The Incredible message for my trip :)

[Lisa loves Pooh]

It is impossible to overstate how important this is when discussing FP+ and "spontaneity". There is an active post asking if 5 days is enough for a trip. And many people, (myself included), have commented that it is, and often, that is all the time we have. Many others have commented that they could never do a trip that short, and they typically do 10 or more days. For the people who do 10 day trips, it might make perfect sense to arrive at a tiered park at 10:30, use your FPs, hit up a few other minor attractions, and leave the other headliners for another day. And these folks will insist that spontaneity prevails. For the people doing 5 day trips where they spend 2 days at the MK, one day at AK, one day at DHS, and one day at Epcot, the "come back later" approach does not work. The options for those people are to:

• Arrive at RD to hit the headliners that they cannot FP
• Arrive later and opt not do certain headliners
• Arrive later and wait in long lines for headliners that they cannot FP, causing them to have to skip other attractions as the trade-off.

In order to feel like you are getting enough value, the only real option is the first....unless you know that you are going to be coming back frequently. And this Board leans heavily toward habitual visitors, so I think they lose sight of the fact that arriving late and skipping rides is like fingernails on the chalkboard to people who go far less frequently. So when you are more or less funnelled (I won't say "forced") into having to arrive early to hit up headliners before using FPs, the visits become fairly formulaic and spontaneity seems like a lofty, but unattained goal.

We did 5 days in 2012. I totally appreciate (even now back as a local) how hard it is to not relax and just go go go. I kinda did not like that since we have kids and going non-stop 5 days sounds un-enticing even if we did not.

And that was during legacy. And it didn't feel so spontaneous due to our restriction of time.

If we still lived out of state, I would never plan a trip that short again in that way. We were time restricted as I had a child in ballet rehearsals so we has to travel in between those obligations.

Again, we had a great time and all that. But spontaneous it was not.

But to that point, Disney is so large that the shorter the visit, the more difficult it can be to accomplish goals. It doesn't necessarily mean the goals are unattainable. It just becomes more and more challenging.

People can judge what I say all that like, but that is indeed why I don't see the difference and find FP+ a little more helpful to increase *my* opportunities to be more sponteneous. And why I get a little moody when folks say my opinion doesn't count since I live local and I guess spend all my spare time at Disney. But since 2012 was just one trip, I suppose I was just doing it all wrong anyway.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

And this fits in perfectly with the design of FP+ that many people ignore or overlook. The system was designed to be the antidote to Harry Potter World. It is intentionally a "ride governor" that limits how much one can do in a day, and allows people to "relax", "slow down", "do other things". All good things in theory, and intentionally designed to get people to occupy their entire 7 day vacation at WDW instead of doing 5 days at WDW and 2 days at Universal. Disney wants you to fill up all 7 days on its property, and wants you coming back more often. Anyone who thinks that FP+ was designed to allow guests to crunch what used to take 6 days into 4 doesn't even begin to understand how Disney accounting works. They want to stretch out what you used to do in 5 days into 7. Not the other way around. So go ahead and relax. Be spontaneous. Enjoy adventures other than theme park headliners. And when you plot out your vacation, you will find that you are now staying 7-8 days in a Disney resort instead of 5-6. It is rather brilliant when you think about it.

I am sure if you search carefully enough, you will find an abundance of recommendations for trip length that predates FP+ giving suggestions on how long the trip should be to accomplish X # of goals.

It is -- misrepresentative, for lack of a better term at the moment-- to "blame" FP+ For the need for vacations to be longer at Disney. That ship sailed years ago when AK was brought into the mix.

It is not an anomaly of FP+.

Is that is not the dots you are connected, could you please clarify?

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

And if one needs any more convincing, just go back to the "Are 5 days enough" thread and count the number of posts where people have suggested skipping Universal and spending all the time at WDW. When the almost unanimous consensus is to skip Universal, Disney's plan is working perfectly. No one on that thread has suggested that the new FP+ system will allow the OP to breeze through WDW in 4 days leaving a day free for Universal.

