Six Flags board flipped - Snyder in

[Joseph]

[quote=joedonuts1011]Would you care to enlighten us as to the details of Snyder's plans? And don't say "to turn a profit." That's everyone's plan. How will he accomplish this? By bringing in brand name foods? By eliminating a succesful ad campaign? By cutting park hours? By cutting park expansion?[/quote] - Attract more families, which bring in more money (do more for those under 48")
- Raise the Per Capita revenue figures
- Reinstate general feelings of a safe environment,
- Increase Season Ticket Prices
- Introduce "Frequent Visitor" systems (such as Easy Pay devices and Merch Loyalty Programs)
- Get rid of the day-care attribute
- Reduce spending on unreliable additions (specifically citing rides like Kingda Ka)
- Gain back stockholder value (remember when stocks went for around $40!)
- Deploy more effective advertising methods. Direct advertising such as flyers within phone bills and ads on cereal boxes
- Revamp the parks with characters better recognized and more easily marketable to today's children.
- Generate excess revenue by selling naming rights and allowing vendors to enter the park
- Tiered parking to generate extra cash flow
- Cut senseless discounts
- Utilize incremental pricing for different times of the year
- New Employee training programs

Just to name some off the top of my head. BTW where did you read anything about park hours? I'm curious because I've been paying close attention to the ordeal and never saw that. Also, while RZ may have said they want to reduce thrill ride expenditure, they said they want to increase family ride funding. They just want to take a more balanced aproach, marketing their park to both groups.

In addition to this, the slogan "45 Years of Family Fun, Come take a ride with us!" was used in their presentations. People may not like "Clean Safe, Fun" (even though its not the first time that's been used in a Six Flags campaign) but that may not even be his desired ad slogan. Besides, I think that the company already uses the phrase internally.

(Personally, I don't mind "C,S,F" since its what Families want!)

[quote]If Snyder is smart, which it certainly looks like he is not, he and his cronies will come up with ways to increase in-park-per-capita spending.[/quote] Funny 'cause Red Zone addressed that in their proposals, citing that if they were to figure out fow to increase per caps to the level that Cedar Fair parks are currently at it would generate an additional 1/5 billion dollars per year. Now who certainly does not look so smart, Snyder et al, or you for assuming he overlooked that?

On the death of Mr. Six - all ad campains lose their touch after a while. Few last forever. I agree that 6 has been losing his apeal, early on it was really strong with kids dancing in the park and such, but this summer it just didn't seem as strong to me.

I say give Red Zone a chance.

[Sir Willow]

^ Almost everything that you listed there is a goal. It's not a plan of how to achieve that goal. And most of the ones are actual plans of action, or things that they can do, Six Flags is already doing in some form or another. And the ones that they aren't are very questionable as to whether they're going to be able to be successful or just cause more problems.

Here's the deal. I'm not a Six Flags management fan by any means. I think that there are a heck of a lot of rather obvious things they should be doing to improve the parks that they're not doing. Unfortunately, I don't see Snyder doing any of those things either. In many ways, I see the opposite. Sure, they need help, but I think that Snyder is a very bad fit for the parks and chain for a multitude of reasons- some of which you've listed above. But then that's just my opinion.

From what I'm reading, even with the change on the board, they are still proceeding with the sale of the chain, and to me, that's where the best hope for the company lies. In the hands of a group of people with experience in the business, who know what they're doing, and who have already turned a profit there. And there are a couple of big players bidding that certainly fall into that category.

[Ryan F]

[QUOTE]- Revamp the parks with characters better recognized and more easily marketable to today's children.[/QUOTE]
First of all, Looney Tunes is still a regular broadcast show (at least where I live) so it's still pretty recognizible.
What that aside, what characters would they use?
Nickelodean is already used by Paramount and Disney has it's own parks. Last time I watched cartoons those were the two biggest players in the children's cartoon market. Not to mention the most current recognizible cartoon characters are either Nick or Disney. So really, I cant see them using anything else except maybe Hanna Barbera (when their contract with Paramount runs out) or keep the tried, tested, and true Looney Tunes.

