The Spirited Seventh Heaven ...

ParentsOf4

ParentsOf4

Well-Known Member
LondonGopher said:
I think we (theme-park anoraks :geek:) often forget something. In my last copy (2013?) of the Unofficial Guide, Bob and Len state that only 4% (!!!) of WDW guests have been exposed to the information in their book and/or website. I would guess that estimate is pretty accurate, as @lentesta seems pretty good with numbers. ;)

Despite all the websites...despite the Moms' Panel...despite Touring Plans - few people are hyper-planners (and not just because most people seem to view reading about as positively as they do VD :mad:).

Most folks plan a visit to WDW one of two ways; like a visit to the County Show/Local Amusement Park OR (if staying on-site) like a holiday at an all-inclusive resort (i.e. "It'll all be taken care of for me.")

If FP+ was a perk strictly for on-site guests (an idea I like, in principle), I think WDW would have to advertise the HECK out of it and it would still seem...awkward. "Guarantee that YOUR daughter will meet Elsa - If you don't stay, you might not get to play!". I just don't know what other angle could work, though...because if the hyper-planners are few, what other possible angle is there? How many people daydream about SCHEDULING RIDES? And Disney PR, at its best, is all about those daydreams...

After all, even UNI, with it's OUTRAGEOUSLY good perk for on-site guests...what percentage of its park visitors actually stay on the property?
Click to expand...
The question is not really whether 4% of WDW visitors read the Unofficial Guide or their companion website. (BTW, 4% is a very good number. Last time I checked, the Unofficial Guide was one of the World's top-selling travel guides.) It's not how well Universal's Express Pass perk works for Universal's hotels. (More on that in a bit.)

The question is whether WDW guests would pay more in order to stay onsite and get exclusive "onsite only" perks.

We already know they do. Whether it's Disney's Magical Express, free transportation to the theme parks, or Extra Magic Hours, WDW guests still pay outrageous sums (compared to offsite hotels) just to stay onsite.

Take away any of those perks and onsite occupancy would decline. Conversely, add exclusive onsite perks and occupancy would improve. Many consumers want to stay onsite and are just looking for an excuse to pay WDW's prices. For many, just one more perk would be enough for them to make the switch.

WDW hotel prices are just ridiculous for what they are and yet WDW still manages to achieve an 80% occupancy rate on its 27,000 overpriced hotel rooms. Think about that. WDW manages to fill an average of 21,600 rooms per night despite prices that drive away many consumers.

For the fiscal quarter in question, hotel occupancy jumped from 80% to 86% even though theme park attendance was flat.

That 6% represents an extra 1,600 occupied rooms per night. Is it really so difficult to accept that an extra 1,600 families would switch from offsite to onsite so they could be guaranteed quick access to their favorite attractions before they arrived?

The incredible number is that, at their prices, WDW still manages to fill 21,600 rooms per night. :D

Universal is not WDW. If Universal were, they'd charge 50% more per night for their hotel rooms. As it stands today, Universal struggles to fill their 4,200 (vs. 27,000) hotel rooms even though those rooms cost significantly less than comparable WDW hotel rooms. Even though 2,400 of those hotel rooms offer the best onsite perk in the World. Comparing Universal and WDW hotel markets is a red herring. The two are different beasts.

However, I do suggest that since Disney can fill 80% of their hotel rooms today with their current onsite perks, they'd have no problem filling the remaining 20% if they had the ride capacity to offer the same unlimited FastPass perk offered by Universal.

For those of us who love what Universal has been doing lately, it's not fair but, again, the two are different beasts. WDW can raise prices, cut quality, and delay new attractions and still manage steady attendance. If Universal tried the same approach, Uni's attendance would fade.

Most WDW onsite guests are planners and want FastPass+. Don't take my word for it. For the fiscal quarter in question, Disney CFO Jay Rasulo reported:

"Roughly three quarters of our resort guests are using them to plan their visit."​

I think the Unofficial Guide to Walt Disney World is the best book on WDW out there, but I'm pretty sure that those 48,000 daily onsite FastPass+ users (27,000 rooms X 3 guests/room X 0.86 (hotel occupancy) X 0.70 (FP+ usage)) represent more than 4% of WDW's daily visitors. :D

Really, is it so difficult to imagine that, for the fiscal quarter in question, having exclusive access to FastPass+ convinced an extra 1,600 families per night to switch from offsite to onsite? :)
 
Last edited:
TubaGeek

TubaGeek

God bless the "Ignore" button.
TalkingHead said:
This is the same guy who was on a local Orlando news broadcast to promote the DHS Frozen stuff, and when he was asked about Potter, he laughed and played stupid, saying something like, "I know not of what you speak."

Totally embarrassing shill behavior.
Click to expand...
I had to find that one on YouTube. The real beauty of it is how he changed the subject from Potter to the Olaf-on-a-sticks. Way to show up the competition there, Mongello.
 
Soarin' Over Pgh

Soarin' Over Pgh

Well-Known Member
danlb_2000 said:
The type of craze that surrounded Frozen cannot be predicted.
Click to expand...

They didn't predict the lion king being a hit, yet it had a parade.

They didn't predict the hunchback of notre dame doing much of anything, but it had an amazing stage show/CRT of fools.

My point being, they lost faith in their own movies, and stopped pre-promoting them in parks like they used to. :(

Frozen is worth so much more than a singular float. And a refurbished ride in a park where it doesn't belong.
 
Cody5242

Cody5242

Well-Known Member
With Norway being up and arms about their pavilion being taken over by Frozen maybe that caused a delay in the project and why they didn't announce it. This show would of been the perfect opportunity to do so
 
aladdin2007

aladdin2007

Well-Known Member
Bairstow said:
Is that true?
If so, good.
Perhaps the entire Maelstrom-->Frozen rumor was an intentional leak meant to goad Statoil into reaching a more agreeable sponsorship arrangement with the mouse.
Click to expand...

as far as I know that ship sailed. Norway tried their darndest last month, but without the governments monetary support....sigh....its dissapointing a nation as wealthy as they are.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom