A change in the Fastpass system?

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

Some points.

1. Taking away fastpass from offsite guests will add little if any value to staying onsite. But it will subtract value from the park tickets of those staying off site. The numbers on site are just too big. Restricting fastpass to onsite guests might make Soarin run out at 1:30 instead of 1:00. Not all that big a deal. Think of EMH. The numbers are just too big. So unless one is a person that see's more value in things because the same is denied to others, there's not going to be a big value difference.
2. I doubt taking away fastpass from offsite guests will add to Disney's occupancy in any significant number. Those that seem to want this the most are already staying on site with the existing perks. Not to be rude but from a business standpoint, you don't matter in this equation. Disney already has you on site. They're getting your money anyway. And Disney knows it. The question is how many will Disney convince to stay onsite that previously stayed off, vs how many get Po'd enough not to come at all and thus they lose ticket revenue. The net gain for Disney is likely to be very small due to the following.
When is fastpass the most valuable to a customer? Peak times like Christmas, July 4, Spring break, summer. Disney has no trouble filling their resorts during peak time. That's why there are very little if any incentives and the price is so much higher. When is fastpass least valueable to a customer. Precisely the times that Disney could use a boost in hotel occupancy, ie value season. In early December, My In-laws didn't use a single fastpass. They didn't need to. They never encountered a line over 15 minutes. So here we have a perk that if restricted to on-site guests is least valuable to a customer when Disney wants to provide incentive to stay onsite the most, and most valuable when Disney needs to provide incentive the least.
3. All enhanced fastpass at DL does is essentially disconnects every ride from the network. . So though you can have a fastpass from every ride in the place at the same time, you have to essentially run like a chicken with its head cut off to go get them. Oh Joy daddy. Guess who gets to be the chicken? You cannot have multiple fastpasses out for the same ride within the same window. So unless you want to run all over the place, at best the enhanced FP will allow you to get one on 2 or 3 other rides. So it's a nice little perk to have, but it wouldn't alone convinve me to stay on site out there. And it probably wouldn't be the deciding factor in WDW either.
4. The Number of people that get enhanced FP out at DL are those that stay in one of the 3 Disney Hotels and book through AAA. Not a huge number. Now It might be a perk that they might want to consider at WDW for something like the all inclusive package where you essentially sign over your firstborn to stay a week and do what you want. But with the number of guests onsite at WDW, the numbers would be too large.
4. There isn't much way Disney could put in FOTL passes for everyone staying onsite. Too many hotels. I could just picture the front of the line queue being longer than the standard here. Again though, they might give it to those on the sign over your firstborn and we'll let you do what you want deluxe package depending upon how big of numbers we are talking about.
5. IMO, to induce a meaningful shift in behavior, the perk has to be much bigger than something to do with fastpass.

 

[letterdavidman]

There are far too many people staying onsite to make the idea of extra fast passes (or FOTL) viable for Disney. Let's draw the line even further and see how some folks react when I say that they SHOULD copy Universal, but offer unlimited FOTL for only those who stay at an onsite deluxe or are AP or DVC members.

Well said, TommyTutone.

That would certainly make me even more anxious to stay onsite (specifically, at a deluxe) than I already am. (And, believe me, after having stayed onsite for the first time this last trip, and at a deluxe, I can, well, almost categorically say that I will stay onsite only in future. There's really just no going back to being a day guest. )

Heck, I would even posit the opinion that, were Disney to differentiate the perks (or, to make Bicker happy, "perqs" ) according to which deluxe resort one stayed at, I would be making some serious budget sacrifices in order to stay at, say, the GF.

That's how enticing I view enhanced FastPass to be.

 

[bicker]

For one thing, guests are not equal inside the park as things stand right now.

Precisely. The most notable example is that resort guests are allowed to ride attractions on EMH night while off-site guests are asked to leave the parks. You cannot get any more unequal than that!

Equality, in this case, is tied to how much of your vacation budget goes to Disney versus going to its competitors.

The problem with this idea is what about all the folks that get their fast passes at the resort, therefore reducing the total quantity that is going to be offered that day for that attraction, but they never make it to the park to use them?

That can be projected, and factored into the number of FastPasses available at the parks. Alternatively the differential can be used for stand-by guests.

IMO, to induce a meaningful shift in behavior, the perk has to be much bigger than something to do with fastpass.

I disagree. Every little bit helps.

 

[letterdavidman]

It's a pretty basic concept. I really can't dumb it down anymore. Since we're discussing an issue that occurs inside the park, I have no idea what you are whining about.