[QUOTE]- Increase Season Ticket Prices[/QUOTE]
That'll really make people happy :rolleyes:

[QUOTE]- Generate excess revenue by selling naming rights and allowing vendors to enter the park[/QUOTE]
Because everyone wants to buy a BigMac for $8.00 when you can get it across the street for half the price...

[QUOTE]- Utilize incremental pricing for different times of the year[/QUOTE]
I'm thinkg that means some times of the season are cheaper to get in than other times of the season, which just sounds pretty dumb.

[QUOTE]- Cut senseless discounts[/QUOTE]
The same senseless discounts that usually bring more people in?

[coasterlove]

The objectives in [b]bold[/b] of Snyder as listed by BobFunland with my comments in [I]Italics[/I]*

I left out a few if I didn't have anything to say or know enough to comment on it.


[B]- Attract more families, which bring in more money (do more for those under 48")[/b]
[I]In my opinion, if you look around at many of the SF parks, they added stuff for the families either last year or recently.[/I]
[B]- Reinstate general feelings of a safe environment[/b]
[I]Of course this is a good idea but most ofthe parks already had this safe feeling. Even at my homepark SFGAm, it has felt safer than it has in years past.[/I]

[B]- Increase Season Ticket Prices[/b]
[I]Sure, it could bring in more profit...if the same number of people go. If attendance drops, it balances out at the gates but also means less money from merchandise and food sales. The only positive is that it keeps some undesireables from going. (Take that to mean however anyone wants)[/I]

[B]- Introduce "Frequent Visitor" systems (such as Easy Pay devices and Merch Loyalty Programs)[/b]
[I]It could be an interesting idea but I'd have to see what they had in mind exactly and how it was implemented.[/I]

[B]- Reduce spending on unreliable additions (specifically citing rides like Kingda Ka)[/b]
[I]I'll agree with this to an extent. Rides that are hugely expensive but very unreliable aren't always a good investment. But at the same time, I'm sure just the popularity of having it still did more good than harm if even just by a small margin. I just hope though that the company isn't scared to take risks in the future as to getting new rides. Innovation means taking risks sometime.[/I]
[B]- Gain back stockholder value[/b]
[I]I highly doubt that they weren't trying to do that before. I don't think any company tries to have a low value in the stock market. So it doesn't really have any meaning honestly.[/I]

[B]- Deploy more effective advertising methods. Direct advertising such as flyers within phone bills and ads on cereal boxes[/b]
[I]Smart ideas but I think Six Flags was also starting to do that also. Just look at the promotion they had with Wendy's last year. I'm sure they had other promotions too like they always do with Coke for example.[/I]
[B]- Revamp the parks with characters better recognized and more easily marketable to today's children.[/b]
[I]Does that mean they intend to drop the Loony Toons characters? I think that's a bad idea. Look at Disney, they of course push their new characters but you don't see them dropping Mickey Mouse despite not being as relevant as his character was maybe 20 years ago or even longer. If Six Flags or whatever they may be called wants to add new characters as well, that might be a good idea but don't just completely lose the Loony Toons.[/I]

[B]- Generate excess revenue by selling naming rights and allowing vendors to enter the park[/b]
[I]Another sad state of where this world is heading. Small rides or areas of the park might be one thing but it'll be sad if the major coaster at a park is sponsored by a brand or worse even, the name is just changed completely to fit the sponsor.[/I]
[B]- Tiered parking to generate extra cash flow[/b]
[I]Doesn't most Six Flags do that now with preferred parking? And what do they mean exactly, parking can already be fairly expensive as it is. So if it's tiered parking, does that mean some of the closer spots might go upwards around $20!? And what can we expect of the further parking, the prices we're paying already? Because I don't seem them lowering the prices lower than what they are for the farthest available spots. So that could mean some people are forced to pay expensive prices for parking if the cheaper spots are no longer available. I'm sure that will leave customers happy.[/I]

[B]- Cut senseless discounts[/b]
[I]Yeah, because forget about those who can't afford or don't want to always pay full price to go. :rolleyes: Look at those discount days, they always have huge attendance and money is being made a plenty. Not to mention that maybe some people might only be willing to go for a reduced price if they've never been there but after seeing it, they might strongly consider going again or even getting a season pass that year or the next.[/I]

[B]- Utilize incremental pricing for different times of the year[/b]
[I]I can actually understand this one since it's simply more desireable to go at certain times of the year. Although I think it can lead to a lot of confusion on the part of some guests. Also what would these prices be? I'm sure they would raise prices greatly during the summer since that's a popular time of the year. Many parks already charge over $40. Would they raise it to over $50 then? I don't see them lowering the prices under current levels on days less popular. So this will be similar to what I said about the tiered parking.[/I]

[B]- New Employee training programs[/b]
[I]This could be good potentially depending on how it goes. As long as their training is good and they know how to do the job, I'm ok with it.[/I]

So the way I see it is like this- More expesive, more generic, more advertisements, more nickel and diming, less rides in the future and an overall less enjoyment. That's the Six Flags of the future. Hope you all like it.

[joedonuts1011]

I wasn't aware that Red Zone had posted their intent.

I was making a lundry list of what could be done, without even knowing what Snyder had in mind. The majority just looks bad. His frame of mind is on the stockholder, and not on the park goer. We al know that it's a business, but, profitability will increase when the overall park experience is a good one. And...it is that park experience that continues putting people through the gate.

[Joseph]

[quote=Sir Willow]^ Almost everything that you listed there is a goal. It's not a plan of how to achieve that goal.[/quote] Well, yes a lot of goals were states and some had vague ideas of how to achived the goal, but the thing that disturbed me is that Six Flags' response was basically "well we're just going to sit on our ass and not change anything even though there seems to me some serious malcontent among our shareholders".


[quote=WildeFyre]First of all, Looney Tunes is still a regular broadcast show (at least where I live) so it's still pretty recognizible.
What that aside, what characters would they use?[/quote] Other various Cartoon Network shows.

[quote]That'll really make people happy :rolleyes:[/quote] Yea, it probably will. Seriously. The goal is to attract a better clientel. By raising prices that will hopefully decrease the amount of season passes bought for the degenerates of society, and therefore your park experience is more likely to be improved once theres less smoking in line, fighting, swearing, and other attrocious behaviors that go on in the park. In the end, improved park experience would make the parks more likely to bring families and the such back.. or better yet, more families of 4 dropping the money for season passes. See, some people are happy and you can't please anybody :)

[quote]I'm thinkg that means some times of the season are cheaper to get in than other times of the season, which just sounds pretty dumb.[/quote] A lot of parks do this. Dorney and Knoebels did so, for example. Heck, they do it for season passes where the rates go up once the peak season starts. Why is it so dumb?

[quote]The same senseless discounts that usually bring more people in?[/quote] The same senseless discounts that mean hardly anyone pays full price anymore and the company is losing potential money with each discounted sale, yea, those ones!


[quote=coasterlove] [I]In my opinion, if you look around at many of the SF parks, they added stuff for the families either last year or recently.[/I][/quote]Yes, but if you look its still pretty unbalanced. I mean, how many Six flags parks have more than 10 flat rides and compare that to how many Six Flags parks have more than 10 coasters. But with out a doubt they have been improving in that dept. [quote][I]Of course this is a good idea but most ofthe parks already had this safe feeling. Even at my homepark SFGAm, it has felt safer than it has in years past.[/I][/quote] When stuff like a major brawl makes the news, its horrible for the park's image. I have heard a good number of folks express concerns over safety at Six Flags parks, even though we all know they are for the most part isolated incidents.