Probably because no one believes that is what FP+ is for? And one day only at Universal would be $100pp?

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Exactly. I've been saying for a while now, I think the goal is to get people to spend about six hours a day in a park. 3 FPs, a meal, a parade, maybe some second-tier stuff, get out. There is probably some cutoff where after that point they know people don't spend more money in the parks and they are just taking up space. And yes, spend more days to get to do everything you wanted to do.

Hmm, maybe the ad is right, you will be more spontaneous with all of that free time to fill.

I have a hard time wrapping my mind around that Disney only wants guests to be there for 1/3 of the day. I see lots of opinions on that. But the idea sounds extremely irrational to me.

 

[ArwenMarie]

I am sure if you search carefully enough, you will find an abundance of recommendations for trip length that predates FP+ giving suggestions on how long the trip should be to accomplish X # of goals.

It is -- misrepresentative, for lack of a better term at the moment-- to "blame" FP+ For the need for vacations to be longer at Disney. That ship sailed years ago when AK was brought into the mix.

It is not an anomaly of FP+.

Is that is not the dots you are connected, could you please clarify?

But if people were pulling more paper FPs versus how many FP+s they can get now, then it is because of FP+? Other things factor in too (wait going up at a lot of secondary attractions etc)

If people could get more done in a day with paper FP, then to do that same amount of stuff, they would need more days.

 

[ArwenMarie]

I have a hard time wrapping my mind around that Disney only wants guests to be there for 1/3 of the day. I see lots of opinions on that. But the idea sounds extremely irrational to me.

No, it's totally logical. Think about it. You have X amount of ride capacity. You can have Y people there all day, from open to close, gobbling it all up. Now if you can cut those people's hours down by 2/3, you now have the capacity to let 3*Y people ride. That's exactly what FP+ did, it's a rationing system at its core.

From a business perspective, add in the fact that people probably don't spend more as the day goes on in the park. There are only so many meals in a day. And of course, people are still going to eat, but encourage them to eat at their resort or Disney Springs. Ditto for shopping.

 

[JimmyV]

It is -- misrepresentative, for lack of a better term at the moment-- to "blame" FP+ For the need for vacations to be longer at Disney. That ship sailed years ago when AK was brought into the mix.

It is not an anomaly of FP+.

I think it is--naive, for lack of a better term at the moment--to think that Disney didn't implement this in order to fill the entire vacuum of vacation time and dissuade people from doing 5 days at WDW and 2 days at Universal. At the time FP+ was introduced, the average length of stay was 5-point-something days. Without adding a fifth gate, that number has increased. From a recent article on Tom Staggs that ran in the NYT:

Mr. Staggs is also credited with sorting out technological problems with MyMagic Plus, a new Walt Disney World visitor management system that changes how Disney World visitors do just about everything. The $1 billion system, designed to increase the length of time people stay at the sprawling resort, involves equipping guests with data-collecting electronic wristbands.
(emphasis added).

I have a hard time wrapping my mind around that Disney only wants guests to be there for 1/3 of the day. I see lots of opinions on that. But the idea sounds extremely irrational to me.

Why? BBB costs money. A round of golf costs money. A Signature meal costs money. Shopping at Disney Springs will cost money. Bowling costs money. Going to a movie costs money. Disney is building all sorts of collateral entertainment that costs money and they want you out there enjoying those things. When you are in a log boat at Splash Mountain sitting on your wallet, your wallet remains shut. They want the wallet in your hand, open, with bills flying out of it. It is irrational not to think that.

 

[DoingDisney]

I have a hard time wrapping my mind around that Disney only wants guests to be there for 1/3 of the day. I see lots of opinions on that. But the idea sounds extremely irrational to me.

Iger bragged in his press release that FP+ is allowing them to cycle more guests through parks in a single day, essentially increasing their ticket sales capacity. The only way this is possibly is if those people are spending less time in the parks ... so, there is an element of that to it.

