Is anyone else hugely entertained by the FP+ tier system test?

[skriegerjr]

your perks are at your hotel. If you don't feel like you are getting your money's worth, then stay someplace else.

Which is exactly the same response to folks staying off-site. It you want extra Disney perks, stay on-site...

Sent from my rooted Samsung Galaxy SIII using the DISBoards app

 

[sanapunk]

I think all the FP complainers need to go volunteer at Give Kids the World while they are in FL. They will never complain about anything ever again.

 

[DisneyDollface]

How about the local Disney fans who like to visit or have family visiting and want to hit the parks, they don't need to stay in a hotel?

 

[Bullseye]

Realistically, I don't see how Disney can do the same thing as US/IOA does (and I am a huge fan of the FOTL perk there). The 3 resorts at Uni combined have a max of about 2,400 rooms. That is about equivalent to only AOA and BLT at Disney - add in the thousands of other WDW rooms and there are just too many to support the same kind of perk. Even Uni is not including their latest soon-to-open value resort in their FOTL perks.
I guess WDW could always offer an extended FP+ booking window and/or extra FP+ picks to their on-site guests, but even that could take quite a bite out of available FP+s for others just due to the sheer volume of rooms.
We'll see.

No you're right they couldn't do it to the same degree as US/IOA just because of the sheer number of rooms in their resorts, but they could do it at some level...like booking priority or the quantity provided or some other method of sweetening the pot for on site guests.

 

[Planogirl]

Which is exactly the same response to folks staying off-site. It you want extra Disney perks, stay on-site...

Sent from my rooted Samsung Galaxy SIII using the DISBoards app

Offsite people are getting perks yanked away from them and that is never pleasant. Of course, I think that onsite people are getting less too now but YMMV on that one.

 

[Nancyg56]

Offsite people are getting perks yanked away from them and that is never pleasant. Of course, I think that onsite people are getting less too now but YMMV on that one.

I agree that the incentives to stay onsite are not what they used to be. I love onsite, mostly because I like not needed to drive at all while on vacation, but I also need to know that my money was well spent. I believe that the same holds true for offsite guests. I always thought that offering incentives to stay onsite was a good marketing program, but I believe that if once guests enter the parks, offsite folks are at an extreme disadvantage, the marketing folks need to be fired. It cannot benefit Disney if a large number of guests who frequent the parks, stores, shows and restaurants feel disenfranchised.

 

[dansamy]

I'm hoping they intend to adjust booking windows or number of FP+ selections based on resort class.

Upthread, someone pointed out that even Universal's new hotel will not have FOTL pass. Universal's existing hotels are labeled "deluxe" by Universal. The new one is being called a "value". Did you see that? Universal is providing a lot better in-park benefit to guests staying at their more expensive properties & their lesser expensive property is being offered early entry, still a benefit but much less of one. Every one of their guests, off site and on, pays nearly the same amount for their park tickets. Universal also offers a paid version of their express pass for those not staying in one of their deluxe hotels.

Disney is attempting to keep people on property. If you go off property, you're not in Disney restaurants or Disney gift shops. Disney is trying to recapture that spending. To keep people on property, they're going to have to offer something that guests can perceive as a significant enough of a value added benefit to "justify" paying three times the price for a Motel 6 or twice the price for a Hilton lite.

 

[snykymom]

How about the local Disney fans who like to visit or have family visiting and want to hit the parks, they don't need to stay in a hotel?

They don't get the 180+10 booking window or EMH. They don't get DME. So there are already perks they don't get. I see it likely that there will be a +10 or so booking window for FP+.

II believe that if once guests enter the parks, offsite folks are at an extreme disadvantage, the marketing folks need to be fired. It cannot benefit Disney if a large number of guests who frequent the parks, stores, shows and restaurants feel disenfranchised.

They already are disenfranchised as far as restaurants are concerned. How many off-site guests do you think can eat at BOG? Or when it was a 1 credit, at Le Cellier? There may be openings at the hotel restaurants, but not in the parks. They also don't get to enjoy EMH (except maybe shopping).

