drinks at $1.75 or $2.00? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cholderfield Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 that's why just about everytime i visited CP/KI this year, i packed my lunch and dinner and went back to the parking lot to eat.....$15-20 per meal per person for mediocre food is way too expensive....oh yeah...i also bring my own water bottle:D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KIBeast Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 ^And that's assuming Kinzel and Co. aren't out of touch with reality, which seems to be the case of late. Referring to what? They let a whole lot of qualified people go...many say some who could have helped them transition better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browntggrr Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 ^ Sure they let a whole bunch of qualified people go. It happens with many businesses around the World. New management, new ideas. Some employees just can't shake the policies, work ethics, or traditions of their former boss (not that their former boss was wrong in the decisions that were made). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarketingExpress Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 ^ Sure they let a whole bunch of qualified people go. It happens with many businesses around the World. New management, new ideas. Some employees just can't shake the policies, work ethics, or traditions of their former boss (not that their former boss was wrong in the decisions that were made). I think what KIBeast is trying to say is that there were many employees that were let go that had worked for the park for many years, and knew the park and it's operations backwards and forwards that could have helped in the transition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browntggrr Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 I do understand where he is coming from, and when it comes down to new management there are positives and negatives to both sides. You can let some people go and try to change the way things are ran on a day to to basis as well as change the personality of the park by bringing in new people and fresh ideas. -or- Leave the people where they have been for years to try and ease the transition as well as learn on how things go certain times of the year. But which way is better? That can only be answered after the decision has been made a few years down the line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastersRZ Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Well, I think it is rather common knowledge that Cedar Fair initially let too many people go that knew the markets for the newly acquired parks. Just look at what they`ve said about season pass sales at their new parks. They underestimated the importance of pass sales at these parks. Remember, that at the legacy parks, pass holders accounted for 10% of the attendance, while at the former Paramount Parks, that number was closer to 40%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browntggrr Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Well, I think it is rather common knowledge that Cedar Fair initially let too many people go that knew the markets for the newly acquired parks. Common knowledge? Perhaps after the fact. But that decision has since been rectified. Even without the people that supposedly could have shared their knowledge about the markets. Again, nobody is perfect. And there will be some decisions that will be wrong. But it is funny that hindsight is usually 20/20. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KIBeast Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Now, if only I had foresight... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted January 25, 2008 Author Share Posted January 25, 2008 Well, I think it is rather common knowledge that Cedar Fair initially let too many people go that knew the markets for the newly acquired parks. Common knowledge? Perhaps after the fact. But that decision has since been rectified. . . It has? How? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browntggrr Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Sure it has. Take the difference in the 2007 season passes vs. the 2008 season passes. There is no more price difference as there was in 2007. (or was that price "integrity") Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted January 25, 2008 Author Share Posted January 25, 2008 The problem may have been addressed, but we will not know if it has been rectified or not until season pass sales have been announced, if they ever are. . . Even then, we may still not know. General economic conditions have deteriorated. Even if season pass sales are down, perhaps even greatly, this does not necessarily mean that such would not have been the case had CBS continued to own the parks. There's just too many variables. Put another way, what is, is. What would have been can never be known with certainty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browntggrr Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 One thing is for certain, CF did not sit on their hands and let a negative issue remain unresolved. Doing something is better than doing nothing. They saw an issue, and have since rectifed it. Now if it works, that is another thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted January 26, 2008 Author Share Posted January 26, 2008 Never mind they CAUSED the issue in the first place by trying to bring "pricing integrity" to season pass prices....and attempting to do away with the gold pass program (but quickly brought it back when they encountered pricing resistance). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KIBeast Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 Which brings me back to my point. Had they held on to some of the key people from the Paramount era, they could have avoided the screwy pricing on last year's season passes. I've never seen so much confusion over SP's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dalefan Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 The companys have to raise prices if the people who make the stuff raise them. We have this going on at my work. They claim gas price hikes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cholderfield Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 the problem with that analogy is that there was no reason to raise the prices and get rid of gold pass perks... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dalefan Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 Thats true. I am guessing they want to make the parks they bought just like the Cedar Fair ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.