Register or Login to Hide This Ad for Free!
Beyond just a change in brand strategy, the current CEO is dealing with the legacy pricing strategy of ultra cheap passes that made no logical sense ($50-70 a year in expensive metros with huge capital expenses from big coasters).

While it wasn't a Ponzi scheme, the results arent much different than when one collapses.
I honestly don't think this is the full picture. Yes, Six Flags' passes were ridiculously cheap but there was a method to that madness. If you exclude the babysitter crowd what Six Flags understood was that season passes drove attendance and then they used the attendance to drive income from ridiculously priced products in the park. Their execution was flawed in that they had horrible tasting food and not a lot of merchandise that people wanted but I think they had a perfectly viable plan -- and one that clearly worked fine for decades (even with the food and merchandise quality issues) and would have continued to work fine for years to come. Tons of people got Six Flags passes every year because they were so cheap which was a steady income. I think people are faulting the strategy that Six Flags had way too much. To be clear, I'm not faulting a change from happening and a higher price but there's no justification for the price they've selected while removing nearly all of the benefits that the passes used to come with.
 
I honestly don't think this is the full picture. Yes, Six Flags' passes were ridiculously cheap but there was a method to that madness. If you exclude the babysitter crowd what Six Flags understood was that season passes drove attendance and then they used the attendance to drive income from ridiculously priced products in the park. Their execution was flawed in that they had horrible tasting food and not a lot of merchandise that people wanted but I think they had a perfectly viable plan -- and one that clearly worked fine for decades (even with the food and merchandise quality issues) and would have continued to work fine for years to come. Tons of people got Six Flags passes every year because they were so cheap which was a steady income. I think people are faulting the strategy that Six Flags had way too much. To be clear, I'm not faulting a change from happening and a higher price but there's no justification for the price they've selected while removing nearly all of the benefits that the passes used to come with.
This strategy of selling at such low prices that are likely less than cost only works until it doesn’t. It’s like a gym that sells $20/month memberships and then goes out of business after a few years. The revenue model is dependent on people buying memberships, recognizing revenue, and then having a significant portion of that membership not use or hardly ever use the facility. Once the bottom falls out on that business model and new members stop coming in, the business falls into a death spiral of sorts, which SF appears desperate to get out of.

Looking at SEAS and CF business models, both are largely sustainable in that the prices being charged cover the costs of running the business without gimmicky cross subsidizing. Basically it’s the $50-60 month gym model that can sustain itself long term.
 
SF problem overall was lack of payment plan purchases ever paying off the plan. People would buy and set up EZPay, then change payment info after using the pass for a month and never return. So people were literally getting 10-15 visits in for $8.
 
^^-- That would still work if people spent $10-$30 each visit, but the park gave away the food too. The only thing that really made money was Flash Pass.

(I've never had the Dining Plan due to few visits, long lines and time limits on the Lunch plan, but in 2020 they dropped the limits -- I didn't find out until later -- and kept it that way in 2021. $39 to get a meal and a snack every visit!)
 
^^-- That would still work if people spent $10-$30 each visit, but the park gave away the food too. The only thing that really made money was Flash Pass.

(I've never had the Dining Plan due to few visits, long lines and time limits on the Lunch plan, but in 2020 they dropped the limits -- I didn't find out until later -- and kept it that way in 2021. $39 to get a meal and a snack every visit!)
I can definitively say that the nonpayment after the down payment is the biggest issue that changed. The default rate at SFA was incredibly high and a uniquely SF issue that they were looking to correct. Step one was to take away EZPay, and step two is to increase costs. I would not be shocked if soon they drop the lowest tier of passes too.
 
The dining plan was ludicrously cheap, but the food really wasn't very good. I got it anyway, because at least it was cheap and convenient. I didn't get their "dining plan" this season because it no longer seems like much of a value, especially given that the food isn't very good. If they improve the food a lot, I'd re-consider it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zachary
I'd agree. My experience with the food at all 4 six flags parks I visited this summer was sub par especially being spoiled with KDs dining plan. No prime rib at Six Flags....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Coasternerd
This strategy of selling at such low prices that are likely less than cost only works until it doesn’t. It’s like a gym that sells $20/month memberships and then goes out of business after a few years. The revenue model is dependent on people buying memberships, recognizing revenue, and then having a significant portion of that membership not use or hardly ever use the facility. Once the bottom falls out on that business model and new members stop coming in, the business falls into a death spiral of sorts, which SF appears desperate to get out of.

Looking at SEAS and CF business models, both are largely sustainable in that the prices being charged cover the costs of running the business without gimmicky cross subsidizing. Basically it’s the $50-60 month gym model that can sustain itself long term.
The gym membership doesn't really work here because they don't really drive income the more that you visit. In that case they literally do want people to buy and not use. You seem to have completely missed my pointed.

