Why is Six Flags the way they are?

[rct2wizard360]

This is a question among many enthusiasts is why is Six Flags the garbage dump of the amusement world. Or why are we always modeled off other parks, and why do they run the way they are. Just thought I'd start some discussion.

In my opinion (slightly quoted from the latest CoasterBuzz Podcast) Six Flags and Snyder are all stockholder crazy. Compare this to any company. The object is to sell and keep people coming back. Six Flags isn't doing that. They are focusing on the stocks and such and not what they are there to do. Cedar Fair is doing just that, selling and keeping customers coming in. This is how the smaller parks are still going. I find Six Flags a bunch of sleeping idiots sitting around expecting all the debt to just dissapear because of the stocks.

[/rant]

[Galvan]

And I find you not knowing much about the business world.


Face it, If its Six Flags, Walgreens, Playboy or any other company you can think of, there main goal is to make money.

And how does an amusement park chain make money? They build new rides In the key markets, sell off poor performing assets and market the hell out of there product.

With that said.... The company also has a responsiblity to its shareholders. In this case Dan Synder, since he owns shares in the company, Six Flags is entitled to produce a product that makes shareholders money. If they dont the holders get pissed off.

Synder who undoubtedly spent a good chunk of change on his shares wants to make some cash.

However, the status quo with Six Flags Inc. isnt making Synder and anyone else for that matter any money. Which is why he thinks he can do a better job himself. Which good luck with that, because if the way his football team performs is any indication of his management/ownership skills.... I think I'd have a better chance of running Six Flags.

[greatamerica2003]

And I find you not knowing much about the business world.


Face it, If its Six Flags, Walgreens, Playboy or any other company you can think of, there main goal is to make money.

And how does an amusement park chain make money? They build new rides In the key markets, sell off poor performing assets and market the hell out of there product.

With that said.... The company also has a responsiblity to its shareholders. In this case Dan Synder, since he owns shares in the company, Six Flags is entitled to produce a product that makes shareholders money. If they dont the holders get pissed off.

Synder who undoubtedly spent a good chunk of change on his shares wants to make some cash.

However, the status quo with Six Flags Inc. isnt making Synder and anyone else for that matter any money. Which is why he thinks he can do a better job himself. Which good luck with that, because if the way his football team performs is any indication of his management/ownership skills.... I think I'd have a better chance of running Six Flags.

I couldn't have put it better myself. Nice job.

[twixmix0303]

I think what rct2wizard360 is getting at is the company, SFI, is not paying close enough attention to the operational standpoint of the parks, but only to the financial aspects. It's almost like they forget that the parks are a reality, and they're in control, not the general manager. Part of this problem is that SFI owns or operates just under 30 parks (29 I believe) in the United States, which is too many for the company to effectively oversee. SFI should sell off (or cease operation of) all but Great Adventure, Great America, Magic Mountain, Over Georgia, and Over Texas and focus on these five key parks. Do they really even need to mess with a park in Colorado or Washington, where there is little market and not enough human resources in the company to do so? No. If you look at all the other chains, Paramount's has five parks in the United States, Cedar Fair has more (around 10?), but not nearly as many as 30.

[Galvan]

^

Why not have parks in Colorado and in Washington? Its called a market niche. If one park serves a particular area they get all the revenue for that specific part of the country.

Also im not competing with other parks (i.e. Disney, CF whoever)

By having parks in states and cities that dont have any Six Flags is actually making more revenue and money that way.


It's kinda like building a big hotel on the interstate in the middle of no where. If im the only gig in town im getting 100% of the business when people need my services.

[rct2wizard360]

But if you have a park in Alaska, sure you have no competition but how much money are you really making?

[Galvan]

If theres a market there... youll be making a ton... Obviously theres not which is why there isnt one there. Obviously

[twixmix0303]

I was getting more at the fact that the company itself does not have the human resources (at least at this point) to effectively oversee 30 parks. It's just too much. It costs every other park in the chain everytime another park is added to list. And you can't even compare the market of Los Angeles to the market of Denver.

[twixmix0303]

If theres a market there... youll be making a ton... Obviously theres not which is why there isnt one there. Obviously

Obviously there is a market in Alaska. It's small, but a market nonetheless. Obviously

EDIT: sorry for the double post

[Mr_Paradise_316]

I would love to see that shit happen

[twixmix0303]

See what happen?

[w00dland]

Funny thing about your comparison from Cedar Fair to Six Flags is that Six Flags did better this year.

Six Flags has been making a turnaround lately, catering to families more than thrill seekers. The only park left in the SF chain that is still catering to teens only is SFMM, and thats just because its the only part of that market they have a chance with.

[greatamerica2003]

Back in the 1960s and early 1970s there was a boom in large theme park building. This boom brought us such places as Six Flags Over Texas, Over Georgia and Over Mid-America, Kings Island, Kings Dominion and Carowinds, Worlds of Fun and the two Great America parks.

