What Does This All Mean?

March, 2010

by

Paul S. Felix

Unemployment numbers rise to 13.8% in the final the first quarter of 2010. The difference between Nevada at large and Las Vegas specifically are too small to quibble with. The financial woes of the area remain in place. According to at least one source, the statewide job loss rate in Nevada is 187,700. See this web reference for more.

Despite “official” government suggestions that we’ve reached a turning point in the economy, the 2010 first quarter visitation numbers are no better than last year’s.

The Las Vegas Journal’s column “NORM!” predicts three LV properties closing during the 2010 calendar year. The names are not given, but any additional loss of employment in the city can’t be good. I would personally predict Binion’s, Riviera, and Imperial Palace as the three most likely to go. All three have long running problems that just don’t seem fixable.

Long awaited renovations at Tropicana are finally under way. We can only hope they improve the place which is old and needs the face lift badly.

Other than mentioning that this issue marks the end of six years of this column, we’ll dispense with the rest of the usual muck and mire and get down to brass tacks.

This quarter (24) new reviews and ratings were received on the 33 properties examined.

Legend:

RATE: How many visitors have they had this month? How popular are they? Average 74

WINNERS: The Golden Nugget gets welcomed, finally, into the 100+ review club, sneaking in just ahead of Bally’s. The fact that nearly half (5/12ths) of the quarter’s visitation occurred in this top 1/3rd of the properties listed tells us some about the visitors themselves. They’re staying with the more popular places, which themselves are popular for various reasons (usually showing well in the various categories below). The properties which perform better get and keep customers at a higher rate than less well run joints. Go figure…

AVERAGE: Rio’s jump to near Average is a bit of a surprise. Normally Rio doesn’t experience such high visitation, but we can only presume that many people (1/8th of the quarter’s visitors, approx.) are still looking for acceptable alternatives to their previous preferences. Location, though by no means to be completely discounted, becomes even less important to those who are driven by need (in whatever form).

LOSERS: Fitz’s, with their two reviews slid past Wynn and into the bottom of average. That doesn’t do Fitz’s a lot of good, in the long run; they’re still in a borderline position regarding popularity. But for Wynn, this is an interesting occurrence. They’ve never scored well in popularity, sitting at #24 (where Circus is now) at the end of 2008. For the whole of 2009 they managed to ride at #22, now falling back into the Losers realm. The main reason can be seen below. Though they score well in Service and Casino (two “Critical” categories) they fall apart in Value (prices of all kinds) and are seen as no small amount of rip-off by most. Anyone paying the prices and not feeling cheated is probably one of those types who “have more money than sense” anyway.

* * * * * * *

OVERALL: Who’s the best of the best? Average = 6.98

WINNERS: Low visitation means low impact on the numbers we use to determine who’s doing well and who isn’t. Nothing of any note happened in this column, because there weren’t enough changes to make anything happen.

AVERAGE: The Gold Coast’s decline, though marked, only drops them two places. Last quarter they were in the #12 position. They’re far enough above the average mark that it makes little difference.

LOSERS: Luxor’s drop may be a telltale sign of things to come. When they began stripping the ancient Egyptian theme from the inside, it made a lot of fans unhappy. Their rating here dropped a bit shortly after the announcement and remained steady at #23 for the entire year of 2009. Now they’ve dipped again. Though a good deal of this could be attributed to lower visitation, I can’t help think that at least some of it can be credited to a falling away of tourists who are unhappy with what’s been done to the place. Riviera, on the other hand, hasn’t changed much in quite some time. Their slow decline is inexorable and is one reason why I chose them as one of the properties most likely to die by the end of the year.

* * * * * * *

ROOM: Size, comfort, amenities, quality, etc. Average=7.18

WINNERS: The top five properties have been doing a square dance for some time. We seem on the edge of Venetian topping Orleans again. We can only wait to see how long that might last. With Wynn and Bellagio bouncing up and down like a rubber ball, any of these five could be in the top slot at almost any time. The nearly wild swings sometimes taken by Wynn and Bellagio make the top five positions uncertain at the best of times. The best thing to say is that they seem mostly interchangeable with the customer perception of quality for cost being the most explicit division amongst them.

AVERAGE: Another Luxor loss drops them to the exact mid-line for room quality; yet another consequence of the change nobody wanted. Gold Coast’s dip is rather large, but not enough to drop them by a slot. Their single review was damaging, but not skewed.

LOSERS: Another Riviera hit plunges them well below Sahara, almost within reach of the IP, which itself is also on my list of one of the three possible dead properties this year.

* * * * * * *

SERVICE: How were you treated? Average=6.92

WINNERS: The general scramble was really more show than substance. The only real change was Gold Coast’s dip below 4Q. The place is still Winners grade.

AVERAGE: Fitz’s hopped over Monte Carlo. Otherwise it’s a wash.

LOSERS: As with Room, Riviera dropped score but not position. The fact that their Service is considered worse than any property except Circus is a scathing commentary by the tourist crowd.

* * * * * * *

CASINO: Atmosphere, selection, odds, comps, etc. Average=6.50

WINNERS: Again, no real changes of interest. Lack of visitation continues to mean lack of impact on ratings.

