0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Six Flags trying to be alternative to Disney WorldBy Jen HaberkornThe Washington Times Published February 24, 2006 WASHINGTON -- Mark Shapiro is two months into his tenure as chief executive officer of Six Flags Inc., and he's outlined plans to turn the theme park company into an alternative to Walt Disney World and bring in corporate partnerships. He plans to have costumed characters walk the parks, put on daily parades, sell "Flash pass" tickets that get buyers to the front of the line, and build minicoasters for parents to ride with their children -- all taking a cue from the Disney park in Orlando, Fla. "I know the hardship many families have making the jaunt to Orlando; my mission is to make Six Flags the better alternative," Mr. Shapiro said after meeting with about 100 employees at Six Flags America in Largo yesterday. Six Flags Chairman Daniel Snyder brought Mr. Shapiro to the world's largest regional theme park company in December after the Washington Redskins owner took control of Six Flags in a proxy battle that ended in November. Mr. Shapiro was the chief executive officer at Red Zone LLC, Mr. Snyder's private investment company. He also spent 12 years at ESPN, which is owned by Disney. A marketing agreement between the football team and Six Flags America is almost a given, he said. "If the Redskins help us sell tickets, we'll help them sell tickets," Mr. Shapiro said, adding that the parties haven't discussed anything yet. "I'm kind of taking that one for granted." He's bringing the sponsorship philosophy to all Six Flag's parks -- to roller coasters, food stands and games. Sunkist earlier this week was named official fruit supplier of the New York theme park company, and there are rumors of talks with Pizza Hut and Papa John's. "I don't want to overcommercialize the park," Mr. Shapiro said. "If they want to sponsor a roller coaster, that's fine. If they want the FedEx Express, 'we get you there the fastest,' I have no problem with that. People trust that brand." By 2007, arcade games, rock walls and features that cost an extra fee will be included in admission, he said. Those costs could be absorbed by sponsorships and promotions with products such as Sony's Playstation or Microsoft's XBox, he speculated. "Smart marketers will begin to use Six Flags to reach people," Mr. Shapiro said. "We have a captive audience that spends 10 hours a day here. Opera, movie, Redskins game -- nobody [else] is spending 10 hours anywhere." The changes are all focused on marketing to children and their parents, who spend more money than thrill-seeking teenagers. "You know what makes a theme park? It's the environment," Mr. Shapiro told Six Flag's staff. "It takes me an hour to get on a ride at Disney because I get stuck on Main Street USA." Modeled after the entrance to Disney World, he plans to add food carts, coffee stands, photographers, garbage cans and bathroom attendants, Mr. Shapiro said as he walked the park with management, including new general manager Terry W. Prather, who held the same position at Six Flags New Orleans. "We're not abandoning roller coasters," he said. "We have two audiences we have to serve. We'll continue to be the thrill-ride leader ... and families. We have to get the balance back." But he told employees that the 30-park company is $2.6 billion in debt, so Six Flags doesn't have the money to make additional changes until 2007. Six Flags has hired Staubach Co., an Addison, Texas, real estate company to analyze the company's real estate holdings and assist in determining what should be sold to pay off debt. Mr. Shapiro wouldn't say that Six Flags America is safe from the ax, but said he likes the Baltimore-Washington market. "If the community responds [to the park's changes], this will become a no-touch market," he said. Six Flags America will hire 400 additional seasonal employees this summer, boosting its seasonal figure to 2,000. Attendance there climbed about 3.5 percent last year following four years of declining figures. The park will spend $80,000 to remove the Iron Eagle roller coaster that had become an unpopular "eyesore," said Mr. Shapiro, who conceded he doesn't like riding the upside-down rides, but loves big drops and traditional rides such as the Tilt-A-Whirl.
By 2007, arcade games, rock walls and features that cost an extra fee will be included in admission, he said. Those costs could be absorbed by sponsorships and promotions with products such as Sony's Playstation or Microsoft's XBox, he speculated.
The park will spend $80,000 to remove the Iron Eagle roller coaster that had become an unpopular "eyesore," said Mr. Shapiro, who conceded he doesn't like riding the upside-down rides, but loves big drops and traditional rides such as the Tilt-A-Whirl.
I acknowledged that, but there are other chains that will forever be better at being the alternative to Disney (Universal, Busch) because of reputation, less parks to maintain, and not as deep in debt.
^But if they keep focusing on Thrills, they will only get further and further into debt. That's the whole point. Building MultiMillion dollar roller coasters for a one year bump in attendance does not pay off! And the new management understands this. The best quote I've see referred to the fact that for the cost of one of these new coasters, they could totally revamp a section of the park, making it more appealing to EVERYONE. These are the kind of things they want to do to try and change Six Flags' reputation.
Again, the only way they are going to get out of debt is to stop squandering money on things that do not pay themselves off! In addition, even Universal and Busch are destination parks. There is pretty much a Six Flags that is local (i.e. Day Trip) all over the US! THAT is the key here. Convincing people that want the Disney (or Busch or Universal) Experience that they do not need to spend $1000's and get on a plane to do so. Just take a day trip to your local Six Flags!
Quote from: "stew560"^But if they keep focusing on Thrills, they will only get further and further into debt. That's the whole point. Building MultiMillion dollar roller coasters for a one year bump in attendance does not pay off! And the new management understands this. The best quote I've see referred to the fact that for the cost of one of these new coasters, they could totally revamp a section of the park, making it more appealing to EVERYONE. These are the kind of things they want to do to try and change Six Flags' reputation.Again, look at my past posts, I agree 100% they should focus on other things at this point. But to neglect thrill seekers is a slap in the face to their biggest audience. Whether you think us types are profitable because we are in teens-20's is your business, but SF isn't gonna be a true family park and be successful. Ever. They need to bridge the gap between thrills/family/theming, which is why i say Paramount is perfect example and the gold standard they should look at.
