Can Six Flags close parks without losing customers?

Six Flags reminds me of an episode of "The Office" called "Shareholder's Meeting" in which Michael Scott announces to Dunder Mifflin's angry shareholders there is a 45-day plan to save the failing company. The only problem is there is no 45-day plan. So the execs hastily retreat for a quick meeting:

Michael: We tell them the plan, right?

David: There is no plan.

Michael: Here's what we're gonna do. The 45 day thing that I outlined, we go with that. Day 45, company saved. Day 44, go. What do we got? We have 15 minutes.

O'Keefe: Excuse me?

Michael: Just whatever comes to mind. Shout it out.

That's what I imagine Six Flags exec meetings are like.

Given that my home park isn't a SF or CF park, I'm incredibly entertained watching this dumpster fire. It's a lot more entertaining than the dumpster fire at BGT. . .still waiting on Scorpion's replacement. It's been two years.

@VCFan, Scorpion didn't have a very big footprint but Stanley Falls did and they just recently took it down. I would expect an announcement this spring.

I'm not buying this. Sure, it's possible that SF management are fooling themselves into thinking that handing out this regional pass perk gives them cover for when they close parks, but it's not going to prevent them from bleeding customers when those parks close. If this is what they're doing (with clear foresight), then it is absolutely "bait and switch", because most guests who knowingly bought the lowest tier passes simply don't care or wouldn't utilize this perk.

When you look at the rumored parks that would be sold to Enchanted Parks, there are only three traditional theme parks that would be impacted: Michigan Adventure, Great Escape, and SF St. Louis. CP, the closest park to MA, is 4/5 hours away, SFNE, the closest park to Great Escape, is 2.5 hours away, and Worlds of Fun, the closest park to SFStL, is almost 4 hours away. Sure, there are likely a decent number of guests who live between these pairs of parks, but there were obvious reasons why individuals purchase passes for their home parks and didn't pay the upcharge to access multiple parks at the time.

Now, while many hard-core theme park fans would travel to the ends of the earth to experience new rides and attractions, the average theme park guest doesn't. These people buy the lowest tier pass because it's cheap and because they don't see value in spending more for a pass just in the off chance that they may want to go to another theme park a 3+ hour drive away. Sure, if these types of guests find themselves on vacation near a park they can enter on their annual pass, they might make time to visit, but if they didn't have the ability to get into other parks for free on their annual pass, they'd probably just buy a single day admission for that park, and might be even more inclined to do so if they got a discounted admission on their annual pass than visiting a park outside of their home park that is free. In other words, guests who didn't want this perk to begin with are not going to plan a trip to another park just because SF is giving this to them for free. These folks are also liable to be even more insulted if this is being done as a preemptive "make good" for the closing of the park closest to their home. If SF is indeed doing this strategically as a way to butter up guests who are about to lose access to their home parks than it would be one of the most ruthless moves SF has ever made. Frankly, I don't think SF knows what they're doing, and isn't nearly clever enough to do something so ruthlessly strategic like this. If it is, I guess a tip of the cap to them for actually thinking ahead, but they should be ready for yet another wave of lawsuits from guests who feel betrayed for what can easily be argued as "bait and switch". However, I'm still convinced this is yet another ploy by SF at trying to raise capital through unnecessary discounting that will lead to yet another confusing, contorted statement 2-3 months from now announcing another season pass sale or new pass perks/tier that will make existing customers feeling like they've been duped.

I know it's a difficult concept for SF to understand, but customer loyalty is something the chain has taken for granted for nearly 2 decades now (something CF at least had some respect for). If SF loses their remaining core, loyal fans, that's when the chain is doomed, and stunts like this along with a disrespectful bait and switch move that is suggested here will further erode an already shrinking fanbase that this company will need if it wants to turn the ship around.

@Russell,

Agreed. Growing up in the Boston area, I can say that there is no world in which droves of Red Sox fans (which is basically everyone in the region) are going to spend their weekends driving into Yankees territory if there isn't a Red Sox game involved. Those 2.5 hours to Great Adventure might as well be a drive to Vancouver. SFNE is already like an hour from Boston anyhow.

I can see how it makes sense. If it's an annual park pass, the pass follows the park, and Six Flags loses the customer if the park closes/is sold. But if it's an annual Six Flags visit-any-park-in-your-zone pass, Six Flags keeps the customer, too bad so sad if your local park isn't available. You can still theoretically use the pass as there's a park in your zone, so no refund.

I hate living in the future.

This is a great point... Don't loose customers.. But they have got to fix the broken business model that is known as the cheap season pass... It's not working.. it's going to hurt customers.. 99 bucks is extremely cheap... But it is not in any way shape or form profitable... The model is not working.. rip the band aid off...

