Page Forty-Two  

09 DECEMBER 2005

Uh-oh.  Looks like no need for marketing in Ohio.

Local & State Posted on Mon, Dec. 05, 2005 U.S. cities aim to launch ferries to Canada Survival of ventures from Cleveland, Grand River and Erie, Pa., up for debate By Bob Dyer Beacon Journal staff writer At this rate, Lake Erie may contain more high-speed ferries than walleye. No fewer than three cities hope to launch U.S.-to-Canada ferry operations within a year: • Cleveland is eyeing a route from North Coast Harbor to Port Stanley, Ontario. • Grand River, near Painesville, will be the southern terminus for a Canadian company that will shuttle back and forth to Port Burwell, Ontario. • Erie, Pa., is gunning for three ferry operations involving two Canadian ports. Whether any of these operations can sustain themselves financially is a topic of debate, given the track record of Rochester, N.Y. Same principle, different lake: Rochester has been ferrying people and vehicles back and forth over Lake Ontario -- and taking on red ink faster than the bilge pumps can handle it. A private company launched a Rochester-to-Toronto run in June 2004 -- and shut it down three months later after running up $1.7 million in debt. The city took over the operation this year, vowing to make it self-sufficient. By September, with ridership far lower than anticipated, it had already lost $4.2 million. What makes the others think they can succeed when Rochester is struggling? "They didn't do their due diligence,'' said Ray Shreckengost, executive director of the Erie Port Authority. "They didn't take care of the problems that exist with Canadian and U.S. laws." Shreckengost said none of the ventures will be economically sound unless quirks in the law can be changed. For instance, he said, American ferry passengers must pay a customs tax to Canada -- something that is not required if they arrive in Canada by driving a car across a bridge (although bridge tolls are not uncommon). Ferries transporting trucks across the lake also would be hit with additional charges they would not incur if they arrived by highway, he said. Big plans in Erie Assuming those concerns can be addressed, Shreckengost said, Erie would launch a 50-passenger, high-speed ferry to Port Dover, Ontario, next spring. A couple of years later, Erie would add a 250-passenger, 46-car ferry, again heading for Port Dover. And sometime in between, he said, a privately financed ferry capable of hauling 120 tractor-trailer rigs would be introduced, running between Erie and Nanticoke (about 10 miles east of Port Dover). Erie has already spent a small fortune on the concept. Since 1995, at least $4.5 million in federal, state and local money has been funneled into feasibility studies and dock improvements designed specifically for ferries. Erie and Rochester are 160 miles apart and would not be in direct competition. Ditto for Erie and Grand River, which are more than 80 miles apart. But Grand River and Cleveland are a mere 28 miles apart. From many points in Northeast Ohio, choosing which ferry to take would be a tossup. From downtown Akron, for instance, Cleveland is about 40 miles and Grand River is about 50. What's more, the Grand River location, just east of Mentor Headlands Beach State Park, is a lot closer to Canada. In exchange for 10 more miles of driving, you could cross the lake in an hour less -- about 2 hours, 15 minutes. Cleveland's plans Cleveland comes into the game well-armed financially, packing $6 million in federal money for construction of a terminal near the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum. Although Cleveland officials would like to launch passenger and vehicle service by spring, they have encountered so much red tape on the Canadian side that the debut probably won't come before 2007. Part of the theory behind these ventures is that they will give local tourism a big boost. But if Rochester is any indication, that may be overly optimistic: About 70 percent of the travelers have begun their round trips on the American side. Yet another fleet of boats may be zooming part of the way to Canada. The city of Lorain is spending $600,000 to study a plan to ferry passengers to the Lake Erie Islands. That plan would face competition, too, from long-standing ferry operations at Sandusky and the Marblehead Peninsula. Bob Dyer can be reached at 330-996-3580 or bdyer@thebeaconjournal.com http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/news/13330651.htm

See guys?  No need to run to hometown marketing consultants!  The Toronto-Rochester ferry route has widespread notoriety... ummm... recognition around Lake Erie.  Ohio and Pennsylvania are watching the events unfold.