 

[JimmyV]

Iger bragged in his press release that FP+ is allowing them to cycle more guests through parks in a single day, essentially increasing their ticket sales capacity. The only way this is possibly is if those people are spending less time in the parks ... so, there is an element of that to it.

Exactly. This is how it is supposed to work:

Family "A" arrives at in the morning and stays until 3:00. They then leave and spend time/money doing one or more of the following:

• Disney Springs
• BBB
• Magnolia Golf Course
• Bowling Alley
• Movie Theater
• Mini-Golf
• Horseback Riding
• Water Mouse Boat Rentals
• Afternoon Tea at the Grand Floridian
• Blizzard Beach

Family "B" does the reverse, and enjoys these things in the morning, and heads to the park at 3:00.

Now, one of two things must be true. Either Family "A" has had its attraction pacing sped up such that it can ride all the major attractions in less time than it ever did before, thus allowing them to complete the park from 9:00-3:00; or...
Family "A" has had their attraction pacing slowed down such that they know that they will want to, (have to) come back to the park on another day in order to do and see all the things they want to do and see. In the past, Family "A" got Fast Passes for both Soarin' and Test Track in the same day. Now they do not. If you believe that Family "A" has had its pacing sped up, you have to conclude that they can now ride both Soarin' and Test Track in less time than it took before. If you believe that Family "A" has had its pacing slowed down, you have to conclude that they are riding Soarin' and Test Track in more time than it took before, resulting in them skipping other attractions with the intent on hitting those later in the trip on a different day, or perhaps they skipped one of the headliners altogether, intending to hit it later in the trip on a different day. You can pick between "sped up" or "slowed down". I know which way I lean.

Disney could not have possibly spent hundreds of millions of dollars on collateral entertainment without the expectation that guests would make use of it. And the only way to make use of it is to get people out of the parks. And is it better to get people out of the parks by speeding up their day making them more efficient, or slowing them down, thus ensuring that they have an incentive to return on another (additional) day? Seems pretty straightforward, doesn't it?

 

[LOL!]

Makes perfect sense. What business wouldn't want to figure out a way to persuade it's customers to spend more money with them?

 

[NMAmy]

And this fits in perfectly with the design of FP+ that many people ignore or overlook. The system was designed to be the antidote to Harry Potter World. It is intentionally a "ride governor" that limits how much one can do in a day, and allows people to "relax", "slow down", "do other things". All good things in theory, and intentionally designed to get people to occupy their entire 7 day vacation at WDW instead of doing 5 days at WDW and 2 days at Universal. Disney wants you to fill up all 7 days on its property, and wants you coming back more often. Anyone who thinks that FP+ was designed to allow guests to crunch what used to take 6 days into 4 doesn't even begin to understand how Disney accounting works. They want to stretch out what you used to do in 5 days into 7. Not the other way around. So go ahead and relax. Be spontaneous. Enjoy adventures other than theme park headliners. And when you plot out your vacation, you will find that you are now staying 7-8 days in a Disney resort instead of 5-6. It is rather brilliant when you think about it.

I agree. It did have the opposite effect on me, however. On our last trip, we did 5 days at WDW and 3 at Universal. After that trip, and using FP+ for the first time, we decided to give WDW a break for a while. We used to go every year but no more. The time at Universal was so much better for our family.

Of course, I have two new grandchildren this year and with both our daughters (and those grandsons) living in England, I think in a couple of years, we'll try Disneyland Paris or, if they're in the States, go back to Disneyland. But no more WDW for several years.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Exactly. This is how it is supposed to work:

Family "A" arrives at in the morning and stays until 3:00. They then leave and spend time/money doing one or more of the following:

• Disney Springs
• BBB
• Magnolia Golf Course
• Bowling Alley
• Movie Theater
• Mini-Golf
• Horseback Riding
• Water Mouse Boat Rentals
• Afternoon Tea at the Grand Floridian
• Blizzard Beach

Family "B" does the reverse, and enjoys these things in the morning, and heads to the park at 3:00.

