Six Flags trying to be alternative to Disney World

[Nitro1118]

Right here is where we agree to disagree.  I've stated my point and while I think you're severlely underestimating the effect the GK really had on people, there's no way I'm going to be able to get you to see what I see.  All I can really say is that it's high time you start to look at this business in a different way.  Not because it's a different regime, but because you're thinking with the "enthuaiast hat" on, and enthusiast logic skews common sense at times.  Hopefully you'll understand the effect that a new area with a commitment to theming, some fresh paint, and some smiles have.

You may think I'm a dork for doing this, but it's how my major trained me.  I guess.  Open your ears when you go to the park.  Be a little observant.  Listen to the things people are saying about their stay when just wondering around the park.  It will open your mind to something new, because you'd be suprised what people comment on and do care about.

I never said that GK wasn't popular and didn't bring people back, I'm saying those things don't bring people in in the first place, coasters do. Park quality just backs that up. I understand they are trying to attract a new crowd, and that would mean for the most part neglecting the crowds that consistently gives parks like GADV one of the most successful (by making money and attendance) regional parks in the world.

I view much of this as necassary. I believe a near-complete overhaul of the park is necassary. But in the long term, many parks pretty close by will ALWAYS do the family thing better (Hershey, BGW). Coasters are SF's bread and butter, and it would have worked if it wasn't for them not spending time in other areas. Without all those coasters, 3/4 of the SF parks would have just died. So, I feel as long as it is a balanced attack, while continually adding some sort of major ride every 3-4 years, I feel it will be EXTREMELY successful. That is my business stance, which I base off what I hear from friends and people. When I talk to people, it is always, "OMG did you ride Nitro? B:TR? Meudsa? KK?" not "Wow that Temple of the Tiger show was so good it mad eme p*ss my pants!"

Anyway, yeah, agree to disagree.


gadvwow- Good post. It IS too early to tell.

[GADVwow]

I cannot and do not agree that without all those coasters that Burke's Six Flags installed, 3/4 of the Six Flags parks would have died.

Still, for the most part, the problem with Burke's Six Flags wasn't all those coasters, it was that management could apparently only get money from lenders for NEW capital investments and expansions.  The existing park infrastructure was neglected, the guest experience was neglected, middle management was neglected, the parks were understaffed, budgets other than the capital budget were cut and cut and cut (and in later years, so was the capital budget--then almost a quarter of it was spent on ONE coaster in ONE park in New Jersey, while other parks that hadn't had a new ride of consequence in years continued to do without).

Coasters may bring much of the general public to your park ONCE, but bad experiences in everything from trying to use the bathroom to trying to get lunch to the pain of paying for it ran people off.  Big time.

A few more years of Burke and company may have resulted in a chain of just five Six Flags parks:  GAd, GAm, MM and the two partnership parks:  OG and OT.

[Nitro1118]

I agree 100% with all of that, but coasters are what has kept SF alive. I feel that the biggest problem in the past 5-7 years has been adding multiple coasters and rides as soon as park is bought, then neglecting the park for years (not just rides, I'm talking EVERYTHING).

I actually hopem nthat one day SF sells a good number of parks to cut down the chain to 10 or so parks. I feel right now they have so many parks that making a few true resorts and destinations (GADV for example) it takes too much money for improvements at the smaller parks. With less number of parks in the chain, you have more of an oppertunity to make SF more than just an alternative, which makes the chain sound so cheap and 2nd class.

[rjholla2003]

I never said that GK wasn't popular and didn't bring people back, I'm saying those things don't bring people in in the first place, coasters do.

I think you're misunderstanding me a bit.  I think you think that I undervalue the coasters as far as attendance and repeat attendance.  Yes, they count a lot, but a bad day at the park is a bigger turn off than several good rides.

Coasters may bring much of the general public to your park ONCE, but bad experiences in everything from trying to use the bathroom to trying to get lunch to the pain of paying for it ran people off.  Big time.

A few more years of Burke and company may have resulted in a chain of just five Six Flags parks:  GAd, GAm, MM and the two partnership parks:  OG and OT.

Bingo.

I feel that the biggest problem in the past 5-7 years has been adding multiple coasters and rides as soon as park is bought, then neglecting the park for years (not just rides, I'm talking EVERYTHING).

You're starting to get it.

[Nitro1118]

You're starting to get it.

I've been getting it. Look back on some sites in 2004 and see me bashing the park for not keeping rides open, no fresh paint anywhere, etc... Last year was such a huge turnaround. They need to keep that up, BUT in the long term, they need to combine that with doing what they do best and what seperates SF from all other chains, and that is coasters. There needs to be that balance, and I do not think they should lean more towards thrills or family atmosphere. It should be dead in middle.

[rjholla2003]

Which is whatr Shapiro's been insisting the chain will do from the get-go. :wink: Everyone got all hyped up for no reason since he didn't fully explain himself in the press until recently.

[GADVwow]

I really don't care what he SAYS.

I care what the parks DO and how it affects the guests.

Guests, as an overall group, will decide if Six Flags succeeds or fails.  We all know that, but sometimes it seemed prior management didn't. . .they seemed to be more of a mindset that their only competition was other parks, when in reality everything from DVD's to the local lake to the Internet to movie theaters to Disney to video games to a trip to Europe to any of a jillion other things all join together to compete for the consumer pocket book and the consumers' recreation time.

[Nitro1118]

Which is whatr Shapiro's been insisting the chain will do from the get-go. :wink: Everyone got all hyped up for no reason since he didn't fully explain himself in the press until recently.

They seem to be thinking for the next 5-10 years it will be HIGHLY geared to families and not geared to thrills at all. That is just what I'm getting from what he says, but maybe I'm wrong. Guess we'll have to wait and see.

[WadeJ]

Nitro, he has backed off the "family only" at this point.  I've read several times about finding a good balance between families and thrills.  Honestly, that is exactly what I'm looking for so I know I'll be happy.  And in that same respect, it is what Disney has more and more been getting forced into with rides like TOT, RNR, MS, TT, and now EE.

[Nitro1118]

Again, from what I have read, he seems to deem most SF's "fine" with thrills for next 5 or so years, and that the thrills are already there. I'm gonna stop arguing this, as none of us really know what is going to happen.

[GADVwow]

...and that includes Mr. Shapiro.

Good managers make changes on the fly, as they find what does and does not work. . .

Plus, who could have predicted what happened to, say, Six Flags New Orleans?  There are always surprises...

[Nitro1118]

Yep.

Any news on SFNO, BTW? By the pictures of the park I saw shortly after Katrina, it didn't look too promising.

[GADVwow]

Only that it won't be opening for 2oo6...

Not that anybody expected that it would.