|
Seems to be the trend...less butts paying more for in park food, etc!
|
|
|
The thing I don't get about Universal always matching Disney's price hike is that they want to attract people to come from the Disney resort to their own park. People staying at the Disney resort have multi-day tickets, and may feel that a single day at Universal is too expensive for their trip. I know that went through our heads on the last Disney trip, we wanted to go to Universal for a day, but fought off the urge and just stayed at Disney to save some money since it was the tail end of a business trip. We did however go to City Walk for Bob Marley's and we will be back to Universal for a multi-day trip in the next year or so...but thats another story.
|
|
|
I don't see how Universal is worth that much. I don't think that Disney is worth $71 a day either, but I think Disney is a better value. There is so much more to do. Islands of Adventure has 3 coasters, a few water rides, and Spiderman.
|
|
|
With the parks raising prices and yet the profits are going up. It only makes since to charge less and you will get more people in with money to eat in the park. This will force people to look for alternatives in the smaller amusement parks which charge less for admission prices than the bigger amusement parks which charge alot. The only way that I would ever go down to ORlando's tourist trap is if I was rich and didn't care about the prices.
|
|
|
One word: Cypress Gardens!
|
|
Seems to be the trend...less butts paying more for in park food, etc!
But if you read the article, you'd see that the attendance drop was partially caused by the Easter holiday being split between quarters.I totally disagree that Disney a better value. To get value out of Disney, you have to really buy five day or greater tickets. Especially in the off season and without a family, three is plenty for me. Even in the peak season, three days is plenty for Universal, and at a fraction of the cost. If you think Universal is only about the coasters, you're not looking very hard.
|
|
|
That's the genius of Disney's plan. They make it clear that buying 7-, 8-, 9- and 10-day tickets makes the most sense, especially if you opt for the "no expiration" option that makes them valid forever. I don't know of anyone that spends 10 days at Disney so you're expected to return to the resort at a later date to use the tickets and spend more money. I wouldn't say that Disney is a better value but I like the Disney parks more than the Universal parks. Years ago I was in love with IOA and while I still like the place, it's really not much aside from the excellent B&M coasters, Spiderman and the three water rides. USF is pretty much the same thing- not much that makes you want to re-ride aside from Men in Black and Mummy. Of course, the same can be said for MGM and Animal Kingdom at WDW, but at least Epcot and MK are parks that require more than a day.
|
|
|
Yeah, but it also mentions that attendance was down in the first quarter vs last year as well. I think that figures to be negative attendance growth compared to 2006 for the first half of the year. I'm still with JRS on this one (surprise, we've been the two spouting this crap for a while now) - less visitors, more money per visitor. It's happening more and more when these quarterly reports come out.
|
|
|
But in a way, it also supports what I've been saying all along. People have varying tolerances when it comes to price increases, and if prices went up and attendance went down, the tolerance for a certain group of guests was reached. Sure, more money is being made on less people, but what's to say another increase isn't going to tick off more people and cause attendance to drop more? And at what point does attendance drop so much that the "higher prices/less people/more money" plan is offset?
|
|
|
^ I guess we'll know when we get there. Apparently we haven't gotten there yet. Can a 32% increase in profit be attributed only to higher per cap spending though? They say profit, not revenue, so there could be other factors at play here.
|
|
|
So far, that hasn't happened with *any* corporate operator. CF, SF, and UO all have higher revenues with fewer people. Disney is the only corporate operator I know of with honest-to-god increasing guest counts. (As an aside, anyone know what Busch parks are doing these days?) Sure, there is a ceiling there somewhere---we all agree on that. Have they reached it yet? Evidently not. Are they likely to? Probably not by accident. All of these players are obsessive about surveying their guests---they have a pretty firm guess, likely to be much more accurate than ours, of what they average guest will tolerate, price-wise. I'm still of the opinion (completely uninformed) that there is head room in theme park pricing compared to the costs of other family entertainment options. A day at a theme park is still less expensive than a day at a college football game, a live play or musical, a day of skiing, a round of golf, or nearly anything else I can think of. And, for the hobbyist, as opposed to the casual visitor, it's even better in comparison.
|
|
Rob A:
Sure, more money is being made on less people, but what's to say another increase isn't going to tick off more people and cause attendance to drop more? And at what point does attendance drop so much that the "higher prices/less people/more money" plan is offset?
