Six Flags to Trim $60 million and May Sell More Parks

[Blink]

I think that SFA is a good choice. They haven't added a new ride in awhile (aside from the halfpipe waterslide). Who knows how much the land is worth, so it could be a good investment.

 

I would really like to see though how the ideas of the theme parks is Asia and India will work out.

[YoshiFan]

Maybe they wouldn't have such money problems if they would stop "giving away the gate" It's crazy that I bought my Great Adventure season pass for $59.99 when the gate price is $59.99. Other smaller SF parks had SP's under $39.99 (the 1 day sale). Season passes should be at least $75 for the smaller parks and $100 for the larger parks. I'm glad to pay the lower price but I know it's bad for SF

[Scaparri]

^Yeah, but I'm sure they have economists that study what they should do and have found that the lower price actually makes more money. If they raise the price to $80, then a lot fewer people are going to buy a season pass, which also lowers the number of people making return visits. However, if they sell it for $60, then they are not only selling more season passes, but they are getting a lot more people to pay for their $15 parking, $8 cokes, and $12 chicken finger baskets, on more than occasion.

[PURE]

...and $12 chicken finger baskets...

 

Oh god! And they're so horrible.

 

The way I see it these guys are in it to make a profitable business by selling what they're losing right now.

 

They say they're cutting heads next year, which means if they're seniors or not, they'res going to be less employees working full time.

 

The guys that owned SF before Shapiro were dumb. They bought all these parks and had no concept on how to run them, so the quality went down. Yeah its a shame they're losing all these parks, but they're becoming a better (and, obviously a smaller) company because of it.

 

To have a good brand name its best to own things for a while, I'd say the 6-10 most profitable or longest owned Six Flags companies will last, and the others will eventually get cut. The company's just going to go small until it can deplete the debt and start to make some dough.

[carolinacaniac]

Maybe instead of a huge leap for the season pass price, they could gradually bring it up, by like maybe 10 bucks a year, until they reach a more optimal price. Just my own theory.

 

I wouldn't loose any sleep over it, but I would be a bit bummed if SFA got the axe from the chain, because then the nearest cheap season pass in the chain would be either SFOG or SFGAdv. Then again the year after next I might not even go to another SF park depending on what my plans turn out to be.

[ginzo]

^Yeah, but I'm sure they have economists that study what they should do and have found that the lower price actually makes more money. If they raise the price to $80, then a lot fewer people are going to buy a season pass, which also lowers the number of people making return visits. However, if they sell it for $60, then they are not only selling more season passes, but they are getting a lot more people to pay for their $15 parking, $8 cokes, and $12 chicken finger baskets, on more than occasion.

 

And predictions from "the dismal science" are notorious for being wrong. Cedar Fair doesn't seem to have too many problems charging more for their season passes. They even raised the cost of the Maxx Pass significantly over what they charged last year. And Cedar Fair engages in concession rape almost as much as Six Flags does.

 

I think they could get away with raising their season pass pricing a bit. When you give something away people assume it has no value. There was a recent study claiming that people enjoyed the same bottle of wine more when they were charged more for it.

 

As for the main story, this is a bummer. The current management regime seems more than capable of turning Six Flags around. But it's going to take time. And they just don't have the money to sit around and wait for their long term strategy to pan out. Sad. This is supposedly why many firms are going private. It allows them to run smart long term strategies without having to worry about the cocaine-addled weasels of Wall Street smacking their stock when a piece of bad news comes along.

 

SIX closed at $1.77 yesterday.

[KDCOASTERFAN]

I see SFA, SFKK been sold. I do not think they will sell SFMM, or SFM.

I think Six Flags is improving the quality of their parks. I do not like how they are selling more and more parks, so they can fall on the wrong hands.

 

If they sold SFA(please let Parc buy it) then maybe the park would FINALLY get the cap ex for rides that it deserves.I mena look at DL,they're getting their first coaster in nearly a decade & that certainly wouldn't have happened had the place remained an SF park.

