Attendance and Ridership: A Theory

https://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2012/06/cedar_point.html

I saw this article posted on a Cedar Point Facebook page and it got me thinking. I’m currently in my dissertation phase of my doctorate degree and have taken several classes on data analysis and quantitative research. I’m curious as to the theories behind ridership numbers and how the park makes their removal decisions.

For example, the above article references Mill Race and how a few hundred thousand guests frequented the attraction in 1993, but in 1994 when Raptor was installed, 2.1 million people rode the attraction. No doubt that Raptor was a better use of the space.

However, I question the logic in regards to removing an attraction by ridership numbers alone because those numbers are relative. In other words, each set of ridership numbers are not like the other. For example, Paddlewheel Excursions and Space Spiral were both removed and ridership numbers were given as an overwhelming reason as to why the rides were removed. Let’s say hypothetically both rides saw between 350,000 and 500,000 guests annually. Nowhere close to the ridership of Magnum, Millennium Force, or Gatekeeper. But the question I feel the park may be missing is what TYPE of rider was a part of that 350,000-500,000 number?

It could be argued that a majority of those 350,000-500,000 guests were never going to ride Raptor, Maverick, or Millennium Force and their “niche” ride were these two types of attractions. Removing them has perhaps taken the desire for this particular rider to stop attending the park. “They’ve taken out all of the rides I’ve enjoyed over the years- I don’t think I need to attend….”

Over thinking it? Maybe. But I still find it interesting that 1994 was the park’s record year, and that was still with the existence of Geauga Lake and SeaWorld in nearby Cleveland. Those parks both entertained over three million guests combined during the 1990’s, and if you include the Cedar Point numbers that was around 6 million theme park goers in Northern Ohio during that decade. Market demand was the large reason Cedar Fair cited the closing of the Aurora property, but I still say the largest draw to Aurora always was the Marine Life park, and the Geauga Lake of the 1980’s and 1990’s survived on the unique attraction that was SeaWorld. The traditional amusement/water park was never the original draw. You don’t go from 2.7 million in attendance (2003 Six Flags WoA attendance) to 700,000 (2004 Geauga Lake attendance) and simply cite market demand, unless of course you identify what the original demand was (in this case a Marine life park).

In reading Always Cedar Point, John talked about attendance and how it related to capital improvements. He spoke of White Water Landing, and how attendance was soft that year. He also mentioned that Berenstain Bear Country gave them the "biggest bang for their buck" as far as low capital, increase in attendance was concerned. My point being that a family attraction may only increase attendance by 1.5%, and a roller coaster by 3%, but the 1.5% may have been a group of people who otherwise would not have attended the park. Again, were not just talking customers through the gates- we're talking what TYPE of customer, and their intention to return year over year.

So, could it be that with the removal of several staple attractions over the last twenty years that the park has essentially lost 350,000-500,000 visitors?

For those of you that say Cedar Point has tapped out the market as far as who they can draw, how do you say that amidst the following statistics of other parks?

• Europa Park grew attendance by almost one million visits in a ten year period (https://www.statista.com/statistics/236193/attendance-at-the-europa-park-rust-theme-park/)
• Magic Kingdom in Florida saw attendance of around 20 million in 2018, up almost 5 million from its early 2000 numbers.

I guess from a business perspective, especially in light of the dismal attendance gains that Steel Vengeance brought, at what point will the park consider investing high capital in something other than a roller coaster…..

There are "flying theatres" popping up all over. Europa added one, Pigeon Forge is getting one, and now Vegas. Count me in the group that would be very interested in what a "flying theatre" would do at Cedar Point attendance. It's a $20 million investment, but it certainly would appeal to all ages from grandma to 3 year old junior. https://www.themeparkinsider.com/flume/201902/6629/

I've always believed that maintenance costs and the value of the land that the removed attraction sits on are far more important than ridership numbers. For example, let's compare Mean Streak to Motorcycles, a ride which essentially has five clones within Kiddy Kingdom. Mean Streak was a real pain to maintain with it being a massive wooden structure and track and the actual costs involved in that were more than the revenue that the ride was actually getting, while Motorcycles has a pathetically low ridership in comparison yet the maintenance costs are extremely low.