Good news travels fast.  Bad news travels even faster.

When you marginalize your customer for whatever reason -- whether intentional or not -- don't be surprised if the customer doesn't react as intended.  This Rochester initiative ignored its targeted customers (a very serious oversight) and substituted assumptions which were baseless.   It assumed Torontonians and Canadians wanted -- nay, needed -- a direct route to the Rochester area when in reality, they didn't.  The lack of sufficient passengers proved that for CATS... and once again for the city of Rochester.

Money, money, money.  All 'bout the money, huh?

"None of the ventures will be economically sound unless there's sufficient public demand."  Period.  A piddling Canadian Customs tax isn't worth nitpicking about; if the public doesn't feel a need or desire to use a cross-lake method of transportation, 'quirks' in the law aren't going to make an iota of difference.  The venture is going to tank.  Even if the Customs tax were dumped today, that STILL wouldn't compel the ticket-buying public to hop on board a no-faster and totally redundant boat to "nowhere".

Maybe the Lake Erie proposals stand a better chance at survival.  The proposed northern ports of call are right in very familiar ancestral homelands and sometime I'll give it some thought.   I know there's a lot of folks in Port Dover who aren't all that enthused about the idea, but I'll ask around the next time I'm over that way (Christmas).

Right now though, the local crowd is growing restless and cranky.  Next week's vote (or non-vote as the case may be) has got the hometown snorting and pawing the ground. 

I've got to believe Mayor Bill's going to hold one HELLUVA New Year's bash to see THIS year be history.  Not only that, but he'll be off the hot seat in 2006 and that alone would be reason to celebrate.

For him AND the city of Rochester, I suspect.

Meanwhile, back in Hogtown, the residents are barely noticing any ferry action or inaction.

Pulse24: Nothing.  Toronto Star: Nothing.  Toronto  NOW: Nothing.  Nothing in CanWest-Global, CHUM-FM, CBC, Globe and Mail, Toronto Sun... well, you get the picture.

Doesn't seem to be any notice of the last cruise day of Monday, 12 December 2005 on the Bay Ferries' catfastferry.com website, either.  The early shutdown doesn't appear to have even broken the surface of acknowledgement in Toronto and it's probably a safe bet there's not going to be much of an impact if anyone notices or cares.  "It's there... fine; it's not... fine.  Whatever."

Apathetic indifference is tough to turn around and when the public sees inconsistent scheduling which first proclaims year-round service, then ten-month service, then a proposed seven-month service, then cancelled days (not because the ship can't handle the weather, but to sweeten the pot in order to grab repeat customers), then an early end to the season, then an uncertain restart date, then reports of running out of money (again)... well, they might be excused for saying "To hell with the damn thing; we'll drive".

"Be patient", Ferry Board Chairman Ben Douglas implores.  "Give it a full year of operation."

If this is the best service the public can expect from the ferry organizers, then clearly 'the best' is not good enough and the project deserves to languish.  Nothing about this venture has ever said 'First Class'; indeed, the handling of the entire affair has been sophomoric, hackneyed and inept since 2001. 

Bumbling, stumbling and troubling.  And these guys think they can build on THAT?

31º | Hi 35º / Lo 24º

A flawed business model.  That was CATS' primary screw-up and rather than examine what was wrong with it, city officials simply took the file cabinet, databases and used the same model.

Yeah, yeah, yeah... they WiteOut'd the projected passenger numbers, tweaked the fares and schedules a little but essentially they just used the same idea and changed the name on the title of the ship.

The city never questioned the need for the service and never examined the practicality of it.  They never stopped and thought of the seasonal relationship the residents surrounded the Lake Ontario Basin have with the big pond nor did they consider the radically different demographics between Toronto and Rochester.  They just ran with it, blindly using the very assumptions which got CATS in trouble.

