NO MORE AP PAYMENT PLAN?

[Professortango1]

So...just so I understand this...the goal is to do away with payment plans and thus hurt those who might not have gobs of money to dump all at once in order to...alleviate overcrowding?

Or...those people can still put the same dollar amount away privately in their own personal payment plan. Just because Disney isn't telling you to pay it off in 12 installments of $50 doesn't mean that you can't still save $50 a month. Or save less and just buy the new 3 day ticket for $150. Not everybody needs an AP, but with recent pricing and payment plans, everybody got one because the value. This will help sway many back to just visiting the park 1-3 times per year instead of 3-5 times a month.

Plus, more open aisles, restaurants, and stores encourages me to spend my money. I haven't eaten on property nor bought merch for years due to the crowds. With room to breathe and the ability to actually find a table, I'm far more likely to spend my money at the park rather than flee crowds.

 

[Texas84]

Didn't know this was a thing. Is this for locals only?

 

[Earl Sweatpants]

So, the overriding sentiments I'm getting are this (from here, and Micechat):

-AP holders overcrowd the parks, therefore we should do away with letting them pay monthly in the hopes of stopping them from renewing.
-less AP holders mean more "out of towners" can come on a one-time trip and spend as much if not MORE money in the parks then the AP'ers would.
-this will make the parks more enjoyable for wealthy AP'ers and "out of towners" because lines will be shorter and walkways less congested.
-Bottom line...Disney wants less crowds overall, but they're hedging their bets that the people who are in the parks will overspend to compensate for the lack of profits.

 

[Phroobar]

Or...those people can still put the same dollar amount away privately in their own personal payment plan. Just because Disney isn't telling you to pay it off in 12 installments of $50 doesn't mean that you can't still save $50 a month. Or save less and just buy the new 3 day ticket for $150. Not everybody needs an AP, but with recent pricing and payment plans, everybody got one because the value. This will help sway many back to just visiting the park 1-3 times per year instead of 3-5 times a month.

Plus, more open aisles, restaurants, and stores encourages me to spend my money. I haven't eaten on property nor bought merch for years due to the crowds. With room to breathe and the ability to actually find a table, I'm far more likely to spend my money at the park rather than flee crowds.

People aren't that smart.

 

[Earl Sweatpants]

Or...those people can still put the same dollar amount away privately in their own personal payment plan. Just because Disney isn't telling you to pay it off in 12 installments of $50 doesn't mean that you can't still save $50 a month. Or save less and just buy the new 3 day ticket for $150. Not everybody needs an AP, but with recent pricing and payment plans, everybody got one because the value. This will help sway many back to just visiting the park 1-3 times per year instead of 3-5 times a month.

Plus, more open aisles, restaurants, and stores encourages me to spend my money. I haven't eaten on property nor bought merch for years due to the crowds. With room to breathe and the ability to actually find a table, I'm far more likely to spend my money at the park rather than flee crowds.

Doesn't it stand to reason though that if restaurants and merch shops are less crowded overall, Disney can justify raising prices on all their items to make up the difference? Disney would probably prefer ten people were at their restaurant buying a $5 snack, instead of just 2 people.

 

[SSG]

Didn't know this was a thing. Is this for locals only?

Yes. California residents with valid ID.

 

[Professortango1]

So, the overriding sentiments I'm getting are this (from here, and Micechat):

-AP holders overcrowd the parks, therefore we should do away with letting them pay monthly in the hopes of stopping them from renewing.
-less AP holders mean more "out of towners" can come on a one-time trip and spend as much if not MORE money in the parks then the AP'ers would.
-this will make the parks more enjoyable for wealthy AP'ers and "out of towners" because lines will be shorter and walkways less congested.
-Bottom line...Disney wants less crowds overall, but they're hedging their bets that the people who are in the parks will overspend to compensate for the lack of profits.

Yep. Disneyland should be a minor vacation destination, not a weekly tradition. Casual guests treat the park much differently than active guests. It's much easier to predict crowd behavior for active guests and better serve those customers.

Plus, Disney has been losing families who just can't deal with the crowds. I was raised on Disney as were most of my friends. Most of my friends with kids now have passes to Universal and Knotts. Those kids will be raised with those parks holding nostalgia, not Disneyland. Disney knows they won't lose their hardcore fanbase. Skyrocketing prices and insane crowds haven't deterred them. That's why they can openly do things like shorten the ROA or retheme Tower of Terror. Fanboys will cry, but Disney knows they aren't going anywhere.

