flynnibus
Premium Member
But it was... the roll out of FP was massive. Reworking queues everywhere, new tech, new staff, etc. It's been so long people take it for granted now, but it was a massive retrofit.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Is attendance really down at WDW this or…
- Thread starter coachb
- Start date
But it was... the roll out of FP was massive. Reworking queues everywhere, new tech, new staff, etc. It's been so long people take it for granted now, but it was a massive retrofit.
TheMaxRebo
Well-Known Member
The increased cost of Disney has outpaced other areas, but it was starting from a rather expensive level to start with
Though in the past you also got more from what you spent (from longer park hours to Magical Express, etc) so feels like a bit of a double whammy for Disney putting it even further out of reach for many
But definitely wasn't "cheap" to start with
Disstevefan1
Well-Known Member
I disagree. There was a time when it was accessible to everyone. My family did not have a lot of money growing up but we still went. We did not stay on property, but we went probably 5 years in a row. Years later I went with my boyfriend. We were only 22 and were young and broke really but were able to afford a stay in a newly-opened Caribbean Beach and a 5-day Park Hopper, ate at a sit down restaurant every night, did not need reservations. Went again probably 8 years later and took a new boyfriend and stayed at a newly-opened Dixie Landings (aka Port Orleans Riverside) and could still afford it but we had to cut a day off the initial visit so we could add a park hopper plus (water parks) on and stay in budget, ate mostly at the food court/counter service. Went on our honeymoon and was able to stay at Y&B. A trip to an island would have been less expensive but that's what we wanted to do as part our 2-week honeymoon, very thankful we had those wedding checks. Fast forward and took our kids, stayed in Port Orleans Riverside with a park hopper and water park option, and used the free "fast pass" system to get on rides without the long wait. Really started feeling it by then. That's when we noticed the nickel and diming starting (like the chips in the souvenir cups so you don't refill your drink too much). The trip was just so expensive it became above our budget and we were not able to take them again, cruises to islands were less expensive so that is what we did. Didn't go again for 15 years and found it so outrageously expensive comparatively. We stayed at the Beach Club in a room that was shamefully worn down for $500/night off-season (paid for a view and literally the view was a tree, there was no view of anything). Made reservations months in advance, got an app to plan the park visits. So much construction in Epcot, walls everywhere, food prices through the roof, genie+ expense just to get on rides, getting up at 7 am not get in a virtual queue. Magic officially GONE. Went on a family trip with my kids this year (who are now young adults and one is engaged) and the costs were out of control. Now that kids are "gown and almost flown" and we have the money to go, we may or may not because the magic we pay for is seemingly gone, and any value is gone with it. They have priced out a lot of young families, and turned off families with money. Will people still go? Sure; but my story is an example of how it has changed from the 70's. It was definitely accessible to many that just can't do it now.
Wendy Pleakley
Well-Known Member
For sure but the notion that Disneyland was always accessible "to everyone" is exaggerated.
A lot of people found it more affordable back in the day, of course, but their blinders stop them from seeing there were always people on the outside then as well.
A lot of people who assert that "Disneyland should be affordable to everyone" really mean that "Disneyland should always be affordable for ME and MY situation".
Disstevefan1
Well-Known Member
Some Families are being priced out - Always been true
Disney was accessible to everyone - Always been false.
It will always depend on a families size and disposable income. Some families income can keep up with the Disney price price increases, some cant.
And always remember, there is no such thing as inflation or recession for the folks with MONEY.
Last edited:
Poseidon Quest
Well-Known Member
I still have no idea what you're trying to argue. The specific thesis of the video addressed people who continued parroting that Epcot was outdated because technology had caught up to the present when the attractions themselves were based on specific subjects and mostly covered history. I agree with you that the presentation was dated but you can still keep the core ride intact without completely replacing it with something else. Spaceship Earth and Living with the Land I think prove that.
Wendy Pleakley
Well-Known Member
People are more likely to be priced out now compared to the past, but what can you do?
