Disney does not want or need FastPass+ Haters business!

[OldSpiceGuy]

OP, your post is a harsh reality. I get why people feel so betrayed. I think a lot of posters associate Disney with the kind loveable characters that we all grew up with and love so much. To them this FP+ change is like having Mickey Mouse flip you the proverbial bird. Disney has done such a good job of creating the "magic", that many of us have forgotten that there are shareholders and men in suits behind that magic.

The rapid increase in price alone has pretty much made it so that middle class families have to save a significant amount of money to stay more than a day or two. I don't think this was Walt's intent. The bottom line is that I think we want to believe that Disney cares about more than just our money, but this just isn't true. I'm FP+ neutral by the way

 

[Cyrano]

Folks a reminder to keep the thread on topic otherwise posts will be removed or thread closed.

 

[yitbos96bb]

Consequences will be apparent eventually. Disney cannot survive with just guests that stay on property and those guests off property are not happy - plus, those on property are not happy. People are not recommending Disney to their family and friends and are even discouraging. It may be ok right now. But the numbers will go down hill quickly and then it will take a very long time
(and lots of discounts) to get those people back. Disney's core kept them going through the bad economy and now, Disney doesn't need them? Think again Disney? You don't want your core guests upset in the long run.

Wasn't attendance at record levels last year? I've heard the recommendation statement before on here but no one has and evidence supporting the hypothesis.

 

[magicbob]

I might be wrong, but I think what they're trying to say is that if you can get that other 80% to contribute more to your profits, then it doesn't matter if the other 20% contribute less now because they're unhappy. You'll have a higher percentage, overall, of people contributing to your bottom line. Thereby increasing your profits. Hopefully.

At least that's how I'm interpreting it.

But that would seem to contradict the Pareto Principle on its face. I don't necessarily disagree with the "volume, volume, volume" approach, but I just don't think one can argue BOTH positions that most profits come from a small percentage, therefore making the rest (80%) happy (even at the risk of alienating the 20%) is the way to increase profits.

 

[superdiz]

So in reading all of this I surmised that:

A) Universal Studios - with their 2.5 parks - is better because it is cheaper.

B) Those of us who still like Disney and will give them our hard earned dollars are "drinking Kool Aid" for not flipping out that a slip of paper that got us on rides faster is changing

C) People, who bought DVC and AP's to Disney will no longer give them their patronage because they can no longer get multiple fastpasses in a day.

You're not going to Disney because of fastpasses. Does anyone else realize how ridiculous this sounds?

I've been to Universal, it's a fun park for 2-3 days. I didn't purchase the fastpass and I did ride most rides. I cannot imagine spending a week there. But I'd go for a couple days. So have fun with that.

 

[EMode]

So in reading all of this I surmised that:

A) Universal Studios - with their 2.5 parks - is better because it is cheaper.

B) Those of us who still like Disney and will give them our hard earned dollars are "drinking Kool Aid" for not flipping out that a slip of paper that got us on rides faster is changing

C) People, who bought DVC and AP's to Disney will no longer give them their patronage because they can no longer get multiple fastpasses in a day.

You're not going to Disney because of fastpasses. Does anyone else realize how ridiculous this sounds?

I've been to Universal, it's a fun park for 2-3 days. I didn't purchase the fastpass and I did ride most rides. I cannot imagine spending a week there. But I'd go for a couple days. So have fun with that.

A). For some cheaper is better but not just because its cheap but because you can get more for your money. That is dependent on what is important to you on your vacation, which is why one park isn't better for everyone.

B). I'm not going to comment on that one.

C). I do know some DVC owners who are not happy about the new FP+ rules and how it effects their time at WDW. I have no idea if they will choose not give their patronage to Disney (or WDW at least). One of the families will be there this week I guess after that they will decide what to do.

I don't think its ridiculous for anyone to decide to stop spending their money on a anything that they feel isn't worth it to them. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that FP+ is less than FP- for some families, and if you are willing to pay more for less that is fine but it isn't ridiculous for others not too. In fact, I'd say its pretty smart

 

[MrInfinity]

Fact -- Disney cannot survive with just Guests that stay on property.

