LOVE or HATE FP+ Anyone's mind been changed ??

[wisblue]

It would be an interesting case study. Put 100K people in the park and what percentage of them do you anger? Keep 7% of prospective guests out of the park on a particular day, and you anger 7% of potential guests, but you make the rest happy. Assume that you have 10 people in a room enjoying a buffet. 2 more people want to join them. The host tells the 10 that 2 more people want to get in, and if they are let in, certain food items will run out and the room will get hot and crowded. The 10 resist. If the host lets the 2 in, then 10 people are angry. If the host keeps the 2 out, 2 people are angry. I don't pretend to know where the balance lies. But it would be a very interesting thing to study.

To me, that would be as interesting as seeing the results of a study about reactions to FP+. There is the percentage of guests that used to use paper FPs to get multiple rides on popular attractions. For example, there are people here who have said that they got 4 or more FPs for TT and Soarin on one day. I suspect that that percentage is a lot lower than 7%. But, using the 7% number and an attendance of 30,000 at Epcot and then rounding off that would be about 2000 guests getting 4 FPs. When you limit those 2000 guests to just one FP for TOT or Soarin, that makes those 2000 guests unhappy, but makes 6000 other guests who otherwise wouldn't have gotten a FP for either attraction happier. And, unlike the people excluded from the buffet, the unhappy 2000 would still be just as well off as the 6000 that are now happier. It isn't a matter of all or nothing, it's a matter of distributing what is there more evenly.

I don't know what the balance is there either. But, you know what. At some point I don't really care to rack my brain too much worrying about how one of the world's most successful companies should run its business. I will leave that to the highly paid people who have a lot more information and qualifications than I do. I will satisfy myself playing the role of the consumer, and if their product isn't a good value for me anymore I will stop buying it. We aren't there now.

 

[dayvewc]

I am not sure you can without disregarding capacity. A& E had those waits due to limited capacity.

Even on a stage 4 closure (or however they label them), space mountain would not have a 4 hour wait. It has greater capacity.

Think of it this way--2 restaurants are very popular. One has 20 tables and one has 50 tables. They operate during the same hours and both experience table turnover at precisely the same rate to remove the variable of different lengths of time it takes to done. Neither accept reservations so as to remove that variable.

The 20 table restaurant experiences an average 2 hour wait. The 50 table restaurant experiences an average 1 hour wait.

You cannot judge the 20 table restaurant to be MORE popular while the 50 table restaurant has double the capacity. To know who is more popular, you would have to know how many guests were served.

Now of one of those restaurants was quite empty and a guest could be easily seated with no wait and see that there are many other tables around, you might be able to conclude that this restaurant is perhaps not popular.

Take Journey into Imagination. We could presume that they are very much NOT popular.

While people wait for 30 minutes to an hour or more for Test Track, all day long. One may conclude rather accurately that it is likely more popular than visiting Figment.

Just my $.02 .

I do understand what you are saying about capacity, but I disagree with your conclusion. If the two restaurants are "equal" in popularity, then why would people be willing to wait longer at one than the other? A part of the measure of popularity has to include a measure of how willing people are to delay gratification. Everyone reaches a point at which regardless of how much they desire something, the delay is not worth it. If A&E regularly hit 4 hours, that doesn't mean that everyone who wanted to meet was in line, just that there were people who determined that a wait that long was not worth the experience. SM might, on the busiest days, reach that wait time briefly, but it was not a regular occurance. So, yes, I would say that as a judge of popularity the amount of time people are willing to wait does become an accurate measure independent of capacity.

 

[Laketravis]

I think what's safe to say is that claiming the rides on that list are THE most popular rides is inaccurate at the very least. Wouldn't you agree?

Since you just can't seem to let go of that for some reason, I'll try to explain one more time what I meant by my comment below. You see the "etc...." after Test Track? That was intended to imply that the list was not to be considered complete, that there are obviously additional popular attractions that weren't listed nor was it any attempt to rank them in a particular order.

I don't know what else to tell you, that's what I meant and it was certainly not an explicit statement. If it helps make it clearer for you, imagine the words "; for example:" after "It's hard to dispute what the most popular rides are at WDW".

I don't have to try at all. They are what they are. It's one thing to express an opinion, it's another to chastise others for not feeling the same way by suggesting they get out of your park.

It's hard to dispute what the most popular rides are at WDW:

Tower of Terror
Rock 'n Roller COASTER
Big Thunder Mountain
Space Mountain
Expedition Everest
Dinosaur
Test Track
etc....

Based on recent and current conditions I think it's safe to say a very large number of paying customers would like to see more of those types of attractions.


.

I really don't want the main point to be lost over semantics, which was to show examples of popular rides/attractions based on tight FP availability, long wait times, or both and suggest that while there are signs of construction in the parks it is not weighted towards building more of the types of things people pay to see or do.