The above D&C article is a solid affirmation declaring year-round service was an idea which was rooted in fantasy.  Originally, who's great idea was it to offer year-round service?  Why would anyone with a scintilla of experience or common sense believe the public would use the ferry in sufficient numbers to merit offering year-round service?  At any point in the process of organizing the service, why didn't anyone stop and say, "This is crazy.  Anything having to do with the Lake in the winter is ignored"?

The city simply grabbed the ferry and said, "It's ours now".

People do strange things when they get behind the wheel of a new car in the car lot.  The new car smell, slick bells and whistles and the prospect of This-Too-Can-Be-Yours wipes out reason and intellect.  It's exciting and regardless of whether the object of desire gets 12 mpg and will cost $800 a month in payments and an additional $700 in annual insurance premiums, they just HAVE to have it.

The ferry was no different.  Exciting new technology loomed large in the Port of Rochester and completely disregarding the fact the Torontonians and Canadians on the north side of the lake have never really been all that crazy about visiting the Rochester area, city officials charged ahead with taking out loans and making long term assumptions.  They assumed the reason Torontonians rarely visited Rochester was because of some terrifying white-knuckled drive on a ultra-fast three-lane highway and that a leisurely cruise was all that was needed to have 'em packing the decks to have a look-see in the Rochester area.

They were wrong.  Not just a little wrong, but completely wrong.  It wasn't the driving experience which kept Canadians away from the Rochester area.  It was the Rochester area itself.  It simply didn't hold the attraction the locals seemed to think it did... not for Canadians anyway.  Considering the entire viability of the ferry business rested solely on Canadian acceptance and use, it was just another gross miscalculation in a series of gross miscalculations.

Rochester area residents may tremble and shake at the thought of tooling along some busy three-lane superhighway at 80 mph.  They may break out in a cold sweat when thinking about driving in rush-hour traffic in a city the size of New York, Chicago or Toronto.  Despite having access to more travel information than ever before... and armed with everything from GPS units to mapping programs to online travel information... the notion of exploring another locality minus first-hand knowledge and experience might be intimidating to locals.

But it's a serious mistake to ASSUME the rest of the world thinks like Rochesterians when, in fact, they don't.  The QEW/Gardiner expressways are busy, but that only means paying more attention to actual driving as opposed to juggling double-lattés, laptops and DVD players.  Compared to downtown Boston, San Francisco or Manhattan, rush-hour driving in and around Toronto is no different -- and in the case of Boston and NYC, one helluva lot easier.  Toronto is laid out in a North-South, East-West grid and it doesn't get much easier than that.

If Rochesterians can't hack the drive, that doesn't mean neither can Canadians... which shoots a huge hole through one of the primary selling points of the ferry.  "An exciting alternative to driving" holds far less compelling appeal to people who are perfectly at ease with the things that Rochesterians aren't.  That was overlooked from the beginning.  Assumptions instead of reality.

13WHAM?  Why do you guys even bother?

Mayor Johnson To Ask City Council to Back Loan for Ferry? (Rochester, NY) 12/09/05 -- Mayor Bill Johnson might ask the Rochester City Council to back a $10 million loan for marketing and other costs for the fast ferry in 2006. The City Council and the Ferry board are holding off on requesting more operating money for now. The Ferry lost $4.2 million over the 2005 season and is running out of its reserve fund. Service is ending for the season Monday, two weeks earlier than planned.

A real non-news story which says nothing and explains even less.  These people are dodging the bad ferry news as much as possible and they're using the old If-We-Don't-It-Maybe-It'll-Go-Away approach.  "There.  See?  We've covered the ferry story."

It's not so much that 13WHAM isn't providing the viewers with in-depth ferry coverage -- they're not and there's plenty of coverage elsewhere anyway -- it's their maddening habit of focusing on the pleasant and ignoring the ugly which is so frustrating.  That does little to change the status quo and address issues which are troubling this community.