Back in the day, Cedar Fair used to talk about 100 mile and 150 mile radius for their properties. The idea was that those within 100 miles were the prospective passholders, guests that would likely be open to the idea of buying a pass and going three or four times during the season, then the 150 mile range was those who might not necessarily buy a pass but were close enough they could visit as a day trip. Except at the largest properties, there was minimal (if any) consideration given to those outside that radius.

If we use these values with the regions Six Flags has defined, here's what we get...

East: The northern part of this region has quite a bit of overlap. The largest park in the region, Great Adventure, shares quite a bit of its circle with Dorney Park, and there are also regions of that combined circle shared with New England, including the New York area, plus a small slice of Great Adventure's that overlaps with Kings Dominion. Great Escape has a reasonable overlap with New England as well, but I'm not sure it's close enough to convert Great Escape passholders into New England passholders (especially if Great Escape continues operating). Carowinds and Over Georgia are too far from each other and from other parks in the region to really get much cross-park traffic.

Midwest: If it weren't for the international border, Canada's Wonderland and Darien Lake would likely have a ton of share as the two parks are fairly close to each other. The two Ohio parks (Cedar Point and Kings Island) share some overlap in the Columbus area, but neither of those are going anywhere. Great America and Michigan's Adventure also share quite a bit of overlap, including both Chicago and Milwaukee, but again...there probably aren't that many Michigan's Adventure passholders who would simply flip to Great America as it's quite a drive due to the geography. Interestingly, both Missouri parks (St. Louis and Worlds of Fun) are far enough apart that their circles don't overlap. Valleyfair is also a remote park with no neighbors, and La Ronde overlaps with Great Escape's circle rather than anything in its region (that park should have been in the East region).

Texas: There's a tiny bit of overlap between Frontier City and Over Texas, but otherwise the parks here are really too spread out to have much cross traffic. Even though multiple properties are in Texas, that is a huge state.

West: The SoCal parks (Knott's Berry Farm and Magic Mountain) share a majority of their circles with each other, as do the NorCal parks (California's Great America and Discovery Kingdom). I suspect Discovery Kingdom's ability (or lack thereof) to capture the audience of California's Great America after it closes is going to be a major factor as to the future of that park within the chain. Mexico is on its own, but I doubt anyone expects much traffic between that park and any of the US locations.

So no, I don't think this strategy is going to result in pass conversions if Six Flags starts closing parks. There might be a couple cases where such might happen (such as NorCal), but outside of that I just don't see most commuting 2-3 hours further to their "new" home Six Flags frequently enough to maintain an active pass.

This could be the way for Six Flags to get season passes for next year after the local parks have been sold.

The thought would be that after the parks have been sold and the media hit has calmed down, then Six Flags would send out emails for really cheap season passes to everyone whose local park has been sold. Rubes who haven't been paying attention will then purchase those passes not knowing that their local park is not included. When they demand a refund, Six Flags then points to the fact that the pass is for a whole region and not just a particular park...and refuse to refund the money.

Hello friends! First time poster here, but a long time TPI follower. Born and raised in Ohio, ex Geauga Lake employee here so I’ve noticed quite a bit in my life especially with CF.

I feel that a lot of the times, season passes have just become baby sitters for teens during the summer months. Especially when it comes to parks that are surrounded by suburbia (i.e. KI, MA, GL, etc). If you close parks like this, they are just going to lose that customer and they are not the ones traveling to another park in the region. My guess is you would lose them entirely because they aren’t going to travel hours to spend a day at the park, nor stay overnight in the area because it becomes too pricey.

Growing up, my family would go to Geauga Lake regularly because it was local (car pool with friends, work picnics, lunch hour fun, etc). We would also pack our own lunches in a cooler to save money. Cedar Point was not a day trip kinda park for us. It would be a once a year trip because it was more expensive to stay due to hotel, food, souvenirs, etc. Now, my home park is Kings Island and I live 20 mins away. When I have a season pass, I would go for a couple hours, ride a few rides, get a pretzel and blue ice cream and leave. I’m not buying lunch or dinner because the food is awful for the price, souvenirs are overpriced for the quality, don’t need a souvenir photo nor fast pass because I’m not there to pack it all in.

So if SF is going after the season pass kinda crowd, and they get rid of someone’s home park, they’re not going to go to another park as often as they want. The local teens with season passes aren’t the one’s spending the money in the park as much as they want, buying souvenirs, fast passes, and photos every time they visit. They just make the wait times longer and cause more of a ruckus until the parents come pick them up. You gotta attract the vacation families by making it a resort destination like CP. They will spend the money because it’s their summer vacation trip and want to do it all to make it memorable. Especially now that WDW is becoming so expensive for the average family, they have the opportunity to attract families if they make it a multi day experience. SF needs to focus on Quality not Quantity.