The suggestion has been made that doing so might be considered a fool's errand, that it will only exacerbate the issue by causing even more demand, resulting in long wait times for the new attractions as well. That is a simplistic view that is only true when the pace of additions are not sufficient to keep pace with demand. Unlimited demand doesn't exist, there is no such thing. Raising prices AND increasing supply is also a viable option but then is criticized as excluding those who can't afford the price increases when the fact is there was a large portion of the public who couldn't afford the price tag even before the increases.

What we get back to is the unadulterated fact that WDW is a very large and successful business that apparently doesn't see a need right now to put new attractions ahead of or even together with concrete walkways. Instead, they are perfectly content widening the path to the same amount of attraction capacity in hopes even more guests can fit in, and that in part was made possible by MM+/FP+.


.

 

[Cormoran]

????? Cormoran????

Actually please provide a quote from me that asks for more thrill rides. I don't think you will find it.

 

[jade1]

I can agree with you on this. It is a shame. Disney world is fast becoming a country club.

Are you saying it's a shame WDW raised the prices, or shame they provided such a popular product?

They could drop the price in 1/2 and just close the gates at 10AM due to capacity I suppose.

 

[Cormoran]

Oh. You did quote the whole post though.

MK just completed an expansion. So pretending that did not occur does not help you claim that nothing is occurring. They just did something.

No, I did not quote the whole post. Initially, I made a comment and did not quote anyone. I then added the quote when I responded to a misrepresentation of what I had originally said. I also never said "nothing" was occuring. Again, this is a misrepresentation of what I said.

 

[Laketravis]

No, I did not quote the whole post. Initially, I made a comment and did not quote anyone. I then added the quote when I responded to a misrepresentation of what I had originally said. I also never said "nothing" was occuring. Again, this is a misrepresentation of what I said.

Are you implying that what you said was not what you said when you said it and that you said it in such a way as to mean something completely different from what you said? Because if that is what you are going to say, then I already know what you really meant to say and didn't say it because you knew I'd figure it out.

And I bet you thought you'd get away with it! So there!




.

 

[cakebaker]

Actually please provide a quote from me that asks for more thrill rides. I don't think you will find it.

Why do I need to do that?

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I do understand what you are saying about capacity, but I disagree with your conclusion. If the two restaurants are "equal" in popularity, then why would people be willing to wait longer at one than the other? A part of the measure of popularity has to include a measure of how willing people are to delay gratification. Everyone reaches a point at which regardless of how much they desire something, the delay is not worth it. If A&E regularly hit 4 hours, that doesn't mean that everyone who wanted to meet was in line, just that there were people who determined that a wait that long was not worth the experience. SM might, on the busiest days, reach that wait time briefly, but it was not a regular occurance. So, yes, I would say that as a judge of popularity the amount of time people are willing to wait does become an accurate measure independent of capacity.

Valid question.
Because they want to, I would think.

But the claim was that item A was more popular than item B because waits are longer. I don't think the claim can be made solely on a wait time.

If you can, then one even also make the claim on who runs out of fastpasses first.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

No, I did not quote the whole post. Initially, I made a comment and did not quote anyone. I then added the quote when I responded to a misrepresentation of what I had originally said. I also never said "nothing" was occuring. Again, this is a misrepresentation of what I said.

It was there by the time I read it. Whether or not you added it later is moot.

 

[dayvewc]

Valid question.
Because they want to, I would think.

I think that the fact that they would chose to do so (wait longer) would in and of itself be evidence that one is "more" popular than the other.

But the claim was that item A was more popular than item B because waits are longer. I don't think the claim can be made solely on a wait time.

If you can, then on even also make the claim on who runs out of fastpasses first.

I agree, I don't think the claim can be made solely on wait times. I do think wait times can provide a good estimate of popularity, though.

Things with no waits are less popular than things with waits.
Things with longer waits are more popular than things with shorter waits.

The question falls in how do you define "more" or "less".

 

[Angel Ariel]

Christmas, perhaps?

Most I have seen is in the 2-3 hours. But even then, greater capacity so line length alone is not the best indicator to claim one thing is more popular than another is all I was getting at.

Maybe, I really don't remember the timing. I just remember telling DH because I couldn't believe it was that long.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I think that the fact that they would chose to do so (wait longer) would in and of itself be evidence that one is "more" popular than the other.



I agree, I don't think the claim can be made solely on wait times. I do think wait times can provide a good estimate of popularity, though.

Things with no waits are less popular than things with waits.
Things with longer waits are more popular than things with shorter waits.

The question falls in how do you define "more" or "less".

I agree with you.