Which might explain why 13WHAM News is so popular in this market.  Meanwhile, across town, other media organizations are presenting a little more substance.

Postulating here.  Suppose Mayor Bill rams through a vote approving another $10 million in loans, then splits.  He's funded his pet project, possibly saving the ferry (in his mind anyway).  Mayor Bob comes in and lo and behold, he doesn't have to be the fall guy for making a really controversial move.  Sort of what former Monroe County Exec Jack Doyle did for Monroe County Exec Maggie Brooks just days before he left office by raising property taxes.

Mayor Bob, while possibly quietly thinking to himself "This boat's a goner", is exonerated from starting off on the wrong foot because it was Mayor Bill, not him, who wasted taxpayer money - OR - voted the ferry into oblivion by not approving the request for the $10 million loan.  A Win-Win for Mayor Bob.

When Mayor Bob finally sees the end of the ferry business in 2006, it won't be his fault for failing.  Mayor Bill will shoulder that blame and what will he care at that point?  He's not running for public office and the job at RIT will cover him nicely until retirement.  In a way, it's a Win-Win for Mayor Bill as well.  He gave the ferry a final shot in the arm, getting his Great Vision a second, albeit short, life.

Somebody's got to lose here and as you may have already surmised, it's the taxpaying public.  Having mud thrown on one's pride while paying for it is a real Lose-Lose proposition.

And so it goes.  By this time next year, the ferry service will be a distant memory and provided the ship can be sold, so will the ferry itself.  The only sign of a ferry having been in town will be a huge bill to be repaid and an unused ferry terminal.  Toronto, somewhat chastened and wiser, will use their terminal as tangible proof that the Toronto Port Authority should be abolished as has been the desire for years.

Will the Rochester area residents learn anything from this exercise in futility?  That all depends if they decide to examine WHY there weren't enough passengers from the north side of the lake using the service.  My guess is they'll simply parrot back what the see and read in the media and call it a day;  'bad marketing', 'late start-ups' -- and my favourite -- 'bad luck' will all be used as 'reasons' why Canadians didn't use the ferry.  And that will be that.

Things like a serious lack of any real attractions, a perceived high crime rate and being a small town in comparison to a world-class city will never be raised.  A general perception that the U.S. uses Canada for its own purposes when it wants and ignores it when it doesn't won't be considered either... even though the ferry project is a good example of this.

What will be learned?  Not much I'm afraid.

Ferry’s last voyage set for Monday   12/8/2005 12:00 PM (Joylynn Whitfield, WROC-TV) The new change brings some disappointment and concern over whether the ferry will be profitable next year. "Certainly disappointing for some of us," said Paul Braband Hopes of the ferry bringing big business to the port seems but a dream for workers and business owners in Charlotte and the ferry terminal.  But an inconsistent schedule and low ridership this season stirs concern. "So it makes us who work down here a little nervous that it might not work out," said Braband. Bay Ferries' Don Cormier says high fuel costs and not being able to predict the demand for the ferry are partly to blame for the inconsistent schedule, "Bay Ferries gained experience to what demand is for our customers. Next year's seasonal service will have a more reliable schedule," said Cormier. Some people who've rode the ferry say it's a fun ride, but say it needs more promotion. "They need to do more marketing.  We actually won our tickets, that's one reason we went." "What we really need more than anything is a consistent schedule that tour groups and consumers can count on when they plan vacations."    Business experts say marketing is key and that the boat should be re-branded as a pleasure boat. "Not as a way for commuters to avoid the commute between Toronto and Rochester because it's not an efficient way to travel nor is it a cheap way to travel," said Bob Barbados, business professor at R.I.T. But Barbados says round trips alone won't generate enough revenue to offset expenses. "They're going to have subsidies from other municipalities to make this boat, be able to pay its bills," Barbados said. Don Cormier with Bay Ferries says the boat will stay docked in the port for maintenance before going to dry dock.  Bay ferries is offering refunds, bus rides to Toronto, and free passes for the 2006 season for those passengers effected by the schedule change.  If you have questions you can call 877-283-7327.

