Fast Pass to become "Pay for Play"?

[imatoad]

Miss Inga, amongst others, has nailed it, WDW is a business, and must constantly change it's marketing strategies to reamain competitive in the industry, whether we like it or not. Any company that wants to stay in business has to do so.

 

[jarestel]

In business, a loyal customer is one that is willing to pay a premium for a product or service. In blind taste tests, people prefer Cola X to Cola Y, but will pay more for Cola Y anyway -- that's customer loyalty, and the higher the premium, the more loyalty is indicated.

True to a point, but do you remember what happened when they replaced the coke everyone liked ( classic coke ) with the coke most didn't? Loyalty flew out the window, sales plummeted and new coke became a footnote in business textbooks on how to screw up a good thing.

Disney may do whatever they wish, charge whatever they wish, and give perks to whomever they wish. However, at the end of the day, it's the Disney guests ( customers ) who will have the final vote on any new program, not the company itself. If enough customers are disappointed and vote with their feet, as in the coke debacle, the FP idea will quickly enough be yanked by the powers that be. If enough customers seem not to mind, then it stays. But it's the customers who ultimately determine success or failure, as in any business.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

Wow! Just read through the thread and LOVE the pay to Fast Pass concept. Question to all that do not agree: If Disney, a corporate entity, decides to go forward and implement the pay system, how many of you, as disgruntled consumers, plan on stop going to the parks and taking your vacation dollars elsewhere?

 

[Miss Inga Depointe]

I believe we're all paying for ME whether we use it or not. They're not offering it out of the goodness of their hearts after all.

 

[seashoreCM]

I cannot dispute the idea that Disney may in effect reserve certain days of the calendar year for some selected guests. Put it simply, WDW is overloaded some of the time. Disney cannot provide an excellent guest experience to each guest on those days. Is it too much to ask that guests with fewer resources choose different days to visit?

When Disney changed their AP renewal system, after years of being AP holders, we switched over to Hoppers. We preferred the AP's when they clock started clicking on the year use from time of first activation---not when the policy was changed to reflect that the clock would start at the moment of renewal.

They fixed a bug. Renewal means that the new term picks up where the old term leaves off. You can always buy a new AP, independent of any AP you owned previously, that starts at the time of first use.

Disney hints:
http://members.aol.com/ajaynejr/dispass.htm

 

[bicker]

With all due respect to this statement, I understand completely what you're saying. But something has to be said for the dedicated loyal fans (customers/guests) who return every year (or several times a year) consistantly for decades even. Isn't their loyalty worth something to Disney vs the customer who pays big bucks for the GF maybe twice in a 10 year period ?

Honestly, no. For a corporation, loyalty is an asset (it's a form of good will), and it valued based on how well it translates to long-term shareholder value. I know folks who shop at Whole Foods Market every week, but just to buy what's on sale. That's not loyalty to a business. Then there are the folks who will shop at Whole Foods Market every week, even though it is more expensive, buying everything they need there, even though the only things that are really "better" at Whole Foods are the perishables. That loyalty has a much higher value to a business.

I feel the FP system has been around long enough for most people to value it as a perk

Of course. My point is that it wasn't around for MUCH longer than it has been around. The touring strategy of "loyal" guests who's strategy relied on being able to park-hop was literally ruined by the introduction of FastPass. There was minor rumblings from those folks, online, when FastPass was introduced. It was barely a blip on the big-picture radar screen then, and now most folks seem to greatly value FastPass, so much so that any objections to the whole FastPass program are for all practical purposes ignored.

The same thing happened when Priority Seating was introduced. The same thing happened when Priority Seating was opened up to non-resort guests. The same thing happened when the first moderate resorts was opened (with respect to how that degraded the experience of the deluxe resort guests, since they now had to share their perks with a much wider audience. Don't believe me? Check out the archives!) And of course, the same thing happened when the first value resorts were opened. Change always happens. Isn't it remarkable that the changes that were as soundly -- or MORE soundly -- condemned when the first rumors of them surfaced online, are now considered by some to be beloved aspects of the service -- even sacred cows?

We preferred the AP's when they clock started clicking on the year use from time of first activation---not when the policy was changed to reflect that the clock would start at the moment of renewal. They lost me as an AP customer.