Oh my. Anything that starts with "Fact --" when you don't have info is complete malarkey.

More and more people that stay off property are upset.

Just... Wow. So, a year ago you interviewed 500 ppl at the park, and found X stayed offsite and were upset, and then 6 mo ago you interviewed another 500 ppl and found X+more that stayed offsite were upset, and then last week you interviewed another 500 ppl and found X+more and more were upset? Really?

Or are you just someone on an internet gripe board reading gripes from the same ppl who keep stating over and over that they're upset that they are no longer entitled to go on the rides more than the next guy...

More and more people that have Annual Passes are upset.

Ok so... you interviewed 500 AP holders... then... Oh, you know.

More and more people that have DVC are upset.

Repetitive. Blah. You didn't interview squat.

We have been Annual Pass holders since 1990

Lovely! We've been loyal vacationers since 1980. Nice to meet you. I'm loving this new "pick your rides on your phone thingy" it's pretty neat - you?

After our trip this summer, when our passes expire, we will not be renewing them - for the time being.

Yes... had to follow that up with "for the time being".. aka... right up until you decide you want to go to Disney again.

We are already making plans to vacation someplace else next year

Seriously? Did you not before? You never vacationed anywhere - except Disney? This is probly a good change for you then, as it will expand your horizons and remind you just how wonderful Disney is in comparison.

for the first time in 24 years, we have no plans to go to Disney. We are telling our friends, that usually stay off property, that they are not going to be happy and we suggest that they vacation someplace else for now.

Wow! You're telling your friends whether or not they will be happy at the #1 TOURIST DESTINATION IN THE WORLD.

Disney, like it or not, upsetting all these people is going to be a problem in the future.

It is not. The problem I see in your argument is you are mixing up "you" with "most people".

Unlike you, Disney HAS done that research. They know who they'll offend. They know who will spend more money. They know you'll be mad for a few months or even a year, and they probly know better than you do -- how much YOU are going to spend there in the following year.

 

[Angel Ariel]

Like Disney----Planet Fitness has created a profile of their ideal customer and will not tolerate or accept the business of people who refuse to conform to their ideal profile.
[...]
Disney is sending the message.....adapt to our new system or leave. Disney pays people to analyze every decision they make and which consumers will be impacted most. Disney has created a profile of their ideal guest..... if you don't fit the profile or accept their new way of doing things they will not actively seek to keep your business.

And again...how exactly is Disney saying adapt or leave? Companies that won't "accept business" from those who disagree or have concerns about their product don't have their guest relations CMs make personal phone calls in response to emails.

My email to Disney had started with how often we have traveled there, any how Disney has factored in to some major milestones before going into my concerns about fp+ and how it might affect future trips to Disney. The feeling the CM gave me during that phone call was absolutely that Disney cares about keeping my business. She also emphasized that they were getting a lot of feedback like mine, that corporate was hearing the concerns and considering changes throughout the testing phase based on the feedback they are getting.

That is all very contrary to your assertion that Disney doesn't care about those who don't like fp+, and is not actively attempting to keep their business. They were certainly actively trying to.keep mine from that phone call.

 

[iluvminnie903]

I totally agree with you.

 

[AmyB2006]

That is all very contrary to your assertion that Disney doesn't care about those who don't like fp+, and is not actively attempting to keep their business. They were certainly actively trying to.keep mine from that phone call.

I agree. I would never say that Disney doesn't care about those people. That's just silly. It's still a customer base that they should be trying to keep happy. I don't know of any company that says, screw this 20% of our customers, we don't care what they think anymore. LOL

They have to find the middle ground, though, that is going to do that, plus accomplish whatever it is they're trying to accomplish with FP+ and MM+.

ETA... I also think that when someone calls or emails Disney with "We're NEVER returning again!!", Disney can't take that seriously. It's like grabbing your ball and going home. KWIM? If you have complaints (this isn't directed at anyone in particular by the way) then you have to convey those complaints to Disney in a professional non confrontational manner. If they are aware of what's upsetting you, and you can maybe make suggestions of things you'd like to see improved, they can try to work on those things. If someone just emails complaint after complaint and then says, I'm never coming back... well, it just seems like a tirade, probably, to Disney and they may feel like it's a lost cause.

