Designated Smoking Areas

The guests don't listen.

Good for Disney, and I'm sure CF will follow suit before long. And the sooner the better. How much revenue or guest happiness or whatever do smoking areas generate?

jimmyburke said:

Seems like lawmakers or policy makers these days treat vaping just as they do smoking. I do neither, just an observation.

As well they should. Vaping is in its "wild west" phase, so it's impossible to know how it affects others, so err on the side of safety/consideration/whatever.

Right Brandon, I suppose anytime a person chooses to inhale some sort of chemical\smoke into their lungs it has consequences. As for the CP designated smoking areas, they seem to be in kind of out of the way places, for the most part "dead" zones that are rather small areas, not sure what can be put there except empty space. It is amusing to look ahead when walking and seeing the puff cloud up ahead from someone vaping. Also, the area near Matterhorn restrooms is popular for smokers, although it isn't a smoking area. Many employees walk past smokers and look the other way. The area near Power Tower exit is large and will be even larger for development when they remove Corkscrew soon.

The smoking areas individually may be small, but taken in aggregate that space could be put to better use. Heck, simply planting trees in their place would be better ROI in terms of guest happiness, considering the percentage of smokers in the US is 14% and falling.

How much revenue or guest happiness or whatever do smoking areas generate?

Presumably they generate some happiness for the people who use them. And whatever revenue they bring to the park in terms of passes, tickets, food, etc. Would they skip the park without being able to smoke in designated areas? Some likely. Tough to know how many. Would there be some people who avoid the park now because of the smoking policy who would go if smoking was totally banned in the park? Some likely. But tough to know how many here either.

Percentage of people in the US who smoke isn't the relevant stat. Its percentage of people who go to amusement parks (and in this thread who go to one amusement park). Not sure if that is higher or lower than the US percentage as a whole. Though lower socioeconomic group is more likely to smoke in general. Lower the rate of smokers makes the policy (either allow it or ban it) less relevant.

^Exactly. I'm surprised Disney went that route, honestly. While I do agree that the number of smokers is declining all the time, there are still smokers out there. And I think the majority of them utilize the designated areas in the parks. But there will always be a few outliers, just as there will always be line jumpers.

However, when you take away the designated areas, now you're making it up to the smoker as to where they want to smoke. Someone who may have otherwise satisfied a craving in a designated area no longer has a place to do it. So they might just burn one in the middle of the midway, until they get yelled at. Or alternatively, if they know the rules will be harshly enforced (as will likely be the case at Disney), that person will either be having a pretty lousy day, or they may choose to just not go at all, as GoBucks said above.

GoBucks89 said:

Though lower socioeconomic group is more likely to smoke in general.

Which is another great reason to ban smoking entirely, considering the goal is to maximize per cap, even if that means maintaining revenue while lowering attendance (same revenue, better guest experience, lower operating costs).

Dvo said:

...you're making it up to the smoker as to where they want to smoke.

No, you're telling them the only place they can smoke is in outside the park.

...they may choose to just not go at all, as GoBucks said above.

Again, good! No matter how you slice it, smokers are vastly outnumbered by nonsmokers. And as GoBucks pointed out, nonsmokers are more likely to have disposable income being from a higher socioeconomic group.

If the goal of CF is to provide "best day" experiences while extracting more revenue from the same or fewer guests, I don't see how this policy would be anything but a huge win. This policy caters to a majority group with higher disposable income.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think the goal of CF is to increase per-cap revenue by indirectly shoving the lower socioeconomic groups out of the park.

Revenue is still revenue, and as the others have said, the existing smoking areas don't take up much space, and they're in places off the beaten path. I think the park's current set-up works just fine, other than the very small percentage of smokers who don't smoke in the designated areas. But that won't change, even with a new rule.

The only way turning away any group of people becomes a win for the park is if there are other people (who don't now visit the park) who will take their place. May be some but I wouldn't expect it to be very many. If that doesn't happen, you are just turning people away. Not only not a huge win but a loss.

Higher socioeconomic groups would need to be avoiding CP solely because of the park's smoking policy. I think that is a rare situation. Ban smoking and they still won't go.