[quote][I]Sure, it could bring in more profit...if the same number of people go.[/I][/quote]And like I said above in the end, the goal of a better park environment would help offset this and families are desired to be attracted.
[I]
[quote] The only positive is that it keeps some undesireables from going. (Take that to mean however anyone wants)[/quote][/I]
Bingo.
[quote][I]It could be an interesting idea but I'd have to see what they had in mind exactly and how it was implemented.[/I][/quote] Basically scan-n-go type machines that are often found in cafeterias and such, as well as "shoppers club" type of cards like at many of the supermarkets around.
[quote] [I]I'll agree with this to an extent. Rides that are hugely expensive but very unreliable aren't always a good investment. But at the same time, I'm sure just the popularity of having it still did more good than harm if even just by a small margin. I just hope though that the company isn't scared to take risks in the future as to getting new rides. Innovation means taking risks sometime.[/I][/quote] We're talking about a company $2 billion + in debt. They should makimize return on investments. You are right, no matter how many pissed off people were at Great Adventures, PR window this season, it still attracted tons of guests. But, just think about it - a ride open all season will attract people too and hopefully not cost tons of money in upkeep!
[B][quote]- Gain back stockholder value[/quote][/B][quote]
[I]I highly doubt that they weren't trying to do that before. I don't think any company tries to have a low value in the stock market. So it doesn't really have any meaning honestly.[/I][/quote] Yea, everyone wants to see a 90% reduction in share values over 5 years. Red Zone wants to reinstate investor confidence and increase the value of the stock, something Six Flags didn't even do this year! Without this ordeal, stock would be even lower than it is now

[quote][I]Look at Disney, they of course push their new characters but you don't see them dropping Mickey Mouse despite not being as relevant as his character was maybe 20 years ago or even longer.[/I][/quote]The difference - Disney came to power from its characters whereas Six Flags brought them in after [some of] their parks were opened.
[quote][I]Doesn't most Six Flags do that now with preferred parking? And what do they mean exactly, parking can already be fairly expensive as it is. So if it's tiered parking, does that mean some of the closer spots might go upwards around $20!? And what can we expect of the further parking, the prices we're paying already? Because I don't seem them lowering the prices lower than what they are for the farthest available spots.[/I][/quote]Some do, some don't. Just one of the parks I went to this year, Darien Lake, offers no special parking while the others do. By main "beef" is that I know here in Atlanta "Gold" parking is $12... only $2 more than the "Regular" lot - there should at least be SOME difference![quote][I]Although I think it can lead to a lot of confusion on the part of some guests. Also what would these prices be? I'm sure they would raise prices greatly during the summer since that's a popular time of the year. Many parks already charge over $40. Would they raise it to over $50 then? I don't see them lowering the prices under current levels on days less popular.[/I][/quote] It probably would be discounted admission for early in the season and then again in September, in an effort to bring in more crowds in typically light periods. Prices may get raised but you have some parks (Busch Gardens Tampa for example) that charge more than any of the Six Flags parks yet IMHO its no better than a SF park.

/ just trying to remind everyone that there still are supporters out there! :)

[siestakey]

[quote=Chris L]

EDIT: [B]NEWS JUST IN[/B]!

Dan Snyder, now as CEO and President of Six Flags, Inc. (soon to be renamed Red Zone parks) cancels all 2006 capital expenditure projects, including four rollercoasters at its Los Angeles, Jackson, Atlanta and Quebec market properties. All attraction parts currently on site will be liquidated - and all attractions currently erected will be taken down and put into storage for the time being.

All the parks will be rebranded as "Red Zone." (Red Zone Great Adventure, Red Zone Over Texas, Red Zone Magic Mountain, etc.)

...

/\ If you couldn't already tell, that was a joke ;)[/quote]
Was the cancelling thing a joke? It better be.

[Dan G]

[QUOTE=joedonuts1011]Would you care to enlighten us as to the details of Snyder's plans? And don't say "to turn a profit." That's everyone's plan. How will he accomplish this? By bringing in brand name foods? By eliminating a succesful ad campaign? By cutting park hours? By cutting park expansion?