But they got you as a PH customer. And any one individual doesn't really add up to a policy driver. Rather, the question is what did the changes you're talking about here do in terms of the overall customer base. It almost surely drove them to a combination of admission purchases that were more profitable, in the long-term, than the alternatives. That's the whole point behind having a hard science behind pricing.

We will perhaps knock down our 1-3 yearly visits to 1. I feel others will react similarily.

Some, surely. However, Disney's track record shows that, as compared to their competitors, they've most consistently made the service offering and pricing decisions that are the best for long-term shareholder value. Even Disney's staunchest critics focus this criticisms on issues such as operational expenditures (or lack thereof). It isn't an exact science, but it is a science, and the worldwide service sector comes to Disney to learn how to do this sort of thing best.

Will it impact Disney enough to care about this....not sure.....as time will tell over the years ?

And even there Disney has the advantage of making any changes they see as necessary to correct course, if indeed they make a change that is one of the few which end up not working out as well as they had intended.

 

[bicker]

True to a point, but do you remember what happened when they replaced the coke everyone liked ( classic coke ) with the coke most didn't?

That incident is the poster child for the prototypical irrational customer-base. After scores of customer surveys and tests, using protocols that have been, almost every time in the past and every time since, a very reliable indicator of success, that one time (as well as a handful of others) it totally backfires. Most of the time, the science works perfectly.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

That incident is the poster child for the prototypical irrational customer-base. After scores of customer surveys and tests, using protocols that have been, almost every time in the past and every time since, a very reliable indicator of success, that one time (as well as a handful of others) it totally backfires. Most of the time, the science works perfectly.

Good point! Besides, the Coca Cola comparison is shaky at best. WDW would not be shutting down the old park and reopening a "new improved" product. When you get right down to it, it would basically be a price increase for those who choose to pay it.

 

[Local_Girl]

Right now all the extra perks that Resort guests get don't impact other guests during normal park operating hours. Things like package delivery and charging back to your room doesn't diminish the other guests trip. Resort guests get to skip the monorail/ferry boat and go right to MK but is that really a big deal? Even EMH doesn't impact the other guests. During normal park hours all guests are equal, the park is open extra hours for resort guests.

Disney is offering ME and MYW Dining. Those programs give us an incentive to stay on-site but doesn't detract from other guests.

YES! This is how I feel. We stay off-site and I have no problem with onsite resort guests having various perks, such as those mentioned. They pay a premium for such things and are entitled. However, if we pay for tickets to enter a theme park during regular park hours, we expect to be treated equally with regard to obtaining fast passes in that park...because FPs have been available to us as off-site guests. If Disney changes the FP policy and as non-resort guests we are relegated to very limited (if any) FPs and long stand by lines for rides and attractions...our theme park experience would be diminished to the point where we'd no longer receive the same value for our $$.

Would Disney care? Only if it meant that I along with every other family impacted similarly decided to vacation elsewhere...and ONLY if that percentage of their guests outweighed the number of new/return guests that might embrace a new FP program. Bottom line: Disney as a business will do whatever it needs to to make a profit, and consequently they may make some business decisions that impact certain guests unfavorably. I just hate to be one of them, don't you?

 

[bicker]

You've hit the nail on the head, LG: From a customer point-of-view, customers that believe that they will benefit from a change will favor it, while customers that believe that they will be harmed from a change will oppose it.

 

[tlbwriter]

But that is exactly the direction that Disney is going. The Sunrise Safari is a brilliant idea (and I disagree with your assertion that it appeals to a limited numeber of people).

Compared to the number of people who are interested in Fast Pass, it is *indeed* limited.

Your CRT example is amusing because whether you realize it or not, it is heading in that direction too. If you want to go to CRT, you have to get on the phone every morning at 6:58 AM and pray. You may get lucky or you may not. OR, you can reserve a concierge room at a deluxe hotel and ask them to book it for you. See, you already do get more for your $500 per night room than just a better pool.

