TSM standby-less test Oct. 6-9

[cakebaker]

So now I'm genuinely interested in what the FP+ lovers (and I don't mean that at all negatively) think of the fact that off-siters and APs can't book TSMM FP+s in advance because they are all booked at 30 days out.

It's just the price you pay for staying off site. I'm glad Disney wants to encourage on site stays and pleased that they've chosen to include a sort of pre-booking advantage.


AP's have the same choice- except for locals and I think the advantage of having the parks in their back door more than makes up for not being able to book more than 30 days out.

 

[ArwenMarie]

It's just the price you pay for staying off site. I'm glad Disney wants to encourage on site stays and pleased that they've chosen to include a sort of pre-booking advantage.

I'm not picking on your comment so please don't take this that way, but I see this sentiment a lot on here and I think it misses a key point...

The more Disney differentiates between its onsite hotels versus offsite, the easier they will be able to fill their rooms.

The easier they can fill their rooms, the more they will be able to charge, or the less discounts they will have to offer.

Or maybe we should just wait and see what happens here on the DIS when they don't have to offer free dining or room discounts anymore

 

[jahber]

It's just the price you pay for staying off site. I'm glad Disney wants to encourage on site stays and pleased that they've chosen to include a sort of pre-booking advantage. AP's have the same choice- except for locals and I think the advantage of having the parks in their back door more than makes up for not being able to book more than 30 days out.

Thanks for the honest answer. So, I'm interpreting this as approval of a 2-tier system: one tier where all rides are available for FP+ and one where most are, but not the most popular rides. Would you say that's accurate?

 

[cakebaker]

Thanks for the honest answer. So, I'm interpreting this as approval of a 2-tier system: one tier where all rides are available for FP+ and one where most are, but not the most popular rides. Would you say that's accurate?

Are you talking of in terms of for example, deluxe stays vs value?

Honestly, I don't know now I feel about that. I'm on the fence. We've stayed at all levels at WDW from 2 bedrooms villas down to a stay at ASM for one night so my opinion wouldn't be based on where I stay. Just really don't have strong feelings one way or the other.

I can see where it makes sense for someone who pays $600 a night to get more perks than one who pays $75, but a lot of those perks are in the room and resort itself- so not sure it's necessary to compensate any further than that. But if they did, I don't think I'd have a fit about it.

 

[Silock]

I'm glad Disney wants to encourage on site stays

Why?

 

[cakebaker]

I'm not picking on your comment so please don't take this that way, but I see this sentiment a lot on here and I think it misses a key point...

The more Disney differentiates between its onsite hotels versus offsite, the easier they will be able to fill their rooms.

The easier they can fill their rooms, the more they will be able to charge, or the less discounts they will have to offer.

Or maybe we should just wait and see what happens here on the DIS when they don't have to offer free dining or room discounts anymore

And I'm willing to risk increased prices- although I think their prices, at least for the deluxe/villa stays are pretty much maxing out the market right now. Perhaps values are more at risk as their rates are just about as cheap as one can get.

 

[cakebaker]

Why?

Because I stay on site now and any benefits they add to entice others to stay, I get as well.

 

[jahber]

Are you talking of in terms of for example, deluxe stays vs value? Honestly, I don't know now I feel about that. I'm on the fence. We've stayed at all levels at WDW from 2 bedrooms villas down to a stay at ASM for one night so my opinion wouldn't be based on where I stay. Just really don't have strong feelings one way or the other. I can see where it makes sense for someone who pays $600 a night to get more perks than one who pays $75, but a lot of those perks are in the room and resort itself- so not sure it's necessary to compensate any further than that. But if they did, I don't think I'd have a fit about it.

No, I wasn't even going to go there. . I never stay onsite, so I don't have a dog in that fight, so to speak. What I meant was, tier 1 is people who stay onsite and get their choice of FP+ and tier 2 is for people who are offsite and APs, who get access to FP+ for most, but not all rides.

 

[Suvadoo]

And I'm willing to risk increased prices- although I think their prices, at least for the deluxe/villa stays are pretty much maxing out the market right now. Perhaps values are more at risk as their rates are just about as cheap as one can get.

IMO, all of the Disney hotels are at the very highest end. Guests are paying to be on property, and for that Disney charges more. Personally, I love the WDW grounds. One of my greatest pleasures is walking around a Disney resort early in the morning. But when I'm searching the Orlando area for resort accommodations, Disney is either the most expensive or close to the top.