I can definitively say that the nonpayment after the down payment is the biggest issue that changed. The default rate at SFA was incredibly high and a uniquely SF issue that they were looking to correct. Step one was to take away EZPay, and step two is to increase costs. I would not be shocked if soon they drop the lowest tier of passes too.
This was certainly an issue I could see being a motivator for the memberships going away but that's really a different subject as I'm talking about total price. Additionally, do we actually have any numbers on how many defaults there were? The fact that SFA is being singled out for that problem makes me think there is a feedback loop that could be fueling the impression of how big of an issue that really was -- especially considering they were bought on a credit card that auto-billed and is very different than someone "just not paying" the rest of their commitment.

The dining plan was ludicrously cheap, but the food really wasn't very good. I got it anyway, because at least it was cheap and convenient. I didn't get their "dining plan" this season because it no longer seems like much of a value, especially given that the food isn't very good. If they improve the food a lot, I'd re-consider it.
Six Flags was making a killing off of food sales in their parks. The dining plan may not have been producing the money on it's face value but even if you bought one thing extra during the transaction you more than covered the cost of the low quality food (and I personally rarely saw anyone in line that didn't use their credit card for at least something regardless of whether or not they had the dining plan or not.
 
@CoasterTalkBob I’ve shared with @Zachary where I get my info on SF and SFA. I don’t want to share too much to hurt that relationship but I can say it’s more in the majority than minority where they do set up with a card, and then it falls into default (nonpayment) after month 1, and likely collections after that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CoasterTalkBob
@CoasterTalkBob I’ve shared with @Zachary where I get my info on SF and SFA. I don’t want to share too much to hurt that relationship but I can say it’s more in the majority than minority where they do set up with a card, and then it falls into default (nonpayment) after month 1, and likely collections after that.
More than fair.... I just had constantly heard it being said but never knew where it actually came from. Is SFA any different than other SF parks or is that information that you don't have?

I'm also really curious of the method used.... do people just use prepaid cards to set it up? It's my understanding that if you use an actual credit card these types of charges can be completed even if your card is over limit. With debit cards, that's not the case but in both cases if you get a new card number those future transactions can still be charged.
 
More than fair.... I just had constantly heard it being said but never knew where it actually came from. Is SFA any different than other SF parks or is that information that you don't have?

I'm also really curious of the method used.... do people just use prepaid cards to set it up? It's my understanding that if you use an actual credit card these types of charges can be completed even if your card is over limit. With debit cards, that's not the case but in both cases if you get a new card number those future transactions can still be charged.
It is widespread with SFA ranking as the worst.

It’s being set up with debit cards and credit cards where people then deactivate the cards. As far as I’m aware prepaid cards cannot be used for transactions like this.

It’s basically a form of a scam where people use the card to set something up, then change the information.
 
It’s basically a form of a scam where people use the card to set something up, then change the information.
So that's the thing.... if you have a monthly subscription (of which this is) those payments carry through to a new card number if you cancel and get a replacement. I've had this happen to me on numerous occasions. The Visa/MC system allows this to carry through to the new card assigned. You would have to actually be closing the account entirely. I supposed it's also possible that Six Flags opted to not set this type of transaction up (I don't know how it works on the merchant end).

To be clear, I'm not at all questioning that it's happening.... this is more just my curiosity of how most people are doing this.
 
So that's the thing.... if you have a monthly subscription (of which this is) those payments carry through to a new card number if you cancel and get a replacement. I've had this happen to me on numerous occasions. The Visa/MC system allows this to carry through to the new card assigned. You would have to actually be closing the account entirely. I supposed it's also possible that Six Flags opted to not set this type of transaction up (I don't know how it works on the merchant end).

To be clear, I'm not at all questioning that it's happening.... this is more just my curiosity of how most people are doing this.
They have not set up a carry over. That’s more on bank end than consumer end.
 
Whatever the cause, it's something SIX will need to solve long-term I think. It seems clear to me that park subscription programs like BGW's membership program are inevitably the future. They represent so many benefits to the parks.
 
Heard a rumor (not enough backup yet, and it's hit Screamscape) that SFNE, SFGAdv, SFA, SFG, SFStL presidents are all out.
 
Just got a text from a friend:
SFGAdv general parking - $40
SFGAdv preferred parking - $75
This kind of fee is just straight gouging. I get raising season pass fees, even significant amounts, if they are being heavily used by customers. Raising daily ticket prices and parking just deters one time guests and makes it less likely a future long term customer would make that initial visit to start down the road to being a pass holder.
 
Consider Donating to Hide This Ad