-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Lightning Lane at Walt Disney World
- Thread starter wdwmagic
- Start date
Dranth
Well-Known Member
How were they going to do that? Change the number of FP+ selections from three to two? Not allow any additional after you used your three? Not allow any offsite? No matter what they did it would cause a ton of anger and switching to a paid system was inevitable. It creates a revenue source, solves the overuse problem, and gives them finer control.
Stinks for us, it is great for them.
Just you wait til I bring out the calculus and rate problems!!
Purduevian
Well-Known Member
It's not real math until there are only letters and greek symbols until the final step!
Ayla
Well-Known Member
Laketravis
Well-Known Member
Q.E.D.
CaptJackSparrow
Active Member
Just reduce the number of passes available per ride, per day. They already do this all the time.
Purduevian
Well-Known Member
Why would they make an upcharge worse to help people that didn't purchase the upcharge?
CaptJackSparrow
Active Member
Huh? It would be better….
Purduevian
Well-Known Member
How would reducing the number of passes help the people buying LLMP? Wouldn't that just make rides sell out faster, causing people to get less lightning lanes per day, thus devaluing the upcharge? Disney for sure wants people to feel like LLMP is worth it so they buy it next time/tell their friends they should buy it.
Jrb1979
Well-Known Member
I personally think they need to get rid of LLMP and just have the Premier Pass. Keep that limited.
nickys
Premium Member
Hang on, is this why you think they introduced G+ rather than free FP+? That there were too many people using it that they decided it didn’t work.
I think they simply decided this was a way to get some new revenue. Paid versions were already in place at DLP and at least one of Tokyo and Shanghai (possibly both) before WDW. When it was first rumoured the discussion included variations of all existing options.
So they saw good sales in the other parks and wanted the revenue.
Disgruntled Walt
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
For sure. They've basically looked at all aspects of their parks and resorts and said, "Why aren't we profiting from _____?" Then they made it so they are.
Purduevian
Well-Known Member
I sure hope not... I don't have the money for LLPP and I can typically do everything I want to do in a day with LLMP.
And before someone comes in to tell me that the standby lines would be so short if they got rid of all the skip the lines I would still be able to do everything I wanted with a minimal wait... My "worst" trip to Disney was in October 2021 right before G+ launched and there was no skip the line (still had a great time, just not as good of a time).
If the options were LLPP or standby online, I would visit a lot less.
Disstevefan1
Well-Known Member
I have also see posts here saying families were able to get on attractions without having to purchase LLMP so there are ways.
Purduevian
Well-Known Member
I mean obviously Standby and Rope drop are options. However, the quantity/frequency that I am able to get on attractions will get worse if they move to a LLPP/Standby only system.
Dranth
Well-Known Member
Sure, technically they could have done anything but getting FP+ usage to drop to the current levels of LL would have required a massive reduction making it essentially useless without massive changes to how it worked (number of selections, re-rides, additional selections post using three, etc.).
I would say it was both. FP+ was a problem that had to be fixed. It needed to change so that it wasn't eating so much capacity. Charging for a skip the line service is one way to accomplish that goal. That it also created a new revenue stream just made it the obvious best choice from a business point of view.
Laketravis
Well-Known Member
FP+ wasn't a problem, it actually served as the model for a revenue based system. I was given a Magic Band and a prototype app in 2012-2013 and told I could pick three rides a day in addition to pulling paper FP's over the course of several visits that year. At the last "meeting" of our focus group we were asked to rank FP+ over/under FP against various metrics and also to put a dollar amount (bracketed choices) on the value we thought FP+ brought. I of course put $0 but obviously my opinion didn't mean crap
.
Dranth
Well-Known Member
Operationally, it was a problem by the end. The vast majority of line capacity was coming through the FP lane. We had some information posted by Len just a few weeks back spelling this out:FP+ wasn't a problem, it actually served as the model for a revenue based system. I was given a Magic Band and a prototype app in 2012-2013 and told I could pick three rides a day in addition to pulling paper FP's over the course of several visits that year. At the last "meeting" of our focus group we were asked to rank FP+ over/under FP against various metrics and also to put a dollar amount (bracketed choices) on the value we thought FP+ brought. I of course put $0 but obviously my opinion didn't mean crap
Current LL:
When asked about FP era:
75-80% is ridiculous and not sustainable.
I don't like an offering going from free to paid any more than anyone else but logically, it makes sense if you are a business and you need to reduce utilization. It reduces use through customer self-selection even before the tighter controls you can place on the product as well as makes stockholders happy with a new revenue stream.
Paid line skips, revamping DAS access (not commenting on if this was right or wrong, just that it was done), and attendance levels more in a manageable range given park capacity have all combined to make a trip completely doable without needing a line skip on most days for most people.
Laketravis
Well-Known Member
Was the bolded referring to FP, FP+, or both?
My point was that FP+ was prototyped and engineered to become a pay-for feature from the outset. They knew exactly what they were doing at each phase - increased availability and heightened awareness of the FP+ offering came at the expense of substantially increased SB wait times. Of course it was not sustainable but again, it was intentional. As well as eventually establishing consistent yet reasonable SB wait times regardlesss of current park load (yield management) while maintaining the perceived need to purchase an alternative.
So here we are today, over ten years later where the majority of park attractions have consistent wait times no matter how lightly or heavily loaded the parks are yet the perception of needing to pay more for "quicker" access is maintained. Yup, it's been years since 4 hour wait times at WDW were featured on the national evening news.
Quite the delicate balance, mission accomplished. Oh, but wait - where is that price point that causes pain and decline in revenue? Have they found it? Are they paying attention to the sacrificial revenue lambs that are suffering at the expense of LL sales? We shall see.