Park Ambassadors Cut In 2024

[Tr0y]

2 hours ago, DispatchMaster said:

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.

Yeah, CP is a different animal being that it offers its own overnight lodging. They should cater to those who book overnight stays. 

Strickly speaking in terms of Kings Island. I, having no wife or kids have spent enough money to buy a family of 3 a gold pass, with food and drink plans for the season. I guess my argument is the more visits an individual makes at the park, the more likely they are going to spend, hence they will spend more money over the course of the season than say a person who King Island visited 4-5 times. 

[DispatchMaster]

I get that, but the point is that the park should be striving to get the highest per cap they can, and season passes are antithetical to that, at least with CF's bargain basement pass pricing strategy.

Yes, a pass holder will spend more in absolute terms during the duration of the season, but that's spread over many, many visits, and each visit carries a cost for the park, which means lower per cap and lower margin compared to the guest who visits for a few days annually, but spends as much or more in that span compared to a season-long visitor.

[BoddaH1994]

1 hour ago, DispatchMaster said:

I get that, but the point is that the park should be striving to get the highest per cap they can, and season passes are antithetical to that, at least with CF's bargain basement pass pricing strategy.

Yes, a pass holder will spend more in absolute terms during the duration of the season, but that's spread over many, many visits, and each visit carries a cost for the park, which means lower per cap and lower margin compared to the guest who visits for a few days annually, but spends as much or more in that span compared to a season-long visitor.

I’m having a but of a problem sharing in your vision:

If a season passholder spends more in a season than a one-time visitor, then why would you turn that away? Yes, per capita is important; however, ultimately the revenue and margin are what matters, especially with an MLP. 
 

I could see an argument that season passholder net much less margin over a whole season vs a one time visitor, but it’s not clear if that’s what you’re suggesting. 
 

Even if true, the smart business model would find ways to increase margins on season passholders - whether through pricing or more opportunities to spend money within the park. 
 

If the park’s mentality is that, “only season passholders show up, so why care?” then the implications are two-fold, with the park being in the midst of part one:

Part One: the park cuts back everything because they already have your money. Season passholders live with it because the value is still there; however, this valuable single day ticket don’t show up because they don’t see the value based on what they’ve been hearing. Thus affecting the hygiene of the season pass mix.

Part two: Season passholders end up breaking and not renewing because of the perception that the value is no longer there. This causes trouble with the Q4 and Q1 budgets and affects cash flows. This is when we start seeing discounted season passes, propositions that diminish the pass, and unprecedented marketing (think, Silver pass).

 

[rlentless]

I understand there are a lot of variables that go into operating a business.  But whether or not I go (as a season pass holder), the park is still going to spend X amount of dollars to open, operate and close the park for a normal 10am-10pm operational day.  The season pass sales basically pay those base costs or a large percentage of it.

Where they make profits is me (season pass holder) buying food, merchandise, playing games, etc..  Or the once/twice year ticket purchasers who also purchase in the park.  I go out of my way to buy food and merchandise, so the park has more cash flow for all the things we like.  Just my small drop in the bucket that adds up with everyone else's.

If we all stopped buying season passes it would be more like a death blow than just showing our displeasure in cuts.  So for me, if they see season pass holders not buying in the park, it should be enough to get management's attention.  To show our displeasure of not cleaning the mid-way, closing rides early, etc..

I don't know how far it would have to go for me not to buy season passes.  Been buying them for 20-30 years.  For now, my protest is to stop spending extra while in the park.  I will still eat there because I don't want to leave and come back.  But no more t-shirts, sweatshirts, key chains, Christmas ornaments, Snoopy Squishmallows, etc..  And it will break my heart, but no more blue ice cream.

Well . . maybe not give up blue ice cream - - my protest can only go so far.  I will also probably still buy a funnel cake or two.  And a turkey leg.  I'm a hypocrite.

[DispatchMaster]

17 hours ago, rlentless said:

But whether or not I go (as a season pass holder), the park is still going to spend X amount of dollars to open, operate and close the park for a normal 10am-10pm operational day.

