No.I presume they didn’t mention where it went.
Would all of the Passmember perks be considered marketing expenses? There were a lot of generous benefits not initially announced but I don’t know if that would account for $9.5 mil over budget
I totally forgot about the Chinese investor issue.If you recall, our Chinese investor went belly up, and so the board had to react to do something to take those shares off of the liquidator and increase investor confidence. Hill Path bought most of those shares with SeaWorld repurchasing the rest.
Here's the quote:
"Our progress on cost reductions was masked in the quarter by a significant overspend in marketing expense of approximately $9.5 million related to less disciplined management of certain marketing related costs. We have since made adjustments to our process to better manage these costs and do not expect this type of overspend to repeat," continued Swanson.
As I said earlier. Sounds like a complete shitshow. Someone may likely have been fired over this.
Some of those would be factored in but they are mostly fixed as a lot of those giveaways would have already been paid for it's an item with no not cost to SEAS like a free bring a friend ticket. There isn't a marketing cost to offering that. You are just potentially losing ticket revenue.Would all of the Passmember perks be considered marketing expenses? There were a lot of generous benefits not initially announced but I don’t know if that would account for $9.5 mil over budget
I don't think so. It sounded more like them buying ads and such there was a good quote from the QA section that I'm waiting to get.. have to wait until the recording is posted to get it.
I have theory on this. It's possible that some of the overspend is attributed to the individual parks overspending. They will likely have their overspend approved by their park president. I don't think that was park would over spend by more than a few 100k so we are maybe looking at 1/3 of that overspend. But spending on the corporate level to get to that point likely required CEO, CFO, CMO or even board approval.Makes me wonder how the marketing overspend could happen - aren't the budget line items a limiting factor, approval needed to go over them?
Some of this could also be related to increased marketing for 2020 attractions and a push to try and push summer attendance higher and the marketing didn't have the desired effect. Honestly if attendance had seen a significant increase then this wouldn't have been an issue on the call.
I didn't say it was all attributed to that. Just that some of it could be from the marketing materials that the parks created for the 2020 attractions.I'm not sure how someone could spend $9 million on marketing the 2020 attractions, especially considering that SWSD hasn't even posted anything about its coaster on its social media, and whose PR department won't even tell us what it will be named.
Could this possibly related to Antorcha's departure?
Damn internsOk. 9 million is a lot of overage. I'm not a marketing person but what if they contracted with a major website for strategically placed advertising. Say its .05 per ad for a week. I know after visiting BGW website I get ads that pop up all the time. What if in doing this they failed to set a limit and the costs had a major overrun and were obligated to pay per the contract. I find it interesting to say that they put policies in place to prevent in the future. Surely someone in marketing couldn't blow past their budget 9 million unchecked.