 

[pilferk]

I think you are wrong, by the way, in interpreting this as trying to maximize the casual guest at the cost of the experienced guest. I think it is more about trying to get everyone locked in to staying on property, the same basic strategy they have been doing for the past 40 years.

It is absolutely about that.

To get all the whiz bang back end predictive algorithms working, they need as many people using the system, entirely (including and esp FP+) as possible. It allows them to use the predictive modeling so they can get those resource and staffing economies.

This isn't about being "fair". It's not even about making sure FP's are distributed more evenly, simply for the sake of even distribution.

It's about getting as many people "on the bus" to fuel their heuristics as possible. It's about BUSINESS....and not even the normal revenue cycle stuff. We're talking, potentially (if all this works) West World levels of automation of their staffing, ordering. resource allocation, etc. Not at first....but eventually.

THAT'S what this is all about. It's not what Disney is selling...it's not even what they are initially selling to the stockholders (they're getting the "keep 'em on site and spending" pitch...which, incidentally, is ALSO true) right now. But that's what the blue sky is, for the project.

And if they manage to do it, without incurring significant consumer blowback, they'll look like geniuses to the stockholders in about 2 to 3 years.

 

[pilferk]

The word "fair" has become my new pet peeve, LOL.

I've said it before, in another thread:

Fair is not apt. Fair speaks to opportunity (within confines of rules and structure).

EVEN is more apt, as it speaks to distribution. And, FP+ may very well even out the distribution of FP+ amongst the total guest population.

BUT...it wasn't made even for "even's" sake. It was made more even to increase the number of people using it to fuel their business goals (which are dependent on a high % of guest use of the system).

 

[pilferk]

This "even" stuff is just crap. It didn't get much more even then giving the availablability to every paying park guest to stick their tix in a fastpass machine. All were able to enter the park at the same time (obviously except for off-site guests on EMH mornings) and all were able to gain a fastpass with little effort.

I've said in other threads:
Disney could likely have increased useage amongst it's guests, and evened out distribution, simply by applying the same education efforts it's making NOW, for FP+, with FP legacy.

But, the fact is, they had no incentive to do that...because it didn't allow them the same sort of data mining opportunities that FP+ does.

This NEW system, though, REQUIRES that as many guests as possible participate in order to get Disney the data they want, and can use.

So, NOW they have incentive.

 

[pilferk]

So, are you saying that it is not magical because you have to wait in lines now? Pretty sure they had to wait in lines before Fastpass was invented. Were those vacation memories not as magical? "Disney lost me - do they care?" "not getting my vacation dollars", over FASTPASSES changing? Disney's "loyal" customers sound more like Disney's "entitled" customers.

Not really.

It's a value calculation, and one very person is entitled to make for their family:

Is the experience I'm getting worth the money I'm paying.

And you, nor anyone else, can really tell someone they are wrong in making that assessment. They know what was before, the experience they had before, and they now see that experience to be less (whether YOU OR I agree with that assessment or not isn't relevant...it's not our money, so not our calculation to make).

You can argue til your blue in the face that that experience was not what Disney likely intended, or shouldn't have been the expectation. But, at the end of the day, you have history vs theory.

History provided them with a certain level of experience...and not just once, but for, potentilly, many times over YEARS of being a consumer of the product. That is going to be the most compelling part of the comparitive side of any value calculation.

And you're going to find some folks for who this is the tipping point....which is entirely within their rights (and understandable, quite frankly, in any change of this magnitude).

Whether enough people feel it to cause Disney to make changes...only history will tell us.

 

[pilferk]

No... I'm looking for your response. Are those trips not "magical"? You're going to Universal instead - where you have to buy your FP (and they aren't cheap) or stay on property. If I'm not mistaken, even those on property have to pay a fee for the FP... Disney's is free. So... what is your issue? Inquiring minds would like to know. Or do you just like to complain with no base? Lots of those on here.

FYI: If you stay on property, at HRH, Portofino Bay, or Royal Pacific....Universal Express Pass (the unlimited version) is included with your room rate for all guests staying in the room.

