Spirited Spring Break News, Observations & Thoughts ...

[doctornick]

The irony is, had they done that, off-site guests would have a better in-park experience than what they have now, as well.

Can you explain what you mean by this? I just don't see the angle you are talking about.

 

[71jason]

Can you explain what you mean by this? I just don't see the angle you are talking about.

Limiting FP to resort guests, making it the ultimate perk, would still greatly reduce the number of FPs distributed in a day. (I know conventional wisdom is everyone stays on property, but that's simply not the case.) Fewer FPs in use means shorter lines, even guests without access to FP spend less time and queues and see more attractions in a day even without use of FP (which a lot of them never bother to learn about anyway).

This isn't theoretical. We have a real world model: Universal Orlando. Granted there would still be more FP+ users than guests in Uni hotels, so the effects would probably not be as dramatic, but I don't think we'd be seeing 45 minute waits for HM or IASW.

 

[the.dreamfinder]

Yes, he is.

Hopefully they're not just letting him sit around collecting his salary while he could be doing quality work.

 

[bhg469]

Limiting FP to resort guests, making it the ultimate perk, would still greatly reduce the number of FPs distributed in a day. (I know conventional wisdom is everyone stays on property, but that's simply not the case.) Fewer FPs in use means shorter lines, even guests without access to FP spend less time and queues and see more attractions in a day even without use of FP (which a lot of them never bother to learn about anyway).

This isn't theoretical. We have a real world model: Universal Orlando. Granted there would still be more FP+ users than guests in Uni hotels, so the effects would probably not be as dramatic, but I don't think we'd be seeing 45 minute waits for HM or IASW.

I see them charging for different levels of fast pass perks, its only a matter of time. Will it fix anything? No. But it will allow Disney to profit from mm+

 

[flynnibus]

Limiting FP to resort guests, making it the ultimate perk, would still greatly reduce the number of FPs distributed in a day. (I know conventional wisdom is everyone stays on property, but that's simply not the case.) Fewer FPs in use means shorter lines, even guests without access to FP spend less time and queues and see more attractions in a day even without use of FP (which a lot of them never bother to learn about anyway).

I don't think Disney could have ever gotten away with taking FP away entirely from guests... but having advanced FP only for onsite could have been defend-able IMHO.

 

[PeterAlt]

I'm already starting to hate MM+! My sister is driving me crazy about planning which rides to go on. We had originally planned to go Sat and Sun, but we now plan on going Fri-Sun. She's been calling me asking for average wait statistics of all the rides; expecting me to ask you guys. I won't drive you all crazy with questions like that! I liked it better when you just went to the parks, got on the rides, and had fun. Now, there's all this planning! What stress!

By the way, I refuse to go down that stressful road that she's following. I know what rides I need to see and that's that, no complications. She's making lists, spread sheets, schedules, maps, satististical databases... Good grief!

 

[Crazydisneyfanluke]

I'm already starting to hate MM+! My sister is driving me crazy about planning which rides to go on. We had originally planned to go Sat and Sun, but we now plan on going Fri-Sun. She's been calling me asking for average wait statistics of all the rides; expecting me to ask you guys. I won't drive you all crazy with questions like that! I liked it better when you just went to the parks, got on the rides, and had fun. Now, there's all this planning! What stress!

By the way, I refuse to go down that stressful road that she's following. I know what rides I need to see and that's that, no complications. She's making lists, spread sheets, schedules, maps, satististical databases... Good grief!

All i did was schedule FP+ for rides we never ride because of long wait times....

 

[doctornick]

Limiting FP to resort guests, making it the ultimate perk, would still greatly reduce the number of FPs distributed in a day. (I know conventional wisdom is everyone stays on property, but that's simply not the case.) Fewer FPs in use means shorter lines, even guests without access to FP spend less time and queues and see more attractions in a day even without use of FP (which a lot of them never bother to learn about anyway).

Ahh gotcha. I was thinking you were saying that the previous setup of resort guestss being able to pre-book FP+ and off site not being able to book them until day of (and having to use the kisoks) was better for off site guests. I don't see how that could be true.