Let's put the value of ridership another way. Ignoring shows for the sake of argument, the only things that people do that they can get free with the purchase of a ticket/season pass is ride rides. If you figure out your annual revenue at a park, you can allocate that revenue based on ridership numbers of specific rides. For example, let's say you earned $10,000,000 in revenue on a certain day from admissions only (these numbers are obviously false, but it helps make the math easier). Total ridership for all rides in the park that day was 1,000,000. Therefore, each ride nets the park $10. Assuming all rides to be of equal consideration for removal, if you get 20,000 riders on MF while daily maintenance costs are $500, you make a profit of $219,500. On the other hand, if 1,000 people ride Mean Streak and daily maintenance costs are $1,000, you only make $9,000. Clearly one is better to keep than the other.

There is no way for the park to track specific ridership of each ticket-holder for each ride, short of a MagicBand or Six Flags Membership Reward system (you get points for checking into a ride so the park can see where their loyal customers are going). For CP, it's just a matter of keeping the most profitable attractions and removing those that aren't as profitable in favor of new ones that bring higher profit margins.

Interesting discussion Tile-a-Whirl and DarkLigh18, now I'm curious to discover what data Cedar Fair uses when determining what rides to remove.

Huh, and I thought they were just getting rid of the ugly ones

Ridership is always an interesting measurement to me. Especially considering some attractions are rather restrictive...height, weight, etc.

Out of curiosity, what is your field of study for your doctorate?

The only way you would really know what mechanism a park uses to make these decisions would be to have discussions with the folks that actually make them.

This question is made more interesting by the fact that each park likely uses a different formula for making these decisions...and even more interesting when you consider that turnover in a company at the respective leadership positions most likely results in a different decision-making process from within. Meaning, what happened under Kinzel and John H. is most likely dissimilar to what happened under Ouimet and now Zimmerman and McClure.

Not to mention that what appeals to customers in the industry is ever-changing.

The answer to the ultimate question of "what to decide to get rid of" is multifaceted. It's a pie with many pieces, and what changes is how big a piece of that pie ridership is. Who is to say, really, aside from the few sitting at the table actually making the choice to bring down the axe?

Ridership, an attractions's "iconic" status (or lack thereof), maintenance costs, reliability, location, something "better" coming along in the industry....just to name a few; all reasons that would impact this decision-making process.

Trying to get a feel for what your research question is.

Tilt-a-Whirl said:

So, could it be that with the removal of several staple attractions over the last twenty years that the park has essentially lost 350,000-500,000 visitors?

That's a tough question for reasons stated above, plus the fact that the park doesn't exist in a vacuum. The amount and type of alternative entertainment is vastly different today than it was 25-ish years ago.

For those of you that say Cedar Point has tapped out the market as far as who they can draw, how do you say that amidst the following statistics of other parks?

Perhaps using a per capita attendance metric would be useful, to control for changes in population? Maybe even more detailed demographics like age?

Kevinj said:

Out of curiosity, what is your field of study for your doctorate?

Trying to get a feel for what your research question is.

Kevin,

My studies are in Organizational Leadership. My research question has nothing to do with theme parks, but I've learned a lot about 'bad research' and 'bad data' and then drawing conclusions from it.

As it pertains to this post I'm essentially asking if there has been a demographic that has largely dropped off from attending the park over the last two decades because of the types of attractions that have been removed. The park cites ridership numbers as the reason they close certain rides- I'm asking if numbers alone are a good enough reason, or if the park should consider the "type" of rider that rides those rides and if that particular guest has gone up or down over the years. Obviously, like mentioned above, we don't have that kind of data unless the park implements a magic band/card type system and ridership numbers could be unpacked by age, etc.

The current system seems to have been:

"Only 350,000 people rode X ride vs. 1.5 million for Y ride"

Remove X ride, build another Y ride. I argue that perhaps in using this formula, that though the new ride might have a 1.5 million ridership, the park lost the several hundred thousand guests who rode X ride and never planned on riding a Y ride.

Tilt-a-Whirl said:

The park cites ridership numbers as the reason they close certain rides...

A critical distinction, as LightDark mentions above, is that one key metric they reportedly use is cost per rider, rather than ridership alone. And while you obviously don't have that data, you can make some informed assumptions - water rides are more expensive to run than coasters, wood coasters are more expensive than steel, etc.

