Extra Fastpasses: A Case Study

[PlutoMars]

Which is likely why they didn't say anything, and I don't understand why some people can't see why some of us take issue with that.

Our trips paid for with our money were being impacted, we weren't gifted them by Disney to be test subjects, we weren't offered discounts to be test subjects. Only the small minority of internet Disney fans were aware of some of the changes, and nobody except the people who supposedly had insider info knew when and what was coming.

The last I checked, Disney did not force anyone to use the FP system.

Disney could have broadcasted their changes daily on loud speakers in the parks and had representatives post on the DIS monthly about the changes and yet people still would have complained about the way it was being implemented.

There was no "easy" and "painless" way to make this transition. It is easy for critics to be armchair QBs on this whole matter after the fact.

 

[TinkerBelle_325]

Which is likely why they didn't say anything, and I don't understand why some people can't see why some of us take issue with that.

Our trips paid for with our money were being impacted, we weren't gifted them by Disney to be test subjects, we weren't offered discounts to be test subjects. Only the small minority of internet Disney fans were aware of some of the changes, and nobody except the people who supposedly had insider info knew when and what was coming.

If you, and others that vacationed between Jan & Mar feel like Disney slighted you, you aren't under any obligation to continue giving them your money.

They don't "gift" or "compensate" guests that test their rides (New Fantasyland etc...). Those soft openings aren't announced and can have any number of issues arise. So that isn't "fair" either. Everyone visiting WDW during the time of a soft opening has paid good money, but not everyone had equal opportunity for access (like the Pop no KTTW situation) and those that did participate in the soft opening were subject to glitches and/or closures (like the guests that had no access to legacy FP).

At the end of the day, you paid for accommodations at a Disney Resort with access to transportation and extra magic hours, which you received during Jan through Mar....and admission to a theme park where they clearly state that ANY attraction or experience is subject to change at a moment's notice and they aren't required to compensate you if a closure, outage or change occurs.

 

[morethananyonex]

I have not seen anyone argue that Disney had a plan and that they haven't deviated from. The closest thing to it is what I and others have been saying: The plan for additional FPs was always there - how they would be distributed was to be decided after actual use data and guest reaction/input was received and analyzed.

Disney's communication on this matter, to the extent there was any, was atrocious. Do I have a better way to implement, inform and get a representative sample? Probably not.

Withholding information hurt real people with real plans, but it probably hurt less people in the long run.

I actually have seen that. I'm not going to name names, but there are some people on here (not you, obviously) who have claimed this has been the plan from the start.

Thank you though, for recognizing that those of us who vacationed during the dark months (), were legitimately impacted by the way Disney decided to handle the roll out. I'm not worried about my next vacation in a couple years or so, I have no doubt it will be much smoother, but that doesn't change the feelings I had during my trip a few months ago.

Waiting and seeing is a great strategy if you go frequently or weren't vacationing during the messy period.

 

[TinkerBelle_325]

From a business perspective I understand it.

From my perspective, the way the rollout was handled sucked, and I can't understand why other guests refuse to recognize that people were impacted by the rollout even if the situation doesn't exist anymore. Waiting and seeing didn't help those of us who vacationed during the most limiting time.

But from a business perspective, couldn't you say that ride opening dates (like Spring 2014 for 7DMT) also should be kept hush hush, because people may hold of their trips until it opens? I think that probably has more of a chance of delaying a trip than a 4th FP.

They did keep 7DMT opening "hush hush" - they announced the official opening of New Fantasyland WAY further in advance. They have been saying "Spring" because most people consider Spring to be March through May. You don't think the possibility of 7DTM opening lured some people in over the past few months? People that are visiting in the next few weeks are pissed that it opens on the 28th as many assumed it would be open for the long weekend. You know what they say about assumptions....(like assuming that FP+ testing should have been run in parallel to FP-)....

I get that FP+ testing impacted PART of your trip. What I am saying is that they were under no obligation to notify or compensate you. MyMagic+ testing impacted my September trip negatively as well I don't expect others to go "oh you poor thing".

 

[morethananyonex]

The last I checked, Disney did not force anyone to use the FP system.

Disney could have broadcasted their changes daily on loud speakers in the parks and had representatives post on the DIS monthly about the changes and yet people still would have complained about the way it was being implemented.

There was no "easy" and "painless" way to make this transition. It is easy for critics to be armchair QBs on this whole matter after the fact.

Using some version of FP+ is still better than no FP at all while FP is in place in the parks. I don't understand why people go to that as a response. That's like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Why would I have hurt my trip even more? That makes no sense.

