Is attendance really down at WDW this or…

[JoeCamel]

That looks like it would be very little fun.

Id pay money to be at a park, sure I would........

 

[lentesta]

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+.

 

[flynnibus]

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 The specific thesis of the video addressed people who continued parroting that Epcot was outdated because technology had caught up to the present when the attractions themselves were based on specific subjects and mostly covered history.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.

It's funny you try to paint this as parroting - when if I'm correct, you yourself weren't even there to qualify the experience at all, were you?

Your real argument is your belief the attractions should not have been replaced because you believe they could have been refreshed or overhauled and kept the same attraction. But instead you create the false assertion that claims they were outdated was a 'myth' or a false narrative on your journey to try to support your belief they attractions could have been saved.

The real fact is - they could not have continued as they were operating because the actual attraction experiences were OUT OF DATE. Therefore it was no myth. The poor utilization of the attractions by guests also supports this. At the time, FW was underperforming and many attractions were not pulling their weight. What would be done, replace, or reboot, DOES NOT CHANGE the fact the attractions were very much worthy of the criticism at the time.

You are in effect creating your own false citations trying support your predisposed view. Throwing out historical criticism as inaccurate because you believe (in hindsight) they could have been overcome differently. Believing a different solution would work does not negate the original problem existing!

Your video is revisionist fueled by nostalgia for something that was taken away and attempts to discredit contemporary critique as a way to make your conclusion seem more natural.

This wasn't some 20k leagues situation - the attractions were in actual dire need of reworking. The original narrative of futurism and optimism for society wasn't as inspiring in culture anymore like it had previously. Many young people today don't realize the darkness that was so common in entertainment media in the 70s (the move to realism, etc), followed by so many international struggles, energy crisis, urban decay, failing industries, etc. New media pushing optimism in the late 70s/early 80s was seen as a fresh change... and optismism for future was a breath of fresh air. But it quickly got overtaken by consumerism and the boom of the 80s. EPCOT's Scripts and choices were very much a product of it's time of creation. Culture focus had changed rapidly from the late 70s to the early 90s. Technology advanced faster than ever. Much of FW in the 90s stood out like the 70s TV shows would today if shown today.

In the bigger picture, like it or not, the move from Edutainment had started, and hasn't stopped since. Ain't nobody screaming to bring back WoL or speedtunnels either.

 

[flynnibus]

The main argument for it really was a specific increase in observed satisfation. I mean, here's the project overview slide:

View attachment 749349


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+.

But the comments were about Fastpass in the 90s.. not FP+

 

[erasure fan1]

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.

Yes, the population has grown. But the big problem is the parks haven't. Capacity hasn't really changed in 20 plus years, so of course they can't lower prices. Disney has never been a cheap vacation, but it has become almost ridiculous. Especially with all the cuts and downgrades with a Disney trip now. It's all a matter of opinion on what constitutes being "too expensive". For myself, I don't mind a higher price if it means a greater experience, but I did not get that on my last trip.

 

[celluloid]

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?

Everything a business does is to increase revenue.

I don't see evidence that the original fastpass was for anything else?

Happy people spend money. That is what the amusement/attraction business is in. Happy people who know they are virtually waiting are more likely to spend even more, as they have the feel good and opportunity to do so. People in lines do not have as much opportunity. The origins go back to Fastpass. You are sharing a slide from a pitch from Fastpass Plus that Food and Beverage wanted in on with the next gen tech that Disney at the time spent nearly 2 billion on with software and RFID company wide. Fastpass Plus presentations would not have to mention revenue for Fastpass Plus. It was already doing the job as Fastpass. This was a change in how it was done that other divisions wanted to be a part of.

We don't just say "They build new rides for people to enjoy and has nothing to do with money" even though that is what all calls, documents and statements made since Walt Disney are going to promote. It is an idea and part of the fun, but for the business, it is for revenue.

We literally had a person in leadership say they were raising prices of food and lowering portions to help with people's waistlines.
Do we need a document to show us it really really about the revenue?

If you understand the reasoning you understand the reasoning.

 

[HauntedPirate]

The main argument for it really was a specific increase in observed satisfation. I mean, here's the project overview slide:

View attachment 749349


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+.

Add me to the list of people who are envious that you have access to that type of stuff.

I don't doubt for a second that FP+ was about improving the guest experience, because Iger and Staggs didn't want to invest in ride capacity in what they viewed as a "mature asset". Plus the datamining aspect probably left many MBA's internaly drooling in their chairs. It had its benefits when it was rolled out, which sadly eroded over time because of the lack of investment in park capacity in the ensuing years, as we all know, on top of increased attendance. But the original, paper FastPass system, from my understanding, was around getting people out of lines and into shops and restaurants to (hopefully) spend money. Maybe that's wrong, but it's been backed up by a lot of people who know people, or know things, or are good guessers.

 

[celluloid]

It's funny you try to paint this as parroting - when if I'm correct, you yourself weren't even there to qualify the experience at all, were you?

