In what is likely to become a public relations disaster for the company and possibly for the Las Vegas Strip as a whole, MGM Resorts International announced yesterday that it will start charging for parking this spring at its major resorts.
Resorts near MGM properties, including the Tropicana, Paris and Bally's and Caesars Palace, will probably have to start charging as a defensive move. If that happens, it will likely create a tipping point, and free parking on the Strip will be gone.
In a way it is suprising that this idea hasn't been attempted before as casino executives have tried, with a great deal of success, to wring profits out of operations that traditionally supported their casinos, such as restaurants, hotels and nightclubs.
And it's not unreasonable that people who come to, say, the Bellagio just to eye the fountain show and the conservatory should pay something, especially if their vehicles are occupying spaces that could be used by gamblers or diners or nightclub patrons. Further, it appears that MGM will allow some customers to park for free.
Still, this does not seem to be a good idea. Americans have an entitlement mentality about free parking, especially at places where they're expected to spend their money, such as shopping malls -- and casinos. But in Vegas, it's more than that. Many people drive to the city -- half of all visitors come from California -- and often are here for only a few days. They have their cars here anyway, and free parking helps them make the most of their time and money.
MGM also announced that it's going to build a new parking garage at the Excalibur, to serve the new sports arena, the adjacent park and commercial area, and the theater at the Monte Carlo. These are the kinds of attractions at which customers in other cities are used to paying for parking. It might have made sense and been widely accepted if MGM had limited parking fees to just this facility.
But MGM says it will charge for parking at all its Strip properties, except for self-parking at Circus Circus, where it will charge for valet parking. (Assuming customers will not want to tip as much, or at all, when they're paying a parking fee, this looks like an attempt by the company to steal from its valet parking employees.) It justifies these fees by promising improvements in parking facilities, incluing technology that will allow customers to check on availablity of spaces before they arrive and that will guide them to open spots.
Given the choice of this technology, and even enhanced lighting and signage (also promised), or free parking, I think I'd take ... let me think ... the free parking! In an online poll in the Review-Journal today 70 percent of respondents said they'd no longer go to the Strip if they had to pay for parking. (This is not a scientific poll.) But people don't like "resort fees" either, and the casino industry continues to get away with those.
If this parking policy sticks, I think the beneficiaries will be the big outlying casinos, from Sam's Town to the Golden Nugget to Red Rock Resort, I just got back from a trip on Southwest Airlines, and its magazine had an add for Station Casinos with a headline like "Strip blackjack pays 6 to 5. Our blackjack pays 3 to 2." Free parking will be another advantage they can advertise.
As someone who is part of the Vegas economy, it bothers me that one of the leading companies in the leading industry doesn't seem more concerned about ticking off customers, who enjoy more options for their gaming and entertainment dollars in other regions than ever before. Gaming is having trouble attracting younger patrons, and this policy is likely to keep some new customers out of the casinos because free parking apparently will have to be earned over tine through the players club.
My prediction is that MGM's newly announced policy won't stick, at least not without major modifications.
Showing posts with label MGM Resorts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MGM Resorts. Show all posts
Saturday, January 16, 2016
Saturday, August 22, 2015
Interesting items in gaming news
This one I literally refuse to believe. Blogger David McKee reports on the Las Vegas Advisor web site that MGM Resorts, owner of several major Las Vegas casinos, plans to convert all its remaining 3:2 blackjack games on the Strip to 6:5.
For those not familiar with blackjack, one of the basics of the game is that a player dealt a blackjack -- an ace and ten-value card -- is paid one and a half times his bet, or 3:2.
In the past decade, many casinos have reduced the payout for blackjack to 6:5, starting with single-deck games. Gradually the 6;5 curse has spread to other games, including some as bad as eight-deck shoes with no double after split.
I don't spend much time on the Strip, but unless things have changed drastically in the past year, there are still many good 3:2 games there, especially at MGM properties. Downtown and at the locals casinos, most games still pay the traditional 3:2.
It is sad but true that many ploppies will play a game that pays them $12 for a blackjack on a $10 bet instead of $15, robbing them of about $12 an hour based on the average number of blackjacks received by a player in a moderately fast game. To an extent, 6:5 games have gained acceptance by a segment of the gaming public.
But that is not to say that those who now play 3:2 games, especially for higher stakes, will acquiesce in a change to 6:5. A $100 bettor is being shortchanged $120 an hour by a 6:5 game, and it is hard to believe that that amount of damage won't soon be felt.
If MGM goes through with its horrible idea, it will present a golden opportunity for its competition to tout the availability of its full-pay blackjack games. Explaining the difference between a 3:2 game and a 6:5 game isn't that complicated and should be easily accomplished in newspaper, magazine, billboard and online advertising.
I predict that if MGM goes through with this plan, its blackjack play will drop off precipitously and it will be forced to relent. You read it here first.