Whoah, slugger.

Temper, temper!

 

[Shooby doo]

Cannot Wait well said!! We fall into the category of would a Fastpass perk encourage us to stay on -site ,a resounding NO! For us it is all down to room space-DW,myself & DS 10 for 3 weeks in somewhere like the CBR with 2 beds,a fridge & a bathroom-we would be tearing each others hair out! Could we afford Deluxe,probably but we couldn't go to WDW every 2 years as we do now & I'd probably have to sell one of everything that I have two of to medical science!
To be honest if Disney did decide to only give FP to on-site guests,would they have to guarantee every guest a pass!, at peak periods they might as well stick a big sign up saying "No point in coming in if you don't stay at one of our hotels!!" Which I agree is very unlikely.
According to our tourist Industry the UK is the biggest supplier of tourists to Orlando (not sure if this includes the US) & nobody flys all that way for a few days so our vacations tend to be a bit longer than yours.Now further back on the thread someone mentioned staying at the Contemporary for $400,well on our vacation timetable that would be $8400,with no passes,just isn't going to happen unless a rich uncle dies & leaves me a fortune!
Again someone said that on-site guests are paying more into Disneys coffers for food etc but does that still hold true with the Disney Dining plan?
Just to finish off,do i look on jealously at the Y&B club as we pass it on the way to MK - YOU BET but only until I'm lounging in our suite with DS in his own room watching his own TV,deciding whether I should cook something or just eat out!

SD

 

[Mainebound]

Precisely. The most notable example is that resort guests are allowed to ride attractions on EMH night while off-site guests are asked to leave the parks. You cannot get any more unequal than that!

D'oh! I should've had a V-8! I can't believe I forgot the most obvious perk for onsite guests!

Well, we know *something* is in the works, if the patents Disney has applied for (and gotten?) are any indication, but I guess we'll all just have to wait and see!

 

[bicker]

The parks are deliberately ever-changing. Something is always in the works. Pop Century stands only half-constructed, the rest is a bunch of deteriorating concrete foundations. Clearly, there is a lot of pressure there to find a way to get more folks to stay on-site paying Disney's premium for accommodations. It isn't clear what they'll do to inspire folks to take that plunge, but it'll be interesting to see what they do.

 

[simzac]

The parks are deliberately ever-changing. Something is always in the works. Pop Century stands only half-constructed, the rest is a bunch of deteriorating concrete foundations. Clearly, there is a lot of pressure there to find a way to get more folks to stay on-site paying Disney's premium for accommodations. It isn't clear what they'll do to inspire folks to take that plunge, but it'll be interesting to see what they do.

If I remember right, it was recently announced that the unfinished half of POP would be finished as the new family suites, recently tried at ASM. Anyone else hear this.

 

[Nancyg56]

If it better serves the objectives of the enterprise to provide greater incentive to get more off-site guests to become on-site guests, then that's what they "should" do.

Exactly right. Disney is a business with a responsibility to its shareholders to fill their parks, hotels, and restaurants. We booked onsight in order to get the DDP last year because it was in our interest to do so. I can tell you that if we needed to book onsite in order to use fastpass for free, or to have an enhanced FP, I think that we would. Time is valuable to families on vacation, especially if they are visiting during the busy seasons, and if Disney can offer another perk that will incent people to stay onsite rather that off, I think they would consider the option.

 

[bicker]

If I remember right, it was recently announced that the unfinished half of POP would be finished as the new family suites, recently tried at ASM. Anyone else hear this.

Unfortunately, no such announcement has yet been made.

 

[Chester's Mum]

I stay on site at Disney. However, with the number of children who go to the parks I think removing the fastpass from everyone who stays offsite, would also take away a lot of the magic. Particularly in peak attendance times, guests staying off site could feasibly be waiting 3-4 hours to get on a ride. This would be "H##L ON WHEELS" for some families, and I think for many, their first visit would be their last. Disney does depend on offsite guests for attendance, money spent on food, souvenirs etc. I don't honestly believe that they could survive with only the business of their on site guests. I also don't believe not being able to go to EMH seriously affects off site guests.

I wonder if so many people would be jumping on this bandwagon if someone suggested fast pass only for deluxe guests? (which I have never been).

