Quote:
Originally Posted by callipygian
LOL you did!
Okay, you didn't say those words but you admitted it affected your behavior, and you would have done something different had there not been a parking fee, and that you were doing it on principle.
There's really two options. One is that you never intended to spend any money, in which case the casino squeezing the parking fee out of you was a good move. The other is that you did intend to spend money, but didn't, so the casino lost money but you're definitely depriving yourself of something you wanted.
You can't have it both ways, to claim it's no big deal to you and then turn around and blast the casinos for doing it.
Everyone else in every other major tourist attraction has had to deal with jacked up parking and subtle ways of thinning crowds. Why do locals in Vegas have to be so self-righteous about it? If you want to park somewhere free and walk 15 min, that's fine, but don't pretend your time is worth more than (parking fee)/(15 min). If you've thought about it a lot and concluded parking fees are a net negative and want to boycott, that's fine, just admit that you've thought about it a lot and done your research and you have a big page full of math proving you're right. If you want to deprive yourself of something just to stick it to someone else, stand up and be proud of it.
I think your life view is polarized. Mine must be more linear. There weren't two options. There's at least a third. Let's call it undetermined. I had no plans after dinner. Whatever I did after dinner was decided afterwards. The parking fee only changed my behavior, not my plans. I went to that restaurant knowing about the fee. It didn't change my plans (and considering the number of other restaurants in Vegas, many of them walking distance from my hotel, my plans were easy to change). Almost anything I could have done at MGM afterwards could have been done at dozens of other casinos in Vegas. I chose to go elsewhere. Without the fees, staying at MGM would make sense because I was already there. With the fees, screw'em.
But you inadvertently raised an issue I wanted to address--close decisions. In life, a lot of things we do, and decisions we make, are unimportant. For example, you need a container of milk and have to decide which store of two to make that purchase. You might decide to go to the store that's cheaper, or the store that's a little closer with the cute cashier. Being a poker nit, you normally chose cheaper. But it really doesn't matter much which you chose. Today, there's street construction near the cheaper store, so you go to the other to avoid the irritation of being stuck in traffic, and flirt with the cashier while there. The closer store benefitted from the irritation you would have suffered had you gone to your normal store, and the cheaper store suffered (especially since you also bought bread and some deli meats). And, as it turns out, several people in you neighborhood made that same decision that day. This construction continues for several weeks and the cheaper store notices a drop off in their business during that time period. All due to an inconvenience to some of their normal customers (and the cute cashier's boyfriend started hanging around more, for some reason).
Paying for parking is an irritant for many. If I'm looking to play 20/40 hold'em, then I'm going to the Bellagio regardless, as it's the only game in town. But if I'm undecided whether I want to play 20/40, or watch a movie on TV, that irritant may tip the scales in favor of the movie, regardless of Bellagio having the only game in town--less rake for the casino. If I'm looking to play 1/2 N/L, then I have a lot of options, some of which I don't have to pay for parking. At least some of the time, that may sway my decision--less rake for the casinos that charge for parking. If I'm looking to take my wife to a nice restaurant on her birthday, the irritant of paying for parking may sway my decision away from a restaurant in a Strip casino in favor of a restaurant on Decatur--lower revenue for the Strip restaurant. If I want to play slots, maybe I drive to Red Rock instead of the Strip. And so on. But none of these decisions deprived me of anything.
People make these boarderline decisions daily. Casino executives may have considered this or not. Certainly, someone at Caesar's realized that the Rio draws a lot of locals and excluded the Rio from the parking fees. Especially with the Gold Coast and Palms nearby. But I wonder if they considered the boarderline decisions made by those who make the drive from LA and other nearby locales. About 2/3rds of Vegas visitors arrive via ground transportation--and most of them drive. Not all of them are hell-bent on visiting Vegas, or a specific casino in Vegas. A lot of them are making close decisions--decisions that can be easily swayed in favor of another equally desirable activity. And none of these people are depriving themselves of anything. Some who fly into Vegas are making boarderline decisions. Do they vacation in Vegas or Aruba? Vegas has resort fees and parking fee? Let's do Aruba then. These people aren't depriving themselves of anything. But casinos with paid parking are depriving themselves of some income. Whether the revenue from parking compensates for lost revenue is anyone's guess.