Announcing changes on the loud speaker would have been 100 times better than keeping quiet on changes, and in some cases denying them. Just saying.

If you, and others that vacationed between Jan & Mar feel like Disney slighted you, you aren't under any obligation to continue giving them your money.

They don't "gift" or "compensate" guests that test their rides (New Fantasyland etc...). Those soft openings aren't announced and can have any number of issues arise. So that isn't "fair" either. Everyone visiting WDW during the time of a soft opening has paid good money, but not everyone had equal opportunity for access (like the Pop no KTTW situation) and those that did participate in the soft opening were subject to glitches and/or closures (like the guests that had no access to legacy FP).

At the end of the day, you paid for accommodations at a Disney Resort with access to transportation and extra magic hours, which you received during Jan through Mar....and admission to a theme park where they clearly state that ANY attraction or experience is subject to change at a moment's notice and they aren't required to compensate you if a closure, outage or change occurs.

Why would the impact of a trip in those months during a situation that does not exist anymore change future vacation habits? We still love Disney, even though some people around here cannot grasp that people can love Disney but be disappointed in occurrences there.

I wasn't suggested people should have been compensated for being part of the test. I was pointing out that nobody was, and therefore being upset at negative impacts on our trips strictly because of the test is absolutely valid, IMO. I don't know that I would compare soft openings (which are a bonus) to lack of KTTW cards of a 4th FP+, but have at it I guess.

Lastly, I don't base my opinion of Disney on the bare minimum they are required to provide. That's all I have to say about that.

 

[KatieCharlotte]

Which is likely why they didn't say anything, and I don't understand why some people can't see why some of us take issue with that.

Our trips paid for with our money were being impacted, we weren't gifted them by Disney to be test subjects, we weren't offered discounts to be test subjects. Only the small minority of internet Disney fans were aware of some of the changes, and nobody except the people who supposedly had insider info knew when and what was coming.

Some resorts hide things like renovations because they will otherwise lose profits, but that doesn't make it okay. It reminds me of the beautiful but poorly managed campground we visited that decided to renovate their pool and restaurant in the middle of the short summer season without informing guests. We arrived starving with nothing but a convenience store for miles around. People who visited one week before us didn't get to swim in the advertised pool in a desert climate. But I'm sure the project ended up great in the end, and it's understandable that they didn't want people to delay their visits, right?

I actually found it really surprising that Disney was so quiet about coming changes, because I've always admired their advance notice about ride closures. But they were pretty vague about the actual opening date for Mine Train. I'm glad I kept my expectations low about that being open for spring break, or I would have been feeling really disappointed. As it was, we had a great day, but I still don't like how certain execs at Disney decided to handle communication re FP+.

 

[morethananyonex]

They did keep 7DMT opening "hush hush" - they announced the official opening of New Fantasyland WAY further in advance. They have been saying "Spring" because most people consider Spring to be March through May. You don't think the possibility of 7DTM opening lured some people in over the past few months? People that are visiting in the next few weeks are pissed that it opens on the 28th as many assumed it would be open for the long weekend. You know what they say about assumptions....(like assuming that FP+ testing should have been run in parallel to FP-)....

I get that FP+ testing impacted PART of your trip. What I am saying is that they were under no obligation to notify or compensate you. MyMagic+ testing impacted my September trip negatively as well I don't expect others to go "oh you poor thing".

Yeah, I do think that the possibility of 7DMT had people push their trips back if it was possible. That's the point. If that was a big concern of theirs a ride opening is going to have far more of an impact than a FP change.

If we're talking about assumptions, you are making a ton of them, and you know they say about assumptions. I never said FP+ should have been run parallel to FP-. It's quite obvious why that couldn't have been done. I also never said that I wanted compensation for my trip. Notification? Yup, would have been nice. I'm thinking about those people who were flat out lied to about the Pop situation. That is not cool, IMO, at all.

 

[OtherScott]

One possibility could be that those earlier times are for those just getting to the Park and/or meant for a specific "spread of FP's" based on selection criteria when folks reserve 3 together.

It's no fun not to know why, that's for sure. The good news is, we don't seem to be completely locked out of them. Hopefully, we can continue to finagle them to better times once the FP is released to us. The more reports back from people trying and having success we get will help a lot.

If Disney did anything with the redeemed paper FPs that were collected by CMs (I doubt it -that's a lot of manual data entry), they would have entered this with some idea of the redemption rate based on the elapsed time between pull and redemption.

Given the stated desire to increase guest spending, and with roughly 1/2 the guest only providing that opportunity in a park, I would think the question they would be trying to answer now is "what is the longest time lapse we can build in and still meet our redemption rate goals?"