Your real argument is your belief the attractions should not have been replaced because you believe they could have been refreshed or overhauled and kept the same attraction. But instead you create the false assertion that claims they were outdated was a 'myth' or a false narrative on your journey to try to support your belief they attractions could have been saved.

The real fact is - they could not have continued as they were operating because the actual attraction experiences were OUT OF DATE. Therefore it was no myth. The poor utilization of the attractions by guests also supports this. At the time, FW was underperforming and many attractions were not pulling their weight. What would be done, replace, or reboot, DOES NOT CHANGE the fact the attractions were very much worthy of the criticism at the time.

You are in effect creating your own false citations trying support your predisposed view. Throwing out historical criticism as inaccurate because you believe (in hindsight) they could have been overcome differently. Believing a different solution would work does not negate the original problem existing!

Your video is revisionist fueled by nostalgia for something that was taken away and attempts to discredit contemporary critique as a way to make your conclusion seem more natural.

This wasn't some 20k leagues situation - the attractions were in actual dire need of reworking. The original narrative of futurism and optimism for society wasn't as inspiring in culture anymore like it had previously. Many young people today don't realize the darkness that was so common in entertainment media in the 70s (the move to realism, etc), followed by so many international struggles, energy crisis, urban decay, failing industries, etc. New media pushing optimism in the late 70s/early 80s was seen as a fresh change... and optismism for future was a breath of fresh air. But it quickly got overtaken by consumerism and the boom of the 80s. EPCOT's Scripts and choices were very much a product of it's time of creation. Culture focus had changed rapidly from the late 70s to the early 90s. Technology advanced faster than ever. Much of FW in the 90s stood out like the 70s TV shows would today if shown today.

In the bigger picture, like it or not, the move from Edutainment had started, and hasn't stopped since. Ain't nobody screaming to bring back WoL or speedtunnels either.

Dude, quit bringing papaya to the pineapple and apple party.

 

[Grimley1968]

Add me to the list of people who are envious that you have access to that type of stuff.

I don't doubt for a second that FP+ was about improving the guest experience, because Iger and Staggs didn't want to invest in ride capacity in what they viewed as a "mature asset". Plus the datamining aspect probably left many MBA's internaly drooling in their chairs. It had its benefits when it was rolled out, which sadly eroded over time because of the lack of investment in park capacity in the ensuing years, as we all know, on top of increased attendance. But the original, paper FastPass system, from my understanding, was around getting people out of lines and into shops and restaurants to (hopefully) spend money. Maybe that's wrong, but it's been backed up by a lot of people who know people, or know things, or are good guessers.

Getting us out of line and into shops and restaurants was certainly my family's experience with original FP.

With FP+, I never liked the 60-day preplanning of individual rides (we almost always stayed onsite), as I just felt that was several degrees too detailed in the planning process. One effect it had on my family is that we ended up spending less, adjusted for inflation, in the shops and restaurants with FP+ than with original FP. I think the reason was we felt that most of the spontaneity of a WDW vacation was lost with FP+, so we felt there wasn't enough time to browse the shops as we did in the past, when we'd suddenly have a 2 hour wait for a paper FP window, plenty of time to go into shops and also visit the less popular attractions. With FP+, we felt we had to plan the E ticket and the lesser attractions as far out as possible, to get the most out of the vacation.

Surely Disney didn't intend for families like mine to spend less money in the parks due to FP+, but that's exactly the effect it had for us. Monetizing the very thing we've come to dislike the most about a WDW vacation has eliminated WDW as a reasonable vacation destination for my family.

 

[Chi84]

Add me to the list of people who are envious that you have access to that type of stuff.

I don't doubt for a second that FP+ was about improving the guest experience, because Iger and Staggs didn't want to invest in ride capacity in what they viewed as a "mature asset". Plus the datamining aspect probably left many MBA's internaly drooling in their chairs. It had its benefits when it was rolled out, which sadly eroded over time because of the lack of investment in park capacity in the ensuing years, as we all know, on top of increased attendance. But the original, paper FastPass system, from my understanding, was around getting people out of lines and into shops and restaurants to (hopefully) spend money. Maybe that's wrong, but it's been backed up by a lot of people who know people, or know things, or are good guessers.

But don’t underestimate the guest dissatisfaction with long lines pre-FastPass. People were complaining - loudly and consistently - about long lines in the ‘80’s and ‘90’s. I’m sure that was a consideration.

 

[Lilofan]

But don’t underestimate the guest dissatisfaction with long lines pre-FastPass. People were complaining - loudly and consistently - about long lines in the ‘80’s and ‘90’s. I’m sure that was a consideration.

That was a time where we got to talk and get to know other fellow guests in the queue line instead of many with their heads down staring at the smartphones.

 

[HauntedPirate]

But don’t underestimate the guest dissatisfaction with long lines pre-FastPass. People were complaining - loudly and consistently - about long lines in the ‘80’s and ‘90’s. I’m sure that was a consideration.