Only at the new hotel (their "value" resort, Cabana bay) does not include it.

And, across the board, room rates are less expensive on site at Universal.

 

[conniehar90]

We have been visiting once or twice annually for the past 5 years and bi annually before that. We maximized our FP usage and this is probably one of the main reasons why our trips were so wonderful. Waiting in line makes people (adults and kids alike) tired and cranky. We stay offsite and are visiting again at the end of March. So, no opportunity to plan our FP's ahead of time.

We already had our trip planned so no changing it. We will see how it goes. I can tell you that if we are going to be waiting in long lines, we will just leave. I know that I am not one of the overeaters at buffets. We like to ride the rides and eat at the restaurants. We also purchase our fair share of souveniors with every trip. So, they are potentially alienating a good customer not getting rid of a bad one as you suggest. And it won't persuade me to stay onsite. We have tried it several times and it is not for us.

 

[pilferk]

The guests who are the happiest are the ones Disney will seek to cater and market to. The guests who are not happy with FastPass+ have been given the cold shoulder by Disney. Disney is not acknowledging their feelings....nor are they addressing their concerns. The message is silent but very clear. I understand the frustration of some but I don't understand the logic of attacking the guests who are happy and satisfied with what Disney has to offer.

We'll see.

Disney has sent out a TON of guest surveys, and done a TON of "service recovery" phone calls in response to guest complaints..but I wouldn't expect to see any results from negative feedback for at least 6 months after the roll out at all the parks (meaning at least mid-June...and probalby more like mid-September).

Thinking that the fact we haven't seen anything YET....less than 30 days after the shut down of FP Legacy...is a sign that they AREN'T going to make changes, or AREN'T listening to the complaints, is extremely short sighted.

The truth is: We really have no message from Disney yet. Because Disney doesn't have enough data on which to SEND a message, yet.

Newsflash! Disney already has plenty of data....which is why we have FastPass+ today. No corporation will blindly invest over a billion dollars without extensive research and data.,....information that none of us are privy to. Disney already knows where their money is....their top experts have predicted where more money will come from.....it's not with the people who are upset over losing the Legacy FastPasses. As a result of FastPass+ Disney will have much more data to work with.

Completely, totally, absolutely incorrect after the first two sentences.

They have lots of data. They did lots of research.

But, the fact is, they didn't have a ton of real time guest data, or even data on which to base predictive management decisions. They had lots of HISTORICAL data, which is nice and all..but, as we've all seen, the historical patterns are changing left, right and center. And I expect they will continue to do so.

This system (MM+, of which FP+ is but a small part) gives Disney something they've never, ever, ever had before (provided they can get enough people using it, that is): A pretty good idea of how many people are going to be in which park, at which restaurants, in which resort, and even on WHICH RIDES...and pretty much exactly when. There is HUGE utilization for that kind of data...enough to easily offset, in relatively short order, the investments they've made.

This isn't about the guests at all, really. It's not about maximizing revenue from a particular "type" of guest, or changing the makeup of the homogenized whole to squeeze more revenue out of a park day. It has NOTHING to do with any sort of 80/20 rule, either.

Disney has told the stockholders what it's about, sort of. And they're holding the managerial implications of the increased data as their trump card for either next years stockholders meeting (if they want to give a preview and things look good) OR, more likely, the one after. It'll start to creep into the quarterly calls...you'll start hearing about operational efficiencies effecting their profits...probably for Q2 next year.

 

[TLSnell1981]

So in reading all of this I surmised that:

A) Universal Studios - with their 2.5 parks - is better because it is cheaper.

B) Those of us who still like Disney and will give them our hard earned dollars are "drinking Kool Aid" for not flipping out that a slip of paper that got us on rides faster is changing

C) People, who bought DVC and AP's to Disney will no longer give them their patronage because they can no longer get multiple fastpasses in a day.

You're not going to Disney because of fastpasses. Does anyone else realize how ridiculous this sounds?

I've been to Universal, it's a fun park for 2-3 days. I didn't purchase the fastpass and I did ride most rides. I cannot imagine spending a week there. But I'd go for a couple days. So have fun with that.