The population has grown.
If Disney were to be truly priced in a way that anyone could go, they'd have to ration admission. They'd be sold out more often.
Disney can't be expected to grow in a way to accommodate everyone at a certain price point.
There are other options for people who can't afford the "best of the best" in theme park entertainment,
The population has grown.
If Disney were to be truly priced in a way that anyone could go, they'd have to ration admission. They'd be sold out more often.
Disney can't be expected to grow in a way to accommodate everyone at a certain price point.
There are other options for people who can't afford the "best of the best" in theme park entertainment,
Disstevefan1
Well-Known Member
This tells me its MOBBED. Ahhhh . . . WDW is indeed back to normal.
Is it time for me to bring back my old saying?
TWDC and its theme parks are......... Invincible
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
This was the goal…99%My understanding of the original goal of FastPass was that they wanted guests out of lines and in shops and restaurants spending money. There weren't the overcrowding problems in 1999 like there are today (I certainly cannot recall 2 hour waits for anything outside of what were the busiest times, like Easter week, Thanksgiving week, and Christmas to New Years), but I know it was still a concern. Maybe we split the difference and call the two goals 1A and 1B.
1% was crowd control and labor efficiency
“Guest satisfaction” was 0%…back then they watched what you spent and if you came back? The rest was self explanatory
Drdcm
Well-Known Member
That looks like it would be very little fun.
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
Need the old Main Street webcam…not screen shots of “genie mcsellins”This tells me its MOBBED. Ahhhh . . . WDW is indeed back to normal.
Is it time for me to bring back my old saying?
TWDC and its theme parks are......... Invincible
Check the shops and restaurants too
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
But Bob got $5 back on his stock…he’s only trailing Chapek’s low number by $7 now
We were firmly in the middle of "middle class" but with some extra work and savings, we were able to go every other year for over a decade (but never staying on-site, because back then it was just the deluxe resorts) on the back of a larger family vacation. If it wasn't accessible to a family like ours, then the entire model the resort was built on would have imploded long ago. Or is that just a "false notion"?
lentesta
Premium Member
As I said, nothing in the 100-page FP+ presentation to Disney's BOD said anything about revenue, other than that one slide.
I've read this entire presentation multiple times. The bulk of the justification for FP+ really was guest satisfaction.
The stock has regained $5/share??? When will Bob's sainthood be officially announced?But Bob got $5 back on his stock…he’s only trailing Chapek’s low number by $7 now
lentesta
Premium Member
I understand the reasoning. I'm saying specifically that no internal document I've ever seen, mentions revenue as the reason for FP+.
Do you have a document that says this? Or maybe an earnings call comment before they launched FP+ where they specifically said "we're doing this mostly for revenue?"
Because if they didn't tell the board it was for revenue, and they didn't tell stockholders it was for revenue, and they said it was for something else, we kinda have to believe it was for the something else, right?
JoeCamel
Well-Known Member
Id pay money to be at a park, sure I would........
lentesta
Premium Member
My understanding of the original goal of FastPass was that they wanted guests out of lines and in shops and restaurants spending money. There weren't the overcrowding problems in 1999 like there are today (I certainly cannot recall 2 hour waits for anything outside of what were the busiest times, like Easter week, Thanksgiving week, and Christmas to New Years), but I know it was still a concern. Maybe we split the difference and call the two goals 1A and 1B.
The main argument for it really was a specific increase in observed satisfation. I mean, here's the project overview slide:
Everything on the left deals with guest satisfaction. At least half the stuff on the right does too.
Not a single word about income or revenue. As I mentioned earlier, the word 'revenue' only appears once in the entire 100+-page document.
You could argue that phrases like "Enable a new framework to drive NGE" really means "make more money". But this is an internal document, and they could use direct language like 'increase revenue' if they wanted to. They didn't. For 100 pages. Which means it wasn't a factor in moving to FP+.