I have been to Universal (in off peak times), and had to wait eternally while on site guests continually run up to the front of the line and walk right onto the attraction. To me this created a 2nd class set of guests, and seriously impaired my (and my kids) enjoyment of their parks. Partly why I don't yearn to be back at Universal Studios the way I yearn for WDW. They just don't get the magic thing. I'd rather not have a class system set up in the parks. JMO

 

[seashoreCM]

If you have a math Ph.D. you can figure out an actual dollar cost of Fastpass versus no Fastpass for families of varying sizes if Fastpass were to be limited to on site guests or to some on site guests. You can do that figuring today for Universal Studios.

 

[Michelle2]

I haven't read all 8 pages of this thread, only the first and last pages. So if this has already been said, sorry.
But I truly think with all of the patents pending, rumors etc, that something will be done as a perk for onsite guests. Maybe not as soon as this summer, but eventually. I think this because Disneyland in California is already doing a version of this. If you book through AAA, and have a package (on-site hotel stay and tickets) you get unlimited fastpasses. While offsite guests only can do the normal 1 set of fastpasses until the time expires, the enhanced fastpass makes it so that I can hold 5 or 6 different attractions' fastpasses at the same time. I can just go from FP machine to FP machine collecting them--as long as they are different rides...can't get them for the same ride until the current set expires. That way other guests can still get fastpasses for free, but the onsite guests still have a great perk.

DL is a smaller park(s) and have fewer onsite hotels, so I know that this exact thing won't be done in WDW---way too huge of a scale, but I am sure since something like this was implemented in DL, something will be done as a perk for onsite guests in WDW. But this is my opinion.

 

[POB14]

I know this is a little OT but I have to say how sad it makes me when I hear of people doing this thinking they are SAVING money . Nine dollars less a day. The parking at disney is $8 now isn't it...shouldn't that just about cover the difference...not to mention gas used (which is at such a premium price these days) getting from the hotel to the park! Yes, indeed staying at a days inn at those rates IS penalizing Disney, not to mention the guest that could HAVE had a "free" upgrade.

Nine dollars? Heck, if the price difference between a Days Inn and onsite were nine dollars, I think even I would stay onsite!

Random price check: October 15, 2006, two people, one night.

Days Inn 192: $40
Pop Century: $110

Topic? There's a topic? Oh, yeah. I've not stayed onsite, and probably never will, but if I were Disney I'd sure as heck find some way to give extra FPs to onsite guests. I wouldn't like it if it happened, because it would probably have a negative affect on me personally, but I think Disney would be nuts not to.

 

[MichelleChell]

I am going to be an off-site guest. So what about people with timeshare? My MIL gives us her weeks and it only cost us $150 for the week for a condo. Would you pass that up to stay on site? So I should get punished for not staying on-site. It is already unfair that we get kicked out for EMH. It is terrible IMHO. If that is supposed to make me want to stay on-site in the future it doesn't. It makes me want to go and give my business to UV or SW.

 

[traviesojmt]

I am going to be an off-site guest. So what about people with timeshare? My MIL gives us her weeks and it only cost us $150 for the week for a condo. Would you pass that up to stay on site? So I should get punished for not staying on-site. It is already unfair that we get kicked out for EMH. It is terrible IMHO. If that is supposed to make me want to stay on-site in the future it doesn't. It makes me want to go and give my business to UV or SW.

We do stay on-site but it wouldn't bother me if I chose to stay off-site and Disney offered things to on-site guests that I would not get. Many businesses have a way to offer things to some that they don't to others. The reason that it isn't unfair is that it is a choice of the guest whether to participate or not. You get a better deal staying in a timeshare. That is great for you and a choice that you make. You chose to save money on hotel rather than have extra hours at the park. I would do the same if I could get a timeshare for $150/week. But, Disney chooses to reward those that spend most of their money on-site. It doesn't entice you to stay on-site but it does entice many people. We love EMH and is a main reason we chose to stay on-site. Because we chose to stay on-site and participate in EMH, the "cost" to us is more money for hotels. Because you choose to save money on hotels, the "cost" to you is not being able to participate in EMH.

 

[Nancyg56]

I am going to be an off-site guest. So what about people with timeshare? My MIL gives us her weeks and it only cost us $150 for the week for a condo. Would you pass that up to stay on site? So I should get punished for not staying on-site. It is already unfair that we get kicked out for EMH. It is terrible IMHO. If that is supposed to make me want to stay on-site in the future it doesn't. It makes me want to go and give my business to UV or SW.