This may or may not be an accurate analogy. With CRT, concierge service simply gives you a better chance of getting what everyone else already has the chance to get without spending any extra money whatsoever. Would the new Fast Pass system work the same way - would off-site and Value visitors have the theoretical ability to get the same Fast Passes as Deluxe visitors, but just a smaller chance of actually getting them? In other words, if 100 people get Fast Passes at the same time, would the Deluxe visitors always get better passes, or would other visitors also get the same passes, but fewer of them?

 

[tlbwriter]

You've hit the nail on the head, LG: From a customer point-of-view, customers that believe that they will benefit from a change will favor it, while customers that believe that they will be harmed from a change will oppose it.

I guess I'm the exception to the rule... since I don't plan to stay in a Value or off-site, I'm more likely to benefit from the change. But I really don't like the plan.

 

[bicker]

Actually, the analogy is rather good. FastPasses are paper. What is being provided is a service which is the ability to reserve a time to visit an attraction. Everyone has a chance of getting a reservation they want. This change, assuming it is ever implemented, would only give deluxe resort guests a greater chance of getting the reservation they want.

 

[MiaSRN62]

Laugh O Grams says : If Disney, a corporate entity, decides to go forward and implement the pay system, how many of you, as disgruntled consumers, plan on stop going to the parks and taking your vacation dollars elsewhere?

Oh count us in to a degree. Our (on average) 2-3 trips per year will most likely drop to 1x a year or even every other year. Since my kids have become older, we're beginning to get more stuck with summer vacation traveling (aka high crowd levels in WDW) vs the slower times of the year we used to vacation when they were small. IF this policy is implemented, spending a larger portion of our park days in long lines just won't be worth our time or money. We'll be using our offsite timeshare to trade off to other locations (FL beach areas, VA etc) & not using it to do WDW at all. We'll resort to just visiting WDW while using our DVC accomodations but without the FP (or a decreased offering of it) it will most definitely push us more to offsite locations like Universal, SW and Bush Gardens as examples. We will definitely react different to a decrease in our ability to utilize the FP system.....no doubt on that. But as I said before, I'm sure there are others who vacation in WDW on a much less frequent basis who will not be at all phased or even realize what Disney has taken away.

Bicker says : Honestly, no. For a corporation, loyalty is an asset (it's a form of good will), and it valued based on how well it translates to long-term shareholder value.

Well, if this is true, then so be it. But I know Disney has encountered the loss of the "faithful" in the past due to post 9-11 scares, higher gas prices, economy etc. And what did we see ? Alot of very generous package offerings (buy 3 nights stay for 5 etc, etc) were seen over the past several years to tempt the loyal flock back. So what does Disney really gain ? So I think if the policy takes effect, the loss of those loyal cutomers will eventually, down the road,come to bite 'old Disney shareholders in the butt. Just my 2 cents.
It's obvious Disney wants folks to "stay and play" longer in light of the new MYW passes. You really do save more by buying the higher day passes. They are doing their best to lure guests from going offsite (Uni and SW especially) now----but I don't see taking away or decreasing the FP system from the majority of guests is gonna help in this lure and reel plan of theirs. I'd bet those that stay concierge in the deluxe resorts is the minority compared to those who stay in values and moderates.

Bicker says : But they got you as a PH customer.

True that. BUT, I'm a much more discerning customer now because of that particular switch. I used to pop into a park at will and spend money on dinners (family of 5-6), or just go in and maybe ride one attraction and then shop, shop, shop. Now that we have PH's we don't spend as much extra/fluff money on dining/shopping that we used to give Disney. We value those precious PH days and appreciate the FP system as a way to make the most of our money that we spent on those Hoppers. We tend to do more offsite patronizing now as well. So I think they did lose out with us in the long run. Whether this same scenario pertains to everyone---probably not---but I'm sure we're not alone in how we reacted to the updated AP policy several years ago or how we will react IF a new FP system comes about.

SeashoreCM says : They fixed a bug. Renewal means that the new term picks up where the old term leaves off. You can always buy a new AP, independent of any AP you owned previously, that starts at the time of first use.

