Former Disneyland annual passholders complain about lack of priority ticket access for parks’ return - OCR/SCNG

[ToTBellHop]

“Typically someone who travels and stays for five days to seven days is marginally more valuable to the business than someone who comes in on an annual pass and stays a day or two and consumes less merchandise and food and beverage,” Chapek said in August during an earnings call.

I’m pretty sure he’s only referring to Disney World in Orlando where guests can stay on-site for 5 to 7 days, but otherwise Annual Passholders would be the second most valuable guests who spend marginally less money throughout the year. Disneyland Resort lagged in hotel rooms so they can’t even accommodate a traveller who wants to visit longer. What they doing is a lot of nothing. Rationales that have no basis in decisions.

Annual Passholders are loyalty customers. They just can’t have them now due to low capacity, but it’s quite funny how APs are still available at Disney World in Florida. Governor Gruesome really messed up California by having severe stay at home restrictions. If you’re an AP, you should demand his recall.

Disneyland would absolutely prefer to have guests who are staying in area hotels come to the parks over reservations all being snapped up by APs taking a day trip. That is why the work so hard to keep area hotel operators happy, and ensuring that there is a better chance of park reservations being available to vacationers is part of that.

They are advertising Avengers Campus on CNN and CNBC because they want vacationers to come.

 

[Californian Elitist]

Not every APer spent just one day at the parks at a time. Just like there were APers, such as myself, who stayed both at on and off property hotels and some weren’t always local or even from California. Also, some DL APers were notorious for scheduled/timed visits, where they’d visit once every two weeks and sometimes even more frequently than that, AND would spend money in the parks each time.

If a family of two comes for five days once in the year, they will have likely spent less than a larger family of APers who’ve spent money on not only passes for the year, but also purchase food and merchandise for each visit, which could be dozens of times per year.

Disneyland APs could never be put into a specific box because they weren’t all the same.

 

[ToTBellHop]

Not every APer spent just one day at the parks at a time. Just like there were APers, such as myself, who stayed both at on and off property hotels and some weren’t always local or even from California. Also, some DL APers were notorious for scheduled/timed visits, where they’d visit once every two weeks and sometimes even more frequently than that, AND would spend money in the parks each time.

If a family of two comes for five days once in the year, they will have likely spent less than a larger family of APers who’ve spent money on not only passes for the year, but also purchase food and merchandise for each visit, which could be dozens of times per year.

Disneyland APs could never be put into a specific box because they weren’t all the same.

Of course. We don’t have access to the data Disney uses. Why would they lie about vacationers spending more, on average, than APs? They want to make more money and claim this will do it. They can’t really lie to investors on this and the data would be easy for them to collect.

Most APs who would stay overnight, presumably, will still do that. Perhaps less often but I gather Disney statisticians aren’t worried. They have suggested they will eventually offer options for repeat visitors fine tuned to specific times and dates.

 

[Tamandua]

I am impressed by Cedar Fair, they announced a one year extension or everyone early in 2020 (good through 2021), and for Knott's, the only year round park in the chain, that the passes are good through May of 2022.

Six Flags did it a funky way, but those who stayed members got a one level upgrade through 2022, and now can get gift cards for the amounts paid during the pandemic.

As mentioned, SeaWorld/Busch Gardens did good. Our passes go back from before we got married. At the time, they promised no price increases if you kept the plan on Autopay. Currently what we pay for 2 passes is about what one costs today.

That's true. It seems like everyone's done better than Disney. Of course, every park has their own unique situation, but I think Disney could have done much better. It's clear that they just wanted a reset on the program. I think the other parks will end up building a lot of loyalty from their moves while Disney may end up losing some of the one million APs (though that's probably what they want to happen).

I wonder if we’re going to run into another situation similar to SWGE’s 2019 opening season. Disney blocked nearly every annual pass level with the expectation of the park being packed with guests paying full admission—but that never materialized. While that is partially due to the lackluster reception of the land (which also led Disney to rethinking their entire pricing structure), it isn’t out of the realm of possibility that it happens again, though unlikely considering how their $75 ”walk around DCA and eat” sold out in within several hours. Again, I don’t think this will happen and I expect demand to be off the charts.. but it is an interesting “what if” scenario.

I think demand will be high initially, especially with 25-35% capacity limits, but if the restrictions really lift by mid June and they go back to 100% capacity, they're going to have a hard time filling the parks after everyone goes back the first time and realizes that they're paying full price for a diminished experience when they're used to getting a full experience at AP prices. I expect the AP program to be in full force by this summer, otherwise it's going to be SWGE 2.0.