 

[Suvadoo]

No, I wasn't even going to go there. . I never stay onsite, so I don't have a dog in that fight, so to speak. What I meant was, tier 1 is people who stay onsite and get their choice of FP+ and tier 2 is for people who are offsite and APs, who get access to FP+ for most, but not all rides.

Where in your sample tiering system do off site guests without AP's fit in? Let me guess: they're allowed to enter the parks and ride any non FP+ rides as many times as they want. Sound fair to me!

 

[Tarheel girl 1975]

I'm not picking on your comment so please don't take this that way, but I see this sentiment a lot on here and I think it misses a key point...

The more Disney differentiates between its onsite hotels versus offsite, the easier they will be able to fill their rooms.

The easier they can fill their rooms, the more they will be able to charge, or the less discounts they will have to offer.

Or maybe we should just wait and see what happens here on the DIS when they don't have to offer free dining or room discounts anymore

I think Disney hopes this is what will happen, but I think they are overestimating how elastic people's budgets are. I just don't think FP are going to make up for room discounts.

 

[jahber]

Where in your sample tiering system do off site guests without AP's fit in? Let me guess: they're allowed to enter the parks and ride any non FP+ rides as many times as they want. Sound fair to me!

What? Did you read my post? I said people who are offsite would be in tier 2. Also, clearly you haven't read the last few pages of this thread or you wouldn't be calling this "my" tiering system. I suggested this in the context of a conversation that has been going on for days--but I'll sum my part up: I have an AP and I can't book TSMM FP+. Therefore I am effectively a second-tier customer at WDW. Like it or not.

Edited to add: I think my shock at being accused of promoting a tiering system for FP+ caused me to be a bit abrupt, so I apologize if I sounded harsh. I once suggested a drinking game for every time anyone defended FP+ by saying "at least now we can ride TSMM without doing rope drop." Sadly, it looks like Disney killed that little bit of fun, too.

 

[smidgy]

IMHO, tiering (you get what you pay for) is already in place when you choose your resort. and even at the resorts, thefamily in the room next to you could be paying a much higher or lower rate than you.

you want to pay to stay at the GF? concierge? go for it. you want walking distance to EPcot? pay for it. you want someplace simple and cheery for the kids, and son't care about sit down restaurants? fine. you want to rent a big house with a private pool and kitchen? great. you pay less, but have more inconvenience to the parks.

Opening early or staying open later for those staying onsite is great. other than that, there should NEVER be tiering in regards to the park tickets when it comes to fast passes.

and we always stay on property. and have stayed at all 3 levels of resorts. I don't feel anymore "entitled" when I stay at the Boardwalk, than I do when I stay at ALl Star Music. (and conversely, I don't feel LESS entiteld when I stay at the all stars )

 

[vacationer1954]

I think Disney hopes this is what will happen, but I think they are overestimating how elastic people's budgets are.

I think Disney is just looking to make staying onsite a bit more attractive so they can do away with a small amount but not all of the discounting. As you implied the effect of the standby-less approach on the value of staying onsite is small so the effect of it on discounting will be small. Every little bit counts. Some guests will like it. Some guests won't. There is no reason to think Disney isn't going to do just enough to make things a bit better for themselves but not so much that it wouldn't be better for themselves.

 

[Suvadoo]

What? Did you read my post? I said people who are offsite would be in tier 2. Also, clearly you haven't read the last few pages of this thread or you wouldn't be calling this "my" tiering system. I suggested this in the context of a conversation that has been going on for days--but I'll sum my part up: I have an AP and I can't book TSMM FP+. Therefore I am effectively a second-tier customer at WDW. Like it or not.

Edited to add: I think my shock at being accused of promoting a tiering system for FP+ caused me to be a bit abrupt, so I apologize if I sounded harsh. I once suggested a drinking game for every time anyone defended FP+ by saying "at least now we can ride TSMM without doing rope drop." Sadly, it looks like Disney killed that little bit of fun, too.

I'm sorry. It wasn't my intent to accuse you of anything. I included the smiley face people to let you know I was totally kidding with you. I didn't think your were suggesting anything! Also, did you read my suggestion for a final tier? Maybe you would've known I was joking , if you had.