The park's current policy is one suited to maximizing their revenue. Limiting smoking to certain areas (most people will comply but not all). Allows smokers and non-smokers to come to the park. How the policy is enforced is part of the policy itself. Pretty sure we talked about this back in the day (likely in this very thread -- though there was a time when smoking threads were common here).

You're right - simply removing smoking areas won't entice people into the park. But replacing those areas with attractions or restaurants or whatever else would. No one heads to CP to sit in an Adirondack chair and smoke. People do head to the park to try new attractions and the like. Will you lose a few smokers with this policy? Sure, a tiny fraction. But you need an even smaller fraction of the remaining population to show up to offset the loss.

Dvo said:

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think the goal of CF is to increase per-cap revenue by indirectly shoving the lower socioeconomic groups out of the park.

You're wrong. :-) The park is directly shoving lower socioeconomic groups out of the park in order to increase per cap every time they raise the gate price. And so long as revenue remains strong, the park will continue to push the gate higher even if it drives attendance down. I mean, the park already struggles to serve the guests that show up, why wouldn't they want the same revenue with slightly lower attendance?

It wasn't that long ago that Mount Union (my home base) became an entirely "smoke free" campus. Of course it had been banned from buildings long ago, but there were smoking areas outside of buildings that were used by the people who choose to smoke.

Than the student senate decided they wanted to actually be smoke free, and it eventually got passed.

Overall, the change has made the campus a better place to be. Were the smoking areas small? Of course, but they have been replaced by attractive sittings areas.

Here's the biggest difference, though; when there were smoking areas, people would often ignore them and not follow the rules. Most did, but some didn't. Now time and resources have to get wasted to enforce the rules.

Now that we're smoke free? We're just smoke free. Not "smoke-free....except over here and over there"...and I honestly can't tell you the last time I saw anyone smoking on campus or walking through a lovely cloud of second-hand smoke.

I would support Cedar Fair moving in this direction. If one's smoking habit is so bad that it dictates where one can or cannot go for a vacation day, it might be time for some self-reflection. Or maybe one just doesn't care.

In my opinion, the park would be a better place by eliminating it altogether.

If one's smoking habit is so bad that it dictates where one can or cannot go for a vacation day, it might be time for some self-reflection.

Do you know many smokers? I don't. But I see people at work standing outside the building in rainstorms, bitter cold, high winds, etc. smoking (often multiple times a day). If they cannot go a few hours or a day for bad weather, might it be time for some self-reflection? Seems pretty judgmental to me. And I am a non-smoker who has a strong dislike for smoking.

I have a brother who smokes. I know that he is less likely to visit places where he knows he cannot smoke. And when he does visit, he is likely to stay a shorter period of time. And his mood typically is worse when he is somewhere for any extended period of time where he cannot smoke. Seems to me that is what CP is trying to address with their policy.

You're right - simply removing smoking areas won't entice people into the park. But replacing those areas with attractions or restaurants or whatever else would.

CP has been adding attractions, restaurants, etc. for many years. Have their been significant increases in attendance?

No one heads to CP to sit in an Adirondack chair and smoke. People do head to the park to try new attractions and the like.

And some of the people who head to the park to try new attractions and the like smoke.

Will you lose a few smokers with this policy? Sure, a tiny fraction. But you need an even smaller fraction of the remaining population to show up to offset the loss.

I don't know how many people they would lose with a smoking ban. And neither do you. The park has more info than we do and that has resulted in the smoking policy that exists today. Maybe they are wrong and would be better off banning smoking. Or maybe not.

CP is trying to entice your brother to the park? Seems like a niche market.

He is a big spending. And with an addictive personality he likely would go every day of every operating season. Per caps would definitely go up. Bigly.

GoBucks89 said:

CP has been adding attractions, restaurants, etc. for many years. Have their been significant increases in attendance?

Significant? No, but they've been doing pretty well revenue-wise in recent years as they've raised prices at the gate, resorts, and as they've shifted toward a more premium offering. They've been rewarded - both in attendance and revenue - as they've gone after the higher end customer at the expense of the lower end. A smoking ban seems a natural progression of that strategy.

And some of the people who head to the park to try new attractions and the like smoke.