And there isn't just 1 answer.

Every day they get more data on FP redemption rates based on when they were booked, from pre-booking to day-of. They'll learn that 2 hours is okay for this segment (maybe 2 twenty-something adults traveling with no kids with an ADR sandwiched [pun] in) but is too long for that segment (maybe a family with small children in between meals on 4th day of 5-day ticket).

They'll learn whether the attraction is the key driver to guest choice or the return time is more important.

A guest is not going to be assigned to 1 segment. They will be parts of may different segments and the system will constantly review park status and weight accordingly. What seems like identical situations to us based on anecdotes will appear very differently when analyzed with and against millions of other factors.

 

[mom2rtk]

Can't you see from a business perspective that this is EXACTLY why they didn't tell people there might be issues? I get that it wasn't "fair" to guests that vacationed between Jan and Mar but they weren't going to say "oh and by the way, in April we will be fully implementing this system, so why don't you just hold off until then?"

At the end of the day, their primary objective is to make money.

In my book that makes them about one step better than used car salesmen. And yes, used car salesmen are also in business to make money.

I spent years as a professional sales rep. And generally I found that the trust you garner providing honest information is far more valuable than the short term gains you get by keeping important details from your customers.

 

[TinkerBelle_325]

In my book that makes them about one step better than used car salesmen. And yes, used car salesmen are also in business to make money.

I spent years as a professional sales rep. And generally I found that the trust you garner providing honest information is far more valuable than the short term gains you get by keeping important details from your customers.

I didn't say it was a decision that was best for their guests, but for their business it absolutely was. Will they have pissed off a small percentage of people enough that they won't return? Yup. But then there are plenty on here, like morethananyonex, who stated that the frustration of visiting between Jan and Mar wasn't enough to detour future vacations. That is EXACTLY was Disney was planning on. They might lose a few guests, but in all likelihood guests fall into one of three categories: 1) First Timers that don't realize they are missing out on anything because they have no previous experience with FP 2) Return guests who are annoyed at the FP+ implementation, but love Disney so much that it won't impact their future vacation decisions 3) Return guests that are so put off by FP+ implementation that they won't return.

I would bet my entire salary that group 3 was BY FAR the smallest group. It was a calculated risk and any losses suffered as a result of three months of growing pains were likely mitigated by the increased spending facilitated by MM+, or recouped by now.

 

[jade1]

Every day they get more data on FP redemption rates based on when they were booked, from pre-booking to day-of. They'll learn that 2 hours is okay for this segment (maybe 2 twenty-something adults traveling with no kids with an ADR sandwiched [pun] in) but is too long for that segment (maybe a family with small children in between meals on 4th day of 5-day ticket).

They'll learn whether the attraction is the key driver to guest choice or the return time is more important.

A guest is not going to be assigned to 1 segment. They will be parts of may different segments and the system will constantly review park status and weight accordingly. What seems like identical situations to us based on anecdotes will appear very differently when analyzed with and against millions of other factors.

See you get it.

FP- was a black hole in this regard. Maybe 1/2 were never used-who knows, but now the system is tracking every lost/wasted FP+.

They will know for a fact we are offering the times too far out on this headliner, we keep wasting 6% or whatever. Then they can start offering sooner time.

But they may be seeing that some experts are backing up and collecting some of the sooner times, and the rest are being taken up by new arrivals.

Heck if they want-they can text mom2rtk who is in the park that a TSM FP+ is about to go to waste-it's yours if you want it.

 

[morethananyonex]

Some resorts hide things like renovations because they will otherwise lose profits, but that doesn't make it okay. It reminds me of the beautiful but poorly managed campground we visited that decided to renovate their pool and restaurant in the middle of the short summer season without informing guests. We arrived starving with nothing but a convenience store for miles around. People who visited one week before us didn't get to swim in the advertised pool in a desert climate. But I'm sure the project ended up great in the end, and it's understandable that they didn't want people to delay their visits, right?

I actually found it really surprising that Disney was so quiet about coming changes, because I've always admired their advance notice about ride closures. But they were pretty vague about the actual opening date for Mine Train. I'm glad I kept my expectations low about that being open for spring break, or I would have been feeling really disappointed. As it was, we had a great day, but I still don't like how certain execs at Disney decided to handle communication re FP+.

I think Disney gets a lot of leeway around here because they're Disney.

Could you imagine the responses if some other Orlando park pulled some of the stuff Disney does? They would be completely in their right to, and it may be the smartest business decision, but people would jump at the chance to use it to show how much better Disney is.