I'm not going to get too deep but I've been saying for years that the loss of some of these "family" attractions (in my mind...attractions that can be ridden by 3+ generations together) has a negative effect. I look at Disney. My family doesn't have thrill riders in it really. So, in order of preference, we have our best Disney day first at Epcot, then Magic Kingdom, then the Studios and finally Animal Kingdom. Epcot has the most attractions we can all ride together.

Going to an amusement park and then splitting up to tackle different rides is not that enjoyable to me and awful for my wife. If we spend that much money we like to be together. As much as I love Cedar Point and as much as it means to us as former employees, the fact of the matter is that we don't feel a huge pull to visit the park when we are in Ohio because we know it will be a day spent apart. You can only ride the train and car rides so many times.

Does this impact the bottom line attendance at Cedar Point? Probably not enough for them to make a strategic decision to do things differently. It just means the Skipper family isn't going to be regulars.

The lack of full family rides is an interesting perspective; however regional parks likely cannot compete fully with the heavily IP themed year-round parks. It isn’t just the rides for families; there’s also the draw of childhood characters and fantasy, vacations taken in the winter months are an attractive escape as well as being easier for work time off, there are also draws for families of the non-park vacation activities and attractions located close by to make for a more rounded trip.

I get that a more rounded lineup may help draw full-families; but as stated above if you’re going to spend money for a full family trip , your value proposition is going to be better at the year round parks.

CP has taken steps in the right direction with their resort model and rounding out the offerings that were severely lacking prior. It would be nice for more family attractions to make appearances at the park. But, I wouldn’t think it’s in their best interest to invest really heavily in these attractions as they are not on the same level being a regional park, and may not be targeting the same demographic as a result. ‘If you build it, they will come’ most likely doesn’t apply. Who you are building for, likely plays a big decision in what gets built and what gets removed.

I mentioned this the other day in the WCO thread. It's more than just ridership numbers.

https://pointbuzz.com/Forums/Topic/winter-chill-out-2019/2#600766

Someone asked about the future for Corkscrew. Instead of a yes/no, Jason talked about the process each year of looking at ride numbers for every ride, along with staff costs, and reports from maintenance on how much they were down, availability and cost of parts to decide if a ride stays or goes.

I agree with what seems to be some of your sentiment that "Cedar Fair's unfair advantage = thrills" and that it should be doubling down on its unfair advantage. But, having spent a weekend at Silver Dollar City, it seems reasonable to believe that rides could be both thrilling and geared towards an entire family. Unfortunately, Cedar Point is severely lacking in rides that are both thrilling and ride-able by an entire family.

Chief Wahoo said:

I'm not going to get too deep but I've been saying for years that the loss of some of these "family" attractions (in my mind...attractions that can be ridden by 3+ generations together) has a negative effect.

Does this impact the bottom line attendance at Cedar Point? Probably not enough for them to make a strategic decision to do things differently. It just means the Skipper family isn't going to be regulars.

Well said, and yes; there are those of us who have been clamoring for years about adding more true family rides (and I guess now we have a family "experience" coming). Our daughters are now 7 and 11, and while we still spend some time at Cedar Point, the big vacation dollars have gone elsewhere for sometime now. Going back 4 years for us it has been Disney, Disney, Virginia Beach, Virginia Beach, and now this summer it's off to Dollywood and the Smokey Mountains for the very reasons you listed above.

2020 is back to Disney, but that really has more to do with the will of the Force...

I don't know. Do you actually lose guests by removing, say, Paddlewheel Excursions? White Water Landing? I can only speak from my own anecdotal experiences, but I would say no. Having those rides there certainly makes the park more well-rounded, but only incrementally. It still would not be enough to sway the choice to go to a park like Disney; a place where nearly every attraction is geared towards the family.

Let me put it this way. Disney decided a long time ago to gear everything towards full-family enjoyment, with just enough thrill to not put thrill seekers completely asleep.

Cedar Point decided long ago to go in the exact opposite direction. In fact, they are literal polar opposites of one another in terms of what types of attraction a guest can encounter.

I think that's OK. Do I wish they would have at least ONE high quality full-fledged family ride (like a world-class log flume, dark ride, etc..)...of course! But both Disney and Cedar Point seem to work by the mantra of "do one thing and be the best at it", rather than "let's try to do a little of of everything reasonably well".