Now, one of two things must be true. Either Family "A" has had its attraction pacing sped up such that it can ride all the major attractions in less time than it ever did before, thus allowing them to complete the park from 9:00-3:00; or...
Family "A" has had their attraction pacing slowed down such that they know that they will want to, (have to) come back to the park on another day in order to do and see all the things they want to do and see. In the past, Family "A" got Fast Passes for both Soarin' and Test Track in the same day. Now they do not. If you believe that Family "A" has had its pacing sped up, you have to conclude that they can now ride both Soarin' and Test Track in less time than it took before. If you believe that Family "A" has had its pacing slowed down, you have to conclude that they are riding Soarin' and Test Track in more time than it took before, resulting in them skipping other attractions with the intent on hitting those later in the trip on a different day, or perhaps they skipped one of the headliners altogether, intending to hit it later in the trip on a different day. You can pick between "sped up" or "slowed down". I know which way I lean.

Disney could not have possibly spent hundreds of millions of dollars on collateral entertainment without the expectation that guests would make use of it. And the only way to make use of it is to get people out of the parks. And is it better to get people out of the parks by speeding up their day making them more efficient, or slowing them down, thus ensuring that they have an incentive to return on another (additional) day? Seems pretty straightforward, doesn't it?

Those marketing campaigns of the 1980s/1990s were quite ahead of their time, then. Clearly they wanted people only in the parks back then.

 

[MikeandReneePlus5]

Exactly. This is how it is supposed to work:

Family "A" arrives at in the morning and stays until 3:00. They then leave and spend time/money doing one or more of the following:

• Disney Springs
• BBB
• Magnolia Golf Course
• Bowling Alley
• Movie Theater
• Mini-Golf
• Horseback Riding
• Water Mouse Boat Rentals
• Afternoon Tea at the Grand Floridian
• Blizzard Beach

Family "B" does the reverse, and enjoys these things in the morning, and heads to the park at 3:00.

Now, one of two things must be true. Either Family "A" has had its attraction pacing sped up such that it can ride all the major attractions in less time than it ever did before, thus allowing them to complete the park from 9:00-3:00; or...
Family "A" has had their attraction pacing slowed down such that they know that they will want to, (have to) come back to the park on another day in order to do and see all the things they want to do and see. In the past, Family "A" got Fast Passes for both Soarin' and Test Track in the same day. Now they do not. If you believe that Family "A" has had its pacing sped up, you have to conclude that they can now ride both Soarin' and Test Track in less time than it took before. If you believe that Family "A" has had its pacing slowed down, you have to conclude that they are riding Soarin' and Test Track in more time than it took before, resulting in them skipping other attractions with the intent on hitting those later in the trip on a different day, or perhaps they skipped one of the headliners altogether, intending to hit it later in the trip on a different day. You can pick between "sped up" or "slowed down". I know which way I lean.

Disney could not have possibly spent hundreds of millions of dollars on collateral entertainment without the expectation that guests would make use of it. And the only way to make use of it is to get people out of the parks. And is it better to get people out of the parks by speeding up their day making them more efficient, or slowing them down, thus ensuring that they have an incentive to return on another (additional) day? Seems pretty straightforward, doesn't it?

I don't believe it is as cynical as you make it seems. Meaning, there is an element of "how can we get most families to have the most fun they can?" to the decisions WDW makes with respect to the theme parks (and WDW entertainment in general). Rational consumers will only pay if they think it's worth it.

 

[Mikie]

And this fits in perfectly with the design of FP+ that many people ignore or overlook. The system was designed to be the antidote to Harry Potter World. It is intentionally a "ride governor" that limits how much one can do in a day, and allows people to "relax", "slow down", "do other things". All good things in theory, and intentionally designed to get people to occupy their entire 7 day vacation at WDW instead of doing 5 days at WDW and 2 days at Universal. Disney wants you to fill up all 7 days on its property, and wants you coming back more often. Anyone who thinks that FP+ was designed to allow guests to crunch what used to take 6 days into 4 doesn't even begin to understand how Disney accounting works. They want to stretch out what you used to do in 5 days into 7. Not the other way around. So go ahead and relax. Be spontaneous. Enjoy adventures other than theme park headliners. And when you plot out your vacation, you will find that you are now staying 7-8 days in a Disney resort instead of 5-6. It is rather brilliant when you think about it.