QuoteAgain, the only way they are going to get out of debt is to stop squandering money on things that do not pay themselves off! In addition, even Universal and Busch are destination parks. There is pretty much a Six Flags that is local (i.e. Day Trip) all over the US! THAT is the key here. Convincing people that want the Disney (or Busch or Universal) Experience that they do not need to spend $1000's and get on a plane to do so. Just take a day trip to your local Six Flags!Coasters pay themselves off. That is the biggest misconsemption out there. It is a matter of if you add them every year or if you don't do anything else to bring people back. My favorite saying that I created....Coasters attract, the park quality bring 'em back. That is why say GADV was SO successful this year and in 2001 with Nitro, yet there was a huge drop in attendance in 2002, and if Toro wasn't being built in 2006, probably a drop next year. That is why SFMM felt the need to add Scream! in 2003, also.
Again, SF will never be a successful alternative to Disney. Most families out there will just suck up the money to go to one of the Orlando or SoCal parks if they want that type of enviorment. SF has always been unique because of their thrills. They should not do away with that aura, but rather build on it and bring in the park quality and atmosphere of the upper tier park chains (Universal, Busch, Disney, etc..). There needs to be a bridge between the gap of families and thrills, and SF could easily do it and attract EVERYONE, rather than families/little kids like Disney does.
You must not be paying too much attention to what Shapiro is saying. He understands the importance of the thrill seaker audience to Six Flags, and has stated numerous times that he is not going to neglect or abandon them. They are simply going to stop focusing solely on thrill seakers, and spread the focus onto families as well (which still would include thrill seakers). As for the Paramount comment, that's my bet on the type of park we will probably see the Six Flags chain molded into. Not quite Disney, but good enough that you don't think of it as just some time-killer or expensive baby-sitter.
Read that over. You're contradicting yourself there. If coasters payed themselves off in a manner that was condusive to good fiscal management, then SFMM wouldn't feel the need to throw another coaster in year after year. One coaster should be able to bump attendance up for several years if that was the case. I guarantee that none of those coasters caused a single-season bump so significant that it literally paid itself off. They all do, yes. But the fact that it takes so long to do so is what got SFI into debt in the first place.
You're thinking "competitor", not "alternative". When families go on vacation, they think "Disney", "Universal", "Busch Gardens". They think destination parks. Six Flags, from what Shapiro is saying, is not trying to be that. Six Flags is trying to be the type of park where a family might say "We want to experience Disney quality entertainment/fun, but it costs too much. Where else could we go besides a destination park?" That's the niche they are trying to fill. The they are trying to fill that gap in there where the day trippers will be happy, and the destination trip people might give it a shot because it's a high quality chain. My placement for the chain if all was to go as planned would be just under Busch, but just above Paramount.Lastly, they are trying to do what you said in your last sentence. They are trying to "attract EVERYONE, rather than families/little kids like Disney does."
A.L.: You mentioned earlier that building major roller coasters and thrill rides was among the missteps of the previous Six Flags leadership, and that you want to attract more families with younger children. Are the two necessarily mutually exclusive? Are you taking Six Flags, world renowned for its ride arsenal, out of the coaster wars by placing a moratorium on blockbuster thrill rides?M.S.: There's no moratorium. That's a misconception. But we need to diversify. We have 17 roller coasters at Six Flags Magic Mountain--that's too many. It's become like a drug. This industry has become addicted to roller coasters. We put them up. The attendance goes up. If we don?t do something the next year, we fall behind. We can't be so reliant on roller coasters. It's about balance. The pendulum has swung so far to teenagers, that our research shows Mom and Dad are pausing when it comes to Six Flags. I need to get rid of that pause. We can--and will--add roller coasters, but we can't abandon the rest of the park. Look, I love coasters. My favorite ride is the American Eagle (racing wood coaster at Six Flags Great America near Chicago). That's where I grew up. I'm proud of our thrill ride heritage. But, so much of our focus has been on roller coasters that our eye was off the ball when it came to taking care of the parks and taking care of our guests.
Arthur Levine: What do you see as the most pressing concerns in your drive to improve the chain, and what immediate changes can visitors expect this season at Six Flags parks?Mark Shapiro: Overall, we're going to improve the value. And we're going to diversify the entertainment. I think in the past, we've focused too much on just the rides. We were just roller coasters. We were just thrill parks. That works. But that can't be the only guiding light. It's going to be about the overall package: parades, shows, fireworks, rides that families can enjoy together, concerts, celebrity appearances. And we're going to improve guest service with safe, clean environments, and by moving the lines quicker--ride lines, food lines, ticket lines. We're going to have ride breakdowns. That's the nature of the business. But people will forgive us if we over-deliver on the overall guest experience. In the past, Six Flags has fallen behind on the delivery promise.
Everyone I know didn't know it was closed, except cousins who live in Jackson. What kept turnstiles clicking was the huge coasters like Nitro, and hope that KK may possibly be open. Temple of the Tiger gets some crowds, but I highly, HIGHLY, H-I-G-H-L-Y doubt that people saw those commercials and said, "I'm gonna drive an hour and pay 50 dollars a pop to see a few tigers." Shows don't attract people (unless it is something totally amazing and new), they help even out crowds when in aprk and make visits more enjoyable. But bottom line is the coasters are what people come for. On a side note, I would bet you 75% of the people who enter the GK are heading towards the big, green, penis-looking structure.
Topic: Six Flags trying to be alternative to Disney World (Read 8470 times)