And as for paying more and getting more, may I direct your attention to the MNSSHP and MVMCP? Different parades, different merchandise, better access to the rides, special meet & greets . . . if you can pay for them. Or how about Free Dining? Value resort guests get the QSDP for free, while mods & deluxes get the DDP. Pay more for your resort and get a bigger "bonus." Or Club Level - pay more and get the concierge.

They're moving in that direction. I wouldn't be surprised if they continue that way.

 

[dansamy]

They're moving in that direction. I wouldn't be surprised if they continue that way.

This. I'm just hoping they take it far enough to make it "worth it" to stay on property and "worth it" to stay in higher classes of resort vs values. There's a fine line they have to walk though to still get off site guests. I also think there's a fine line between how much you can give to a deluxe resort guest over a value resort guest without alienating the value guest to the point they stay off site or stop coming.

 

[clsteve]

I agree that the incentives to stay onsite are not what they used to be. I love onsite, mostly because I like not needed to drive at all while on vacation, but I also need to know that my money was well spent. I believe that the same holds true for offsite guests. I always thought that offering incentives to stay onsite was a good marketing program, but I believe that if once guests enter the parks, offsite folks are at an extreme disadvantage, the marketing folks need to be fired. It cannot benefit Disney if a large number of guests who frequent the parks, stores, shows and restaurants feel disenfranchised.

I feel your pain, but this is about "heads in Disney beds".

The numbers dont lie, on-site visitors provide an incredibly larger piece of the pie. Let's look at the math for a 7 night, 4 family on-site and a 4 family off-site as Disney sees it (you can change the # of days but the ratio is the same):

Lodging:

Onsite: 7 x $300.00 = $2,100.00
Offsite: 7 x $0.00 = $0.00

Tickets:

Onsite: 4 x 7day ticket = $1,235.80
Offsite: 4 x 4day ticket = $1,023.80

Meals:

Onsite: 7days x 4people x 3meals(avg. $25.00) = $2,100.00
Offsite: 4days x 4people x 1.25meals(avg. $25.00) = $500.00

Retail:
Shopping, drinking, mini-golf, etc.: (Higher dollar amnt. for onsite because- when you're on-site and you forget your sunglasses,shampoo, toothpaste, etc., you're buying it from Disney. When you get a beer at the pool, or a newspaper in the Lobby, you're buying it from Disney)

Onsite: 7days x 4people x 4hrs/day x $25.00/hr = $2,800.00
Offsite: 4days x 4people x 3hrs/day x $10.00/hr = $480.00

Totals:
Onsite: $8,235.80
Offsite: $2,003.80
And I'm being generous for the off-site visitors, the majority of which will get one, two or three day tickets.

We have to remember the VAST majority of Disney guests visit once or twice in their lifetime and Disney wants to make sure they get them to spend that on-site. We on the DISboards are a very small but vocal minority in the fiscal grand scheme of things. We can debate fairness, but we dont have a valid argument against the bottom line.

 

[Planogirl]

I have never spent $300 per night for a Disney room. I would say that $150 is more my max (usually - love the moderates). Plus in fairness you'd have to subtract free dining when that is available.

You're also assuming that offsite people don't go to the parks as many days. We always have. It's true that we might eat fewer meals onsite but we always seem to be there during free dining.

I still believe that Disney wants as much money from both sources as they can get. Even if offsite is less, I can't see Disney deciding that they don't want it.

 

[ArwenMarie]

I'm not sure about that retail number. I know there is no way we spend that much. Other than food, which is already accounted for, I'd say we spend maybe 50 a day on random things for our family in total.

I really think the only thing that makes sense to count as a definite plus for Disney is the lodging cost. And probably some portion of food, because it's more likely an offsite visitor will eat offsite more.

Regardless, I do agree that there is a difference of thousands of dollars for an average week-long vacation onsite versus offsite, just not sure how many thousands.

 

[clsteve]

I have never spent $300 per night for a Disney room. I would say that $150 is more my max (usually - love the moderates). Plus in fairness you'd have to subtract free dining when that is available.

You're also assuming that offsite people don't go to the parks as many days. We always have. It's true that we might eat fewer meals onsite but we always seem to be there during free dining.