The problem with your suggestion is that while it makes standby lines better, it will create discontent among those who stay off site and potentially cause a loss of good will and guests down the road. I think a better option would be to give different numbers of pre-booked FP+ for on site versus off site or having off site only have access day of. Though in the latter case, they should allow day of access to be available via the app (which benefits Disney by not having to have as many kioks to run and staff and benefits the guest by making it more convenient).

 

[rael ramone]

In recent years, the trend has been to decouple ticket prices from cost and charge "whatever the market will bear" or, as Iger likes to call it, price leveraging. It's a completely valid business strategy for non-essential goods & services as long the total number of sales doesn't decline too much.

In recent years, WDW attendance has been resilient to the higher prices.

Last quarter's 4% increase in Per Capita Guest Spending (PCGS) (i.e. money spent per person at the theme parks) is half of what it has been averaging in recent years. The previous low since 2010 was 6%. It's increased by double-digits some quarters.

Theme park prices have increased by more than double the 4% since last's year's second quarter. Therefore, the very small PCGS number suggests that guests are starting to buy less food, beverages, and merchandise at the theme parks.

It might be an indication that Disney needs to start looking for a strategy other than "whatever the market will bear".

I turned on CNBC and the weatherman was talking. Dow was up when he started, it wasn't when he finished.
Ms. Yellen is on the hill and it's back up.

If people have a budget that they won't deviate from, the more that they spend on a room the less they have to spend on overpriced food, drinks & plush. Or perhaps some just don't want to spend $12 plus on a burger & Cockerell Fries.

People have now sampled MM-minus. How much of this 'growth' in hotel guests are going to come back for another visit? Are people going to be pleased with the system (and glad they payed the extra to stay on site) if they saw a long line at the FP(-) return site? Will they think 'Mickey tricked them' if one of their selections is for something that had no line? And of course what will they think if they missed an 'experience' due to the Magical Motorcoach? And will they see the value in the accomodations themselves if they are familiar with and experienced what those price points would provide in amenities 'outside the bubble'?

As far as expanding MM(-) to offsite, perhaps the data harvesting is much more important to them.

 

[CDavid]

Using some simple numbers, a 6% increase in occupancy based on roughly 2.3M available room nights at WDW for the quarter equates to an additional 140,000 room nights. I realize the 7-day vacation is practically dead in America but using that as a number, this means roughly that an additional 20,000 families opted to stay onsite for the quarter. In the scheme of things, 20,000 families is not a huge number for Disney.

What is a huge number for Disney is that rather than spend that money elsewhere at another hotel, those families spent all of it at a WDW hotel; a big win for Disney.

I went waltzing through some of the old 10K and 10Q filings. A 6% jump in occupancy is unparalleled. Something highly unusual happened in 2Q2014

I have to say I am surprised that MM+ could drive a 6% increase in occupancy. Actually, it makes me wonder if there must not be other factors at work as well (a cold winter possibly among them). Most WDW guests aren't nearly as "plugged-in" as those of us here, and many aren't going to be aware of the details of MM+, such as the extent of its roll-out or that legacy FP is history (if they are more than vaguely aware of MM+ at all).

Secondly, and assuming MyMagic+ is indeed largely behind the numbers, is it sustainable? Given that the program is now available to everyone, and that at least some people are always going to be turned off by the extent of planning and advance knowledge required to fully utilize MM+, I am now very curious to see the next quarters' results.

 

[doctornick]

People have now sampled MM-minus. How much of this 'growth' in hotel guests are going to come back for another visit? Are people going to be pleased with the system (and glad they payed the extra to stay on site) if they saw a long line at the FP(-) return site? Will they think 'Mickey tricked them' if one of their selections is for something that had no line? And of course what will they think if they missed an 'experience' due to the Magical Motorcoach? And will they see the value in the accomodations themselves if they are familiar with and experienced what those price points would provide in amenities 'outside the bubble'?