To the general, original, topic of thus thread: I believe there are many benefits of FP+ for me and the way I visit (and I believe I'm one of a handful of fairly common visitor "types") but in no way can I see truth in a claim that FP+ has increased spontenaiety at WDW. I do believe that some comparisons are made to a bygone golden day that we can't return to where there was more spontenaiety and the fact that we aren't there now is not the fault of FP+; but MORE spontaneous? Pfft.

To the quoted point specifically, I agree with the analysis and results, but not sure it is anything to do with FP +. It has long been my practice, and recommendation to others, to spend a central Florida vacation entirely at WDW. This is not because I require more time now to accomplish things, but because in the finite number of days I have each vacation (sadly, not 10+ days each) I have never managed to do "everything" at Disney and begin feeling bored. The ticket pricing structure makes it incrementally so much less expensive to add a WDW day vs getting 1-2 days elsewhere AND there's still plenty to do, so I just stick with WDW - before FP-, with FP-, with FP+ . . . Same story.

 

[amg35]

It is impossible to overstate how important this is when discussing FP+ and "spontaneity". There is an active post asking if 5 days is enough for a trip. And many people, (myself included), have commented that it is, and often, that is all the time we have. Many others have commented that they could never do a trip that short, and they typically do 10 or more days. For the people who do 10 day trips, it might make perfect sense to arrive at a tiered park at 10:30, use your FPs, hit up a few other minor attractions, and leave the other headliners for another day. And these folks will insist that spontaneity prevails. For the people doing 5 day trips where they spend 2 days at the MK, one day at AK, one day at DHS, and one day at Epcot, the "come back later" approach does not work. The options for those people are to:

• Arrive at RD to hit the headliners that they cannot FP
• Arrive later and opt not do certain headliners
• Arrive later and wait in long lines for headliners that they cannot FP, causing them to have to skip other attractions as the trade-off.

In order to feel like you are getting enough value, the only real option is the first....unless you know that you are going to be coming back frequently. And this Board leans heavily toward habitual visitors, so I think they lose sight of the fact that arriving late and skipping rides is like fingernails on the chalkboard to people who go far less frequently. So when you are more or less funnelled (I won't say "forced") into having to arrive early to hit up headliners before using FPs, the visits become fairly formulaic and spontaneity seems like a lofty, but unattained goal.

And if one needs any more convincing, just go back to the "Are 5 days enough" thread and count the number of posts where people have suggested skipping Universal and spending all the time at WDW. When the almost unanimous consensus is to skip Universal, Disney's plan is working perfectly. No one on that thread has suggested that the new FP+ system will allow the OP to breeze through WDW in 4 days leaving a day free for Universal.

I've spoken in this thread openly as a person who stays 10 days (let's put that in perspective, we only go to WDW every 5 years or so). I've also said it's probably why I don't feel the stress the other people feel. Spontaneity? I don't know, I don't really think about it, but that's the beauty of long stays.

But fast pass has no influence on our length of stays. I hate short stays, always have. We stayed 5 days with legacy fast pass and got nothing done! (it felt like )
And fast pass doesn't hold me to WDW for the entire trip. It's just when we go to Disney, we go to Disney (I'm one of the ones who likes the whole bubble feel, so we enjoy time at the resort too). We only go very few years or so, so we have no problem filling up an entire 10 days with just Disney. Universal is for another time (pre-cruise (non-Disney) for us). Or maybe we will take one day out of our next trip to WDW, never know!