Ummm...it's more than "just" FP+. Although, it is " the straw that broke the camel's back" for many loyal Disney fanatics. Enough is enough.

 

[stairstepmom]

I'm no business expert, but this seems like a major oversimplification of a very complex business.

This article does a great job explaining why - http://sidsavara.com/personal-productivity/the-problem-with-the-pareto-principle

"If you start searching for that mythical 20% that should be delivering 80% of your results, then you might find yourself cutting out activities which are actually essential to your success."

This is absolutely true for Disney. We are commando mega users of FP, RD, touring plans etc. And yet I would consider us part of Disney's 20% - with 5-digit onsite trips, 2 table service meals each day and 2 suitcases devoted just to souvenirs, we spend a lot of money on our trips. How did our commando touring and use of FP put us into the 80%?

I am an AP holder because our FP-filled 2012 trip was so great I decided to take another trip with my sister - spending an additional $2000 that I otherwise would not have if our commando touring hadn't been successful. How did my AP ownership put me into the 80%? I had booked another trip with my DD for this May before my AP runs out - the loss of value I felt with FP resulted in me canceling the trip. Disney directly lost $2000 because of the changes.

We ARE going back again next year, but we don't feel another 5-digit onsite trip is "worth it" given the diminished experience - and therefore perceived value - of our FP+ trip last month. Staying offsite saves us enough money to make up for the loss of value in experience - a cheaper price tag for a cheapened experience. Disney will still be making $5k from us for tickets and some food and souvenirs, but that is still a loss of $8k from what it could've been. This is really what Disney wants? We had strongly considered purchasing into DVC in the next few years and again, that is now off the table.

We ARE the 20%. Or at least we were.

Disney is not the sole supply outpost at the beginning of the Oregon Trail, servicing one-time-only desperate customers with little competition and no chance of a future relationship. I have 8 children and they are future Disney customers - that future profit will be largely determined based on the experiences we have in the present.

There is no easy way to separate the supposed 20/80 for something like Disney World, and if that really entered into the thought processes of some executives when they came up with all this (which I doubt), then they are incredibly shortsighted and most likely, sadly mistaken.

 

[wdwlver]

I'm no business expert, but this seems like a major oversimplification of a very complex business. This article does a great job explaining why - http://sidsavara.com/personal-productivity/the-problem-with-the-pareto-principle "If you start searching for that mythical 20% that should be delivering 80% of your results, then you might find yourself cutting out activities which are actually essential to your success." This is absolutely true for Disney. We are commando mega users of FP, RD, touring plans etc. And yet I would consider us part of Disney's 20% - with 5-digit onsite trips, 2 table service meals each day and 2 suitcases devoted just to souvenirs, we spend a lot of money on our trips. How did our commando touring and use of FP put us into the 80%? I am an AP holder because our FP-filled 2012 trip was so great I decided to take another trip with my sister - spending an additional $2000 that I otherwise would not have if our commando touring hadn't been successful. How did my AP ownership put me into the 80%? I had booked another trip with my DD for this May before my AP runs out - the loss of value I felt with FP resulted in me canceling the trip. Disney directly lost $2000 because of the changes. We ARE going back again next year, but we don't feel another 5-digit onsite trip is "worth it" given the diminished experience - and therefore perceived value - of our FP+ trip last month. Staying offsite saves us enough money to make up for the loss of value in experience - a cheaper price tag for a cheapened experience. Disney will still be making $5k from us for tickets and some food and souvenirs, but that is still a loss of $8k from what it could've been. This is really what Disney wants? We had strongly considered purchasing into DVC in the next few years and again, that is now off the table. We ARE the 20%. Or at least we were. Disney is not the sole supply outpost at the beginning of the Oregon Trail, servicing one-time-only desperate customers with little competition and no chance of a future relationship. I have 8 children and they are future Disney customers - that future profit will be largely determined based on the experiences we have in the present. There is no easy way to separate the supposed 20/80 for something like Disney World, and if that really entered into the thought processes of some executives when they came up with all this (which I doubt), then they are incredibly shortsighted and most likely, sadly mistaken.

Well said.