Resort Class Could = Fast Pass

[crusader]

What exactly is it that's coming?

I don't see a problem with this if all they're doing is charging someone who can't get off their own keister to get a fastpass they can get for free anyway.

I do see a problem with it if a guest is able to buy more fastpasses than I could get on my own otherwise.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

What exactly is it that's coming?

Here's a link to Jim Hill's rich fantasy based solely on some patent applications made by Disney. http://www.jimhillmedia.com/mb/articles/showarticle.php?ID=1449

 

[candleonwater]

Naive of me, I know, but I don't feel, as an onsite guest, that I get all that many perks. At least not that I'm able (with a young child) to take advantage of. Early entry is okay, actually allows us to ride the couple of rides we want to ride and be back at the resort in time for an afternoon swim. The only "perk" that I love (and the SOLE reason we stay onside) is the proximity to the parks - and we pay dearly for that perk!

I wouldn't necessarily mind a "the more you pay, the more perks you get" plan if it's done correctly... just not sure what "correctly" would be.

 

[All Aboard]

Tigger Magic, you certainly sound pretty sure of your position that this would be a wise financial move on the part of WDW.

Early Entry, package delivery, room key charging privaleges, convenient bus service, and child care clubs are offered only to Resort Guests as a way of encouraging customers to choose WDW resorts over off-site accomodations.

Restricting FastPass to Deluxe or Concierge, (or making it better for them) would be a means of attracting more customers to those resort choices. But what are you doing to your Value and Moderate resort guests? And, possibly even some Deluxe guests - if this thing were taken to an extreme? You are potentially driving them back to off-site accomodations.

Are you really sure you want to whiz-off the 60,000 or so Val & Mod guests in favor of the less than 2,000 concierge guests on any given night?

Before we claim Al Weiss a financial genious for going in this direction, perhaps a little downside risk analysis is in order. Oh, and pepper the analysis with the mainstream media stories that are sure to glisten with lines like "Is this what Walt intended?"

 

[Tigger_Magic]

Tigger Magic, you certainly sound pretty sure of your position that this would be a wise financial move on the part of WDW.

Early Entry, package delivery, room key charging privaleges, convenient bus service, and child care clubs are offered only to Resort Guests as a way of encouraging customers to choose WDW resorts over off-site accomodations.

Restricting FastPass to Deluxe or Concierge, (or making it better for them) would be a means of attracting more customers to those resort choices. But what are you doing to your Value and Moderate resort guests? And, possibly even some Deluxe guests - if this thing were taken to an extreme? You are potentially driving them back to off-site accomodations.

Are you really sure you want to whiz-off the 60,000 or so Val & Mod guests in favor of the less than 2,000 concierge guests on any given night?

Before we claim Al Weiss a financial genious for going in this direction, perhaps a little downside risk analysis is in order. Oh, and pepper the analysis with the mainstream media stories that are sure to glisten with lines like "Is this what Walt intended?"

What I find amusing is the idea that FP is carved in stone at the entry way to the parks, thus making it some unalienable right to every guest. Whatever did people do before FP came along? Oh, that's right, we waited in line for our turn to ride.

If (and that's a BIG if) Disney is planning to modify FP to enhance the guest experience for on-site guests or modifying it into a "pay for play" feature, it would simply be the normal evolution of this feature. There is plenty of "pay for play" at Disney now and I don't see where it is "whizzing off" guests. If Disney chooses to enhance the guest experience for those willing to pay for it, there is no right to be offended if one chooses not to pay.

If I choose to spend the night at a Motel 6, I don't have the right to become "whizzed off" at someone who pays to stay at the Ritz Carlton. They pay more so they get more. I paid less so I get less. Business as usual.

Personally, I think Jim Hill and others are reading WAY more into this patent application that is there.

 

[JACKNAG]

everyone may interested in this topic in the other forum the same topic is up to sixteen pages long


http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?p=8610883#post8610883

 

[DancingBear]

Tigger Magic, you certainly sound pretty sure of your position that this would be a wise financial move on the part of WDW.

Early Entry, package delivery, room key charging privaleges, convenient bus service, and child care clubs are offered only to Resort Guests as a way of encouraging customers to choose WDW resorts over off-site accomodations.

Restricting FastPass to Deluxe or Concierge, (or making it better for them) would be a means of attracting more customers to those resort choices. But what are you doing to your Value and Moderate resort guests? And, possibly even some Deluxe guests - if this thing were taken to an extreme? You are potentially driving them back to off-site accomodations.

Are you really sure you want to whiz-off the 60,000 or so Val & Mod guests in favor of the less than 2,000 concierge guests on any given night?

Before we claim Al Weiss a financial genious for going in this direction, perhaps a little downside risk analysis is in order. Oh, and pepper the analysis with the mainstream media stories that are sure to glisten with lines like "Is this what Walt intended?"

You're making a ton of assumptions about how this thing might be implemented.

And if there are less than 2,000 concierge guests on any given day, then you could give them all unlimited FastPasses and it wouldn't affect anyone else to any noticeable extent.