Right, and for every on of those people there are 9 others who don't smoke. I don't get why this point is lost on you.

I don't know how many people they would lose with a smoking ban. And neither do you. The park has more info than we do and that has resulted in the smoking policy that exists today.

The policy that exists today came into effect when about 20% of US adults smoked. Now it's down to 14% and still falling. So what the park did in the past is less relevant than the current/future trend. What's more, the majority of people who do smoke are not the people CP wants coming to the park, generally speaking (low income, below poverty level, etc.). On what planet is it a smart business strategy to chase that demo? (That you or I know people that are outliers to that data point is, of course, irrelevant.)

^So rather than implementing an immediate ban, perhaps CF should say that in 2 years, the park will be smoke-free. That not only allows for the % of smokers to fall farther (so they're alienating less people), but also gives people some time and additional motivation to quit smoking.

The argument that smoking areas don't generate revenue (while admittedly I don't have specific numbers) is in my mind incorrect...smokers tend to smoke more when they drink, I would just guess CP likes guests to buy its 11 dollar beers and other drinks why reduce your market...I challenge you to look at muffleheads/bubbles swim up bar on a busy summer day and what percentage of guests are smokers or a halloweens Saturday night in the smoking area near red garter and MF....as for staff that's another giant problem

This is never an arguement that can be won as there will be groups who are against smoking bans, those who are always for them, and those who don't care or who understand the idea of compromise...

Smoking is not a healthy choice and if others are forced to walk through a smoking area I understand however when areas are separated from main pathways that do not force anyone to walk through them it shouldn't be an issue.

Dvo said:

^So rather than implementing an immediate ban, perhaps CF should say that in 2 years, the park will be smoke-free. That not only allows for the % of smokers to fall farther (so they're alienating less people), but also gives people some time and additional motivation to quit smoking.

Actually if the park was going to do it, this would be an excellent way of going about it.

I mentioned over at Coasterbuzz that such a policy might actually serve as a motivating factor to kick the habit, much like physical restrictions on rides have encouraged folks to lose weight to fit. For the right person, it could be a great motivator.

Right, and for every on of those people there are 9 others who don't smoke. I don't get why this point is lost on you.

Actually CP wants all 10. Not sure why that point is lost on you. And if the ratio goes to 95:5, CP still wants all 100. Doesn't make sense to turn away the 1 or the 5. Disney is in a very unique position of looking to thin the herd a little as it is. CP isn't there. Rare the business that is actually.

What you are saying is that you believe that with a smoking ban (and they don't even enforce designated smoking areas so it doesn't seem likely there would be much interest to enforce a total ban but that is another issue--whatever staffing issues they have wouldn't be helped by a already stretched staff enforcing a smoking ban), whatever number of people won't come back, come less often, stay less time, etc will be made up by people who are not coming now suddenly going to the park because smoking is now banned (and/or who will come because of all of the rides, attractions, shows, restaurants and trees that go where designated smoking areas are now) and people who are coming now who will spend more with a ban in place than they do today with designated smoking areas. More than enough to offset anyone lost by the ban. You just don't have enough info to establish that.

What's more, the majority of people who do smoke are not the people CP wants coming to the park, generally speaking (low income, below poverty level, etc.).

Its interesting because I mentioned lower socioeconomic groups (not as you refer to it in terms of low class, immoral, undesirable, poor people) but to say that it may well be the case that people who frequent CP smoke in higher numbers than the general population.

On what planet is it a smart business strategy to chase that demo?

Having a couple designated smoking areas (that already exist so no large investment creating anything) isn't chasing a demo. Its accommodating one.

How many people are upset about the current policy? Even here where we at one point saw periodic threads complaining about the smoking policy, but now rarely see one would indicate the number of people who are upset isn't very significant.

And as I noted, the fewer smokers exist the less the policy (either way) matters.

Without more actual info about CP demographics (info neither of us has) its just a matter of opinion. I think you are wrong and acknowledge that you think I am wrong. :)

I would agree that at a park like Cedar Point, such a move is more of a risk. Disney can't keep people away no matter what they do, with attendance just going bonkers.

Other than that yes I agree you're wrong ;)