Totally agree Rob...and that's the point - finding the optimal balance. Hypothetical example: 100 people at $10 = $1000 That's cool, but what if we push to $13? Oooh, 88 people still bit. 88 x 13 = $1144 What if we continue to push to $16? Hmmm, 76 people this time. 76 x 16 = $1216 We're still ahead and we've droppoed our customer base almost 25%. Let's try $19. Ouch, only 59 people at that price. 59 x 19 = $1121 While you've dropped your customer base by 41% and you're still technically making more than you were at $10 per person, it's still not as much revenue as the $16 price point. Obviously you went to far and you back up a level to the optimal point. (Over simplified, of course - you'd probably try $18 or $17 and fine tune it more) Amusement parks have traditionally been at that first level. Some are finally trying the jump to the second level and so far it seems to be working out. Will they push to another level? Will it work if they do? Can they go to levels beyond that? Only one way to find out. 
(or like RGB said, we'll know when we get there) There's no reason to operate at a less efficient level than necessary. Why try to serve 100 people for $1000 if you can serve 76 people for $1200? It makes no sense on any level. A few park operators seem to be figuring this out...finally!
RGB:
Can a 32% increase in profit be attributed only to higher per cap spending though? They say profit, not revenue, so there could be other factors at play here.
Entirely true. But the article does say: "The increase in operating profit was partly the result of the average visitor spending more on tickets, food, drink and merchandise than the average visitor during the second quarter of 2006." So per cap spending was up. It just wasn't the only factor - and I'm not surprised. A 32% increase in per cap would be ridiculous...it's just not going to happen. But to tie in to the first half of this - it is easier to lower costs when you serve less people. So not only does your revenue go up at higher rates, but your profit margin probably does to. (not that the small attendance drop they saw really makes a real world difference - we're talking theory here )
Brian:
I'm still of the opinion (completely uninformed) that there is head room in theme park pricing compared to the costs of other family entertainment options.
Yes!
|
|
|
This is great news! Now less people than ever can afford to go to parks! I love it! What took them so long? Finally! I'm glad that they didn't get some crummy idea like increasing the amount of attractions to accept more guests. Keeping people from using your product is the best route.
|
|
|
While your sarcasm is noted, the price hikes over the years does not seem to be preventing them from making more money each year.
|
|
|
dexter: You're a consistent advocate for low prices and crowded parks. I certainly respect your unyielding stance. Out of respect (no sarcasm meant at all) I will show you the flaws of your way! This is great news! Now less people than ever can afford to go to parks! I love it! What took them so long? Finally! When you look at price increases, you see less people going and feel bad for those who can't go. When I see less people going to parks, I see a better chance for an improved park experience. When I see higher profit margins I see a better chance that these parks will not go the way of Astroworld, Pavillion, etc. It is no secret that a primary guest complaint for any park is that the lines are too long. There is simply no fair way to reduce park crowds sans the increased gate price. You yourself have been primarily against "pay to cut" as unfair...yet you are also against price increases at the gate. It seems there is no realistic way for the parks to reduce crowds that a person with your opinion could accept...? I'm glad that they didn't get some crummy idea like increasing the amount of attractions to accept more guests. Keeping people from using your product is the best route. The solution that you sarcastically suggest...and no doubt believe with all you heart given your past postings...has already been tried to colossal failure. Geagua Lake fully implemented this plan as did the entire Premier-owned Six Flag's Chain for quite a few years. Safe to say, that your model for crowd control and improved guest experience is the single biggest large scale failure in amusement park history. One major city lost a park. Quite a few were sold to small operaters who...time will tell...might be best served by selling the real-estate given the large operational expenses they inherited due to thinking exactly as you. The increased capacity through multiple attraction offerings has left one particular park (Geagua Lake) and entire chain (Six Flags)on the brink of financial ruin. Cedar Fair can not remove Geagua Lake attractions fast enough to bring expenses in line with the market served. I dare say most regional themers have too many attractions to run in profitable manner. The quest to reduce expenses and maintain solvency illustrates itself through understaffed food stalls, tiered opening times, reduced hours, "pay to cut",etc...and in the worst cases it shows up as a closed park! All the operational snafus that enthusiasts love to debate can...in one way or another...be traced to a quest to profit...of which there has been less going around these days. As I said in another thread...this is not the oil business. This is a competative market in which many parks are struggling to stay open. While Universal is no Six Flags...anybody following the business side of amusement events knows they've been sold a time or two and are not exactly a hot commodity in the financial world. Today's news was good for anybody interested in theme park's. It shows that another chain...besides Disney is finding a way to increase profits. This is not about Gonch or I being happy people cannot go. It is about simple financial realities. I'm sure it "feels" good to always trumpet the "little guy" and suggest expensive attraction offerings as (un)realistic solutions to overcrowding. In the real world...these parks are highly competative entities...many struggling to maintain last year's profit margins...let alone increase their profits. Next time you get all emotional defending the "little man's" God-given right to enjoy cheap amusement park entry with nary an upcharge in sight...think a minute about the financial realities of this little hobby we all love. Parks are closing at a much faster rate than they are opening. You either accept the fact that quarterly reports are important in maintaining viable options for ride enthusiasts, or you bemoan the unfairness of it all when Valencia has a nice new shopping center/entertainment district and Sandusky has some new waterfront mixed-use condo developments...all of which are more profitable options for local government and investors than running amusement parks!