Fixed a bug ? I think they changed the system to tilt in their favor---which it does. One used to be able to renew the AP and then hold onto it until their next first activation and then the yearly clock started. Now, if my AP expires in Oct and I can't get back to WDW until next July or August, I sure have lost a huge portion of my usable AP. We just couldn't justify this. Sure it works out much better for Disney now. And, thank you, I do realize I could just buy another AP but 1)don't get the renewal price 2) it was the principal of what they did that caused me to just refuse to renew anymore. See ? This is the type of customer I am. I will try and adapt the best I can to new policies but if I feel I'm losing too much or not making out nearly as well as we did in the past, then I switch gears to fit my needs. I totally realize change always happens and I honestly feel if this were a brand new policy coming out (ie never had FP before), then it would be taken much better than having something essentially taken away from certain guests. I agree, many will adapt and be unphased by it entirely if it comes to fruitition. So let the policy changes occur if they will, but my vacation plans will most assuredly be changing with them.

 

[bicker]

I'm sure there are others who vacation in WDW on a much less frequent basis who will not be at all phased or even realize what Disney has taken away.

And indeed, many folks who vacation in WDW just as frequently as you, but will benefit from the change, and will perhaps visit WDW more often and/or spend more money there as a result.

I know Disney has encountered the loss of the "faithful" in the past due to post 9-11 scares, higher gas prices, economy etc.

Indeed, every company in the travel and hospitality sector has. In bad times, many strong companies operate many of their operations at a loss, in order to tide them over to the good times, when they can make-up the difference by increasing the premiums for the products and services they offer.

We were recently discussing this phenomenon on Cruise Critic. Many of the cruise lines so radically lowered their prices over the past five years that many many new customers entered that market, for the first time in their lives able to afford cruising. Now, those new customers are experiencing sticker shock, in response to the changes in fares and policies, which are reverting the market back to one where it is again very expensive, perhaps even unaffordable for many. Yet the cabins are full, demand remains high, even while capacity continues to increase -- because the economic recovery translates into more available sources of revenue. For example, affluent folks can vacation more often.

 

[BostonRob]

After reading all of this, I've come to one conclusion: The Magic Kingdom is the one place left in this world where I shouldn't have to experience a lesson in proper corporate operating procedures according to the principles of social economic Darwinism. Why fix a system that not only works well, but treats everybody as an equal once they go through the turnstile. It's a cliche, but I can't help but think that's the way Walt would have wanted it.

Folks, Walt is DEAD. I'm sorry to say it like that, but it seems like some of you actually need to hear it. I read all the time "Walt wouldn't like that". The fact is, Walt is dead, and unfortunately, what Walt would have wanted doesn't matter anymore. Disney is a corporation and the whoever pointed out that a corporation has a fiduciary responsibility to maximize its profits was 100% correct. Whether people want to hear it or not is irrelelvant.

When you say "Walt wouldn't like that", you might as well say "Santa Claus wouldn't like that" or "My Aunt Sophie wouldn't like that" because all of those statements are equally irrelelevent.

 

[lllovell]

MIa, I see your points about going and doing other things in the Orlando area. BUT, if you choose to go to Universal, you will subjected to exactly what Disney is considering starting because you will be at your DVC resort, so no FOTL priviledges for you. Therefor, you will be schleping along with the rest of the "off site" and "cheaper hotel" folks in line while others bypass you.

We love doing other things in the Orlando area. We will eventually make it over to universal, but my little ones are still a bit too young for more of the thrill ride kind of park. Sea World is a FANTASTIC park and the customer service is very very good. What you don't get there (and it is fine with me) is the "magic" that Disney promotes and sells. The CM that came out and gave my son a little plastic Goofy doll (probably cost $0.25) when he fell down at the Boardwalk and started crying. However, you will find excellent entertainment, very very clean facilities and a beautiful park.

We are in a unique position being DVCers. Even probably more so than the typical annual Disney vacationer because we aren't buying any sort of packages (which its my understanding that those have kinda gone away since MYW has been introduced) and aren't as subjected to gimicks and perks as much. (I am so going to get in trouble with generalizations I know - but this is what I "hear" from lots of DVC people). I am simply saying that I think that it makes us view this differently.