Since you mention resort construction, has Disney disclosed the Poly situation, more than just calling it construction? Do they tell people booking during the dates the pool and/or GCH will be under construction, or have they left it up to those people to discover? I'm curious how that situation is being handled.

In my book that makes them about one step better than used car salesmen. And yes, used car salesmen are also in business to make money.

I spent years as a professional sales rep. And generally I found that the trust you garner providing honest information is far more valuable than the short term gains you get by keeping important details from your customers.

Those of us who are disappointed in the way things were handled are capable of understanding the reasons why it happened, but that doesn't mean we have to be happy that it did.

Heck if they want-they can text mom2rtk who is in the park that a TSM FP+ is about to go to waste-it's yours if you want it.

In the park? I bet she's sleeping in with a TSMM booked already

 

[mom2rtk]

I didn't say it was a decision that was best for their guests, but for their business it absolutely was. Will they have pissed off a small percentage of people enough that they won't return? Yup. But then there are plenty on here, like morethananyonex, who stated that the frustration of visiting between Jan and Mar wasn't enough to detour future vacations. That is EXACTLY was Disney was planning on. They might lose a few guests, but in all likelihood guests fall into one of three categories: 1) First Timers that don't realize they are missing out on anything because they have no previous experience with FP 2) Return guests who are annoyed at the FP+ implementation, but love Disney so much that it won't impact their future vacation decisions 3) Return guests that are so put off by FP+ implementation that they won't return.

I would bet my entire salary that group 3 was BY FAR the smallest group. It was a calculated risk and any losses suffered as a result of three months of growing pains were likely mitigated by the increased spending facilitated by MM+, or recouped by now.

Sorry, it still puts them in used car salesman territory. They categorized people's expensive trips as acceptable losses. We're just going to have to agree to disagree on whether that is a smart business strategy.

 

[jade1]

I think the truth of the story behind FP+ changes likely lies somewhere in the middle. I don't believe for a second that Disney had no intentions of changing anything until guest feedback started rolling in. I also don't believe that Disney has had set plans from the start and not deviated from them or taken guest feedback into consideration. There are people on both sides of the debate claiming both of these things.

The only fact/truth proven so far is the patent 7 years ago included the recent "enhancements", meaning the FP+ system was set up with these changes available.

How, when or why they were implemented can be debated, but there is no debate that FP+ was designed with the ability to expand and offer these and other enhancements. Many of us were on board with FP+ from the start because of the initial offerings-as well as future possibilities.

 

[jvattes]

Ugh, this makes a good case for moving FP ressies to earlier in the day....

Hmm...

 

[jade1]

In the park? I bet she's sleeping in with a TSMM booked already

Doesn't matter, if she arrives at noon and uses the 3 FP+ (including a TSM) then goes to a kiosk at 3PM and it shows TSM for 7PM-but doesn't have the "inside" information that she can just hit the "back" button and see a 3:30 TSM, she might select the 7PM or pick a 5PM RNR.

Then all of sudden the system sees a TSM FP+ going to expire at 3:30 so it sends her a text to see if she want's it, knowing she is in the park and often selects TSM so it's a favorite of hers.

I don't really see this happening, as I think the system will know when it needs to offer sooner times and when not to on its own, but it could be done.

 

[morethananyonex]

The only fact/truth proven so far is the patent 7 years ago included the recent "enhancements", meaning the FP+ system was set up with these changes available.

How, when or why they were implemented can be debated, but there is no debate that FP+ was designed with the ability to expand and offer these and other enhancements. Many of us were on board with FP+ from the start because of the initial offerings-as well as future possibilities.

It's funny, because months ago someone used the information from the patent to argue something unfavourable (I believe it might have been monetizing FP+? Can't remember), and people were all over him claiming that it was basically stupid to use a patent to try and figure out the direction Disney would be taking with this. One of those things that can only be used to prove what has already happened, I guess .

I think most of us did realize that the FP+ in 6 months, a year, 2 years, would not look the same as it did from the rollout until the 4th was released. Much of the debate centered around current trips, where possibilities didn't change the reality. I mean, tell the offsite guests who spent tons of time at a kiosk during a holiday weekend that pre-booking for offsite guests was coming, and are they likely to brush off their not so great experience? Probably not.

I can't speak for others, but I know I've said many times I see the potential in the system too. I bet it's going to be great in a year or two (or at the least really great strategies will be figured out), but that didn't change the crappy situation some of us were faced with.

 

[mummabear]

Under the old FP- system it was important to get to the park early. Under the new system it is also important (I think it's even more important now).