This is not accurate. You are referring to fixed costs, which do not vary with attendance.

But there are variable costs in addition to the fixed costs. Every body in the park consumes resources. Someone at the extreme low-utilization end of the spectrum - someone who merely wanders around the park and does nothing other than use the bathroom every few hours - still consumes park resources in water, consumables, and labor to clean the restroom. Someone on the extreme high end - someone who marathons rides for 10 hours on an early June weekday - well, those rides, which have a fixed hourly capacity (thus more bodies = more ride cycles) consume ride power, labor to run the rides, maintenance, etc., and so on.

19 hours ago, BoddaH1994 said:

I could see an argument that season passholder net much less margin over a whole season vs a one time visitor, but it’s not clear if that’s what you’re suggesting.

Yes, this is what I'm suggesting. And since the bottom line goal of any business is to earn revenue in excess of expenses (i.e. profit), and one time visitors tend to be more profitable than season pass holders on a per-visit basis (see fixed vs. variable costs above), the park should be focusing their efforts on the former at the expense of the latter.

And, to bring it back around to the OT, park ambassadors were likely far more valuable for the one time visitors than for pass holders, so axing that value-added resource while chasing volume instead of margin with cheap passes is a terrible strategy in the long term. They're driving away more lucrative one time customers as they chase low margin season pass holders. Not good.

[BoddaH1994]

 

2 hours ago, DispatchMaster said:

This is not accurate. You are referring to fixed costs, which do not vary with attendance.

But there are variable costs in addition to the fixed costs. Every body in the park consumes resources. Someone at the extreme low-utilization end of the spectrum - someone who merely wanders around the park and does nothing other than use the bathroom every few hours - still consumes park resources in water, consumables, and labor to clean the restroom. Someone on the extreme high end - someone who marathons rides for 10 hours on an early June weekday - well, those rides, which have a fixed hourly capacity (thus more bodies = more ride cycles) consume ride power, labor to run the rides, maintenance, etc., and so on.

Yes, this is what I'm suggesting. And since the bottom line goal of any business is to earn revenue in excess of expenses (i.e. profit), and one time visitors tend to be more profitable than season pass holders on a per-visit basis (see fixed vs. variable costs above), the park should be focusing their efforts on the former at the expense of the latter.

And, to bring it back around to the OT, park ambassadors were likely far more valuable for the one time visitors than for pass holders, so axing that value-added resource while chasing volume instead of margin with cheap passes is a terrible strategy in the long term. They're driving away more lucrative one time customers as they chase low margin season pass holders. Not good.

I feel like we are on the same page with the last part. Don and I discussed something similar with the cutting of the three shows for Winterfest. Very few people would be upset that Four Drummers or HJ Trolley didn’t come back, but people may leave thinking that there wasn’t as much to do, without being able to put their finger on what. Likewise, without the PAs people may see the customer service at KI as going downhill, although they wouldn’t be able to cite the PAs as a reason why. 

[brenthodge]

On 2/6/2024 at 9:34 AM, BoddaH1994 said:

 

I feel like we are on the same page with the last part. Don and I discussed something similar with the cutting of the three shows for Winterfest. Very few people would be upset that Four Drummers or HJ Trolley didn’t come back, but people may leave thinking that there wasn’t as much to do, without being able to put their finger on what. Likewise, without the PAs people may see the customer service at KI as going downhill, although they wouldn’t be able to cite the PAs as a reason why. 

I actually was upset as a long time Winterfest attendee. I don’t know if I ever stayed for entire show of any of the things that got cut, but it added to the overall atmosphere that a few years ago (even with sucky lights in the trees) was magical. It’s like they see fixed assets (like additional lights) as more important than entertainment, when that’s one of the main things that sets the event apart. The Zoo still kills it in the “lights on the trees” metric, so lean into what makes you different instead of advertising “we are catching up to the zoo with our light count.  woo hoo” If this had been my first year and I was buying a pass based on my experience, I’m not so sure I would. Unfortunately I had already renewed.