Actually I think it's a very unimaginative and poor move. Part of
the
problem with the industry is the mindset that keeps them from
competing. Most of the time if Stations makes a move, Boyd copies
it
regardless of how that affects competiveness. For example, is there
a
single property in town still generally accepted as having "really
loose slots"? Of course not.
Part of this is the mindset that requires a slot director to have a
minimum average hold on the floor. Or that limits the number of
participation or royalty machines on the floor. Or that rates local
players based on daily average or includes irrelevant factors like
"time on machine".
Combining Boyd's and Coasts loyalty programs could have given Boyd
a
significant advantage over Stations. Instead, they appear to be
blowing the opportunity. A good system would provide decent plays
to
the people on this list, little to nothing to the pros and a great
deal to the masses. Instead they appear to be providing minimal
plays
to this list (avoiding generating "good plays" buzz around time at
a
small cost), nothing to the pros and little to the masses. Foolish.
Without understanding their business it's hard to say anything
definitive. However, I totally agree that innovation appears to be
lacking in the valley. I'm guessing that revenues are not increasing
as much as the suits would like. Their solution is to take more from
their existing customer base. Anyone who really understands business
models knows this approach is a one-way ticket to disaster.
OTOH, with the recent cutbacks at Stations/Fiestas it would seem the
Coast casinos have an opportunity to raid that customer base. The
current changes could be the first volley in the raid ... or it could
be the signal for retreat.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Bill Coleman <vphobby2@...> wrote: