Disney has lost another family - do they care?

[Imhere]

- Some people are standing around the chocolate box, waiting for their two hours to expire so they can get their next chocolate, affecting productivity.

You forgot about the folks that are standing around the chocolate box waiting for their 2 hours to expire, then getting their chocolate, then posting on the bulletin board in the break room how horrible these chocolates are and what an awful, money grubbing, profits at all costs, employer they all work for.

 

[Planogirl]

That's funny... when I first read that post I thought if only 900 posts makes you a WDW lover what does that make folks with uber post counts like Dan Murphy, Planogirl, and Robo...WDW obsessed

In my case it just means that I've been on the Disboards since the beginning of time.

No offense, but all the I'M NEVER GOING TO DISNEY AGAIN WAAAAAA boards are getting a bit tiring. And yes, I know I don't have to read them. Maybe a sticky with free tissues and guidemaps for Universal and Disneyland?

A moderator made the suggestion earlier to skip this thread if you don't like the topic.

Do you think the system will be perfect and fair to everyone? I certainly don't, but what is? The old system wasn't perfect, either, as much the rose colored glasses set would like to have us believe. I liked the old system, too. But it's gone. So I'll adapt.

Here are your options as I see it:
Adapt.
Complain to Disney in the hope they will revert to the old system.
Don't go.

Part of the problem is that certain FP+ fans keep going on about being fair. If the old system wasn't fair and now this one isn't fair what have we gained?

I've heard at least 50% offsite also. There are many people who stay offsite in hotels and timeshares plus locals who come in for the day, especially during busy seasons. Look at the huge hotels you see coming in on 536, hotels by Downtown Disney, hotels on International Drive.

I've heard 50% for a very long time and from people I respect. Throwing out random numbers adds nothing to the discussion IMO.

We will take advantage of FP+ and stay onsite on our next trip, and do Universal.

FP+ actually helps us do Universal. For us, it's just for Harry Potter, so we don't spend a whole day there. This next trip we will get a WDW ticket for length of stay, and also spend 3/4 of a day at Universal. One morning we'll have FP+ for one park, do the 3 rides, leave, and go spend the rest of the day at Universal. We may even do 2 days this way, in case we can't get Diagon Alley/Hogsmeade done right in one day.

For other days we'll continue to park hop, having our FP+ scheduled for the afternoon park. We may do some morning FP+ too, as we love World Showcase at night, and tend to hang there one or two nights to shop and dine.

We tend to go for 6-7 days, which gives us plenty of FP+. We do rope drop and EMH, so there's plenty of time for attractions. Hubby would rather have me spend time in a queue than in a gift shop anyways, LOL!

Even though we spend more time at Universal, thanks for pointing out how FP+ might actually help with offsite visits. People seem so convinced that 3 fastpasses will somehow lock travelers into a full day at a Disney themepark but I don't see that.

 

[Planogirl]

You forgot about the folks that are standing around the chocolate box waiting for their 2 hours to expire, then getting their chocolate, then posting on the bulletin board in the break room how horrible these chocolates are and what an awful, money grubbing, profits at all costs, employer they all work for.

They would probably only do that if they themselves paid a large amount for that box of chocolates. You'd have to factor cost into the perception of value.

 

[SmallWorld71]

Are they wrong? No. But, let's look at this in a different way.

As the Employer, you had a reason for offering the chocolates to your employees. Employer's seldom operate without a motive in mind. After implementing the "Free Chocolate Every Two Hours" you notice that:

- Some employee's don't eat chocolate, and complain that your not offering fresh fruit instead, negatively affecting morale.
- Some people are standing around the chocolate box, waiting for their two hours to expire so they can get their next chocolate, affecting productivity.
- Some people could care less and thus, the chocolate doesn't work as the overall motivator you were looking for.
- Some people happily take their chocolates, appreciate the gesture, and their productivity and happiness levels increase.
- You realize that now that you offer free chocolates, people are not purchasing snacks from the vending machine, and you are losing potential revenue.

While I think your analogy is cute, I think that implementing a new system of chocolate distribution - giving every guest 3 chocolates no matter what group they fall in - isn't making any additional guests happy. It's just making a different group happy.

The fresh fruit group still isn't happy.
The group that stood around the chocolate box is now unhappy.
The people that didn't care less, still don't care.
The people who were happy and appreciative before: some of them will still be happy, others will be unhappy.

