FastPass+ Most Certainly Not Coming Back As It Was

[mikejs78]

I'm convinced Disney will have to implement dynamic pricing during the day for FastPass. They're looking to optimize revenue. The most practical way to do that is by adjusting the price during the day.

If they set the cost of a FP too low, you start a death spiral for the standby line. You end up with the same problem you had with FastPass+, and you didn't make enough money to compensate for the drop in guest satisfaction. For example, let's say:

• Disney prices a 7DMT FP at $0.01
• 7DMT handles 1,500 people per hour
• 75% of the ride's capacity is allocatedfor FP++
• Guest satisfaction drops significantly once wait times exceed 20 minutes (per Bruce Laval, the guy that invented FastPass, in recent court testimony)

This is essentially the pre-pandemic FastPass model, with a $0.01/ride cost.

In this case, you'll end up with a standby line that looks a lot like pre-pandemic standby lines, with peak posted waits of around 120 minutes for yesterday ("first Tuesday in July"). And you've made $11.25 per hour for the park:

View attachment 570133

Conversely, suppose you price each FP at $1000 and no one uses it. Then you end up with the situation you have today. Wait times are still high enough to cause guest dissatisfaction, and you've made no money:

View attachment 570136

Dynamic pricing allows Disney to protect itself against setting the price too low or too high.

The other thing to note is that paid FP, and dynamic pricing in particular, is all profit for Disney; the price of your ticket, food, and merch already covers the cost of running the parks. We know this because the parks operated at a profit before the pandemic.

I would love to be a fly on the wall of your data science team trying to figure out how to model all this once Disney announces whatever they announce. It's going to be nuts and I can't imagine how your entire business will have to adapt to figure it out...

 

[el_super]

It did solve the problem of waiting in long lines dependent on your situation. I'm a local with two little kids who previously would make three fast passes from home and then go to the park to ride those attractions with little to no wait.

This is the absolute worst case scenario for how Fastpass should be used. The idea that Fastpass availability on it's own was driving attendance has to be one of the motivating factors for eliminating it. That said, please don't take this personally and sincerely thanks for sharing.

 

[brettf22]

Thinking through previous trips with my family, another negative impact of this change is that families might decide to split up a lot more. There have been many times when my family has used a FP on a ride even though it may not have been every family members’ favorite. But we ride all together, which is really why we go to Disney.

I can for see future trips where we have to make $-based choices on popular rides, meaning we might split up, rather than wasting $ so we can be together on a ride that isn’t somebody’s favorite.

For example, I would never pay to ride Jungle Cruise (and definitely wouldn’t wait more than 20 minutes for it). But since it’s my mother-in-law’s favorite, we usually get a FP for it. Now, if my choices are: wait 45 minutes; get a Standby Pass and come back in an hour (to STILL wait 45 minutes); or pay $50+ for my family to ride it quickly, I will probably pay $30 for part of my family to ride Jungle, while I and my son pay $20 to ride Big Thunder or Splash. Disney doesn’t care, because they’ve got my $50 either way. But now I’ve missed time together with my family. Which, I get, is my choice. But the $ factor makes that choice much harder.

 

[jinx8402]

Apparently, according to one Disney pirate aficionado, the rider swap program is changing as of 7/16 (reducing from 2 additional guests to 1). Any thoughts on if this is precursor to FP+ or its replacement?

 

[RobbinsDad]

I almost agree with this post, but I have a couple of (probably controversial) additions:

Corporations don't adjust strategies unless there is a compelling reason to, and the reason they are adjusting away from the old Eisner strategy of increasing attendance/LOS is that it just doesn't work anymore. Either they have hit the ceiling of what capacity they can physically push thru the gates (with the parks/resorts at 90% capacity for decades now), or they have hit the limit of demand they see coming from the public.

There is no growth potential in the current strategy and it's just run its course.

