RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?
Zimmy said:
halfabee said:
I imagine there surely are different curves for different parks in the chain for the same general ride type -- based on guest demographic, regional competition, operating schedule, etc. None may match BGW too closely. But if installing a similar ride, suitably adjusted peer performance probably factors into the decision making as well.
When installing a Sky Flyer or Giga, on the other hand... well, that's kinda unique in the chain, so...
Also, it's "Bueller."
I was rushing..
I probably should go re-write that post for clarity. But I agree there are going to be any number of factors. I think my point was for a quick baseline, a 30,000' view, as it were, a look at attendance at the door delta would be a good start. From there you can start to look at total % of gross rev and compare it to similar cost output in other parts of the chain, ROI elsewhere, and of course similar rides in similar parks elsewhere. But if you want a thumb nail sketch what I suggested would work, and frankly be fairly accurate.
something something... past performance is the best indicator of future performance... something something...
Yea that's all over my head, but I get the economic planning you are talking about. Did the actual line of revenue jump enough over the projected line based on linear growth.
Getting back the my main point of how do you measure it, basically what deems it a "worthy investment" (basically what we're talking about here) is what the overall impact the new ride has on the park. If you look at a micro-economic scale of "Oh the ride and new hamlet cost us $65 mil, and it only pulled in $15 mil in year one it's a failure" I think that's a mistake to deem the ride successful. But if you look at the macro-economic scale (I hope I'm using micro and macro right here, I didn't do well in Economic Geography), and say the park spent $70 mil in upgrades (paint other areas, update shows, ect); and this year it grossed an additional $45mil over last year (tickets, food, merch across the park), that could be deemed a success. I'm sure they are looking at a 5 year impact too of what the investment vs payout would be, as well as a 10 year and 20 year.
(bear with me I know I'm using a ton of made up numbers here)
So I used ridership, pass holder return trips, and length of stay as things that matter because if people ride more, they are staying the the hamlet, and that means more locker rental chances, more people possibly buying ride specific merch, more photos ops. Pass Holder return trips because the more a pass holder comes the greater the chance they spend money. Length of stay same thing. The worst thing for the park is a pass holder that comes, parks for free, spends 3-4 hours, rides 3-4 rides, watches a show, and goes home. They literally make no money on that pass holder after a while. But if that pass holder comes in less often, stays 6-10 hours, doesn't have food or drink plans is bound to buy drinks, meals, snacks.
Yes it's great to look at the bottom line of cash in and cash out, but you have to look at the things that promote spending money in the park. Every little thing like that matters when looking at the overall impact of these things.
Another impact here to think about: Another high profile ride will keep people happy. No not just from a new ride, but it will draw from other areas of the park, making other ride lines a little shorter, which means in a stay you can do more, and doing more means happier people, which means longer stays, and again more money coming in.