I know MM+/FP+ gets a lot of negative press on message boards among the hard core fans and frequent guests, but in talking to a few families that have used it, most people seem to really like the MBs and FP+. The MBs are definitely convenient (maybe minimally, but still...) compared to cards and have some positive impact to the experience with lighting up Mickey and being something "different" than the regular world. (Granted, Disney had to work out the negative bugs, but that seems mostly resolved now.) And a lot of people are actually happy to have some rides pre-planned to make sure that they get to do them without much of a wait. And people get excited to get the MBs in the mail before the trip. And we see off-site guests buying the MBs to "be a part of it".

The big negative outcry about MM+ and FP+ is from frequent visitors and paper FP superusers. For most guests, FP+ isn't dramatically different from paper FP and is often significantly better.

I'm not saying that the program is worth the money spent or that alternative spending wouldn't have been better. But I continue to believe in talking to folks that the overall impact on most guests is a net positive experience. We here are not typical in our expectations and experiences.

 

[Kman101]

I think they get a bad rap to be honest with you. I see a lot of bonuses to having one, but that kind of thing just won't appeal to some people. I get that. I absolutely see the convenience in having everything on a band. I almost wish I was using one yesterday.

I'm not fond of planning for rides though. At all, and I'm the type who rarely used legacy FP. I know how to smartly tour the parks. I think that aspect of it needs some work.

I also see how many people do see the benefit of booking character meets, I get that as well, but that's such a waste to me, personally. To a family, I can see it being a draw. I think it's ridiculous to consider character meets and parade viewing spots as top tier experiences. Have them be an EXTRA FP on top of the ride fast passes.

And many hate MM because of the amount spent on it, which should/could have gone towards improving Epcot and DHS (that's IMO, as well). So I see the hate but there are aspects of that I think are very convenient.

One of the main issues I have is that it shouldn't be "we either spend on MM or improving the parks". It SHOULD be both. I get they needed tech updates.

And most of the FP+ kiosks were packed. It was very unappealing and left me with little desire to even try.

 

[PhotoDave219]

I have to say I am surprised that MM+ could drive a 6% increase in occupancy. Actually, it makes me wonder if there must not be other factors at work as well (a cold winter possibly among them). Most WDW guests aren't nearly as "plugged-in" as those of us here, and many aren't going to be aware of the details of MM+, such as the extent of its roll-out or that legacy FP is history (if they are more than vaguely aware of MM+ at all).

Secondly, and assuming MyMagic+ is indeed largely behind the numbers, is it sustainable? Given that the program is now available to everyone, and that at least some people are always going to be turned off by the extent of planning and advance knowledge required to fully utilize MM+, I am now very curious to see the next quarters' results.

..... I need some transparency & hard data here to believe this is legit.

I wanna think they juked the stats somehow.

Would removing rooms from inventory affect this?

 

[CDavid]

..... I need some transparency & hard data here to believe this is legit.

I wanna think they juked the stats somehow.

Would removing rooms from inventory affect this?

What I'd like to see are some numbers (even rough estimates) from off-site Orlando area hotels for the same period (January through March). If Disney was up sharply, how did other properties perform? Most factors other than MM+, level hotel rates, or particularly lucrative WDW resort discounts should also have driven increased occupancy off-site as well, shouldn't it?

From @ParentsOf4 original post:

Unlike the theme park numbers, which are roughly split 2-to-1 between WDW vs. DLR, the 10Q hotel numbers are nearly 90% of what’s happening at WDW. Overwhelmingly, these numbers represent what’s happening in Orlando.

And this quarter’s hotel numbers are good.

Really good.

Both for Disney and for consumers.

MyMagic+ was rolled out to onsite guests in October and was announced before then, just in time to influence guest hotel choices for the just-reported quarter.

Guests responded tremendously. Whether frightened at the prospect of being treated like second-class citizens and being forced to stand in those sometimes ungodly FastPass+ kiosk lines or simply being attracted by the idea of preselecting 3 attractions before arriving, guests decided to stay onsite.

Occupancy skyrocketed from 80% to 86% year-over-year, one of the largest jumps in the history of WDW. Available Room Nights remained flat, suggesting this surge in occupancy was real.