Under the old system I could be a dreaded super-user. Under the new system I can now be a dreaded super-user.

Under the old system I had to run to an attraction to get a FP. Under the new system I have to run to a kiosk (though that is likely to change soon, which will allow me to walk with my phone up to my nose and obtain a new FP) to get a new FP.

So, essentially under this new system I now have the ability to pre-plan 3 rides and select from different times in the parks.

Totally worth 1.5 billion dollars.

(I should add, OPs report does make me happy)

I know right! Way better than investing in another new ride....

 

[jade1]

It's funny, because months ago someone used the information from the patent to argue something unfavourable (I believe it might have been monetizing FP+? Can't remember), and people were all over him claiming that it was basically stupid to use a patent to try and figure out the direction Disney would be taking with this. One of those things that can only be used to prove what has already happened, I guess .

I think most of us did realize that the FP+ in 6 months, a year, 2 years, would not look the same as it did from the rollout until the 4th was released. Much of the debate centered around current trips, where possibilities didn't change the reality. I mean, tell the offsite guests who spent tons of time at a kiosk during a holiday weekend that pre-booking for offsite guests was coming, and are they likely to brush off their not so great experience? Probably not.

I can't speak for others, but I know I've said many times I see the potential in the system too. I bet it's going to be great in a year or two (or at the least really great strategies will be figured out), but that didn't change the crappy situation some of us were faced with.

I remember that-and if you read the patent it does cover that, and may very well be implemented in some way. But I know I would not have been "all over him" because the information was there. Plus I don't see monetizing some FP+ as "unfavourable".

It also covers "resort guest" early reservation priority-which to me is a monetizing already.

As is BOG FP+ monetized by requiring staying onsite.

As for initial rollout, this makes the most sense to me:

Here's a simple question for people who reject the idea that the steps Disney has taken up to now to implement the FP+ system were part of a general plan to get to this point.

If Disney always intended to completely remove the paper FP system (which seems obvious) and replace it with a system like what is in place today, how could they have accomplished that in a way that wasn't going to cause at least a certain amount of inconvenience for at least some guests?

Putting aside the issue of whether or not you think the new system is an improvement for guests as a whole (not just for you selfishly), I cannot imagine how something of this magnitude could be accomplished without going in small and gradual steps to test its various features.

It sounds good in theory to announce a schedule far enough in advance so that guests who do not want to deal with any inconvenience can decline to schedule a trip. But, with all of the things that can go into scheduling a trip (such as nonrefundable plane reservations), this could require notice more than 6 months in advance. Although it is my opinion that Disney had a detailed step by step plan for implementation, they could not have known that far in advance the exact dates that certain steps would take place because moving to step 2 requires a satisfactory result on step 1, and that continues though step 100.

Plus, explaining to potential guests exactly what the changes were going to be, and what impact they might have on their trips, would be extremely confusing to the vast majority of guests. Some would have no idea what they meant, others would shrug their shoulders and move on, and a very small percentage would think "I'm not going to have the experience I expected so I'm not going to Disney this year".

Personally, I think that Disney knew what it was doing, and also had to know that some guests were likely to be upset. Just like some guests are upset when a favorite attraction is down, or construction walls are up, or a crane is up near the castle, etc., etc. But, some of that inconvenience is inevitable when implementing something of this magnitude into a dynamic operation.

 

[OtherScott]

It's funny, because months ago someone used the information from the patent to argue something unfavourable (I believe it might have been monetizing FP+? Can't remember), and people were all over him claiming that it was basically stupid to use a patent to try and figure out the direction Disney would be taking with this. One of those things that can only be used to prove what has already happened, I guess .

I think most of us did realize that the FP+ in 6 months, a year, 2 years, would not look the same as it did from the rollout until the 4th was released. Much of the debate centered around current trips, where possibilities didn't change the reality. I mean, tell the offsite guests who spent tons of time at a kiosk during a holiday weekend that pre-booking for offsite guests was coming, and are they likely to brush off their not so great experience? Probably not.

I can't speak for others, but I know I've said many times I see the potential in the system too. I bet it's going to be great in a year or two (or at the least really great strategies will be figured out), but that didn't change the crappy situation some of us were faced with.

I get what you're saying here, but to consider the probability of a possibility occurring, history is usually a pretty good indicator. The patent wasn't just for a new thing, rather, for a new thing to replace an existing thing.

Absent some statement of intent, the probability of monetizing FP+ was always lower than the probability of additional FPs being added - if only for the reason that the ability to monetize FP has always been a possibility that was not acted upon.