I still believe that Disney wants as much money from both sources as they can get. Even if offsite is less, I can't see Disney deciding that they don't want it.

But you're experienced, been many times, and know how/when to get the right deal. And I'm not saying they don't want it, they just want it after their on-site occupancy is at the preferred level.

All I'm trying to point out is, these changes are more understandable if we look at them through the Disney Corporate Lens instead of ours.

Btw, The $300 is a median between value and deluxe, 1bdrm, studios, villas, etc., taking into account seasonal changes.

And if we go back in time, most of us spent way more money on our 1st or 2nd visit (or, at least our parents did) than we might have wanted or expected- I know I did....

 

[Nancyg56]

They don't get the 180+10 booking window or EMH. They don't get DME. So there are already perks they don't get. I see it likely that there will be a +10 or so booking window for FP+.


They already are disenfranchised as far as restaurants are concerned. How many off-site guests do you think can eat at BOG? Or when it was a 1 credit, at Le Cellier? There may be openings at the hotel restaurants, but not in the parks. They also don't get to enjoy EMH (except maybe shopping).

And as for paying more and getting more, may I direct your attention to the MNSSHP and MVMCP? Different parades, different merchandise, better access to the rides, special meet & greets . . . if you can pay for them. Or how about Free Dining? Value resort guests get the QSDP for free, while mods & deluxes get the DDP. Pay more for your resort and get a bigger "bonus." Or Club Level - pay more and get the concierge.

They're moving in that direction. I wouldn't be surprised if they continue that way.

Of course there are benefits for choosing to stay onsite. Disney needs to add some benefits to entice guests to stay in their resorts and commit to spending the lions share of vacation dollars within the WDW complex. I do not think that offsite folks are shut out because of this. I do not have statistics so I cannot pretend to be ale to prove that offsite guests were eating in Le Cellier, but I think they were. Free dining was always reserved for onsite guests, and if you remember the numbers people were posting when they booked their resorts I can understand the tiered system when offering "free" dining now. Most businesses have criteria that must be met when participating in any promotion that is offered.

I also do not see the correlation between hard ticket events and disenfranchising offsite patrons. Everyone has the opportunity to purchase a party ticket.

I realize that you are trying to show that WDW is moving in the Play for Pay direction, and I believe that in some respects they are as well. I simply do not think that your examples indicate that they are moving towards giving any group a decided disadvantage. Perhaps the FP+ may do that, but I believe that if that occurs, Disney may find that offsite dollars add up and that it makes no sense to toss them out.

 

[larryz]

I have never spent $300 per night for a Disney room. I would say that $150 is more my max (usually - love the moderates). Plus in fairness you'd have to subtract free dining when that is available.

You're also assuming that offsite people don't go to the parks as many days. We always have. It's true that we might eat fewer meals onsite but we always seem to be there during free dining.

I still believe that Disney wants as much money from both sources as they can get. Even if offsite is less, I can't see Disney deciding that they don't want it.

As a self-confessed "Deluxe Snob," I believe that $300 a night is conservative. Think of all the folks who stay in upgraded view/concierge rooms, or those who get two rooms to accommodate family situations...

 

[clsteve]

I'm not sure about that retail number. I know there is no way we spend that much. Other than food, which is already accounted for, I'd say we spend maybe 50 a day on random things for our family in total.

I really think the only thing that makes sense to count as a definite plus for Disney is the lodging cost. And probably some portion of food, because it's more likely an offsite visitor will eat offsite more.

Regardless, I do agree that there is a difference of thousands of dollars for an average week-long vacation onsite versus offsite, just not sure how many thousands.

Frequent visitors rarely spend that much on what I grouped into Retail- because we already have, just over multiple trips.

First and 2nd time guests do, however.

And I would have made more sense if I had added Travel as a percentage and said Retail (incl. booze, gifts, sundries, etc.) was 22-28% of on-site expenditures.

Heck, it just happened to me last year when I went the first time with my kids after many times as a kid, then adult, then a couple:
1st day at Magic Kingdom: Main Street Silhouettes of kids for both sets of GP's, Mickey Ears, Photopass+, 2 t-shirts, you get what I mean.