 

[Laketravis]

I think that the fact that they would chose to do so (wait longer) would in and of itself be evidence that one is "more" popular than the other.



I agree, I don't think the claim can be made solely on wait times. I do think wait times can provide a good estimate of popularity, though.

Things with no waits are less popular than things with waits.
Things with longer waits are more popular than things with shorter waits.

The question falls in how do you define "more" or "less".

How long someone is willing to wait in line is more a function of value than popularity. Many people may feel that standing in line for three hours for something is "worth" it. Then there's the phenomena that long lines tend to get longer because passersby perceive value based on how many others are already willing to wait.

Does that mean something is popular because it has a long line? It can if you equate popularity with a sense of value; i.e. it's popular because it's worth the wait.


.

 

[JimmyV]

Things with no waits are less popular than things with waits.
Things with longer waits are more popular than things with shorter waits.

Only if capacity is close to equal. If Disney built a ride that was so wildly efficient that it could accommodate 50,000 people per hour, there would never be a line for it, even if everyone wanted to ride it that day. At the height of park attendance, at 2:00 p.m., all 50,000 people decide that they want to ride it. The last person would wait no longer than 1 hour. Compare that to the 500 people in line to see A & E who wait 3 hours.

 

[dayvewc]

How long someone is willing to wait in line is more a function of value than popularity. Many people may feel that standing in line for three hours for something is "worth" it. Then there's the phenomena that long lines tend to get longer because passersby perceive value based on how many others are already willing to wait.

Does that mean something is popular because it has a long line? It can if you equate popularity with a sense of value; i.e. it's popular because it's worth the wait.


.

I think it is a combination of both.

 

[JimmyV]

To me, that would be as interesting as seeing the results of a study about reactions to FP+. There is the percentage of guests that used to use paper FPs to get multiple rides on popular attractions. For example, there are people here who have said that they got 4 or more FPs for TT and Soarin on one day. I suspect that that percentage is a lot lower than 7%. But, using the 7% number and an attendance of 30,000 at Epcot and then rounding off that would be about 2000 guests getting 4 FPs. When you limit those 2000 guests to just one FP for TOT or Soarin, that makes those 2000 guests unhappy, but makes 6000 other guests who otherwise wouldn't have gotten a FP for either attraction happier. And, unlike the people excluded from the buffet, the unhappy 2000 would still be just as well off as the 6000 that are now happier. It isn't a matter of all or nothing, it's a matter of distributing what is there more evenly.

Run the same math using the percentage of people who got a FP for both Soarin' and Test Track in the same day. Not 2 per each ride. Just one per each ride. That percentage is way, way more than 7%.

 

[flicx]

Are you saying it's a shame WDW raised the prices, or shame they provided such a popular product?

They could drop the price in 1/2 and just close the gates at 10AM due to capacity I suppose.

I feel it is a shame that at the rate Disney continues to raise prices many more families will be left out. The recent taking away the no exp feature on tickets really cuts down on our chances of returning after our tickets are done. I think it is sad when you raise prices whether the attendance is up or down. Many of these same people are ones who have gone to Disney for years and went when it was lean times, 911 etc.

 

[Laketravis]

I feel it is a shame that at the rate Disney continues to raise prices many more families will be left out. The recent taking away the no exp feature on tickets really cuts down on our chances of returning after our tickets are done. I think it is sad when you raise prices whether the attendance is up or down. Many of these same people are ones who have gone to Disney for years and went when it was lean times, 911 etc.

You know, I have a real problem with that part too because of what it signifies - Disney apparently feels that what you pay today for a ticket isn't going to be enough in the future. Evidently the bean counters convinced everyone that the future value of a WDW ticket is much less to Disney than the present value so the future had to be capped.


.

 

[dayvewc]

Only if capacity is close to equal. If Disney built a ride that was so wildly efficient that it could accommodate 50,000 people per hour, there would never be a line for it, even if everyone wanted to ride it that day. At the height of park attendance, at 2:00 p.m., all 50,000 people decide that they want to ride it. The last person would wait no longer than 1 hour. Compare that to the 500 people in line to see A & E who wait 3 hours.

No, not "only if capacity is close to equal". To my knowledge, there is no ride as efficient as you propose, so comparing blue ninja monkeys to my breakfast doesn't make any sense.

Yes, there is a degree to which capacity has an effect, but if people are still willing to wait 4 hours as compared to less than 1 hour, then I would say that the 4 hour attraction wait is more popular than the 1 hour attraction wait. This is where LakeTravis comment on value would begin to play a part. Knowing that SM has a larger capacity, people will assign it a "lower" value, since it is more likely that they can return to it later and experience a shorter line; whereas since A&E has a much more limited capacity they assign it a "higher" value and are more willing to wait longer to ensure that they get the experience. It still becomes a measure of "popularity".