The second and probably most controversial for this group is understanding that they are trying to implement a complete reset of their parks strategy, while keeping things similar enough to not push away their loyal customers. I know this group tends to think Disney doesn't care about guest satisfaction, but they most certainly do. Bold actions, even when necessary, tend to frighten people away, and Disney doesn't want to take that risk. We're seeing this dance play out at DLR right now with the "Legacy Passholder" program and their attempts to keep the fans engaged, while also telling them they are unsustainable.

I don't think of it as much bold as catching up with newer consumer preferences. I'm not saying I'm completely in touch with the latest innovations in American consumer science, but I know that convenience and customized experiences are valued. If Disney can make money off of these preferences + increase guest satisfaction, then what's the argument against it? Time will tell whether or not they're correct in their assumptions.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I disagree. I think this will turn out to be very popular among those Disney values most: guests with (perceived) unlimited income to spend at the parks. 60 dollars for my family of four to avoid an hour+ wait for SDMT? Done. Now I also have time to pick up some Disney ears or a cupcake or the Bluey plushie my kid has been dying for. Bam - increased guest satisfaction, and return visits, at least until the shine wears off or the kids get older. In that case there's a new crop of young families discovering the omnipresent Disney entertainment magic.

WDW is basically now a casino - cater to the real and wannabe high rollers, inconvenience the $5 blackjack table players enough to where they either stick it out for the privilege of being there or move on.

Wdw isn’t filled with nearly as many “high wealth” people as they lead to believe and…apparently you believe.

it’s what I said way upthread…it’s new money types that revel in what they’re charged and feel proud…not a luxury playground.

it was built for a middle class that sadly has changed…but it’s still built/run for them

everyone should consider that slaphead doesn’t care if he pushes it too far and attendance tanks? Why should he? He just moves on into retirement if it does and gets paid regardless.

disney isn’t run the way people assume it is…while also making excuses for price increases and trusting they won’t go too far.

which is it?

 

[rreading]

I would counter this with suggesting that it’s common for luxurious hotels to charge for parking.



This is one of the things offensive about Premier Access. You already were paying for FP+. Disney is taking that away and charging you for its replacement.

You're absolutely right about expensive hotels charging for parking. While you can say that WDW already was charging for parking, (as you know) pricing is a matter of supply and demand. Since there's a somewhat limited supply for a huge demand, their pricing for rooms is really independent of charging for parking. The premium for the room isn't for luxury as it is anywhere else - it's for access to the bubble - the closer you are to the parks the more you pay.

I disagree with your latter statement. Busch Garden and Universal both charge about the same to go through their gates but they didn't offer any free FP nor FP+. Disney was offering more than their most direct competitors in the area.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I don't think of it as much bold as catching up with newer consumer preferences. I'm not saying I'm completely in touch with the latest innovations in American consumer science, but I know that convenience and customized experiences are valued. If Disney can make money off of these preferences + increase guest satisfaction, then what's the argument against it? Time will tell whether or not they're correct in their assumptions.

The counter is that no other company on earth sells more product on nostalgia or trust that they value their customer. And that is true

 

[MisterPenguin]

This thread has taken the next form of its evolution: The airing of unrelated grievances.

 

[flynnibus]

One of the reasons I enjoyed my Disneyland visits so much was the freedom to ride more rides. If I walked into the park within an hour of opening I could get a fastpass for any attraction I wanted later in the day and jump on several attractions with minnimul wait. I also had the option of staying late (11 pm or 12 am) and riding attractions with minnimul wait.

Not because I paid extra money for “after hours” - not because I was staying at a Disney hotel - because I bought a ticket to enter Disneyland that day!

"But it works for me..." -- WDW Fan

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

"But it works for me..." -- WDW Fan

Duster 3:16

 

[flynnibus]

I don't think it is all that sad. If you went back to 1999 and asked if people though Fastpass would be around forever, I think everyone would have laughed at you. Fastpass as it was originally launched was a compromise between the old and the new, and trying to solution for the age-old problem of having to wait in a long line. Flash forward 20 years later and people are still waiting in long lines and Fastpass hasn't really solved anything. The real problem is, people grew to REALLY LIKE IT for some inexplicable reason.

