You make a lot of sense. Conceptually, I agree with you 100%.
The problem is that WDW doesn't have sufficient ride capacity to keep everyone happy. They have way too many rooms and too few attractions. They certainly don't have enough to guarantee 3
good FP+ selections for onsite guests at 2 of their parks. Forget about offsite guests.
It's why Disney has played games and added FP+ to rides and shows that really don't need it. It's why many of those who have used FP+ selections for shows have reported that they were a waste. These steps clearly demonstrate that WDW sorely lacks attractions worth Fast Passing.
When you don't have enough resources to keep all your customers happy, you either add resources (always expensive) or reallocate resources. Disney has chosen to reallocate resources.
Like many companies, Disney has decided to focus on its most profitable customers. In WDW's case, this means concentrating on onsite guests.
WDW's hotels are incredibly, and in some cases, obscenely profitable. A Theme Park View room this Christmas is over $1000/night at the Grand Floridian. Mind you, this is just a room. Not concierge, not a suite, not located in a major metropolitan area. Even rooms at some "Value Resorts" are $200/night this Christmas. It's difficult to emphasize enough just how profitable these rooms are.
Corporate Disney wants these rooms filled. With WDW's occupancy rate down to 80% (excellent for many hotels but well below WDW's historical average), Disney is leaving hundreds of millions of dollars of "free money" on the table every year. ("Free money" because these rooms are just sitting there, available but unoccupied.) Heck, if they can get these rooms filled, they can build even more hotels and DVC.
If Disney makes FP+ equally available to all guests, then that doesn't help fill rooms. Empty rooms means hundreds of millions walking out the door.
In order for MM+ to succeed, guests have to perceive MM+ as being worth WDW's resort prices. The more Disney can differentiate between onsite and offsite guest experiences, the more likely we are to pay their prices.
However, Disney also has to be careful not to drive away offsite business. It's a balancing act where the correct answer (i.e. the one that's the most profitable) is unclear and might require some trial-and-error to discover.
The beauty of FP+ is its flexibility. With the infrastructure in place, Disney can change the rules with software. Disney can experiment repeatedly until it finds the "magical" combination, where "magical" is defined as largest profits for corporate Disney.
If the current onsite/offsite differentiation doesn't work, Disney can change it. The advantage of remaining in "test" phase is Disney can try combinations and gauge the public's reaction. If a combination is poorly received, Disney can discard it and, if questioned, just say it was a test.
I think Disney is smart to try exactly what the are doing and smart to first try it at DAK. However, I'm not convinced about the timing. I think they should wait 2 weeks until after New Year's Eve.
If I'm managing this, I'm doing exactly what Disney is doing. I'm starting by making onsite MM+ look as good as possible, which means offering as little as possible for the DAK offsite guest FP+ "test". Tell offsite guests they have to use the FP+ kiosks after they arrive. If I can manage to get away with that without driving away offsite guests, then I'm golden. If it's a disaster, I simply say it was a "test".
Can anyone say "trial balloon?"