What Disney wants/needs to do is appeal to those who aren't Disney fans. The folks who just want an enjoyable day and don't really care as much about theme and details. The best way to appeal to these folks, give them a premium experience for the premium price they paid to get in. That means cutting down on crowds and helping to eliminate the epidemic of casual visitors so that new visitors can see the park as more special and less like a fancy mall. They are creating value.

 

[Earl Sweatpants]

Yep. Disneyland should be a minor vacation destination, not a weekly tradition. Casual guests treat the park much differently than active guests. It's much easier to predict crowd behavior for active guests and better serve those customers.

Plus, Disney has been losing families who just can't deal with the crowds. I was raised on Disney as were most of my friends. Most of my friends with kids now have passes to Universal and Knotts. Those kids will be raised with those parks holding nostalgia, not Disneyland. Disney knows they won't lose their hardcore fanbase. Skyrocketing prices and insane crowds haven't deterred them. That's why they can openly do things like shorten the ROA or retheme Tower of Terror. Fanboys will cry, but Disney knows they aren't going anywhere.

What Disney wants/needs to do is appeal to those who aren't Disney fans. The folks who just want an enjoyable day and don't really care as much about theme and details. The best way to appeal to these folks, give them a premium experience for the premium price they paid to get in. That means cutting down on crowds and helping to eliminate the epidemic of casual visitors so that new visitors can see the park as more special and less like a fancy mall. They are creating value.

If guests don't care about theme and details, then why are they going to Disneyland? They're probably better off sticking to Universal and Knotts. #shotsfired

I get what you're saying though. And yeah, it would be great to always know that the parks weren't going to be a zoo when you showed up. However, once prices of things are upwardly adjusted to compensate, you have no one to complain to.

 

[Professortango1]

Doesn't it stand to reason though that if restaurants and merch shops are less crowded overall, Disney can justify raising prices on all their items to make up the difference? Disney would probably prefer ten people were at their restaurant buying a $5 snack, instead of just 2 people.

There's sustainable crowd size and there's detrimental crowd size. When I worked at a bank, we obviously wanted walk up business as it meant job security and corporate profit. However, we weren't allowed to have more than 2 guests in line because we wanted to ensure visitors had a positive experience.

Disney would prefer creating 40 loyal customers spending money to sit at 50 tables than 60 people waiting and cranky and vowing never to return and yelling at CMs and the 50 seated customers having the other 10 hovering over them like birds of prey. Plus, in shops, studies have shown than one-on-one interaction with customers often results in higher sales as the customer feels like they should buy something due to making a personal connection. They would feel bad wasting this nice person's time, so they buy some little something even if they aren't 100% interested. If CMs can't connect with shoppers, more people give up shopping, or find something and put it back after deciding it wasn't worth the wait and cost once they had time to think about it.

 

[Professortango1]

If guests don't care about theme and details, then why are they going to Disneyland? They're probably better off sticking to Universal and Knotts. #shotsfired

I get what you're saying though. And yeah, it would be great to always know that the parks weren't going to be a zoo when you showed up. However, once prices of things are upwardly adjusted to compensate, you have no one to complain to.

Haha, I ask that to Micechatters constantly. "I love the new GOTG idea. I don't really care about immersive lands or little details, I just want a fun attraction." But we all have different priorities. I personally believe that Disney's details aren't meant to be seen individually and fawned over, but taken in as a whole subconsciously. This detail creates a false sense of realism and value that guests feel, even if not overtly. So, someone might say they don't really care about that stuff, but they are still susceptible to the effects without knowing.

 

[Earl Sweatpants]

There's sustainable crowd size and there's detrimental crowd size. When I worked at a bank, we obviously wanted walk up business as it meant job security and corporate profit. However, we weren't allowed to have more than 2 guests in line because we wanted to ensure visitors had a positive experience.

Disney would prefer creating 40 loyal customers spending money to sit at 50 tables than 60 people waiting and cranky and vowing never to return and yelling at CMs and the 50 seated customers having the other 10 hovering over them like birds of prey. Plus, in shops, studies have shown than one-on-one interaction with customers often results in higher sales as the customer feels like they should buy something due to making a personal connection. They would feel bad wasting this nice person's time, so they buy some little something even if they aren't 100% interested. If CMs can't connect with shoppers, more people give up shopping, or find something and put it back after deciding it wasn't worth the wait and cost once they had time to think about it.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just wondering what Disney thinks its gonna have to do with those extra 10 tables. If there's less to do, with less guests to attend to, they'll have to start laying off staff or raise prices to compensate.