It was more seen as another example of Disney expertise/innovation to bring new ways to enjoy your vacation. And besides the destruction and problems it caused in DLR because of the lack of space, it was really seen as a good thing. And it could have stayed a great thing, if Disney kept it like a demand deferral system instead of treating it as the primary method to experience an attraction and treating standby as 3rd class. It was a good system that looked good to the customer, and could operationally be very valuable to Disney too. But they got greedy.

Disney could have/should have gone to a completely virtual queue system by now, but they've been loathed to make changes to the system that everyone likes so much.

Every implementation to date of virtual queues has largely been panned. Disney isn't bringing anything new here to address the issues.. instead largely exaggerating fears of manipulation and monetization.

 

[MisterPenguin]

"But it works for me..." -- WDW Fan

Duster 3:16

Ad hominem 101

 

[flynnibus]

Corporations don't adjust strategies unless there is a compelling reason to, and the reason they are adjusting away from the old Eisner strategy of increasing attendance/LOS is that it just doesn't work anymore.

Except - leaders always adjust things to try to establish their resume and everyone is looking for change to fuel GROWTH.

The 'its working, don't rock the boat' mentality was abandoned long ago -- especially at Disney with their rotating executive program where they try to cross-breed everyone.

 

[ne4now]

Disney could have/should have gone to a completely virtual queue system by now, but they've been loathed to make changes to the system that everyone likes so much.

Personally, I think this is long overdue.

This is the way!
Disney should definitely do this and to encourage people booking and staying on property, perhaps give early access to guests in order of:
Deluxe Resort Guests
Moderate Resort Guests
Value Resort Guests
Partner Resort Guests
Everyone else...

Maybe release some to people in the parks at rope drop or randomly throughout the day too.

 

[flynnibus]

Ad hominem 101

My post? No, it's just applying people's "logic". Their perception is it's fine, so obviously it must be and I don't care about how your world is.

It's the last defense of so many here...

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Ad hominem 101

Ahhh…the game’s afoot…

let’s see what actually happens…then we will debate “merits”
I’ll see you on the pitch ️

 

[dreday3]

My post? No, it's just applying people's "logic". Their perception is it's fine, so obviously it must be and I don't care about how your world is.

It's the last defense of so many here...

Kind of works both ways, right?

"I don't like it. Here's why it's bad. It's impossible for you to like it because I said it's bad".

 

[DisneyMusician2]

T

Except - leaders always adjust things to try to establish their resume and everyone is looking for change to fuel GROWTH.

The 'its working, don't rock the boat' mentality was abandoned long ago -- especially at Disney with their rotating executive program where they try to cross-breed everyone.

This is the current American corporate strategy to cross-pollenate your executives and see who is flexible and can learn the overall business model.

And gosh I'm not sure the parks could have handled any more increased attendance. Pre-pandemic levels of some of the parks even outside of the major holidays was getting to the point of crazy at times even during historically 'slow' periods. To me this is Disney pushing the pendulum a little far in the other direction, but its clearly more about control of the attendance rather than increasing the overall number of people.

 

[pax_65]

It is ... but it's also a bit of a Catch-22 right? There's no motivation to update and support the tech, if your guests are still largely attached to the old systems.

How many times do we have to go thru this loop:

Disney introduces Fastpass and the guests hate it and want the old standby queues.
Disney introduces Fastpass+ and the guests hate it and want the old paper tickets.
Disney introduces Virtual Queues and Boarding Groups and the guests hate it and want the old Fastpass+ options.
Disney introduces Paid Fastpasses and ... ?

Well... some people don't like change. You'll still find people complaining about the loss of Mr Toad's Wild Ride.

What I'm talking about is value, which for this conversation I define as: Experiences had/money paid.

45 attractions for $400 is a better value than 30 attractions for $400

Similarly, 45 attractions for $400 is a better value than 45 attractions for $600

Higher ticket prices (including paid FP), reduced hours (including closing MK for a ticketed event) and longer wait times all equal less value for your vacation. You have to pay more to have the same experiences (or maybe fewer experiences)