 

[Californian Elitist]

Of course. We don’t have access to the data Disney uses. Why would they lie about vacationers spending more, on average, than APs? They want to make more money and claim this will do it. They can’t really lie to investors on this and the data would be easy for them to collect.

Most APs who would stay overnight, presumably, will still do that. Perhaps less often but I gather Disney statisticians aren’t worried. They have suggested they will eventually offer options for repeat visitors fine tuned to specific times and dates.

I don’t doubt Disney and their data. I said APers weren’t all the same.

 

[cmwade77]

I am impressed by Cedar Fair, they announced a one year extension or everyone early in 2020 (good through 2021), and for Knott's, the only year round park in the chain, that the passes are good through May of 2022.

Six Flags did it a funky way, but those who stayed members got a one level upgrade through 2022, and now can get gift cards for the amounts paid during the pandemic.

As mentioned, SeaWorld/Busch Gardens did good. Our passes go back from before we got married. At the time, they promised no price increases if you kept the plan on Autopay. Currently what we pay for 2 passes is about what one costs today.

This is my point, other parks have shown massive loyalty to their passholders, Disney has not.

 

[ToTBellHop]

I don’t doubt Disney and their data. I said APers weren’t all the same.

Of course. I will be curious to see how this works out. They claim they’ve had an issue with there being too many APs for years. Speaking from experience at WDW, if Disney truly wants lower crowds better spread throughout the year, and claims that is profitable to them, it is working thus far at FL. Wait times have been quite manageable and you no longer have to hyper-plan your trip. I don’t think anyone can know how that model will apply to DL.

 

[DanielBB8]

Disneyland would absolutely prefer to have guests who are staying in area hotels come to the parks over reservations all being snapped up by APs taking a day trip. That is why the work so hard to keep area hotel operators happy, and ensuring that there is a better chance of park reservations being available to vacationers is part of that.

They are advertising Avengers Campus on CNN and CNBC because they want vacationers to come.

No, Disney created a fortress around their own hotel and theme parks. The local Anaheim businesses and hotels are kept far away and give scraps. People driving into the resort pay an additional $25 for parking. Disney pretty much calculated any money not spent at Disney is lost income. They are right, but Disney still refuse to build more hotel rooms.

 

[FerretAfros]

If a family of two comes for five days once in the year, they will have likely spent less than a larger family of APers who’ve spent money on not only passes for the year, but also purchase food and merchandise for each visit, which could be dozens of times per year.

Sure, but Disney would make more money from a dozen different families taking 3-day trips than a single family of APers making 3-dozen 1-day trips. Infrequent visitors tend to stay in the parks longer, which means consuming more food and drinks each day, and are more likely (per day) to buy merchandise to commemorate their special trip.

Assuming each family consists of 2 adults and 2 kids, here are some rough prices:

Infrequent Visitors:
3-day park hopper tickets: $355 x2 + $335 x2 = $1,380
2 meals per person per day: $15 x2 x4 x3 = $360
2 snacks per person per day: $4 x2 x4 x3 = $96
1-2 merchandise items per person: $50 x4 = $200
Subtotal for one family: $2,036
12 family total = $24,432

AP Family:
Signature APs: $1,149 x4 = $4,596
1 meal per person per day: $15 x1 x4 x36 = $2,160
1 snack per person per day: $4 x1 x4 x36 = $576
1-2 merchandise items per person, twice a year: $50 x2 x4 = $400
AP Family total = $7,732

Yes, the AP family would spend more over the course of a year than any one of the infrequent-visitor families, but Disney would bring in more than triple the money from the infrequent visitors. And given that the parks have been filled near capacity more than ever before, the way to make money is by targeting guests who will spend more, rather than simply trying to get bodies through the turnstile.

[Note: When including things like hotels and parking, infrequent visitors become even more desirable, as they pay more per person for the amount of impact they have on the resort infrastructure]

Chapek's quote is a little confusing, as "marginally more valuable" makes it sound like the difference is small, rather than clearly saying that the "profit margins" are far better on infrequent guests. Yes, it's harder to attract infrequent visitors (especially during less desirable times of the year/days of the week, where the AP program initially proved its value), but it's worth the extra work up front to get the massive difference in spending once they arrive.

After things level out, I don't doubt there will be some sort of program to encourage repeat visits from locals to help fill in the gaps, but I hope it will have different goals than simply getting bodies in the park, as was previously the case. Perhaps this will be a paradigm shift in who DLR sees as their bread-and-butter guests; for many years, the focus has been on APs, even though it's always been the infrequent visitors who let them keep the lights on.