"They're going to have subsidies from other municipalities to make this boat, be able to pay its bills," Barbados said."

Why should other municipalities pay for a Rochester-based, Rochester-conceived, Rochester-owned and Rochester-operated enterprise?  What's in it for them?  The Rochester community itself hasn't even seen any benefit form the ferry -- and they've already spent the most money.

Why on Earth would/should any other municipality step up with cash to bail out a floundering project which ostensibly benefits Rochester?  Toronto loses little more than C$10 million for a terminal; tourists still flock to the GTA... and not because of the presence of any ferry to Rochester either.  Toronto doesn't have to spend any more money.  If Rochester wants to do business with Toronto, it better have deep pockets because Toronto definitely has the upper hand.

"Business experts say marketing is key and that the boat should be re-branded as a pleasure boat."

Once again, these self-proclaimed 'experts' are playing games and presuming to know why consumers would or wouldn't take the ferry.  Commuter craft, pleasure craft, gaming craft or binge-drinking craft... the fact still remains that Torontonians and Canadians aren't interested in visiting Rochester.  Call  the tub what you want... that has no effect on what it does and that would be to act as another way to get from Toronto to Rochester.  And Canadians see no need for another way to get to Rochester.  Period.

And has the ferry attracted 'only' 5% of the combined populations of Toronto and Rochester so far?  If that all that's needed to break even, why is the ferry service losing money?  If 5% of the combined population is all that needed -- which includes the Rochester side as well -- why has the ferry lost money at the pace it has?

OK.  Let's say the ferry needs to attract 300,000 riders over the course of one entire season , which, according to ferry organizers, the ferry hasn't had yet.  In the past six months of operation, the ferry attracted just under 100,000 riders.  Next year, ferry organizers are saying the season will be seven months long.

Considering the most popular part of such a unique service is at the beginning of the venture -- and tapers off after the novelty has worn off -- how does the ferry Board think the extra month will attract an additional 200,000 riders?  Especially when it couldn't even attract 100,000 during the first six months of operation?

Look at it another way.  If the ferry service CAN'T even attract 5% of the combined population of Toronto and Rochester, doesn't that speak volumes of how little the service is needed or wanted?  Right now, less than 5% of the combined population uses the ferry whereas more than 95% doesn't. 

From a taxpayer position, why should the public subsidize some venture which benefits a tiny percentage of the general population?  The so-called 'spin-off' effect of bringing new cash and jobs has never materialized and in less than a week, there's going to be yet more people filing for unemployment benefits on both sides of the lake due to the winter hiatus.

Since the ferry primarily benefits the Rochester area (or so they say) it seems it would be incumbent upon Rochester area residents to support and use the service more than Torontonians and Canadians.  With one million people living in Monroe County, if one person in ten were to take the ferry just once, that would be 100,000 riders right there.

Rochester ferry supporters are being pretty casual about assigning blame when the home port community doesn't even embrace the ferry.  Many folks I've spoken to in the Rochester area are all excited about keeping the service alive, yet they've never taken the ferry --  for that matter, even fewer make more than one trip to Toronto every year or so.

Me?  I was (briefly) in Toronto three weeks ago and I'll be there this afternoon.  Driving, of course.  Am I being hypocritical for not taking the ferry?  No, because the ferry doesn't meet my needs; it takes longer when everything is taken into consideration, costs more than tolls and driving and I plan on stopping in St.Catharines to do some running around.  I realize most Rochester area residents have no need to make a stop along the way to Toronto, but what does their situation have to do with mine?  The ferry is no help to me, so why should I take it?

If someone who travels to Toronto as frequently as I do has no use for the ferry, how is someone who rarely travels to Toronto supposed to support the ferry?  Pleasure craft -- like country clubs -- are fine, but their need is dubious at best.  Both attract a mere fraction of the population and when the general population is the intended market, it should come as no surprise the numbers just won't be there.