|
|
|
Said much better than I ever could have. Just want to reinforce a point:
When I see less people going to parks, I see a better chance for an improved park experience.
Yes! Believe it or not, I see more value in paying a higher price and keeping the crowds down. It's not about keeping certain people out, but rather about making my time and money better spent. Still pretty selfish motivation, but for totally different reasons than you seem to think, Dex - and no less selfish than wanting parks to continue to struggle and keep prices at a level that are reasonable to you.
|
|
|
While all of the above statements are true, I think there's one primary mentality that they tried to lock out: "Disney's a better deal for 5 days, so let's do 5 days there and one or two at Universal." I think it would be much more beneficial to their markets to make people choose between 5 days at Disney and 5 days at Universal.
|
|
|
Gonchar, the value might go up when you charge higher admission prices and less crowds. When you keep raising prices then only the people who are making above a certain amount of money can afford to go the parks. Thus you are cutting your nose off if you are trying to reach the mainstream of people. Six Flags used to offer a 2 day pass more than a decade ago for less than 2 individual single day tickets. I live around 140 miles north of Atlanta and if I am going to travel over 2 hrs to Atlanta, then I expect more value and lower prices. The only reason why I might be heading towards Atlanta is for the SFOG and Whitewater. I have to think about the gas prices and other factors as that would entice me going there. Right now, the big name parks aren't offering that much value for the money because of the high admission prices.
|
|
When you keep raising prices then only the people who are making above a certain amount of money can afford to go the parks.
That's the point. (and just for clarity, I'd change "who are making" in that line to "who can/will spend" - more accurate that way)
Thus you are cutting your nose off if you are trying to reach the mainstream of people.
Again, that's the point. Trying to reach the largest number of people is not necessarily the best business approach. So far we've seen SF, CF and now Universal (to an extent) increase revenue while serving less guests.
Right now, the big name parks aren't offering that much value for the money because of the high admission prices.
I'd rather have short lines, better service and potentially lower prices in the park for $100 (or more) ticket price, than long lines, bad service and higher in-park prices for $40 or $50 ticket price. It's a better value. What do you expect to improve if they keep lowering the gate? With less money coming in, the parks will surely not be able to offer a better (or more of a) experience. Just remember that the lowest price isn't always the best value.
|
|
|
It's also worth remembering that the destination parks (Disney, and to a lesser extent, Universal) play by different rules. At some level, WDW and Universal Florida are marketing to every man woman and child living east of the Mississippi river. When your market is that large, it only makes sense to target the highest-margin customers you can. That said, we've seen the locals do this, too. It is abundantly clear to anyone who has visited this year that Cedar Point's "Great Price Drop Experiment of 2006" was declared a dismal failure by the executives running that park.
|
|
It is abundantly clear to anyone who has visited this year that Cedar Point's "Great Price Drop Experiment of 2006" was declared a dismal failure by the executives running that park.