 

[Californian Elitist]

Of course. I will be curious to see how this works out. They claim they’ve had an issue with there being too many APs for years. Speaking from experience at WDW, if Disney truly wants lower crowds better spread throughout the year, and claims that is profitable to them, it is working thus far at FL. Wait times have been quite manageable and you no longer have to hyper-plan your trip. I don’t think anyone can know how that model will apply to DL.

Trying to do things like WDW most likely won’t work.

 

[Californian Elitist]

Sure, but Disney would make more money from a dozen different families taking 3-day trips than a single family of APers making 3-dozen 1-day trips. Infrequent visitors tend to stay in the parks longer, which means consuming more food and drinks each day, and are more likely (per day) to buy merchandise to commemorate their special trip.

Assuming each family consists of 2 adults and 2 kids, here are some rough prices:

Infrequent Visitors:
3-day park hopper tickets: $355 x2 + $335 x2 = $1,380
2 meals per person per day: $15 x2 x4 x3 = $360
2 snacks per person per day: $4 x2 x4 x3 = $96
1-2 merchandise items per person: $50 x4 = $200
Subtotal for one family: $2,036
12 family total = $24,432

AP Family:
Signature APs: $1,149 x4 = $4,596
1 meal per person per day: $15 x1 x4 x36 = $2,160
1 snack per person per day: $4 x1 x4 x36 = $576
1-2 merchandise items per person, twice a year: $50 x2 x4 = $400
AP Family total = $7,732

Yes, the AP family would spend more over the course of a year than any one of the infrequent-visitor families, but Disney would bring in more than triple the money from the infrequent visitors. And given that the parks have been filled near capacity more than ever before, the way to make money is by targeting guests who will spend more, rather than simply trying to get bodies through the turnstile.

[Note: When including things like hotels and parking, infrequent visitors become even more desirable, as they pay more per person for the amount of impact they have on the resort infrastructure]

Chapek's quote is a little confusing, as "marginally more valuable" makes it sound like the difference is small, rather than clearly saying that the "profit margins" are far better on infrequent guests. Yes, it's harder to attract infrequent visitors (especially during less desirable times of the year/days of the week, where the AP program initially proved its value), but it's worth the extra work up front to get the massive difference in spending once they arrive.

After things level out, I don't doubt there will be some sort of program to encourage repeat visits from locals to help fill in the gaps, but I hope it will have different goals than simply getting bodies in the park, as was previously the case. Perhaps this will be a paradigm shift in who DLR sees as their bread-and-butter guests; for many years, the focus has been on APs, even though it's always been the infrequent visitors who let them keep the lights on.

I know. My point was it varies.

 

[DanielBB8]

Sure, but Disney would make more money from a dozen different families taking 3-day trips than a single family of APers making 3-dozen 1-day trips. Infrequent visitors tend to stay in the parks longer, which means consuming more food and drinks each day, and are more likely (per day) to buy merchandise to commemorate their special trip.

Assuming each family consists of 2 adults and 2 kids, here are some rough prices:

Infrequent Visitors:
3-day park hopper tickets: $355 x2 + $335 x2 = $1,380
2 meals per person per day: $15 x2 x4 x3 = $360
2 snacks per person per day: $4 x2 x4 x3 = $96
1-2 merchandise items per person: $50 x4 = $200
Subtotal for one family: $2,036
12 family total = $24,432

AP Family:
Signature APs: $1,149 x4 = $4,596
1 meal per person per day: $15 x1 x4 x36 = $2,160
1 snack per person per day: $4 x1 x4 x36 = $576
1-2 merchandise items per person, twice a year: $50 x2 x4 = $400
AP Family total = $7,732

Yes, the AP family would spend more over the course of a year than any one of the infrequent-visitor families, but Disney would bring in more than triple the money from the infrequent visitors. And given that the parks have been filled near capacity more than ever before, the way to make money is by targeting guests who will spend more, rather than simply trying to get bodies through the turnstile.

[Note: When including things like hotels and parking, infrequent visitors become even more desirable, as they pay more per person for the amount of impact they have on the resort infrastructure]

Chapek's quote is a little confusing, as "marginally more valuable" makes it sound like the difference is small, rather than clearly saying that the "profit margins" are far better on infrequent guests. Yes, it's harder to attract infrequent visitors (especially during less desirable times of the year/days of the week, where the AP program initially proved its value), but it's worth the extra work up front to get the massive difference in spending once they arrive.