 

[BostonRob]

One of the things that attracts me as a customer to give my business to Disney is the high level of customer service offered to me in the parks regardless to whether I'm staying at the Grand Floridian or the Travelodge on 192. That principle of equality is important to me and a lot of other loyal Disney customers; whether it reflects the way of the real world or not. A large part of Disney's allure is creating a fantasy where magic can happen. "I'm sorry son, but since that family can afford a nicer hotel than us, they get to experience a little more magic than us."

I'm sorry TitansFan, I'm not coming after you personally, but I have another thing I've been meaning to say in the course of this thread and this post reminded me of it again.

To all those folks who are crying "I can't afford a deluxe hotel, where's my magic?" maybe you should take a look down the street at the family that can't afford any vacation at all. Sadly, there are literally millions of families out there who struggle just to put food on the table and pay their bills. Where is the magic for these families? Ask a single mom, working as a receptionist for $20,000 per year, how unfair she thinks it is that some families might be denied a bit of magic because their hotel 'only' cost $100 per night. I'm guessing you won't hear much sympathy from her, because she's probably struggling to keep clothes on her kids and a Florida vaction really is a dream to her.

So before you go taking your situation for granted, and as a starting point for all that is fair and just, take a look at the bigger picture. There are people who have wealth beyond reason and there are people who literally have nothing. Everybody else is in the middle, and the truth is, the rules are different for each of us.

 

[MiaSRN62]

BUT, if you choose to go to Universal, you will subjected to exactly what Disney is considering starting because you will be at your DVC resort, so no FOTL priviledges for you. Therefor, you will be schleping along with the rest of the "off site" and "cheaper hotel" folks in line while others bypass you.

I totally see your point, but my oldest (ds 18) loves Universal (actually prefers it). He would tolerate WDW as long as he could manipulate the FP to his liking. He'd go off and ride Space Mtn/BTMR/Splash 30 times while we all did the rest of the MK. He'd do the same at Epcot with TT and MS and the same at MGM with Rock N Roller and TOT. You get the pic
IF, he can't do the FP like he has in the past, he will just simply hate going to WDW. So it's sort of the principal of the thing. IF Disney wants to revoke the FP perk for us, then we'll just give Uni our money. At least with the FP I could convince my teen son that "Disney's not that bad" and he would buy it. But IF this change takes place, my convincing him days are long gone.
Oh, and we love Sea World as well. We will def be visiting there and maybe Bush Gardens.
I agree with you that as DVC Members we aren't the typical vacationer. But certain things like EMH and FP make justifying how much time to spend in the parks and big factor for us. Taking one or both of these perks away would change things drastically for us. Uni never offered FOL perks to offsite guests, so I don't feel like we're losing anything ? Not sure if that makes sense or not, but it's based on principal I suppose.

 

[Lewisc]

You've hit the nail on the head, LG: From a customer point-of-view, customers that believe that they will benefit from a change will favor it, while customers that believe that they will be harmed from a change will oppose it.

I generally stay in the deluxe resorts, not concierge, and would probably benefit from the type of changes we're speculating about. I think it's a bad idea. Disney has far too many rooms on site, even just limiting it to the deluxe resort guests to give any meaningful FP improvements without severely limiting access to other guests. Guests who are hoping for something like Universal has are not living in the real world.

Something minor like allowing us to get one extra FP, issued at our resort, for a time of our choice is an improvement that might work. Let us get a FP for Soarin, spend the day at our resort or another park and then go to EPCOT for dinner and Soarin.

It's interesting, but not surprising, that most posters feel they are in a category that's "worthy" of the extra perks. People staying in the value resorts have no trouble thinking they should get the benefits but have no problem bumping offsite guests. DVC members who aren't generating any additional room revenue think the speculated system is ok, as long as they're included. People staying offsite think the speculated system is ok as long as AP holders get the same perks. Not sure how SOG or even the S/D would fit in. I'm not sure what of the onsite perks extended to S/D guests are a courtesy and what might be contractually guaranteed.

I'd hate to be the poor offsite guest who takes a "normal" vacation if all the guests in the above categories get to bump them in a real or virtual line for popular MK attractions.

I wonder how many more rooms Disney would have to add before they could simply restrict park admission to resort guests. Probably not doable but it's a thought.

Disney originally though FP would guests more time to shop and eat in the restaurants. Some of the articles indicate all it's done is reduce the time guests are in the parks.