Just as a few of us predicted it would be. In a year (2006) where I called the most interesting story the juxtapostion between the way CF dropped prices at a few parks and sold the hell out of it and the way SF seemed to jack prices on everything up - a year later we see the results...CF prices are on the level of SF pricing in 2007.
|
|
|
Gonchar, if you price yourself out of the range of families then you have cut off anyne else below that line as well. The whole point of amusement parks was to be affordable to everyone not to the rich. Simple solution is once the park is full at a certain number then stop selling tickets. Let's say the number is at 15,000 for parks like Six Flags over Georgia then you close down the gate until some leave. You don't keep raising prices to the point where it becomes a burden for everyone but the very rich to go there. I haven't been to an big named amusement park in at least 6 years thanks to the big named parks pricing themselves out of the range of the everyday person. The nearest parks to where I live is either Dollywood or SFOG but when you charge an arm and a length to go to either one then the it's not worth it.
|
|
|
The point of amusement parks is to make money, not to be affordable to everyone. That's true of every business.
|
|
|
You guys are very good at showing your side of the argument and I respect you for that. I still believe that it would be not be financially impossible for an amusement park to offset long lines and large crowds by building more attractions and more stuff to do. I'm not talking 5 new multi-million dollar roller coasters. There are a lot of different things a park can build that has high capacity and still not cost so much. It seems to me that the more people in a park, the more profitable your park will be. If a food stand sells more food throughout the day, it will be more profitable. Same with gift shops and arcades. What do we call that again? Captive? Long lines, especially at food stands, can be easily fixed by having more food stands. Long lines at rides can be fixed by having more rides and more to do. Why can't more people buying food pay for more food stands? Why can't more admission tickets pay for more attractions? You guys make some good points, and it all makes perfect sense, but I just believe that the amusement industry can be profitable without making itself an exclusive activity for people who make a higher wage. I don't think anyone here wants amusement parks to struggle and face the possibility of closing as insinuated above. I just think there has to be a better way then to raise prices out of range of some people. That type of thinking is poisonous and reptilian to me. What of the low wage workers at the parks. While prices theoretically could skyrocket (I don't see it happening though), would the parks keep paying a wage to their employees to the point that even they could not afford the "luxury" of visiting an amusement park? That's a problem in a lot of industries.
|
|
|
There is no right or wrong answer to this debate. There is just differing markets for which a business/park might better spend its effort luring. For as long as we have known and up through present day...parks have been a volume entity. They indeed have thrived on and seeked ever-growing attendance to increase their bottom line. Without going into details of the recent failures of such strategy...suffice to say that parks are not growing attendance like they used to. There is no responsibility for a park to practice entertainment welfare. Those of you who judge the success/failures of the park based upon attendance figures are missing the real point. The key is not to have the most bodies in the park, but rather...the key is to have the most dollars in the park. We can argue about the appropriate means of achieving ever-increasing dollars through the gates. I think recent failures using the volume method (build a major attraction per year and they will come) necessitate a change in philosophy. The link for this thread indicates the first major attempt to trial a new means of doing things (The Gonch Theory). Time will tell if the new method succeeds in getting more dollars in the park. I can't predict success either way as I'm generally pessimistic about the operational expenses regional themers have brought unto themselves through foolish spending in the late 80's and early 90's. I'm not sure there is any method that would make these park's so profitable that they would be safe from real-estate vultures. However, I applaud Six Flags for attempting a new plan. If such methods prove successful in luring more dollars through the gate as opposed to the typical volume-strategies we've become accustomed to, then I suspect it may be more of a regional phenomenon that a industry-wide scenerio. I could see some parks catering to the higher-end clientele while others stick to a bottom-feeding volume strategy. Contrary to popular opinion...I don't care which strategy works. I'm not going to these regional themers now based upon my perception of value. My interest is only that these parks may one day return to providing a consistent experience for the dollar spent. If the price to pay to achieve a consistent and valuable experience requires more out-of-pocket expense up front...I would be for it. If the parks decide to bottom-feed and continue the 2-hour waits, reduced-staff food options, etc...then my hope is that they figure out a way to do so and get more dollars through the gate at the same time. If current trends continue...we are going to lose a lot of history and good rides. And even though I'm not currently sampling most of the regional themer offerings...the loss of such parks would indeed make me sad. P.S. That is about as emotional as I get about things as I prefer to use te brain over the heart!  *** This post was edited by Jeffrey R Smith 8/15/2007 6:17:23 PM ***
|
|
Majorcut:
The whole point of amusement parks was to be affordable to everyone not to the rich.
The whole point of business is to make money. If it isn't then it's a hobby or interest. Amusement parks are a business.