After things level out, I don't doubt there will be some sort of program to encourage repeat visits from locals to help fill in the gaps, but I hope it will have different goals than simply getting bodies in the park, as was previously the case. Perhaps this will be a paradigm shift in who DLR sees as their bread-and-butter guests; for many years, the focus has been on APs, even though it's always been the infrequent visitors who let them keep the lights on.

Marginally more valuable means slightly better total revenue than for the other. It means there aren’t going to be enough heavy spenders and there are limits to how much they can force on a family. Still, Disney isn’t building any hotels to capture that revenue at Disneyland Resort so it’s their loss.

 

[Stevek]

Hard to draw the line...I haven't had a pass in a few years but did for over a dozen years before that. Should I get preferential treatment over someone that had a pass for the first time just before the pandemic?

 

[Californian Elitist]

Hard to draw the line...I haven't had a pass in a few years but did for over a dozen years before that. Should I get preferential treatment over someone that had a pass for the first time just before the pandemic?

It doesn’t look like any previous passholder is getting some sort of purchasing advantage here.

I feel like Disney should have done something for those that were still annual passholders before they closed the program.

 

[Stevek]

This is my point, other parks have shown massive loyalty to their passholders, Disney has not.

Well they kinda did...they made sure all of them were compensated for the unused cost and stopped charging them monthly. Disney is in a much tougher spot compared to other parks given the sheer number of APs here.

 

[CaptinEO]

The problem is Disney isn't showing any loyalty to passholders. This is especially disturbing considering that passholders have literally kept them up.and running during the most difficult times, such as after 9/11.

The problem with Disney was the monthly payments and their continued reluctance/refusal to raise the price of the lower end passes gave them TOO MANY passholders.

They had so many that they cant reasonable provide nice benefits to them like they used to.

I miss the early/mid 2000s when the parks were dead and it wasn't "cool" by any means to visit themeparks as an adult.

I think they should do 2 things:

1) Heavily lower ticket prices on non-holiday weekdays
2) Have only one annual pass, it will be a premium pass with no blockouts, will be expensive but will allow them to provide a high level of service to those who have it

 

[CaptinEO]

Well they kinda did...they made sure all of them were compensated for the unused cost and stopped charging them monthly. Disney is in a much tougher spot compared to other parks given the sheer number of APs here.

They went about it in a bad way.

They were silent on the subject for a long time, then claimed if you dont want a refund you could get an extension on your pass. People waited almost a year and then they said "just kidding, we're actually stopping all annual passes".

Basically it took me a year to get the unused portion of my AP money back that I couldve had much earlier if they hadn't lied by offering an "extension option" that they revoked.

They backed themselves into a corner by making their pass options so complicated, it was unfeasible for post-covid operation.

Furthermore, when I bought my Flex Pass I had the option to, and paid for the parking add on and was told to do so by the CM because I'd be "grandfathered in" as long as I maintained a pass.

I was only a 6 year pass-holder but feel like we did get the short end of the stick VS other theme parks.

 

[Magic Feather]

Honestly? I think concerns about capacity are pretty overblown. Outside of weekends, the first week or so of opening, and holidays, I expect tickets to always be available.
Also, even if DL had kept AP's, they would have given them a criminally low allotment of reservations a day.

 

[ToTBellHop]

Honestly? I think concerns about capacity are pretty overblown. Outside of weekends, the first week or so of opening, and holidays, I expect tickets to always be available.
Also, even if DL had kept AP's, they would have given them a criminally low allotment of reservations a day.

They must not be TOO concerned if they are allowing park hopping. They would never consider that if they thought it’d be sold out every day.

 

[Tamandua]

Honestly? I think concerns about capacity are pretty overblown. Outside of weekends, the first week or so of opening, and holidays, I expect tickets to always be available.
Also, even if DL had kept AP's, they would have given them a criminally low allotment of reservations a day.

Yeah. It's not like they would ever give APs 100%, or even a majority of availability. There are so many ways Disney could have handled this better. I think it's fair to criticize them over it. Then again, what else is new? Even in the best of times people were constantly complaining about something. I do think maybe Disney has gotten too used to this idea that there's unlimited demand for Disneyland because swarms of people were going to downtown Disney and touch of Disney when there weren't a lot of other things for people to do. I think the pent up demand will fall off quickly. Disney world was selling heavily discounted tickets for locals this winter. Even with reduced capacity, people had lost interest in going with so much of the experience unavailable and the masks making it so uncomfortable.