I do not see it as a punishment to off site guests. I would consider it a perk to people who choose to stay onsite. Kind of like a breakfast being offered to guests of a hotel, but visitors would pay for the same meal. I don't blame a business if they utilize a benefit in order to boost their room sales, and to incent visitors to choose to stay in their hotel rather than the hotel across the street.
DIsney has been offering incentives to "trap" people onsite by offering EMH, ME and DDP to their onsite guests. If they determine that there is a market that would appreciate an enhanced FP, and would be willing to pay their resort price, why would they choose not to offer it? Just thinking......

 

[bicker]

Disney does depend on offsite guests for attendance, money spent on food, souvenirs etc.

Of course, so the challenge would be to craft an offering that would reduce the appeal of visiting WDW to off-site guests a smaller amount than that offering would increase the appeal of staying on-site. That's a "simple" sensitivity comparison. There is a right answer, and a right balance, and there is no reason to think (1) that they've got the balance perfectly correct right now, and (2) that the perfect balance is a static quantity that never changes. In reality, (1) they're probably off by a little, and will adjust for that as time goes on, and (2) they'll continue to adjust as time goes on and things (that's us, the guests) change further.

While it is attractive to think that your own personal perspective should govern what is really that "perfect balance" that's almost always not the case, especially when money is involved.

I don't honestly believe that they could survive with only the business of their on site guests.

Though they'd sure love to try.

Seriously, no one has suggested that Disney would close its doors to off-site guests, so that's really a red herring you're bringing up there.

I wonder if so many people would be jumping on this bandwagon if someone suggested fast pass only for deluxe guests? (which I have never been).

It's interesting how you worded that... "jumping on this bandwagon" -- as if what any individual wants or likes really matters. It surely doesn't. I rarely express things like this from the standpoint of what I would personally prefer (and when I do I state that very clearly), but rather look at this from the standpoint of what is most likely -- what is most likely to be the reality. The reality may be that Disney's best decision would be to offer something to deluxe resort guests only -- and even exclude DVC members like me. They do exclude us DVC members from the free Dining Plan promotion, and I believe that is the best decision for them, even though it is to my detriment. If you haven't already, try thinking of this issue not from what would be best from your own perspective, but rather from the perspective of what is most actual, what is most real. I believe you're much less likely to be dissatisfied with things if you always consider things from both perspectives, your own, and that of reality.

 

[bicker]

So I should get punished for not staying on-site.

No one would be "punished". Rather, these suggestions would simply limit who gets rewarded. If you choose to give your money to that timeshare instead of giving it to Disney, then surely Disney shouldn't reward you as much as Disney rewards those who make the opposite decision.

So in essence, you have complete control over how much of the available benefits you are able to get, by how you decide with which vendor you spend your money.

If that is supposed to make me want to stay on-site in the future it doesn't.

I think a lot of people have that reaction to the suggestions, but in the cold light of reality would still choose to make the move on-site, in far greater numbers than some folks would like to believe.

The power of strategic marketing.

 

[KimberlyC]

I am going to be an off-site guest. So what about people with timeshare? My MIL gives us her weeks and it only cost us $150 for the week for a condo. Would you pass that up to stay on site? So I should get punished for not staying on-site. It is already unfair that we get kicked out for EMH. It is terrible IMHO. If that is supposed to make me want to stay on-site in the future it doesn't. It makes me want to go and give my business to UV or SW.

I've got to agree with bicker on this one. Its great that you can stay so affordably at your MIL's timeshare, but Disney wants people to stay at its hotels. If Disney, who owes a duty to its shareholders, can increase its revenue by getting more people to fill its hotels by offering perks (be it free transportation, free dining, EMH, or certain FP privileges) than from a business standpoint that is what it should do. Its not meant to "punish" you but to reward the people who pay a premium and stay on site or otherwise contribute heavily to Disney's cash flow (i.e. DVC and AP). Common sense dictates that people won't pay such a premium if they don't get any perks. Those who choose not to pay the premium don't get the perks. Its that simple.

Universal, as has been discussed, has similar practices. There are other theme parks that own/operate their own hotels that offer perks too - Disney is not unique in this way. Even the amusement park nearest to me (Cedar Point in Ohio) offers early morning admission to its on-site hotel guests. So you can take your $$ elsewhere but you are likely to encounter the same problems. Disney knows this and knows their existing perks aren't likely to cost them $$ or they wouldn't have them. Its all about the $$.

And just so you know, I'm not one of those people who always stays on-site. I've said before, I'm not loyal. BUT whether these perks positively or negatively affect me (or you for that matter) doesn't matter from a business perspective. All that matters to disney is that the revenue increase from them is greater than the decrease. You may think this is terrible, but corporate America is what it is.