Hedge fund pushes for changes at Six Flags
Here we go again. A hedge fund is pushing Six Flags to fire its chairman... or to sell the company.
Jana Partners announced its investment in Six Flags last year, bringing aboard NFL star Travis Kelce as a partner. Six Flags recently announced that Kelce will serve as brand ambassador for the amusement park chain, recording a series of promotional videos for its parks this year. However, a new celebrity spokesperson is not the only change that Jana Partners wants to see at Six Flags.
In a letter reviewed by Reuters, the hedge fund now is asking for a new chairman of Six Flags' board of directors who can "deliver" more for shareholders. [See Jana Partners pushes Six Flags to explore sale, replace board chair, letter says.]
Marilyn Spiegel was named chairman of the board in January, and has been a member of that board since 2023. Six Flags' CEO is John Reilly, who stated in December after previously running Palace Entertainment and SeaWorld Parks. So far, Jana Partners has supported Reilly and not called for his removal. But the hedge fund wants new leadership at the board who will engage what the Jana called "known buyer interest" in the company.
Six Flags certainly faces many challenges, including billions of dollars in debt, but the last thing this company needs is a push to deliver more value for shareholders over a period of just a few months.
Six Flags offers potential for strong financial resort results in the long term. Market leaders Disney and Universal have been aggressive with price increases, positioning themselves as week-long vacation destinations. That leaves an opportunity in the market for a company like Six Flags to reach consumers who feel priced out by Disney and Universal, or who are looking only for a day trip rather than a long vacation.
Rising travel costs also provide regional attractions the chance to market against long-distance travel destinations this summer, which could help Six Flags' performance. But to connect with value-driven consumers, Six Flags needs to stop driving them away. Right now, too many Six Flags parks are running with one-train operations on their major coasters, leading to long waits and frustrated visitors. That's not the way to create positive guest experiences that drive long-term value for the company.
Why is Six Flags doing that? Because it is looking for that short-term return that many investors these days are demanding. One-train operations help save money on labor and maintenance costs, but, again, those savings come at the opportunity cost of building goodwill and loyalty among customers.
Six Flags is fundamentally misaligned with the current market, both on the demand and supply sides. It has too many parks in locations that are not experiencing strong economic growth. The attractions that it now offers across its chain are too often designed for a previous generation. They do not meet the needs of current market demographics. Nor are Six Flags' parks designed for warming and extreme weather.
To appeal to a wider demographic, Six Flags needs more family coasters, dark rides, water rides, and shows. It needs more air conditioned, or at least shaded and well ventilated, spaces in its theme parks to protect against the extreme heat that is keeping more people away from the parks during the summer season.
The company recently announced that it would sell six of its U.S. properties to Enchanted Parks. But Six Flags probably needs to sell more properties to raise the cash it needs to invest in the new attractions and facility upgrades that its top parks need to compete.
Six Flags also is fundamentally misaligned with the current labor market. Its model of hiring students to work for the summer is no longer staffing its parks well enough to support the operations and services that customers demand. The students who need to work the summer usually need to work during the school year as well. They want hours that Six Flags' limited operating calendar cannot deliver.
Students who do not need to work during the school year increasingly are not working through the summers, either. They are playing club sports or going to arts camps or doing something else that they see promoting their college or career goals. Disney is able to reach to some of these students with its college program, which can lead to careers with Disney. But Six Flags simply doesn't offer enough full-time career opportunities for that to be a viable program for the company. To survive, Six Flags needs more than just students as workers.
Great employees are experienced employees. But Six Flags' poor offer to its employees leads many of them to quit after one season, if not before. That turnover further damages its ability to win and retain customers, as well.
Ironically, Six Flags' attempt to minimize its expenses by reducing its operating calendar makes the problem worse. Longer seasons and holiday operations would allow Six Flags to offer more hours throughout the year, which could make it a more attractive place for potential employees to apply. Six Flags also will have to offer higher wages and better benefits in addition to more hours if it wants to hire and retain the workforce that it needs.
As a result of these misalignments, Six Flags cannot meet industry benchmarks for return on investment in the near term. It simply cannot deliver the same financial results as companies that are properly aligned with the market, such as Disney and Universal and the privately-held Herschend. Six Flags must invest at the detriment of its short-term ROI in order correct these misalignments and unlock its long-term potential.
But that only works for investors who are in for the long haul. America's tax code no longer incentivizes long-term investment, and as a result, we have seen a culture shift toward strip-mining companies for short-term gain, leaving employees and customers with nothing.
I believe that millions of Americans want nice, affordable, well-run and well-maintained amusement parks to visit. They want something in between the state fair and Disneyland. Six Flags used to provide that, and could again, with investor patience and forward-looking leadership. But forcing yet another leadership change at the company will push Six Flags only deeper into a death spiral.
Yet if that helps some billion-dollar hedge fund make yet another buck that they do not need, that is probably what Six Flags fans and employees will get.
* * *
For our weekly update of theme park news, please sign up for Theme Park Insider's weekend newsletter.
Replies (4)
This is exactly what is wrong with business in the world today, not just the theme park business. When a company is publicly traded, investors mandate 10+% year over year growth and companies and management are under pressure to not only deliver that growth quarter after quarter, but better themselves every single reporting period. At some point, a company can only grow so much, particularly in certain mature and saturated industries, yet Wall Street's reaction to a plateau or heaven forfend a slight down tick is to tank a company's stock.
The reality is that investors buying FUN need a serious reality check and understand that their investment (in the form of stock) needs to go towards major capital improvements and paying down the company's monumental debt. Demanding a leadership change won't change the reality of this company and its significant hurdles to find success after the merger. However, making demands and expecting the company to deliver growth in a difficult market and economy (and a mismatched portfolio of properties) is not going to deliver any success.
I remember the good old days of the Six flags commercials with Mr. Six
and Vengaboys - We like to Party!
What happened?
I see a few red flags that says to me, the board is a mess and they continue to make decisions based on a lack mindset, not the overall picture. 1) They say they want to target family demographics, but they make Travis Kelce a park ambassador. Someone who doesn’t have a wife and kids himself so clearly it’s only for his ‘likeliness’ in the NFL (which is hardly family oriented). Makes no sense. Hire a famous family w/ kids instead! 2) Jana wanting more short term turnaround for more shareholder value says their not in it for the long haul. Let them go! They clearly don’t have the best intentions for Six Flags if they are looking at short term profit gain. And, 3) I haven’t seen one fun, Six Flags commercial that makes me want to get up off the couch and visit a park like they used to, and I live in Cincinnati.
This article has been archived and is no longer accepting comments.
Absolutely hilarious that the brand ambassador for the amusement park chain is from a market(s) where SF is selling their park(s)! Worlds of Fun and SFStL are part of the sale to Enchanted. I get that because he is engaged to Taylor Swift, he isn't tied to the KC or Missouri market solely, but if that doesn't just sum up SF's strategy (or lack there of) in a nutshell. Let's bring on a brand ambassador and then sell the park where he might have the biggest influence! I know the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing at SF, but this seems like the fingers on the same hand are operating independently.