 

[KatieCharlotte]

I would much prefer to see no advantage for onsite versus offsite because of all the larger families and extended families I know who can only afford Disney by staying in a cheap motel or sharing a house.

However, having taken full advantage of Universal's onsite express passes myself, I recognize Disney's right to give onsite guests an advantage, even when the hotel is $$$$.

OTOH, it is okay only as long as offsite guests can arrive at rope drop and ride standby on anything they did not get a FP+ for. When we were at Islands of Adventure, everything but FJ was basically a walk-on until 10 a.m. and FJ did not accept the express pass. Completely preventing offsite guests from riding something would not be fair, and neither would it be fair to make it a complicated game of trying to catch FP+ as they are released during the day.

Disney should also recognize that, if families feel pushed to stay onsite, many, especially those with families over four people, will shorten the Disney portion of their trips or give up on WDW entirely because of the expense. Budgets are not as flexible as they seem to think. This would be less true if Disney offered a budget option for families of five or six. Even with off-season room discounts, the cheapest room for five was $180 and the cheapest for six is much more. Gives us a no-frills budget with a pull-out couch like Comfort Suites or at least rollaways like a Days Inn.

 

[ArwenMarie]

I think Disney hopes this is what will happen, but I think they are overestimating how elastic people's budgets are. I just don't think FP are going to make up for room discounts.

I guess that's the question really...How much do they risk decreasing their offsite business to give FPs to onsite and how much effect will that have on profit? If there isn't much room to raise prices/decrease discounts, then why would they alienate their offsite customers and lose that profit? Or maybe there is some room there and it is worth it? I guess we'll have to wait and see to get the answer

I think Disney is just looking to make staying onsite a bit more attractive so they can do away with a small amount but not all of the discounting.

Iger has said numerous times he wants to dial back the free dining and the discounts.

The more they can differentiate the onsite park experience from the offsite, the more likely he will be able to do this. That's my point...onsite folks should be careful what they wish for, especially if they enjoy those discounts now.

 

[cakebaker]

Iger has said numerous times he wants to dial back the free dining and the discounts.

The more they can differentiate the onsite park experience from the offsite, the more likely he will be able to do this. That's my point...onsite folks should be careful what they wish for, especially if they enjoy those discounts now.

It's not news that Disney very much wants to go back to the days of no discounts. They have been for years.

Once you start with discounts- it's very difficult to dial them back. Someone who pays $600 rack rate and can't get a discount feels cheated, yet the person paying $450 who got a 25% discount, thinks they got a bargain. Ask JCP how that no discount pricing worked for them.

I think they've slowly over the years, already inflated prices to adjust for discounts.

I'm all for them killing discounts and just pricing at what the market will bear. First one on the chopping block- free dining!!!!

 

[vacationer1954]

I would much prefer to see no advantage for onsite versus offsite because of all the larger families and extended families I know who can only afford Disney by staying in a cheap motel or sharing a house. However, having taken full advantage of Universal's onsite express passes myself, I recognize Disney's right to give onsite guests an advantage, even when the hotel is $$$$.

Disney probably sees the AoA family suites as the answer to that concern but as you point out they've priced their hotels to attract only the richer guests rather than those who cannot afford to pay as much.

Completely preventing offsite guests from riding something would not be fair, and neither would it be fair to make it a complicated game of trying to catch FP+ as they are released during the day.

Everyone has their own definition of fairness. The guests who can afford more and pay more to stay and Disney hotels can say it isn't fair that guests who stay offsite and pay Disney less money overall should have the same chance of getting on prime attractions. It is all a matter of where you are sitting.

I guess that's the question really...How much do they risk decreasing their offsite business to give FPs to onsite and how much effect will that have on profit?

Based on their history the answer is probably just enough no less and no more.

 

[ArwenMarie]

It's not news that Disney very much wants to go back to the days of no discounts. They have been for years.

Once you start with discounts- it's very difficult to dial them back. Someone who pays $600 rack rate and can't get a discount feels cheated, yet the person paying $450 who got a 25% discount, thinks they got a bargain. Ask JCP how that no discount pricing worked for them.

I think they've slowly over the years, already inflated prices to adjust for discounts.

I'm all for them killing discounts and just pricing at what the market will bear. First one on the chopping block- free dining!!!!

Wait, so you think they will keep room discounts, but you're ok with them axing free dining?

I guess we can decipher which discount you prefer!