I'm predicting the park crowds will still show up though. Because now all the people who might have been turned away from Disney are now going to feel like they can start showing up again, and when they all descend at once...boom....overcrowding all over again. They're basically exchanging the AP locals for the "out of towners". I'd be very curious to see hard numbers when this takes effect...keeping in mind, this is still a rumor at this point.

 

[Rich T]

I would love to see Disney just dump APs altogether. It would solve so many problems. Offer good non-transferable mulit-day ticket deals that could be used within a limited time frame instead. And develop Downtown Disney into a place local Disney fans would genuinely enjoy hanging out and socializing in without feeling they have to ride Pirates of the Caribbean every freaking week of their lives.

 

[Earl Sweatpants]

And develop Downtown Disney into a place local Disney fans would genuinely enjoy hanging out and socializing in without feeling they have to ride Pirates of the Caribbean every freaking week of their lives.

Have you met those people??? :shudder:

 

[Professortango1]

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just wondering what Disney thinks its gonna have to do with those extra 10 tables. If there's less to do, with less guests to attend to, they'll have to start laying off staff or raise prices to compensate.

I'm predicting the park crowds will still show up though. Because now all the people who might have been turned away from Disney are now going to feel like they can start showing up again, and when they all descend at once...boom....overcrowding all over again. They're basically exchanging the AP locals for the "out of towners". I'd be very curious to see hard numbers when this takes effect...keeping in mind, this is still a rumor at this point.

Those 10 tables should never be all filled unless in an extreme situation. An open seat creates a sense of welcoming. The park should always aim at having 75%-90% of their seats filled in peak hours. Empty tables don't cost Disney, especially if an empty table entices someone to take a break and grab a snack.

 

[Earl Sweatpants]

Those 10 tables should never be all filled unless in an extreme situation. An open seat creates a sense of welcoming. The park should always aim at having 75%-90% of their seats filled in peak hours. Empty tables don't cost Disney, especially if an empty table entices someone to take a break and grab a snack.

You're forgetting that Disney is money hungry though. To them, 10 empty tables = loss of profit.

 

[Professortango1]

You're forgetting that Disney is money hungry though. To them, 10 empty tables = loss of profit.

Not if they find that open space generates more sales overall. If a park at 100% capacity means that only 75% will make purchases due to unwelcoming conditions and a park at 85% capacity sees 90% of guests making a purchase, that means they are generating 1.5% more sales and possibly staffing fewer employees to ensure guest satisfaction. Plus, the guests are more likely to have a positive experience and return to spend more money.

 

[Earl Sweatpants]

Not if they find that open space generates more sales overall. If a park at 100% capacity means that only 75% will make purchases due to unwelcoming conditions and a park at 85% capacity sees 90% of guests making a purchase, that means they are generating 1.5% more sales and possibly staffing fewer employees to ensure guest satisfaction. Plus, the guests are more likely to have a positive experience and return to spend more money.

But even still, they can justify raising prices. As long as you're already going to get a positive, less-crowded experience, why not charge a few extra dollars for this, that, and the Max Pass.

All I'm saying it, expect costs of things to go up.

 

[Deleted member 107043]

You're forgetting that Disney is money hungry though. To them, 10 empty tables = loss of profit.

Hmmm... I don't know if I agree. I get what you're saying, but from a business perspective there is something to be said for management teams that do everything possible to boost guest satisfaction and enjoyment. Removing any friction that interrupts the seamless delivery of exceptional experiences and services should always be a top priority for any hospitality business, especially one that charges top dollar like Disney does. Disneyland calls itself the happiest place on Earth, but I can think of more than a few examples of why it's been struggling to live up to that title over the past 20 years or so, and it all begins with the place being too crowded most of the time.

 

[Deleted member 107043]

As long as you're already going to get a positive, less-crowded experience, why not charge a few extra dollars for this, that, and the Max Pass.

The up-charge for Max Pass is just dumb. Fix crowding instead of asking customers to shell out more money to bypass the mobs that YOU created.

 

[Professortango1]

But even still, they can justify raising prices. As long as you're already going to get a positive, less-crowded experience, why not charge a few extra dollars for this, that, and the Max Pass.

All I'm saying it, expect costs of things to go up.

I mean, sure. Anyone can justify anything. Just because someone can justify something doesn't mean it will occur. I can justify Disney closing Big Thunder and rethemeing Frontierland to Arendelle with a Sven's Sleigh Ride, but it doesn't mean I'm going to lose sleep over it either. And prices do go up, that's the way the world works. They went up with crowds and without crowds. Cost is about supply and demand. If churros are $10, the demand will not be there no matter what the crowd size are.