Occam's Razor. I agree. I think the simplest theory is that Disney had no way to predict how many people would latch on to FP+ and hence didn't know how many FPs would be pre-booked vs. how many people would wander in to the parks without having done so.
They knew how many people didn't use FP- and they knew what their overall capacity was. You could argue that they didn't know what the follow-through rate would be for certain attractions, or what the pre-book time frames would do to redemption rates.
So it started out allocating FPs in accordance with the numbers that it historically had seen.
1) In all probability that historical number was lower than 3 (average).
2) The number 3 was based on the lowest number needed to get commitment.
And then the data revealed that they could let people "have at it" and it wouldn't upset the apple cart.
Yep
To conclude otherwise would be to conclude that Disney knew that the people from 1/15 until 4/28 would be getting a sub-standard experience that would ultimately be altered, and that it didn't care. I don't think that Disney would intentionally screw over that many people, especially when it knew that this was going to be the time period most under the media microscope. When the restaurant critic is in your restaurant, you put more food on the plate, not less.
False premise. 40% didn't use any FPs at all. FP+ represented a sub-standard experience for them? Of the remaining 60%, some used between 1-3. FP+ sub-standard for them?
And everyone gained the ability to show up at the park with 3 guaranteed.
Certainly some would prefer to get as much as they can, when they want. But in sufficient numbers to offset those I just described, to a level that calls for you to scrap your initial $1.5 billion to monetize or incentivize remaining FPs?
It's oxymoronic to think a group so incompetent that the failed to predict the results of the initial plan could recognize it on the fly, develop another strategy, and implement it in a way that maintains the overall goal.
Again, you have to choose between two possibilities:
Corporate Executive: Let's roll out a version of FP+ that affords guests far less than future guests will get. We know that the change is going to be made, and we know what the change will look like. But during the first three months of operation, when scrutiny is the highest, let's force guests to suffer with a limiting product that will have them burning up the internet.
They didn't know what that change would look like. They asked you what you would like that change to look like.
As for burning up the internet, what were they complaining about? Some were complaining about having to pre-book? Some complained offsite was treated differently than onsite? Some wanted to park hop. Some wanted more. Some were sure that they were going to lose out on there favorite attractions. Some were convinced additional FPs were not going to be available. Hell, after they announced 4th FP, the usual suspects were on here saying they would be useless junk.
And Disney addresses these issues on the fly? More likely, they addressed your complaint.
or
Corporate Executive: People aren't too happy, and our data shows that we can increase the number of FPs that people get. Let's do that as soon as we can.
But they didn't do 2 either. They surveyed it.
The second option asks that you assume very little, and nothing nefarious. If you are of the belief that Disney knew from Day 1 that unlimited FPs were going to be rolled out, you have to come up with an explanation as to why Disney punished the President's Day crowd with a lesser experience,
The explanation is that they knew they could handle 3 per guests, presumed they could handle more, and prudently waited to see what redemption rates were. They also were able to watch guests' exchange activity.
and you have to come up with a reasion why they created the questionnaire in March asking people for their opinion as to which method of additonal FPs would suit them best.
And why none of the 3 options were either of the 2 you presume were the original strategy.
Try this out. Explain to me why Disney, reading all internet fire about people willing to pay for extra FPs, or booking throwaway rooms just to get pre-booking (forget about extra FPs, people would book a room just to get original 3), chooses to forego either original money making strategy and opts for 3 choices that get them nothing but goodwill (divided by 3).
At a time when guest will throw money at Disney to get more FPs, they punt?
If the end product was already designed, why ask people for their opinions? Optics?
I didn't say the end product was already designed - I said you were always getting more than 3 FPs. Disney merely asked you how you'd like them.
The theory that has you assuming the least is that when the limit was set at 3 FPs, it was not assured that more FPs would be sustainable, and data (and outcry, but more the former) caused a shift in thinking.
The shift in thinking is yours. Back in the day it was Disney screwed up and thought they could sell excess or use it for resort guests. Now it's "they weren't assured more FPs would be sustainable." The latter is half-right. They knew it would be sustainable (I assume this because I have no inside info and I knew it), they just needed to see at what level.
If Disney is surprised about anything in this, it's the success in terms of participation on the booking end. The irony is that due to it's success, you're probably getting less than Disney thought you'd ultimately get.