These places were every bit as good as Disneyland. Food was excellent, theming and landscaping were top-notch, entertainment was original and rides catered to everyone.

Now we have society and corporate greed to blame for the downfall of these parks. Gobbled up by large corporations such as Viacom, Time-Warner, Cedar Fair, and others. The Six Flags chain was owned by the Penn-Central Railroad at one time. This segmented ownership and subsequent change of plans brought good, as well as bad. Now a few operators own theme parks, and to cut costs they steamline everything by making it the same. Who wants to go to SFOT when they can go to SFGAm for the same ride. The parks got boring. Teens will ride coasters all day, but if there isn't something for mom and dad to do, then there is not point in going (and mom and dad make the travel decisions) So these places didn't become destinations like WDW and Universal. They became run of the mill, cookie cutter, BORING.

Case in point, Great America. Once owned by the Marriott hotel chain, it was as good as a stay at one of the hotels. After all, they were in the HOSPITALITY business. They knew how to treat guests. Seafood resteraunts, a circus, IMAX, wonderful shows, a parade. They offered something that other parks didn't. That being said, other parks had stuff that Great America didn't as well.

Fast Forward to today. Six Flags. A name that meant the theme park OZ, the best of the best. Not anymore. You can thank the boys in OKC for that one. A small company that got TOO BIG TOO FAST. And then got rocked by the downturn in the economy 3 years after it grew like a kid in puberty.

So why have other operators fared so well? VOLUME. Not people thru the gates, but the number of properties owned. If you got a bunch of small parks that dont make crap for $$$ and the bigger places do all the work, you have a business plan that doesn't work. And when everything is the same, you don't have people coming in the door.

Think of it this way. (Hypothetically) Would you drive to Wal-Mart in downtown Chicago? Probably not because its the same as the one in Gurnee. But if there was a Marshall Fields in Gurnee, would you drive to the one in Downtown Chicago? I'd bet you would. Why? Because it's different.

[kbfrm]

^^ Well said, I think SF is doing a good job now, and their results have proven they are on the right track. And to the post up above about only keeping 5 parks, well thats a bad idea because there are several parks that turn a profit that aren't so recognized. For example a park people seem to forget about, Six Flags Mexico does well with over 2.3 million visitors anually with more operating days than SFMM. Just about everypark in the chain is profitable, and they have been unloading the under performing parks. I think they are on the right track back to success, they had a great year this year.

[CoastsToCoasters]

Well SFMexico just got that superman morgan hyper coaster, which probally built up that attendence I have friends who moved from mexico and say that SF is the nicest park around mexico with good rides and good cleanliness....and it doesnt look that bad.

[B&MGuy29]

I think what rct2wizard360 is getting at is the company, SFI, is not paying close enough attention to the operational standpoint of the parks, but only to the financial aspects. It's almost like they forget that the parks are a reality, and they're in control, not the general manager. Part of this problem is that SFI owns or operates just under 30 parks (29 I believe) in the United States, which is too many for the company to effectively oversee. SFI should sell off (or cease operation of) all but Great Adventure, Great America, Magic Mountain, Over Georgia, and Over Texas and focus on these five key parks. Do they really even need to mess with a park in Colorado or Washington, where there is little market and not enough human resources in the company to do so? No. If you look at all the other chains, Paramount's has five parks in the United States, Cedar Fair has more (around 10?), but not nearly as many as 30.

I wouldn't be that drastic as to olnly keep 5 parks. I mean remember what the Six Flags name stands for. Remember what Angus Wynne founded the company for. Mr. Wynne envisioned theme parks of a grand scale -- bigger than Disneyland -- located in different regions across the country, making them convenient and affordable to families everywhere. His dream became a reality with the expansion of the company over the years. Sure I'd agree with selling off a few of the underperforming parks but not down to only 5. I mean when i think of Six Flags, I know that no mater where I am at in the country I'm close to one. I believe that this was just the begining this year of growth for the company and good things are sure to come. They really improved on customer service this yr and its the main focus for years to come. That is what will bring the customers back in to the parks.

Then again maybe it's just wishfull thinking!

[Bob O]

One year doing better doesnt make a recovery. For SF to be in decent shape they will have to do this for at least a decade(likely longer) to reduce there massive debt load.
I think the problem was that years ago the managemnt thought bigger is better and forgot that customer service/clean parks/families is your true way too making money. The company got way too big, over extended themselves financially and went away from families while cateering too teens while building mainly coasters with a height limit that excluded alot of people and scared off others.
It does seem that they have finally learned this lesson and are doing a btter job in keeping the parks clean/serving the guests and adding attractions that more of the family can enjoy. Lets hope they keep this up.

I do think they need to downsize the amount of parks they own, get rid of the ones that are losing money or making small amounts so they can pay down more of the debt and use the resources they have among smaller amounts of parks.
Woodland, while SF may have done better this year there shareholders will recieve no dividend which Cedar Fair has paid out for years(and will this year) and SF shareholders wont and are still dealing with a stockprice that has lost alot of its value over the last few years.