News: Kinzel signs pact to stay to 2012

Sure they are intense, but as intense as MF, TTD, or Maggie? I would think you would see someone on Skyhawk or MaXair before the others.

I'm trying to understand what it is about a thumb print that is so personal. What advantage does someone have over you if they have that information? I really can't think of anything. To me it's like saying that I don't want someone to know my shoe size or where i'm ticklish, that too is personal but also equally unimportant to other people. There just isn't anything that gives someone else an advantage if they have that information. I don't see how a thumb print is any more personal than say your bank account, or your salary, or how much you paid for your house. Much of your personal information is rather easy to find out if someone is motivated; heck, a lot of it is public information. It all sounds like more big brother fears to me, and there is no putting that back in the bottle now.

And if that print is tied to an account somewhere then it has no more value than a serial number on a plastic card. Trust me, the thumb thing is coming and people will use it. If CF is in the position to impliment the technology where it's financially responsible, then they should go for it.

And yes i saw the mythbusters which is why i never indicated that one couldn't beat the system. But it seems highly unlikely that most petty theives would be able to employ their technique.

David Sagert said:

As for everybody who is looking for room delivery and the other frills, you are at a * thrill park not a spa, so pull up your panties and carry that stuffed animal for your best gal.

We are living in times where even a $100 room at Courtyard by Marriott gets you free Internet in every room, a full menu room service, designer bedding, bathrooms with granite vanities and flat screen TVs. So, would I expect less out of the $300-$400 a night I give the CP Resorts for a suite at the Breakers?

So what if I'm at a thrill park. When I'm not in the park, I expect to be pampered and entertained for that kind of money.

Not to mention that the ski resorts I go to in the winter have spas, gourmet room service, feather beds, heated bathroom floors, etc., etc.

CP is a world class operation in many ways. The need to step it up and become a world class operation in every way.

In conclusion, it may be true that Kinzel may have set CF back on the technology front but I believe that he has done the best damn job he could and I congratulate him for that and everything he has done for CP.

Yes he has done a wonderful job, and he saw the potential of CP to be a resort (as it has throughout it's history) when the previous CEO was content with just the amusement park. Mr. Kinzel just needs to be persuaded to spend money on technology and amenities. Maybe someone on his staff who sees the benefit of that can present things to him in a way that convinces him.

*** Edited 12/21/2006 10:40:05 AM UTC by Walt***

There are plenty of people on Kinzel's staff who are as creative and understanding of the benefits of technology, investing in your human resources, etc as we all pretend to be.

But, the bottom line is that he either doesn't listen or is too ignorant to buy into it.

As for the resorts, I agree with most of you. If you are spending several hundred dollars a night on a room at the Point then at the very least you should expect the same amenities as you can get at the Red Roof Inn.

A friend of mine works at Disney and they are now looking at upgrading ALL of their linen because the typical chains are starting to come out with the customized bedding, plush towels, etc. If Disney is concerned with keeping up with the Joneses then there is absolutely no reason why Cedar Fair shouldn't be concerned with the same.

In the mid 90's you could only charge back to your room at certain restaurants on property. It is inexcusable that they haven't upgraded that by now. No resort delivery for items purchased? Why not? What a simple thing to do in order to increase the guest experience.

And, I'm not blaming the resort staff. I'm sure they have pitched these ideas countless times. There is one, and only one, obstacle that prevents that.

There actually is more than one reason I'm sure. Money could be a big one. If Cedar Point can get away without providing those services, there's really no reason for them to start. If their resorts are continuously experiencing high occupancy rates, they don't NEED to improve. If they start seeing a downturn in room occupancy, then I think they'd start implementing changes. I don't agree with this logic, but I could see them coming from this angle.

Maybe they're happy with what the resorts and merchandise are bringing in, so they're not all that excited about messing with what works. They appear to be concerned with gate costs more than anything because they've been making the most changes recently with gate and parking pricing. I'm thinking they should start looking at the resort as a whole and not separate entities.

They have the money and resources to do the right things. What they (he) don't (doesn't) have is the will.

I would guess that the resort business has plateaued a bit considering they haven't gone ahead with the second phase of Breakers Express and the Bel Air wing at Breakers is still standing.

Did it level off because that is all the demand there is or did it level off because the guests don't see the value considering the pricing and the visits aren't increasing? Interesting question. Obviously the mega hotels like Great Wolf and Kalahari are eating into some of the business...but why is that? Could it be because they are providing a better value or experience? Another interesting question.

The growth at Cedar Point is going to be on the resort side. The attendance has not grown over the past decade so the only growth will be in per cap spending (which is being impacted by lower ticket prices) or in additional room nights and out of park spending.

Obviously, a lot of focus is on the Paramount parks at the moment but I still think Cedar Point is the crown jewel that cannot get complacent.

Pete's comments get to the core of what I'm saying, ditto for Wahoo. Imagine for a moment that just your local competition, in the way of water parks and hotels, are offering a much better product and a compelling value proposition. Now think in more of a world view, where you want 100% occupancy and you want to start pulling in more resort dollars from those people that go to Orlando every year.

The fact is, if you want to play the destination resort game, you are taking on the rat. All of the perks that come with a Disney stay are what you're now competing with. That means the room charges, nice beds (for which the CP resorts notoriously suck), package delivery, high-end dining, spas, etc.