I would say both places have been successful.

To Cedar Fair's credit I will say that we had a very enjoyable visit to Cedar Point Shores last summer. Even while my kids were watching rides go over and past them while in the water park I never heard once that they would have rather spent the day in the dry park. We got a cabana, enjoyed the lazy rivers and slides, and even on a cold, wet day we made some great memories together.

I don't think you need to have great IP in order to do great family rides. There are all kinds of opportunities for the park to do indoor rides around Peanuts alone though and they haven't pulled the trigger.

I don't suppose they will ever go backwards but I would love if Cedar Point would consider selling a discounted ticket that did not include any roller coasters, maybe even just during some non-peak times. What would it really hurt them? I'd still pay for parking and food but I would perceive a better value (which would likely have me spending more anyway). Come to think of it...don't offer that ticket.

I'd love to see that dissertation! I can say that my wife and I have definitely attended less than we would have if cedar point hadn't become the soulless mass of steel and concrete it has recently. I miss Paddlewheel, WWL, Mill Race, Fascination, Jungle Larry's, STR, Pirate Ride and others. Cedar Point has decided that we are less important to the bottom line than 15 year olds who left their ritalin in Michigan.

Sure we go to Soak City and every now and then and we will ride Gemini and Magnum for kicks, but the park has really lost its character and there is no way to quantify that. As I have said in the past, There appears to be only one driving force behind Cedar Fair's descisions, and we know what that i$... "Be$t Day Of $Ummer My A$$!

Well for a park that markets itself as ‘the roller coaster capital of the world’, you should have an idea of what they mean by Best Day of Summer.

I’m sure there’s people that feel “Happie$t Pla€e On Earth, my a$$” as well.

CP Shores, the improved Beach access, the re-imagined Breakers and Breakers Express; let's not ignore the positives.

And I will say this; I'm a lot more interested in this new Adventure Island addition than I thought I would be when it was first announced.

Cedar Point has certainly not lost its character at all. Personally, t's still one of my favorite places to be, parent-swap just gets old after awhile.

That said, the little one (7) is clamoring to ride Steel Vengeance this year, so perhaps we are close to having "grown into" doing everything together anyway.

And I think that touches on something that doesn't get mentioned a lot when it comes to "family" attractions. There is a distinction between "young family" attractions (those where parents can ride with 2-6 year-olds) and "older family" (for lack of a better term) attractions where parents with 7-18 year-olds can all ride together.

Disney caters to the "young family" more than any other park. Cedar Point caters to the "older family". Anecdotally, I kinda hated my time at Magic Kingdom when I was 13 and had 3 younger siblings along with us (ages 11, 7, 6) because I was far more into coasters than the themed family rides.

Going back to Disneyland as an adult, I see the appeal, and look forward to when we take my son eventually.

Cedar Point, though, has taken the route of beautifying the areas that were rundown, creating more of an atmosphere to counter the steel and concrete, and providing different experiences that weren't available during the Kinzel years. Do they have a ways to go in terms of food service and "young family" attractions? Absolutely.

But since Matt Ouimet took over and Jason McClure has been GM, I think the mindset has shifted to make sure the overall experience is better than what it was during the later Kinzel era.

Also:

cptedsdisciple2 said:

As I have said in the past, There appears to be only one driving force behind Cedar Fair's descisions, and we know what that i$... "Be$t Day Of $Ummer My A$$!

I certainly hope Cedar Fair's drive is to make money. That's the entire point of running a business. They'd be a pretty stupid business if the driving force behind their decision-making process wasn't to maximize revenues.

cptedsdisciple2 said:

I miss Paddlewheel, WWL, Mill Race, Fascination, Jungle Larry's, STR, Pirate Ride and others. Cedar Point has decided that we are less important to the bottom line than 15 year olds who left their ritalin in Michigan.

Or maybe they're responding to changing taste of their guests? Kids today aren't going to be as entertained by Jungle Larry's as we were back in the 80's, for example.

...the park has really lost its character...

You clearly haven't been to the park in a while if that's your impression. The beach, boardwalk, Gemini midway with it's retro vibe, Brew & BBQ, renovated Breakers... the park arguably has more character than it has had in decades.