If Snyder is smart, which it certainly looks like he is not, he and his cronies will come up with ways to increase in-park-per-capita spending.[/QUOTE]

I remember him saying that he would split the funds up between the parks nand not concentrate on a select few parks, which Burke was known for doing. This was one of my biggest concerns and I'm glad that change is finally coming to this chain. Regardless of what people think of Snyder, he'll probably do a hell of a lot better job than Kieran Burke has ever done for the chain, and that's all I'm worried about.

[Jimmy B]

Didn't Snyder oppose the dismantling of Astroworld? Now that he is going to be charge, could this change?

[Ryan F]

^Probably not, didn't they already start dismantling the rides?

[siestakey]

^Yah, that'sa what I thought. They are taking down everything ealready, isn't it too late for the park? I thought it already flatlined...buh dum chhhh...lol

[James R]

/\ Siestakey, you get the lame award. ;)

But yes, I do not think AstroWorld can be saved in any way shape or form. Some of the park's rides are already gone, and some are leaving as we speak. But what's ironic is that Six Flags is not getting bids anywhere near their expectations. The approximated retail value of the real estate is now estimated at [b]$70 million[/b], which is NOT anywhere close to the "[b]$95 million to $145 million[/b]" estimated by the firm selling the park.

The plan backfires. Ha.

[coasterdude28]

Just wanted to point out that since Snyder's takeover, SF stock has continually gone down. I wonder what that means.

[Ryan F]

Proabably means that nobody is willing to trust a sports team owner (who seems to know nothing about amusement parks) at the helms of a huge amusement part chain.
I dont blame them.

[rjholla2003]

I think that it means that there is no reason for the stock price of SFI to be artifically inflated because of the hope of Snyder taking over. Now that he is here, it's time for his works to be reflected in the stock prices.

[Chris L]

[QUOTE=joedonuts1011]I wasn't aware that Red Zone had posted their intent.[/QUOTE]

Yeah. As a way of convincing the shareholders to give consent to their White Card, Snyder/Red Zone LLC released a huge document that outlined their intentions with the chain. Six Flags/Burke did a rebuttal document which also highlighted all of Red Zone's plans for the park operator company if they were to seize control of the board.

A lot of those "reforms" and changes have been mentioned in this thread already - most of which you probably have read by now.

[Joseph]

[quote=WildeFyre]Proabably means that nobody is willing to trust a sports team owner (who seems to know nothing about amusement parks) at the helms of a huge amusement part chain.
I dont blame them.[/quote]

.. and I guess an investment banker is a lot better, huh?

Fact is that they are all [B]businessmen[/B].

No one person knows everything, which is why they have VPs, park GMs and the like. The guys on that level are the ones who make a lot of the critical decisions, and usually have tons of experience in the industry - I know John Odum (the VP from the region that includes SFOG, the Texas Parks and SF St. Louis) has been around for some 30 years or so.

Before Snyder purchased the 'Skins he had no sports franchise, but the Redskins have been a successful business venture!

I believe the stock price hasn't done much simply because it has barely moved since the takeover plans were announced:


[IMG]http://coasterenthusiast.com/uploads/pks.png[/IMG]


Good investors think in the long-run ;)

[xtreme]

mr six rip
that prick snyder turn the music off

[Drewbie]

To the comment from BobFunLand that the former management was content to sit back and do nothing, that's not how I read into it. They had launched a new nationwide ad campaign over the past two years. Things had started to turn around and stabilize. They didn't point at weather for crappy numbers this summer at all.

I voted against Red Zone, having read everything that was sent to me by both sides. Dan Snyder is an egotistical shmuck who wants to be in charge of more than he can handle. He needs to get locked out of the Redskins front office and he needs to sit back and trade shares that don't perform well for him rather than try to jump in and steer a ship he can't control.

[Chris L]

Yeah, Six Flags Inc. was actually turning a profit for a whole fiscal year for once. I saw hope in the results that were reported this past year by the operator. Now, they're pretty much going to hit ground zero again once Snyder's reforms go into full effect.

RIP Six Flags as we know it. If I wanted family fun, I'd go to Disneyland.