Yes, a lot of these things are outside of the company's core competencies, but that's the point we're getting at. They need the people to take that to a higher level. Kinzel is known for being heavy handed in his decision making and overruling a lot of things that seem like opportunities from the middle and upper management perspective. A lot of the time, he's right, and ultimately he's defending that quarterly distribution, but I think he's teetering dangerously on that point where he's instead leaving new money on the table.

A curious question about the internet in hotels:

Why is it that every Radisson, Comfort Inn, etc. can all offer free high speed (some even offer Wi-Fi), but higher end hotels (such as the Watergate in DC and Bellagio in Vegas) charge for this "amenity?" I think it would be great for CP to have free wi-fi in all the rooms, but is it really expected of a hotel to offer high speed internet?

As far as beds, linens, and everything else in the overall experience, I'm in agreement with Jeff. To compete with Disney, you've got to be on Disney's level or above it. Even Universal, who has much nicer hotel facilities (in general) than Disney still lacks behind them. You've got to offer a good product to even have a chance.

Oh I disagree there. I stayed at the Royal Pacific last week and I can assure you that there are few hotels on the Disney property that can match it, save for maybe the Grand Floridian. And the RPR is the least expensive... Hard Rock and Portofino are even nicer.

I guess I should rephrase...the hotels are nicer than Disney's, but somehow, Disney draws more people in. You said it yourself that Disney was much busier than Universal. I wonder why that is.

The parks were, yes, but they do a pretty brisk conference business all year at Universal in the hotels. There was some big sales conference at RPR while we were there. (Did you hear about my numbers in North Dakota? They rocked! :)) Come to think of it, there were catered and buy-out events half the nights at IOA while we were there too.

Jeff Young said:
A curious question about the internet in hotels:

Why is it that every Radisson, Comfort Inn, etc. can all offer free high speed (some even offer Wi-Fi), but higher end hotels (such as the Watergate in DC and Bellagio in Vegas) charge for this "amenity?"

Quite simply - because they can. (on both sides of the coin)

Think about your comparison. For low/middle end of the road hotels (Comfort, Fairfield, Courtyard, Hampton, etc) people are spending something like $79 to $149 a night. It's a budget conscious traveler using these rooms. Free net access only means added value or an additional amentity for the cost. For these people internet access may not be a necessity and those who want/need it are less likely to pay more for it if it's not included. Better to use it as a draw to get them to your property in the first place.

High end hotels cater to a totally different clientel. If these people are spending $200, $300, $400 or more a night they're more likely to be the type of person that not only needs the net access, but will also drop additional money on it without thinking twice.

I think it would be great for CP to have free wi-fi in all the rooms, but is it really expected of a hotel to offer high speed internet?

Anymore, yes it is. Offering internet access can make the difference in getting the guest in the first place and you have no idea the horror stories of angered guests I've heard from my wife (a hotel GM) when their connection goes down. People go ballistic.

It's a different world than it used to be. Asking if a hotel should offer internet access is kind of like asking if they should have a TV and phone in the room.

I wonder if an amenity such as internet access would actually pay off for CP. Perhaps this is a short-sighted outlook, but it would seem that offering internet access gives guests a reason to stay in their room, more so than they would have otherwise.

I almost guarantee having internet access to the resorts would pay off. That is one area they really lack in, and really need to make a difference in.It makes a difference to me most of the time when looking for hotels (Not just in Sandusky, but elsewhere). A hotel needs to have high speed internet access, plain and simple.

^^^

Working for a cable company that provides high speed internet to many local hotels is not pleasant when it's not working and I have to be the one to go look at it.

You have mgmt down your throat as soon as you walk through the door as well as guests staring you down.

Not pretty.

Jeff said:
And the RPR is Hard Rock and Portofino are even nicer.

I stayed at the Portofino for a week in January 2005 and despised it. We were way out in one of the wings. It was so far, I paced the distance to the lobby and it worked out to more than an eighth of a mile.

Getting to our car was so ridiculous it was almost like being without one. The only laundry on the premises is resort-run, meaning you have to pay $4 to wash a single piece of clothing. (We ended up driving around until we found a self-serve laundry in Orlando.)

The room service was some of the most overpriced and inedible hotel food I've ever ordered. Our bed was uncomfortable, about five feet high and narrower than a standard queen. We tried to rent "Mean Girls" on the t.v. At first it wouldn't give us the movie, and when one of the resort people got it straightened out, the picture was so crappy I would have paid money not to watch out.

In their defense, my wife, daughter and I were sick as dogs for a good deal of this stay, and I know that colors any experience. I did love the theming, especially the "bay", and I really liked the boat that cruises the canals between the resorts and Universal Studios.

All in all, I'd take any WDW resort (I've stayed at two) over Portofino, and yes, even Breakers.

Wireless needs to be on point, even if it's only for the business purposes of the park and resort. The value of the wireless is least significant, imo, as a hotel amenity. It is a tool/technology that would allow for a far greater level flexability and deftness to the management at all levels as well as potentially far greater customer service. To not drop the dime now is quite short sighted and closed-minded.

Well, as an average, once a year visitor, I know my dad would love it. When we come back to the hotel he has to use his stupid cell phone to send a bunch of e-mails. If he had wireless internet, he wouldn't fall so far behind on work and we might be able to stay another day longer. :P

It's not like we're the only people there who have to leave because of work. ;)

Wireless in resorts is a simple way for them to bring in major revenue. They charge $5 a day for it and they could make a killing on a pretty low investment cost. Most people won't complain about $5 a day for internet because they "need" it.

I would complain simply because they don't need my five dollars to justify the offering of the wireless, having it for the guests would be a side benefit for the park to have the technology available for their own uses.