 

[mom2mickeyfan]

I feel your pain, but this is about "heads in Disney beds".

The numbers dont lie, on-site visitors provide an incredibly larger piece of the pie. Let's look at the math for a 7 night, 4 family on-site and a 4 family off-site as Disney sees it (you can change the # of days but the ratio is the same):

Lodging:

Onsite: 7 x $300.00 = $2,100.00
Offsite: 7 x $0.00 = $0.00

Tickets:

Onsite: 4 x 7day ticket = $1,235.80
Offsite: 4 x 4day ticket = $1,023.80

Meals:

Onsite: 7days x 4people x 3meals(avg. $25.00) = $2,100.00
Offsite: 4days x 4people x 1.25meals(avg. $25.00) = $500.00

Retail:
Shopping, drinking, mini-golf, etc.: (Higher dollar amnt. for onsite because- when you're on-site and you forget your sunglasses,shampoo, toothpaste, etc., you're buying it from Disney. When you get a beer at the pool, or a newspaper in the Lobby, you're buying it from Disney)

Onsite: 7days x 4people x 4hrs/day x $25.00/hr = $2,800.00
Offsite: 4days x 4people x 3hrs/day x $10.00/hr = $480.00

Totals:
Onsite: $8,235.80
Offsite: $2,003.80
And I'm being generous for the off-site visitors, the majority of which will get one, two or three day tickets.

We have to remember the VAST majority of Disney guests visit once or twice in their lifetime and Disney wants to make sure they get them to spend that on-site. We on the DISboards are a very small but vocal minority in the fiscal grand scheme of things. We can debate fairness, but we dont have a valid argument against the bottom line.

But you should also mention that off-site guest cost Disney much less overhead too. No providing buses, paying someone to clean our rooms or staffing our resort, giving us free dining, transporting our in park purchases anywhere or bothering opening/leaving open the park just for us.

 

[robpa]

But you should also mention that off-site guest cost Disney much less overhead too. No providing buses, paying someone to clean our rooms or staffing our resort, giving us free dining, transporting our in park purchases anywhere or bothering opening/leaving open the park just for us.

I think the overhead is a pretty static #. They would have to have staff in place regardless of how many guests utilize any of these services. If you don't use them someone else is.

This may be part of where they are going with the magic band data. We only need 50 CM's on today instead of 100 and so forth.

 

[clsteve]

But you should also mention that off-site guest cost Disney much less overhead too. No providing buses, paying someone to clean our rooms or staffing our resort, giving us free dining, transporting our in park purchases anywhere or bothering opening/leaving open the park just for us.

Actually, that kind of validates the opposite of what you are implying- To recognize a profit for DisneyCo and their shareholders, they need to maximize revenue. If Disney could have maintained astronomical growth and profit margins with just the parks and off-site guests with no resorts, they would have and your point would be valid.

All of the rooms, staff, buses, etc., are there (and recognized as operational costs) to entice on-site guests: these perks fill rooms, then the on-site guests spend incrementally more.

But, nothing decreases any resorts bottom line more than empty rooms, once they're there

The Darkside is beating them about the head and shoulders with Universal Express. So, none of us should be surprised by the evolution towards FP+....

 

[DPCummerbund]

I don't see why park access should be singled out to be "equal" for everyone. If you fly down Orlando in coach, your seat is the same as everyone else's onboard, but every single person paid a different price. Is it "fair" that some people paid more for the exact same seats, while others got discounts, or even free tickets with frequent flier miles?

Very few businesses charge the same thing to every customer anymore. Your frequent buyer status, customer level, etc. all affect everything. I don't see why Disney and resort stays should be any different. I'd love to see onsite guests get more park perks, and Deluxe to get more perks than Mods or Value people.

Here's a good one: the Resort Monorail could be for Resort guests only. Scan your Magic band when you get to the queue. If you're staying at GF, Poly, or CR, or you have an ADR for a restaurant at one of those resorts that day, you get to ride the Resort monorail. If not, you don't. All guests get access to the MK/TTC monorail.