AVERAGE: Luxor drops out of the middle slot, leaving Paris as the standard by which all others are measured.

LOSERS: Venetian took a bit hit here. Last quarter they sat at #25, where Palms is now. Sheldon Adleson’s financial problems re Venetian are coming home to roost as visitors feel what the money crunch is doing to the place.

* * * * * * *

VALUE: Was it worth what you paid? Average=7.02

WINNERS: Fitzgerald’s broke into the 8.0+ club. The only question is whether they can stay there. Orleans and GC have been alone in that rarified atmosphere for so long it is good to see another competitor entering the field.

AVERAGE: No substantive changes.

LOSERS: Riviera heaps another decline onto the rest. With these three “critical” categories (Service, Casino and Value) all showing declines, the property – already in trouble rating wise – demonstrates yet again why I feel it is on life support.

* * * * * * *

LOCATION: Is it close to other attractions you want to experience? Average=7.31

I’ve often made commentary about how little stock I put into this category’s usefulness. For a long time IP was considered the best located property in town. It was near center-Strip and well within “walking distance” of a number of other things to see and do. The only problem was the seedy quality of the place – bad food, bad service, a run down atmosphere, apathy and a certain degree of “icky” from the staff, etc. – all blended to make the place far from appealing. People stayed there not because of what it had to offer in an of itself, but just because of what it was located near. I wonder, if IP does in fact go out of business this year (see prediction above), how that will affect people’s perceptions of either the concept of Location and/or the numbers here. I’ll be like Teddy Kennedy and drive off that bridge when we get there.

* * * * * * *

FAMILY: Is the place “kid friendly”? Average=41.22% said, “Yes”.

WINNERS: Circus, on the verge of dropping out of the 80.0+ group makes a strong surge of nearly a full rating point. Considering Circus’ number of ratings and the fact that this overall change came from more than one review, it is not skewed. It’s legitimate praise… go figure. Those visitors must have really low standards… ugh.

AVERAGE: No real change, despite the size of some of the numbers. Several of these properties are separated by value much bigger than a single quarter’s worth of changes can overcome.

LOSERS: If you like the “Family Friendly” concept for Las Vegas, these are definitely not places to go. Take a look at the chart below – a reverse of the one above – to see where the better “Adult” oriented properties are located. Don’t want squalling kids underfoot as you’re wallowing in adult vices? These are the better choices.

FAMILY FLIP – Who are the most Adult Friendly?

* * * * * * *

REVISIT: Customer loyalty: Would you go back? Average=74.42% said, “Yes”

The category descriptor pretty much says it all…”Would you go back?” The higher the score the more favorable a property has scored in a number of the categories above. This composite distillation of all the other stuff can be a fairly good guide for decision making when considering a trip to LV. It isn’t intended to be the sold tool to use, by any means, but it can be very useful.

* * * * * * *

TRUST: How reliable is the information given? Average=61.47

If one accounts for the number of reviews each property has and compares performances over time, one can begin to see how likely it is that any property visit will mirror the expected experience engendered by these reviews scores. The higher this number, the more likely the actual experience will match the expected one and the less likely that unexpected deviations will be unpleasant. The lower the score, the more likely deviations will occur, and the more likely they will be unpleasant.

* * * * * * *

THE MATRIX

Playing all the numbers games above is one good tool when making decisions about where to stay/play in Las Vegas. But there is another perspective which can be just as useful. Any property exceeding the average score in any category is certainly worthy of attention. Personal preferences naturally guide us towards categories of stronger subjective interest/importance. But, what does one do if one’s “favorite” property is shown to be a consistently poor performer in our most important categories? What does one do if one can be convinced that other properties are actually “better”, in that one can get better performance in those same categories without sacrificing much (if anything) in the way of the lesser aspects?

Each property on the chart below is listed by the number (#) of times they meet or beat the average score in each category. Properties listed with the same # are listed by their Overall (average) score, best to worst. The number in the box shows what position they occupy on that particular category list, while a blank shows that they didn’t make at least average.

The surprise outcome, for those who have not seen this list before, is that MGM Grand shows up as the best and most consistently performing property of the batch. They are the only ones who meet or beat the average score in every category. There are, however, those nebulous subjective aspects of the categories that must be taken into account. What if one believes that kids shouldn’t be in casinos? Strong performance in the Family category, then, might well be taken as a negative, not a positive. There is also the fact that only one property manages what MGM did, the rest are below average in one or more categories of variable importance to each viewer. The raw chart works, but it is strongly suggested one makes individual modifications based on individual tastes/preferences.

For each blank in a category one finds unimportant, raise that property to the next higher number group. For each blank in a category one finds very important, lower that property one category group. For example: if one feels that Location is of no consequence, one could raise Orleans up to MGM’s level, or if one feels Location is of seminal importance, Orleans would be dropped to the group containing Bally’s and Paris. This should give a basic list of properties that should best meet initial tastes and needs. Further adjustments can be made at one’s discretion, according to individual criteria.

It is highly recommend one not visit any property that has an overall adjusted score less than “6” as these properties have scored so poorly, in so many areas (objectively and subjectively), one is flirting with disaster (in one form or another) if one goes there; it is very likely that one will have an unpleasant experience and somehow regret the decision.