Let's say the number is at 15,000 for parks like Six Flags over Georgia then you close down the gate until some leave.
So reduce the money you can bring in so that everyone can can play in the sandbox? That's goodwill...not business. Amusement parks are a business.
I haven't been to an big named amusement park in at least 6 years thanks to the big named parks pricing themselves out of the range of the everyday person.
Yet, attendance has only dipped slightly so far and revenue is reaching the highest levels ever at these places. Sounds like a good business decision to me. Amusement parks are a business.
The nearest parks to where I live is either Dollywood or SFOG but when you charge an arm and a length to go to either one then the it's not worth it.
Not worth it to you. You have as many people in just this thread saying the value at the higher price is there for them. Again, the parks aren't exactly empty and the prices have never been higher. Revenue levels are up, up, up. They making smart business decsions. Amusement parks are a business. Now on to Dex:
Dexter:
I still believe that it would be not be financially impossible for an amusement park to offset long lines and large crowds by building more attractions and more stuff to do. I'm not talking 5 new multi-million dollar roller coasters. There are a lot of different things a park can build that has high capacity and still not cost so much.
Six Flags tried that for at least 5 or 6 years. They kept building more and hoping more people would come. We saw where that got them. It's only now that Red Zone has come in and Shapiro has had his way with things (making all those nasty, bad, exclusive decisions) that the company looks even remotely hopeful for the future. Flat out, man - what you're propsing didn't work. The alternative is working.
It seems to me that the more people in a park, the more profitable your park will be. If a food stand sells more food throughout the day, it will be more profitable. Same with gift shops and arcades.
That's elementary school economics. Real life situation aren't so simple or cut-and-dry.
While prices theoretically could skyrocket (I don't see it happening though)...
Then open your eyes. It is happening. All around you. This very thread exists because a day at an amusement park in Orlando costs more than $75 total. And it's not just one park there. SFGAdv just raised their admision to $300 for one evening. If you think that's not a test of some kind - then you're just fooling yourself.
|
|
|
I agree in part with everything above... then again, all of you are wrong, too. Disney has added attractions and made something worthwhile and new for people to visit. Universal has done jack for years now to the point that it's aggravating. I don't mind paying more if I'm getting something for it, but if all I'm getting is a somewhat-shorter line for 10 year old coasters with square wheels, I'll probably spend my money elsewhere. I love the Universal parks, and really have no desire ever to set foot on Disney property until my son begs me to do so. I enjoy my least favorite attractions at IOA more than my most favorite at the Magic Kingdom. That being said, Universal makes no argument for me to return. Local parks can get away with not adding new attractions because they're right down the road and sometimes there's nothing better to do. Destinations have to make it worth my investment. Universal of late has not done that, and the promise of re-themeing Dueling Dragons in the future does not warrant a price increase in my eyes. (Fully aware that a 5-day 2-park pass is $85 so you're an idiot if you ever buy a one-day one-park ticket, but still, the point remains. I'd like some return on my investment in this park.)
|
|
|
There is something else in the pipe from what I hear at Universal, other than the Harry Potter stuff. I'm crossing my fingers that it pans out.
|
|
|
Gonchar, You still don't get it. Bush Gardens have tried this idea by closing down the gate after the park reaches a certain number of people. The parks are pricing themselves out of the reach of the person who only goes to a select number of parks a year. An then the only the rich will be able to go there. IF I lived closer to Six Flags then I would by a season pass since I have to would be going more. I can think of better ways to spend $71 plus parking plus your food inside the park. When you add all that up you might as well give the park your monthly house payment. I can understand about Disney and Universal since they are destination parks where you will want to spend more time to explore the parks. I have no problem with the amusement parks as a whole but I have taken micro and macro economics when I was in college. One of the simulations was based on running an amusement park in the real world terms. Guess what, it shows that if you raise the admission price to a point then it will only serve the people who are making more than $100,000 a year in income then the parks themselves has priced themselves out of the range of those who are the backbone of what the amusement park industry is aiming to get back into the parks. I don't make anywhere near that amount. Gonchar and others who are in favor of this make some good arguments but they are flawed to some degree.
|
|
|
Busch Gardens and Disney will close their gates as a sheer issue of safety. It has nothing to do with preserving a level of guest experience. Furthermore it's so rare that it doesn't support your argument. Gonch doesn't get it indeed.