That is, except to arrogant, well-heeled people who can't understand why everybody can't afford to patronize pleasure craft and country clubs.  They can, so that must mean everybody can -- and should.  While I'd have little problem coming up with the fare for a ride on the ferry, the major inconvenience and time required of the service far outweighs any benefit.  I suspect I'm not alone in that sentiment.

For me, marketing of the ferry would have no effect on decision to drive.  A reduced fare -- even a free ticket with free parking in Rochester and free transportation to Yonge and Dundas -- wouldn't compel me to use the ferry.  As sweet as the marketing panacea appears to the Ferry Board, every perk and enticement offered to the consumer only means a lowered profit margin... something the ferry budget can ill-afford. 

The break-even effect of possibly attracting more passengers at a lowered profit margin is an enormous gamble, particularly considering the demand has never been demonstrated.  People aren't so much opposed to the cost of taking the ferry as they are its southern destination.

Hands up: How many Rochester area residents plan on traveling to Toronto today?  The roads aren't bad and most people have the day off, so why aren't locals jumping in the car and heading north? 

Why are people sticking around home?  Therein lies a very good illustration of why the ferry can't survive.

12 DECEMBER 2005

How NOT to run a business.

Monday   December 12, 2005

Port Businesses to Close for Winter   by Leah George Photo By: Todd Krupa Published Dec 11, 2005 Because Rochester’s Fast Ferry will not run in the winter, a majority of the merchants in the terminal are planning to close-up shop for at least two months. The terminal's landlord, Maple Star, offered tenants the option to close for the months of January and February and not pay rent. Tenants say they also were offered the option to stay open and pay half of their rent for three months. Five of the terminals seven remaining businesses have opted to close. California Rollin’ sushi bar and Quiznos Subs will stay open. "Why not keep it open? People really want to have food, a winter is winter it's gonna come and go anyways. So I'll keep it open, see how it turns out and hopefully I’ll have a good winter," Quizno’s owner Kiran Patel said. Other terminal business owners said it wasn’t worth staying open just to pay rent. "It was a great summer, but the minute the summer ends people just don't want to come down here. Without the boat running, the terminal's empty," Mike Manioci said. Tenants say the city and Bay Ferries need to do more to attract people to the port during the winter. The terminal is available for meetings or special events. If you're interested call Bay Ferries at (585) 428-9303.

As we round the bend and come into the home stretch this week, it bears watching to see if the ferry business goes out with a bellow or a whimper.  There's a real potential for some public hissy fits with great hurls of accusations and blame in City Council chambers if the request for more ferry funding hits a snag.

Or, the funding may come through and the ferry will limp painfully along until it's financially euthanized and put out of its misery.  Either way, today may very well be the end of the road for the ferry business between Rochester and any Canadian port for the foreseeable future.  One can only hope.

Toronto, of course, is barely paying attention as it's getting its Christmas groove on.  Thoughts in Muddy York are on parties, food and the January 23 election.  Rochester doesn't even appear on the collective radar and its ferry doesn't even merit a mention.  The mood in Toronto right now regarding the Boat To Nowhere?  "What... you guys are still here?"

It's a bad time to be tossing the anchor and sitting in drydock.  Not that the ferry was of that much interest in Toronto anyway, but now its become a virtual afterthought... at least that was my impression this past weekend.  There are just too many damn things going on in Toronto right now to be thinking about some superfluous joy ride across the lake.

Rochester, like some homely wallflower at the Junior Prom, waits to be noticed by the Big Man On Campus for her turn to cut some rug... only the object of her desire isn't even looking her way.  Rejected and dejected, the Rochester contingent tries to put on a brave face in spite of the fact there's no undoing the tremendously humiliating business blunder which has been played in the media and on the internet.

As a proud Canadian living amid the carnage of conservative thought, word and deed, I can't help but see the dotted line between the two countries turn into a solid demarcation of ideology and national identity.  Canada, for all its internal squabbling, is becoming a real player in the international community as it distances itself from the Rabid Right of the States. 