So, now, a lot more people are unhappy than happy.

However, there are 2 groups that are happy now:
1) The employees who never bothered to read the memo and didn't realize that they, too, had as much right to chocolate as the rest of the employees so therefore didn't get any. They just enviously or angrily watched everyone around them eat chocolates.
2) The new employees who didn't realize that before the came to work there, everyone could pick whatever chocolates they wished.

 

[Imhere]

They would probably only do that if they themselves paid a large amount for that box of chocolates. You'd have to factor cost into the perception of value.

Huh?

 

[KatieCharlotte]

What 50%? Are you asserting that 50% of WDW guests are non-resort, non-AP holders one-day passers? I can't agree there. I don't have the numbers, but I'd guess resort guests are about 70%, AP holders staying offsite are about 20%, off-siters buying day-passes via uctourist or other sites are about 5%, and local day-passers are about 5%.

And, I would bet 95% of WDW's profit comes from the 70% resort guests. This is why every park is now bundling with resorts to offer resort experiences and trying to not just be a day-park.

Someone used the numbers (park attendance and number of resort rooms filled) to calculate that about fifty percent of guests were offsite, although that might have been specific to the Christmas season. Considering the number of hotels and condo rentals in the Disney area that market to Disney-goers, it's hard to believe that only 5% of people in the parks are non-locals, non-AP holders staying offsite. These people buy their tickets from ticket companies, Disney online, and at the gate.

People on disboards are less likely to understand the power of locking in average guests with FP+. Many people fly or drive to the area without tickets or any real plan, except that they want to see Disney. A lot of them don't even distinguish Disney and Universal in their minds. This includes people who reserved rooms in Disney hotels without buying packages, and people who stay at the Super 8 or their parents' condo. I don't think booking day-by-day at kiosks is the final plan, but I feel for those offsite in the meantime.

So far, Disney has only been working to get people who booked resort rooms to lock in their Disney days. For example, we reserved only a room and got a zip drive, booklet, email, and fridge magnet urging us to link tickets and book FP+ at the 60-day mark. We bought our tickets and linked them. We have not bought our Universal tickets because there is no motivation to do so ahead of time.

Disney's marketing is currently focused on getting people to stay in their resorts and then "locking in" those guests. However, presumably, they will do more to market the system to the general public once they have put in place their final plan for offsiters.

 

[Planogirl]

Huh?

If FP+ is like a box of chocolates, you'd have to compare it fairly. People pay a lot for passes to WDW and would likely weigh their experience with FP+ with that in mind. The box of chocolates is free so people would naturally be more forgiving if they didn't care for the brand or whatever.

Sorry for being unclear.

 

[Vidia2]

I disagree. Disney very rarely if ever has a hard sellout on all rooms. If more people start staying on property, disney will build more rooms.

Exactly. More resorts = bigger profits. I'm sure the newish AoA and the new DVC properties were built with these new demands in mind. Disney would be thrilled to fill up all of that swamp land with resorts.

 

[magicbob]

If FP+ is like a box of chocolates, you'd have to compare it fairly. People pay a lot for passes to WDW and would likely weigh their experience with FP+ with that in mind. The box of chocolates is free so people would naturally be more forgiving if they didn't care for the brand or whatever.

Sorry for being unclear.

Momma always said...

 

[KatieCharlotte]

They would probably only do that if they themselves paid a large amount for that box of chocolates. You'd have to factor cost into the perception of value.

Yes. The chocolates at work analogy doesn't really work for me because I am paying for my park tickets. To use a real-life example, I recently ate more than the average number of tiny cream puffs at a buffet and did not feel guilty because I paid more than enough for the privilege. Although I only took one (okay, maybe two) at a time, I went back a lot of times. Other people didn't think it was worth the effort or missed seeing the cream puff table. If the buffet was running out of cream puffs for late arrivals, I would prefer the restaurant increase the number of cream puffs they are making rather than telling me I can only have three.

If Disney really just wanted to limit "superusers," they needed only to work with the existing technology to either (1) impose a longer waiting period between FP, or (2) impose a cap on FP per ticket. Yet, for years and years, they did neither. So, logically, this was not a motivation behind FP+.

 

[flicx]

Part of the problem is that certain FP+ fans keep going on about being fair. If the old system wasn't fair and now this one isn't fair what have we gained?

I see no gain I only see a loss of about 1.5 billion which was sorely needed to update the parks, but its poof gone now!