|
|
|
the parks themselves has priced themselves out of the range of those who are the backbone of what the amusement park industry is aiming to get back into the parks. Parks want "dollars" on property. They could care a less how many people or what "kind" of people these "dollars" come from. The key for the park is to find the easiest and most efficient way to collect these "dollars." The "backbone" of the amusement park industry and any business is money. Parks might just now be realizing that they have been ignoring the "dollars" available from rich folk (those willing to spend more for a better experience) who desire a more efficient operating day. They are experimenting to find out if this is true.
|
|
|
That's an interesting point now, because it calls into question the usefulness of the attendance metric. The Internet used to value "eyeballs" as a measure of success, but said eyeballs don't necessarily equate to revenue. I'm starting to wonder if that might be true in this business as well.
|
|
Majorcut:
Gonchar, You still don't get it.
Bush Gardens have tried this idea by closing down the gate after the park reaches a certain number of people.
Jeff already said it, but that's a capacity issue, not a customer service issue. Even funnier is that parks that are usually forced to do this (Disney, Busch) are among some of the most expensive parks to get into.
I can think of better ways to spend $71 plus parking plus your food inside the park. When you add all that up you might as well give the park your monthly house payment.
I wish I lived where you live.
|
|
|
Gonchar, if you go down to Disney then you might as well get a 7 day pass and that is around a few hundred dollars for one person plus you have to pay for food, hotel for one person and gas to go down there. You are looking at well over $1,000 for that one week trip. If you are all for the parks pricing themselves out of the reach of the common everyday man then so be it. Then you will only have the elite going there who can afford it. Like I stated, I can find alot better uses for my money that will give me more bang for the buck.
|
|
Gonchar, if you go down to Disney then you might as well get a 7 day pass and that is around a few hundred dollars for one person plus you have to pay for food, hotel for one person and gas to go down there. You are looking at well over $1,000 for that one week trip.
I'd still say $1000 is lowballing it. We're hoping to get to Orlando (after putting it off for three consecutive years) for two weeks. As part of that time, we'd like to spend 4 days at Disney and probably in a Disney resort (the family seems to be leaning towards the AK Lodge) - the Disney site is telling me that it's going to cost $2839 for a Savannah View room at the AK Lodge and tickets for the family during our stay. $1000 for a week? Pfft. They're telling me almost $3000 for 4 days!
If you are all for the parks pricing themselves out of the reach of the common everyday man then so be it. Then you will only have the elite going there who can afford it.
Depends on what you consider 'common man' and 'elite' I suppose. You do realize that 1-in-12 americans has a net worth of more than $1 million dollars and some of the most recent social models describe a household income of $90,000 as 'middle class', right? And yes, I have no problem with parks pushing their pricing to whatever level they see fit. I don't expect any favors.
Like I stated, I can find alot better uses for my money that will give me more bang for the buck.
Cool. No one's making you go anywhere or pay anything. You have to choose to based on what makes sense for you. And just to make the point again - that old school "fine, then you lost a customer" mindset doesn't apply to this switch-up in business approach. The point of it is to lose a segment of customers - those not willing to fork over big bucks for a big time. It will be more than made up for by those who are - everybody wins!
|
|
|
So are you arguing that attracting the customers who can spend the most money is wrong, or are you suggesting it's a moral issue?
|
|
|
That seems to be a line that gets blurred quite often in these debates.
|
|
|
Jeff, when you price something out of the range of the everyday person who has to balance value for price then you lose what the amusement park industry was founded on. I know that you will say that it is all about the money which is true. Think of it this way, if you only get the people who are rich then your figures will be screwed up. The rich have better things to spend thier money on. How high of a price would you pay before it is too much for you to pay? Remember that you have to pros and cons of how much value are you getting for your money.
|
|
|
So now you're worried about them pricing themselves out of the rich market too?
|
|
|
Even I find myself taking the Jeff/Gonch stance on this one. While I agree that amusement parks should be affordable to most (as they have always been), I don't believe "satisfying everyone" was the intent behind any park ever built. In fact, many parks that tried to satisfy everyone were too successful. Look at Palisades Park- that closed because the park was too small for the amount of people it attracted. Someone mentioned a park closing its gates if there are too many people in the park- if that's the case, I agree that park's admission is too low. Supply should never exceed demand.
|
|