This is not some correction easily attributable to external factors such as the economy or cheap travel. The improved occupancy represents a significant rethinking by WDW guests on the way they selected their hotels.

Remember, pre-selection of FastPass+ wasn’t made available to offsite guests until April, after the end of the quarter. Throughout the entire second quarter, onsite guests had a distinct advantage over offsite guests. The second quarter results show a customer base ready to respond to this advantage by purchasing more high-margin hotel stays.

Also helping this surge were flat hotel rates.

 

[rael ramone]

There were times when guests would try to attempt to book multiple restaurants on property so they could decide which one to dine at later on and not cancel the other reservations/priority seating. I told them we could not do that and refused to do it for them. People would be amazed how much guests abuse(d) the system because they were lazy or indecisive.

My guess is the percentage of 'multi-reservers' is small in relation to the total amount of no-shows.

Why have 4 people making $8 and hour serving guests when you can make people financially commit to showing up, turn away everyone else, and be able to get the number down to 2 or 3?

This is another reason why I'm such a big fan of Marrakesh. You can get one of the best theme park meals for lunch, *and* get entertained, as a walk-in.

 

[Omnispace]

I have to say I am surprised that MM+ could drive a 6% increase in occupancy. Actually, it makes me wonder if there must not be other factors at work as well (a cold winter possibly among them). Most WDW guests aren't nearly as "plugged-in" as those of us here, and many aren't going to be aware of the details of MM+, such as the extent of its roll-out or that legacy FP is history (if they are more than vaguely aware of MM+ at all).

Secondly, and assuming MyMagic+ is indeed largely behind the numbers, is it sustainable? Given that the program is now available to everyone, and that at least some people are always going to be turned off by the extent of planning and advance knowledge required to fully utilize MM+, I am now very curious to see the next quarters' results.

Like it was mentioned somewhere here before, it could very well be that guests didn't want to be treated as second class citizens in the MM+ system during that period so stayed onsite. It's not necessarily that MM+ was the draw in itself.

You are right that now everyone has access to the system, MM+ really needs to stand on it's own. Since it's not a resounding success at this moment, it very possible it might not realize a true ROI. On the other hand it might just be a little ahead of its time and will become very popular once it catches on and the bugs are worked out. The irony in this is that most of us here express our concerns that Disney is not looking at the long term investment and then they go ahead and approve something like MM+, which is all long-term, and look at what it has turned out to be.

 

[truecoat]

..... I need some transparency & hard data here to believe this is legit.

I wanna think they juked the stats somehow.

Would removing rooms from inventory affect this?

I'm liking the cold weather angle. This was the worst winter in 30 years, for me at least. The only warm spot on the map many days was Florida. It seems it would be easy for people to see that and head down there.

The real way to test this theory is to see how the cruise industry and beach front hotels did during the same period. People wouldn't just go to Florida because of Disney.

 

[71jason]

I don't think Disney could have ever gotten away with taking FP away entirely from guests... but having advanced FP only for onsite could have been defend-able IMHO.

I agree in that I think the latter would have been a much easier sell than the former.

 

[71jason]

The problem with your suggestion is that while it makes standby lines better, it will create discontent among those who stay off site and potentially cause a loss of good will and guests down the road.

It's a risk to be sure. But I kind of share TDO's faith in their ride rubric. Guests who ride X amount of rides a day (I usually hear 8 or 9) are happy. There would be much moaning and nashing of teeth on the message boards, but I think in a few months, when it all shakes out and guests are riding more rides with less time in line, overall guest satisfaction would rise.

 

[71jason]

What I'd like to see are some numbers (even rough estimates) from off-site Orlando area hotels for the same period (January through March). If Disney was up sharply, how did other properties perform? Most factors other than MM+, level hotel rates, or particularly lucrative WDW resort discounts should also have driven increased occupancy off-site as well, shouldn't it?

Anecdotal evidence says area hotel prices are up quite a bit this year. Friends saying places they used to get for $60 are now right around $100. Implies an Orlando-wide effect beyond MM+.