[haiderodes]

I agree they have been giving away the gate. We were talking about that here at work the other day how it seems like SFMM pays you to go there. The two-for-ones on the coke cans and half price online tickets to the $45 season pass I bought online during the one-day sale. I guess they figure they'll get more people in with lesser prices, but I just think they are undervaluing what they have. Then again they seem to make up for it with the $15 parking and the $39.99 option to upgrade a one day ticket to a season pass once you are in the park.

 

That said, I jumped at the chance to buy that cheap pass not knowing when or how often I would be attending the park especially living 4 hours away. Now that I have it, its going to MAKE me go just to get my money's worth...so I guess they succeeded in that regard. Same thing happened when I visited in 2006...I did the play pass thing for $59.99. I only planned to visit that once, but got the pass and ended up going back another two times.

 

Another thing is the elimination of some full-time roles. Im in the middle of a job search and just my luck I found that SFGAm had a posting in my field (PR/Marketing). Then the day after I send in my resume I see this. GREAT!

[PURE]

I think they could get away with raising their season pass pricing a bit. When you give something away people assume it has no value. There was a recent study claiming that people enjoyed the same bottle of wine more when they were charged more for it.

 

Exactly. This is how people think in the year 2008. It's why BMW's and Mercedes are so expensive. Charge more and people will have more respect for the park, and more of an idea of how much it costs to enjoy a day at Magic Mountain.

 

And just like haiderodes said above me, if you pay more, you feel like you need to go to get your moneys worth. If you only pay 60 bucks, there's really no motivation to go back to the park, because you aren't losing out on anything.

 

They should definitly raise regualr season pass prices. I get the Xtreme Play Pass anyway, cause I go so often and its such a damn good deal.

[astroworldfan1]

I hate to see nice parks get sold and re-branded.

 

Have ya'll thought about American Adventures (kid's SF Park) in Atlanta, might be getting the axe?

 

-Tatum

[Jew]

I don't see "giving away the gate" as a huge problem. Buy a day, get a year free is a growing trend. USH and the Busch parks also offer it, yet still manage to stay financially sound and keep higher quality levels.

 

The key with "giving away the gate" is giving people a reason to come back. Parks make their profit in food, parking, premium experiences (flashpass, VIP tour, character dining, etc.). They come once with their discount (or cheap pass), and hate the place...you've lost them. You impress them and you have them coming back again to pay for parking, buy more food, etc.

 

Oh, and to whomever asked about building additional parks: I would guess that those international parks would be licensing deals (easy money). No way would they spend money to build a new park on their own.

[Scaparri]

And just like haiderodes said above me, if you pay more, you feel like you need to go to get your moneys worth. If you only pay 60 bucks, there's really no motivation to go back to the park, because you aren't losing out on anything.

 

I see what you're saying and it makes sense, but that theory only applies if they can actually get people to pay the higher price. For me personally, I've been buying an SF season pass for probably 8 years now, and in that time, only once have I bought a season pass to another company as well. It's just not worth the money to me to spend the $100-$150 for a season pass when I it requires me to visit so many times before it's worth my money. I know the SF pass is worth it, and that brings me back through their $15 parking gates many times a year.

 

I actually like how SFStL did it last year. As flawed as it is, I scored my season pass for about $20 cheaper than most people because I lived about four hours away, outside of the marketing zone. Again, that could be a really flawed system that people could work their way around, but it sort of makes sense to charge more for the people near the park because they will use it more. Is it fair? I don't know, but it seems like a decent idea.

[Carnage]

if they could get out of the SFNO contract, that might get some money.

 

That probably won't get them any cash, as getting out of the SFNO contract would cost them alot. They can only buy their way out of that mess. Either pay to rebuild the park, or pay even more to renege on the contract.

[PURE]

^Yeah New Orleans is pretty much bad news for anyone that owns property there.

 

^^But how much money besides parking do you actually spend in the park?

 

I can't remember the last time I paid for general admission, parking, flash passes or more than $20 in food, beverages or souvenirs in the park.