 

[mesaboy2]

gghhh

This post makes as much sense as some of the others in here.

 

[Angel Ariel]

I disagree. Disney very rarely if ever has a hard sellout on all rooms. If more people start staying on property, disney will build more rooms.

I'm not saying Disney is selling out. The person was saying there is equal opportunity to stay onsite. I'm saying that there is inherently not an equal opportunity because Disney does not physically have the ability to house every person that is in their parks on a given day.

That is also not going into the financial portion of equal opportunity. If the only rooms available are at resorts that a family cannot afford, then no they do not have "equal opportunity" to stay onsite.

 

[mavadell]

Someone used the numbers (park attendance and number of resort rooms filled) to calculate that about fifty percent of guests were offsite, although that might have been specific to the Christmas season. Considering the number of hotels and condo rentals in the Disney area that market to Disney-goers, it's hard to believe that only 5% of people in the parks are non-locals, non-AP holders staying offsite. These people buy their tickets from ticket companies, Disney online, and at the gate.

People on disboards are less likely to under the power of locking in average guests with FP+. Many people fly or drive to the area without tickets or any real plan, except that they want to see Disney. A lot of them don't even distinguish Disney and Universal in their minds. This includes people who reserved rooms in Disney hotels without buying packages, and people who stay at the Super 8 or their parents' condo. I don't think booking day-by-day at kiosks is the final plan, but I feel for those offsite in the meantime.

So far, Disney has only been working to get people who booked resort rooms to lock in their Disney days. For example, we reserved only a room and got a zip drive, booklet, email, and fridge magnet urging us to link tickets and book FP+ at the 60-day mark. We bought our tickets and linked them. We have not bought our Universal tickets because there is no motivation to do so ahead of time.

Disney's marketing is currently focused on getting people to stay in their resorts and then "locking in" those guests. However, presumably, they will do more to market the system to the general public once they have put in place their final plan for offsiters.

Exactly! Of course most of us are going to keep going to Disney, but it's disingenuous to say that Disney's goal isn't to keep us in their parks. They've SAID SO! Also saying no one has to buy tickets ahead of time to get any FP+ they want is silly. Only 50% of the FP's need to be given out ahead of time now. When off site can prebook those percentages will have to change. Then how many will be available day of? Almost every Dis fan on this board gets up early 180 days out to book ADR's. Do you REALLY think that's not going to happen with FP+ at 60 days once this is available to everyone?

 

[Spork24]

Momma always said...

Thank you for that! Was waiting all day for the Forrest Gump reference to be made!

 

[Spork24]

I see no gain I only see a loss of about 1.5 billion which was sorely needed to update the parks, but its poof gone now!

You are very short sighted if you don't see all the ways Magic bands can make disney more money.

 

[crostorfer]

I disagree. Disney very rarely if ever has a hard sellout on all rooms. If more people start staying on property, disney will build more rooms.

Oh, they are. However, they aren't building resort rooms, they're building DVC rooms. There is a difference, and once again, it's all about $$$$$. It's more of the same, they are trying to lock in people's vacation money. DVC is a massive money maker for them. They have your money, regardless of if you ever set foot on property again.

 

[KatieCharlotte]

I'm not saying Disney is selling out. The person was saying there is equal opportunity to stay onsite. I'm saying that there is inherently not an equal opportunity because Disney does not physically have the ability to house every person that is in their parks on a given day.

That is also not going into the financial portion of equal opportunity. If the only rooms available are at resorts that a family cannot afford, then no they do not have "equal opportunity" to stay onsite.

And the price of staying onsite depends on the size of the family.

 

[Spork24]

Oh, they are. However, they aren't building resort rooms, they're building DVC rooms. There is a difference, and once again, it's all about $$$$$. It's more of the same, they are trying to lock in people's vacation money. DVC is a massive money maker for them. They have your money, regardless of if you ever set foot on property again.

Didn't they just finish art of animation last year? Wasn't this a moderate or value? Disney makes money on everyone staying on property, even at value resorts. But my point was that anyone who wants to stay on property can. ( maybe not last minute at the hotel of their choice) I've never not been able to book any hotel I want 3 months out. I haven't stayed at a value in a while but never had a problem booking those back when I had a tighter budget.

 

[Spork24]

And the price of staying onsite depends on the size of the family.

I think art of animation was designed to help with this as well. Disney really does try to accommodate everyone.