George Bush?  Your cowboy antics may play well with Americans of the Republican persuasion but in Liberal Ontario -- you know, the province that has a healthy say in who runs the country -- your policies and priorities are given a less than cordial reception.  Republican Monroe County, those defenders of The American Way, are quietly being nose-thumbed by the very customers who've been being wooed for the past four years.  Think the scarcity of passengers from the north is only because the Garbage Plate hasn't had more airtime?

Well, not exactly.  It's a bit like the rich cousins groaning about having to visit their relatives living in the trailer park.  They don't have the big screen plasma TV in each room or jet skis parked at the dock in the front yard and they don't even have a Hummer for each kid.  "BOR-ing.  Can't wait to get back home."

Anyway, let's sit back and see what antics transpire THIS week.  I'll be voting in the impending Canadian election, so my attention is focused on seeing Conservative Stephen Harper try to sell his "Let's go American" agenda to Canadians in a bid to call 24 Sussex his home.  His followers are creating quite a show of stupidity which is entertaining in itself.

But then, I'm quite certain you Rochesterians couldn't care less, could you? 

Canada: There when you need it; ignored when you don't.  Why change now?

Details.  Why bother fussing about facts when it's more 'pleasant' to twist the reality?

Ferry's last trip Monday   12/11/2005 11:00 PM (WROC-TV) The fast ferry wraps up its second season Monday, and it's not clear if there will be a third. This was the first season under the city's ownership.  (Right off the bat, WROC-TV is disputing Ferry Board President Ben Douglas' claim that the ferry needs a full season to prove itself.) This week, the ferry board is expected to ask Rochester City Council  to approve a $10 million loan to keep the ferry afloat in 2006. Some council members have expressed concern about the pending request, and the timeframe they've been given to make a decision. The city would like a vote at the December 20th meeting. State Senator Joe Robach tells News 8 he thinks a state bailout is unlikely. He thinks the city should find alternate ways of funding the operation. "I'm actually hoping there could be some other intervention that could raise money, other ways than taking out a loan and relying on property tax payers." Robach would like to see gambling on the ship or at the ferry terminal, and a better marketing plan. Arnold Rothschild, whose ad agency has been working for the ferry project free of charge, plans to announce a 2006 marketing plan Monday afternoon. It's not clear if the plan has the support of the ferry operator or ferry board.  News 8 Now will have a crew on board the last trip to Toronto of the season. Stay tuned at 5, 6 and 11 for reports on the voyage and the latest on the future of the fast ferry.

Calling Darren Stevens.  We need a 'marketing campaign' so we can play like the Big Boys in our game of acting all grown up.  Larry Tate would be SO proud.

The locals are scarfing up this 'marketing' angle like yesterday's pizza.  Nevermind that 'marketing' only appeals to those who haven't already made up their minds... which doesn't apply to that customer base on the north side of the lake -- you know, all the Canadians who've already said they don't need or want the ferry.

Remember that 5% of the combined populations of Toronto and Rochester which is 'all' that's needed to break even?  The 5% which hasn't even come CLOSE to showing up with cash for a ticket to ride during the past two years of sporadic operation?  Convincing them that Rochester is some place they want to visit hasn't worked with discount fares, modified schedules or designer terminals.  A 'branding' change from a commuter vessel to that of a 'pleasure craft' may work in the eyes of the hometown 'professionals' but the buying public sees no difference and trying to pull the wool over THEIR eyes only will result in greater peals of laughter.

Save the effort and don't insult the consumer.  The locals who insist 'marketing' is the answer are merely deluding themselves and demonstrating how parrots learn their lines.  Rugged individualism in this town is practically an indictable offense; independent thought is frowned upon as that's why we have TV and newspapers to tell us what to think, say and do. 

Actually thinking for ourselves might cause brain cramps and we wouldn't want to risk THAT, nosireeBob.