Long lines in the 80's and 90's were confined, for the most part, to holiday weeks, spring break, and the busy summer months. You knew going in that lines would be long during those times. I even checked my Birnbaum's from 1990 and 1997, plus the 1994 Unofficial Guide, to confirm. Unless you call walking on and riding Space Mountain 18 times in a row in December 1991 "long lines", I'd say your memory does not match what was written in multiple books about park crowds at that time.

 

[aprilibeth]

That was a time where we got to talk and get to know other fellow guests in the queue line instead of many with their heads down staring at the smartphones.

Yes I was just telling my kids the other day. You used to chat up the families around you in line. People talked about where they are from or what they were doing they day. Now everyone just stares at their phones and gets grumpy about waiting.

 

[lentesta]

Everything a business does is to increase revenue.

Making charitable contributions increases revenue? That's a bold statement and I'd like a cite. (This article says it's possible, under some circumstances. "It's possible" doesn't mean it happens, or that it's the main reason a company does it.)

We don't just say "They build new rides for people to enjoy and has nothing to do with money" even though that is what all calls, documents and statements made since Walt Disney are going to promote. It is an idea and part of the fun, but for the business, it is for revenue.

I know I keep pointing this out, but there's not a single revenue-related number in the 100+-page deck. But satisfaction numbers, ops impact numbers, cost numbers, and timelines are discussed, as shown below. Why is there nothing about revenue in an internal document for a project this big?

I mean, let's assume it's really about revenue. This is a document designed to make a $1B decision. You mean in an internal discussion where we're talking about guest satisfaction, cost, and timelines, everyone in the decision chain just assumed it would make money? Nobody on the board wanted even a peek at revenue projections and those assumptions to be sure the revenue covered the cost? Nobody who wrote the presentation thought it was important to throw in revenue estimates, even in an appendix, just in case someone said "Remind me again how much money we're going to make on this?"

I've helped write hundreds of funding request presentations for executives at a Fortune 100 company. Not once has that ever happened to me. A deck that's really about revenue that doesn't have a revenue section would never make it out of draft.

Still, I'm willing to believe this. Can you find a pre-FP+ rollout statement by management that says how much anticipated revenue they expect from this? Again, we know about costs, ops impact, timelines, and the like. If there's a similar amount of detail around revenue, even if it's not in this document, I'd take that as proof this was mainly about revenue.

Costs:

Timelines:

More costs:

 

[Chi84]

Long lines in the 80's and 90's were confined, for the most part, to holiday weeks, spring break, and the busy summer months. You knew going in that lines would be long during those times. I even checked my Birnbaum's from 1990 and 1997, plus the 1994 Unofficial Guide, to confirm. Unless you call walking on and riding Space Mountain 18 times in a row in December 1991 "long lines", I'd say your memory does not match what was written in multiple books about park crowds at that time.

What did you check in those books? It says long lines were confined to the busiest seasons? Why do you think all those guides were published?

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

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.

Since it wasn’t a financial mechanism that directly affected bottom line…go back and think about it: any reason they WOULDN’T say it was all “guest satisfaction”?

Nothing presented had a legitimate chance of being overall a positive. For some…yes…others not much at all. There were ALOT of fans of paper fastpass…and not everyone wanted “rubber bandy wifi uplink” either…

Hindsight isn’t always 20/20…but it’s rarely 10/300

 

[Lilofan]

Long lines in the 80's and 90's were confined, for the most part, to holiday weeks, spring break, and the busy summer months. You knew going in that lines would be long during those times. I even checked my Birnbaum's from 1990 and 1997, plus the 1994 Unofficial Guide, to confirm. Unless you call walking on and riding Space Mountain 18 times in a row in December 1991 "long lines", I'd say your memory does not match what was written in multiple books about park crowds at that time.

There was a time at MGM Studios at the Tip Board, a CM stood there most of the day answering guest questions and handwriting info of park info and I believe wait times with a chalk board.

 

[Chi84]

There was a time at MGM Studios at the Tip Board, a CM stood there most of the day answering guest questions and handwriting info of park info and I believe wait times with a chalk board.

Wouldn’t that be unnecessary if the lines weren’t long?

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Two things can be gleaned confidently - but not absolutely proven:

1. Disney park trips were never accessible to everyone. That is 99.999% true. Many were never in the range and many more were priced out incrementally over decades

2. They have never APPEARED to be shedding customers anywhere close to this level in “good economic times” - as Jim Cramer still swears they are each day - to the extent they have already in Orlando…by their admission. 6% in a quarter is a shocking number (I promise…even if you don’t believe me)…and it could get silly soon. Increasing prices damn near weekly is a red flag that they’re trying to prop up “per guest spending”…which is code for “losing people”.
That’s what’s different here…it’s not the 1991 bush crash or the 2002 “brave new world” glut…or the Monopoly money mortgage flameout…

This appears to be entirely self inflicted.

Both things can be and likely are true.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

There was a time at MGM Studios at the Tip Board, a CM stood there most of the day answering guest questions and handwriting info of park info and I believe wait times with a chalk board.

There was…

…and you never disappoint