The other item of interest is from Vegas Inc., also by way of Las Vegas Advisor. It's about a report commissioned by the Association of Gaming Equipment Manufacturers which suggests that the reduction in slot machine payouts in recent years has led to a decline in slot revenues. The Vegas Inc. story, including a link to the study, can be found at http://vegasinc.com/business/gaming/2015/aug/20/slot-revenue-drops-machines-get-tighter-industry/
The idea that people will play less if games return less is a subject of hot debate in the gaming industry. Some believe that variance -- the ups and downs of a game's return -- far outweigh long-term average return in most players' experience. Others argue that the effect of a reduction in return cannot be masked for very long as players experience less "time on device" for their money.
My opinion is that the first point of view made more sense when gaming was confined mostly to a few resort destination. Now that gaming is widely available, many more people are able to play more often and get a more accurate idea of how quickly their money is likely to disappear in a typical session.
Absent from both the study and the Vegas Inc. article was any mention of the growth of penny slots in recent years. These machines have become very popular despite the fact that they have the lowest payouts. So, at least to some extent, slot players have themselves to blame for the lower returns they are getting.
Both of these news items bring to mind two recurring thoughts of mine concerning the casino business. First, unlike other transactions in a market economy, all aspects of gaming are a zero-sum game. What the players get comes out of the pockets of the casinos and vice-versa. Second, except for the pathetic addicted degenerate gamblers that the industry claims it would never want as customers, no one has to gamble. Casinos are in competition not only with each other but with all other forms of entertainment. Try to take so much from the customer that the enjoyment from gambling is no longer worth the cost, and people will do other things for fun.
Perhaps the biggest threat to the future of gaming as an industry is the constant craving of Wall Street for earnings growth. In this era of gaming saturation, expansion can no longer satisfy this appetite. As the big casino companies try to increase earnings by further squeezing their customers, they will reach a point where they hurt their own bottom line. We may be near that point now.
For those not familiar with blackjack, one of the basics of the game is that a player dealt a blackjack -- an ace and ten-value card -- is paid one and a half times his bet, or 3:2.
In the past decade, many casinos have reduced the payout for blackjack to 6:5, starting with single-deck games. Gradually the 6;5 curse has spread to other games, including some as bad as eight-deck shoes with no double after split.
I don't spend much time on the Strip, but unless things have changed drastically in the past year, there are still many good 3:2 games there, especially at MGM properties. Downtown and at the locals casinos, most games still pay the traditional 3:2.
It is sad but true that many ploppies will play a game that pays them $12 for a blackjack on a $10 bet instead of $15, robbing them of about $12 an hour based on the average number of blackjacks received by a player in a moderately fast game. To an extent, 6:5 games have gained acceptance by a segment of the gaming public.
But that is not to say that those who now play 3:2 games, especially for higher stakes, will acquiesce in a change to 6:5. A $100 bettor is being shortchanged $120 an hour by a 6:5 game, and it is hard to believe that that amount of damage won't soon be felt.
If MGM goes through with its horrible idea, it will present a golden opportunity for its competition to tout the availability of its full-pay blackjack games. Explaining the difference between a 3:2 game and a 6:5 game isn't that complicated and should be easily accomplished in newspaper, magazine, billboard and online advertising.
I predict that if MGM goes through with this plan, its blackjack play will drop off precipitously and it will be forced to relent. You read it here first.
The other item of interest is from Vegas Inc., also by way of Las Vegas Advisor. It's about a report commissioned by the Association of Gaming Equipment Manufacturers which suggests that the reduction in slot machine payouts in recent years has led to a decline in slot revenues. The Vegas Inc. story, including a link to the study, can be found at http://vegasinc.com/business/gaming/2015/aug/20/slot-revenue-drops-machines-get-tighter-industry/
The idea that people will play less if games return less is a subject of hot debate in the gaming industry. Some believe that variance -- the ups and downs of a game's return -- far outweigh long-term average return in most players' experience. Others argue that the effect of a reduction in return cannot be masked for very long as players experience less "time on device" for their money.
My opinion is that the first point of view made more sense when gaming was confined mostly to a few resort destination. Now that gaming is widely available, many more people are able to play more often and get a more accurate idea of how quickly their money is likely to disappear in a typical session.
Absent from both the study and the Vegas Inc. article was any mention of the growth of penny slots in recent years. These machines have become very popular despite the fact that they have the lowest payouts. So, at least to some extent, slot players have themselves to blame for the lower returns they are getting.
Both of these news items bring to mind two recurring thoughts of mine concerning the casino business. First, unlike other transactions in a market economy, all aspects of gaming are a zero-sum game. What the players get comes out of the pockets of the casinos and vice-versa. Second, except for the pathetic addicted degenerate gamblers that the industry claims it would never want as customers, no one has to gamble. Casinos are in competition not only with each other but with all other forms of entertainment. Try to take so much from the customer that the enjoyment from gambling is no longer worth the cost, and people will do other things for fun.
Perhaps the biggest threat to the future of gaming as an industry is the constant craving of Wall Street for earnings growth. In this era of gaming saturation, expansion can no longer satisfy this appetite. As the big casino companies try to increase earnings by further squeezing their customers, they will reach a point where they hurt their own bottom line. We may be near that point now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