My point - Disney's "plan" has nothing to do with how I vacation. There are so many of us who visit WDW, we can't all possibly fit in one little box that describes how or why we vacation there the way we do.

Sometimes it seems when you try to give your own perspective on here, you are accused of telling other people how to vacation - not at all, I just try to tell people how we do things, see if it helps them, if not, no big deal.

We all have what we dislike about WDW - for me, fast pass/tiering doesn't bother me. The planning doesn't either.

What bothers me is the length of time to finish anything! We want to go in 2017 for Avatarland, now it's rumored not to open until 2018.......aaaaaaaaaaaarghhhhhhhhhh!!!!!

 

[JimmyV]

I've spoken in this thread openly as a person who stays 10 days (let's put that in perspective, we only go to WDW every 5 years or so). I've also said it's probably why I don't feel the stress the other people feel. Spontaneity? I don't know, I don't really think about it, but that's the beauty of long stays.

But fast pass has no influence on our length of stays. I hate short stays, always have. We stayed 5 days with legacy fast pass and got nothing done! (it felt like )
And fast pass doesn't hold me to WDW for the entire trip. It's just when we go to Disney, we go to Disney (I'm one of the ones who likes the whole bubble feel, so we enjoy time at the resort too). We only go very few years or so, so we have no problem filling up an entire 10 days with just Disney. Universal is for another time (pre-cruise (non-Disney) for us). Or maybe we will take one day out of our next trip to WDW, never know!

My point - Disney's "plan" has nothing to do with how I vacation. There are so many of us who visit WDW, we can't all possibly fit in one little box that describes how or why we vacation there the way we do.

Sometimes it seems when you try to give your own perspective on here, you are accused of telling other people how to vacation - not at all, I just try to tell people how we do things, see if it helps them, if not, no big deal.

We all have what we dislike about WDW - for me, fast pass/tiering doesn't bother me. The planning doesn't either.

What bothers me is the length of time to finish anything! We want to go in 2017 for Avatarland, now it's rumored not to open until 2018.......aaaaaaaaaaaarghhhhhhhhhh!!!!!

Obviously there is no way that I could ever contradict your reasoning and motives. Others on this Board may be so presumptuous but I won't. All I can offer is that after sitting down with Tom Staggs, the NYT deemed it appropriate to report that the billion dollar initiative was designed to keep people on property for a longer stretch of time. If one finds that they are now spending more time per trip at WDW, it is either because they choose to do so of their own accord, choose to do so because changes in park dynamics cause them to, overtly, or choose to do so because changes in park dynamics cause them to, subliminally. The NYT article is obviously looking at things from a macro level. It cannot account for or address every guest's experience. But one thing must be true. Not everyone can disavow FP+'s impact on longer stays. Otherwise, the statement in the NYT about Staggs being credited with creating a system that lengthens stays would be false. So somebody out there is doing it.

 

[JimmyV]

I don't believe it is as cynical as you make it seems. Meaning, there is an element of "how can we get most families to have the most fun they can?" to the decisions WDW makes with respect to the theme parks (and WDW entertainment in general). Rational consumers will only pay if they think it's worth it.

I don't think there is anything cynical about suggesting that Disney's motives are to keep people on property and out of Hogwarts. That is simple and brilliant marketing. My posts were simply an attempt to point out what is invisibly running in the background that some either don't or won't see. There is nothing evil or cynical about it....until,....and this is where the whole thread started, Disney starts to overstate or misrepresent "spontaneity". But that is what marketing is all about. Nothing new here.

 

[batmansmom25]

I did not read all of the posts but my two cents is this. When you can make your choices 60 days out and then "tweak" them with ADR's and other information as it is available it does help. I don't think any of my FP+ that I chose at 12:01 on my day are the same but I can change the time not necessarily the experience which I ended up with. My trip is still 50 days out so we will see out it all pans out but being able to mold it with my ADR's is kind of nice. I made most of my FP+ for late afternoon as we are rope droppers. Wish us luck, it's been 3 years and at that time it was our first experience.