 

[WDSearcher]

mark my words, it is coming for the general public...
and not only will it be available only to certain resort classes, it will cost you a decent chunk of change...
like jim hill notes from the ebay link... "One Day-All Day Disney's FASTPASSES" already exist..
here is the ebay link from jim hill

I must have missed something big-time, because the link took me to a closed auction for a "Space Mountain Re-Opening" thing at Disneyland. Had nothing to do with all-day FastPasses.

 

[All Aboard]

Actually, I'm not really making any assumptions. I'm just responding to a poster who is cheering the merits of this plan, which hasn't been fully fleshed out either. This could take any number of forms. I'm just discussing one form. That is, FastPass gets amended so that Deluxe guests get a greater access (or even exclusive access) to the system. Which, in turn, would cause a definite reduction in access to non-premium guests.

Tigger Magic, in several of your posts you mention "rights." As in, Disney has the right to do what they want, and customers feeling they have a right to FastPass.

Since the second was directed at me, you are clearly missing my point. I am discussing from a free choice perspective, and my points have nothing to do with rights. Rather, it's all about perception.

If a guest perceives he's getting less of a deal than he once did, he's going to potentially adjust his choice making based on that. Just that simple. And it's clear that before any decisions are made, that downside must be assessed.

The claims of "I pay more, so darnit I should get more" can be loud and clear. But, do the high-end spenders represent much of a critical mass in terms of total dollars spent at WDW in any given timeframe? Enough for Disney to make a decision such as this. Or, do the rank and file Value and Moderate guests (with their much greater total dollar spending) play a bigger role in Disney's decision process.

It's not about fairness. It's not about rights. It's all about how the customer is going to react. It's all about how the customers decisions are going to be altered.

By the way, I travel to WDW 10-12 times a year, always stay on-site, and 70%-80% of the time, it's in a deluxe resort. So, none of my position is based on how it would impact me. Seems, I would be a personal beneficiary of such a plan. But, I disagree with it on two levels.

 

[CarnotaurDad]

After reading many threads, and actually reading the whole patent application (which is quite long), here is my thought at what they are trying to do:

* Today, there is a limited number of fast passes given out each day. Let's say, for arguments sake, there are 5,000 fast passes given out for Soarin' every day.

* Again, today, all 5,000 are distributed according to their algorithm to anyone who is eligible. (i.e. no existing fast pass or if the time is not up). Once the 5,000 are gone, that's it.

* The patent, as I read it, is not saying that all 5,000 Fast Passes will only be available for Deluxe guests. What it is saying, a certain number, say 1,000, will be set aside for Deluxe guests and 4,000 for everyone else. That way, if the 4,000 run out, and a deluxe guest still wants one, as long as the "Deluxe" 1,000 are still available, they will be fine. Once all 5,000 are gone, everyone (even the deluxe guest) is out of luck.

* Again, the patent is not saying that ONLY deluxe guests get Fast Passes. Just that the distribution could change.

* Now, of course, they could always set the distribution to 5,000 for deluxe and 0 for all others, but what's the point in that? Remember, the goal of Fast Pass is to keep us out of the queue and spending money in the park. They really don't want anyone to be in the queue at all, if they can help it.

Just my two cents.

 

[crusader]

And if there are less than 2,000 concierge guests on any given day, then you could give them all unlimited FastPasses and it wouldn't affect anyone else to any noticeable extent.

2000 guests is nothing, so I doubt that's the target demographic.

 

[Bstanley]

Depending on what time of the year it is, having 2000 guests that can re-enter the FP lines as many times as they want might very well have an impact on the wait time for FP attractions.

Implementing FP on a pay for play basis is playing with fire IMHO.

If you sell it to folks as a ticket add-on you'll end up chasing people offsite - why? Joe can't afford both staying on-site and buying the add-on so he shifts offsite to afford it because it's more valuable than the resort convenience. Also the potential for flooding the FP system is very high.

If you offer it as a perk for staying on-site the potential for flooding the FP system is very high.

If you offer it as a ticket add-on for on-site guests you end up shifting people to less expensive resorts so that they can use the money to buy the add-on. The amount of money to Disney Corp may be the same, but the resort managers won't like it. And the people that don't buy it will be cheezed off, plus the potential for flooding the FP system is high.

If you offer it as a perk for only certain resorts or for certain classes of people at a resort you cheeze-off the people at all the resorts that don't qualify for it - maybe they get so cheezed-off they decide to save money and stay at a different resort or offsite - I mean why pay for staying at the GF or even Disney if I'm going to be treated like an offsite guest (or an AllStars guest) when I'm in the parks?

To some degree any FP 'pay for play' program is also going to be a ticklish PR issue. We've all been there when there are lines - and when you're stuck in the line and people are zipping past you it's annoying, but if you were to start seeing people zipping past you multiple times??? That will really be tough to take.

Disney will need to really think this one through to make sure 'the juice is worth the squeeze'.

 

[raidermatt]

If I choose to spend the night at a Motel 6, I don't have the right to become "whizzed off" at someone who pays to stay at the Ritz Carlton. They pay more so they get more. I paid less so I get less. Business as usual.

Neither person has any "rights". However, if you do take something away from somebody who has gotten used to getting it, there can be problems.

Motel 6 and the RC are not owned by the same company on the same property as part of the same resort providing access to the same activities.

FPs relate to the park experience and only the park experience. The guest at the GF does not pay more to get into the park than the guest at the All-Stars or the guest at the HoJo.

What's more, basing park perks on the "level" of hotel being paid for ignores the frequency that the guest visits WDW.

Every "extra" FP given out is one less that's available to other guests.

This is not a simple "mint on the pillow" type of perk. There is no "normal evolution" of the feature. In looking at this in such simplistic terms, one is ignoring the many unique aspects of this situation.

However, I will agree that just because Jim Hill says it might/will happen, it don't mean its so. His conclusions are, uh, "questionable" at times.

 

[SoCalKDG]

They covered so many options that they can give this perk just to people that spend $100 in the park, or to every onsite hotel guest equally, or to every onsite hotel guest with deluxes getting two extra.

What hasn't been mentioned is the knowledge Disney can gain before you even get to the park. Lets say every onsite guest gets 4 FP's per day, and that you use your interactive TV to choose them for the following day. Guess what, Disney now knows where the crowds are going to be, and when. Thus extra staff can be directed to a certain park, extra cars can be added to a ride, etc.

 

[Johnny Quest]

Every "extra" FP given out is one less that's available to other guests.

Which is why I'm saying to limit this to what they get anyway. I think the company can do that. I just don't see why they would even bother unless they think they know the on-site guest's willingness to spend for this better than we do.

Depending on what time of the year it is, having 2000 guests that can re-enter the FP lines as many times as they want might very well have an impact on the wait time for FP attractions.

.

I don't know, the "2000" concierge demo seemed relatively inconsequential when I walked through it:

Sure, basic instinct is to re-enter over and over on the fav's when you're a certain age. The older we get, the less adults such as myself tend to do this (with the exception of 2 coasters at IoA.) - especially if the queue is long.

But there are approx. 20-25 FP attractions I can think of off the top of my head at WDW.

Worst case - and I'm really pushing it here - is that all day long there would be anywhere from a hundred to two hundred people chained to repeating these attractions with that unlimited FP.

The more realistic premise is they sleep in with this perk and hit the parks around noon. Say 40% choose MK, run on splash or space maybe 3 times in a row, hit Buzz a few times, and Pooh once before moving on. That's not really going to impact the masses at all.

But again, I'm only speaking in terms of the hypothetical concierge medium. If the company were to distribute these to a wider population, we have a serious problem.

 

[DOPEY44]

How about ending Fast Pass? Has the cost of creating, installing and running Fast Pass brought any more $$$ to the parks since 1999? Would have the crowds been any smaller and or bigger without it?

 

[brunoflipper]

this issue is really about keeping up with the joneses... the joneses being US... US offers this for it's guests and it is a huge perk...

 

[Peter Pirate]

Sorry brunoflipper, but NOTHING is about keeping up with the jones'. USF had its chance with tons of usf upporters (even here on the DIS) saying how Disney needs to worry, how USF is so much more hip, so much better...But USF is causing absolutely no ill effects on WDW and WDW isn't paying any attention to what they do. They are simply another park in Orlando. Even the FOTL perk given by USF is a non factor because virtually everyone knows with WDW's size this simply can't be done.

As to getting rid of FP, why on earth would they do that? It is one of the best, completely guest friendly things they have done in a long, long time. Sure some stand by times are inflated but those rumored amounts are greatly exaggerated, IMO. The only people who don't like FP are those who don't want to plan, be rushed or play by the rules...And these people are few and far between.

As for FP for Resort guests exclusively (or for sale), certainly it can and probably will be done on some level at some point in time. But it will not be a major change believe me. Mr. Curling is spot on with his analysis. Disney will be very careful how this is done (if ever done) and will not risk upsetting the apple cart.

 

[Plus4206]

this issue is really about keeping up with the joneses... the joneses being US... US offers this for it's guests and it is a huge perk...

Peter is absolutely correct. US/IOA have approx 3000 guest rooms as opposed to approx 28000 in WDW.

I've also been in a standby line at IOA only to be infuriated by groups of on-site guests using their HotL priviledge 3-4 times in-a-row while I waited for my first turn on the ride. Doesn't really inspire me to return to IOA.

 

[raidermatt]

Agreed, has nothing to do with Universal.

However, the point about the precedent being set is a good one. Whether you view it as an industry standard or simply as something people now expect at Disney, the guests do expect some kind of FP or FOTL offering. So getting rid of it would be very problematic.

To Dopey's point, it doesn't sound like the financial justification for FP panned out the way it was sold... that ancillary spending would increase due to guests not standing in line as long. But you'd still have lots of guest relations issues if you got rid of it, since the guests who use it largely view it as Peter presented it.