Originally Posted By HokieSkipper <<And I can always take my business elsewhere. I'm not going to pay even more to visit their dated and tired theme parks. This could be very good for Universal.>> I just hope it flops before they roll it out in California. Or that the APs revolt and block it. The good Disney stateside resort doesn't deserve this.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Not surprisingly there's a lot of complaining going on with few details on how this program will be implemented and what the long term plans are.<< It is a continuation of the trend towards a more scheduled, more expensive park experience. Not being a hyper-planner, and not having an endless stream of vacation dollars, this does not appeal to me in any way. I'm sure all of this personalization will be seen as a great thing by plenty of people. Disney isn't stupid, they're investing in what will likely pay off big time. But it doesn't appeal to me personally, that's all I'm saying. I can't see myself ever scheduling a whole bunch of "experiences" in a vacation in a pre-programmed way. Like I said, I'm clearly not the target market.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt What you said Kar2oonMan makes sense. I'm not much of a planner either, especially when it comes to theme parks. The most I'll do is come up with a mental list of "must dos" (typically new things that I haven't experienced) and I'm happy if I can hit 75-80% of the things on the list. I've been to the parks enough times that I'm not going to cry if I miss one or two of my old favorites.
Originally Posted By leemac <<Is it me, or is leemac starting to sound like Lutz did a decade or so ago? I generally like his posts, but the sky is starting to fall. This almost reads like a Mousechat thread. I get that people are wary about Fastpass+. But Fastpass+ sounds like the new "Pressler!!!!".>> Sorry Yonkeroo - it certainly wasn't my intention to go all Chicken Little. I thought I'd made it clear that there are aspects that I think will benefit the guest experience - I'm just very worried that it will lead to a tiered experience which is to the detriment of P&R's most loyal guests.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA leemac -- your posts have been very level-headed. Of course, it helps that I read them using a crisp, Jude Law British accent.
Originally Posted By leemac <<I have no problem with this. They want to sell hotel rooms. >> So it's okay to screw over the rest of your patrons? Yup, sounds like a great idea to me.>> WDW operates c.23,000 hotel rooms - so even at a mean occupancy of 2.2 people and 100% occupancy that is only 50k guests per night. DAK and D-MGM average about 30k each per day. The actual nightly occupancy is closer to 40k - which isn't even the number of daily guests inside the MK. Resort guests are an important constituent of total guests but you run the risk of alienating locals and off-property guests if you focus solely on resort guests.
Originally Posted By leemac <<leemac -- your posts have been very level-headed. Of course, it helps that I read them using a crisp, Jude Law British accent. >> Jude is from a very rough part of London. I'm from Surrey - so I'm far posher. Think Julian Fellowes.
Originally Posted By leobloom >> the problem I have is that those folks will get a better in-park experience to the detriment to others. I shouldn't be penalized for not wanting that type of experience - but I will be as lines will be longer for everyone else. << The problem I have is the parks continue to stagnate and the big bucks are thrown at vacation planning. What's the word on Cars Land at DHS at this point?
Originally Posted By leobloom >> I'm not going to pay even more to visit their dated and tired theme parks. << This! Especially when there are cutting-edge attractions being built a few miles down the road. I'm not so nostalgic for the parks that I'll fork over any dollar amount to ride quaint ol' Space Mountain for the 1,000th time.
Originally Posted By leobloom >> WDW operates c.23,000 hotel rooms - so even at a mean occupancy of 2.2 people and 100% occupancy that is only 50k guests per night. DAK and D-MGM average about 30k each per day. The actual nightly occupancy is closer to 40k - which isn't even the number of daily guests inside the MK. Resort guests are an important constituent of total guests but you run the risk of alienating locals and off-property guests if you focus solely on resort guests. << But the plan must eventually be to upsell FP to any day-guest, right? If they restricted FP usage to resort guests, that might actually improve the system. But I imagine eventually anyone will be able to pay an extra $50 for the chance to use FP. Works all right at Universal, although I suspect fewer people take advantage of their pay-for-FP system and the Uni parks also do a much better job with single-rider lines.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>Well, I'm not planning on going to WDW any time soon after my marathon trip. And if this is rolled out in DL where I'm more than likely to stay off site, it cuts me off from things like Fastpass.<< Hokie, you're going for Marathon Weekend? Which race are you doing? I'm going for Dopey (5K + Goofy), after doing Goofy (Half + Full) last year. It's a really fun time to be in the parks, with a very different, more grown-up, atmosphere than you'd normally find. I hope you're training is going well! On a similar note, does anybody know when exactly they're planning on rolling all of the NextGen stuff out? I've read that it will be in "January" from several sources, but have heard nothing about it regarding my upcoming trip. Given that Marathon Weekend gets moderately large crowds (especially at the hotels) for that time of year, I wonder if they might think that would be a good time to test it out, and try to work out the bugs before spring break. I'm hoping they don't, as I'd like to actually enjoy my vacation, but I fear that they'll announce NextGen taking effect just as my trip begins.
Originally Posted By Yookeroo "So it's okay to screw over the rest of your patrons?" They already do. Off site guests don't get allowed into Extra Magic Hours. I really don't see the big deal in giving guests staying onsite preferential treatment. "But it doesn't appeal to me personally, that's all I'm saying." I understand this. "This could be very good for Universal." Universal also offers onsite guests special privileges.
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper <<They already do. Off site guests don't get allowed into Extra Magic Hours. I really don't see the big deal in giving guests staying onsite preferential treatment.>> EMH and not allowing offsite guests to use Fastpass+, book special seating for shows and fireworks, etc are two VERY different things. <<Universal also offers onsite guests special privileges.>> Yes. For free.
Originally Posted By Manfried "1.5 BILLION invested for speedier waits to old attractions .... vs. 1.5 Billion invested in NEW attractions." oc_dean we agree again.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt <<Universal also offers onsite guests special privileges.>> "Yes. For free" For now.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <<leemac -- your posts have been very level-headed. Of course, it helps that I read them using a crisp, Jude Law British accent. >> <Jude is from a very rough part of London. I'm from Surrey - so I'm far posher. Think Julian Fellowes. > I knew I was going mess that up. Thanks for the correction.
Originally Posted By leemac <<But the plan must eventually be to upsell FP to any day-guest, right?>> This is where it gets very complicated as the system can only handle a finite number of NGE guests - and managing that over a period of high occupancy will be very difficult indeed. Will guests accept that there are certain periods where they can't upgrade as there isn't the capacity? The complexity of NGE is massive and it is all down to algorithmic software that will drive the whole experience. DLR will be easier as there are fewer resort guests to contend with in the first place. There is no doubt that the plan is to upsell as many guests as possible. The problem will be getting guests to accept that what was once free is now a chargeable event.
Originally Posted By leemac <<Jude is from a very rough part of London. I'm from Surrey - so I'm far posher. Think Julian Fellowes. I knew I was going mess that up. Thanks for the correction.>> ) An American lady recently told me that I had the voice of someone from Downtown Abbey (although sadly not the face for TV!) which made me chuckle. My accent is the plain vanilla variety - we call it Home Counties - no East London twang or any Upstairs Downstairs elitist dialect. Right - it is officially the weekend in Shanghai so I'm off to play and forget about NGE for a few days! Enjoy.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< DLR will be easier as there are fewer resort guests to contend with in the first place. >>> And, this is true not just from a systems issue, but from an impact issue as well. Even if 100% of the DLR resort hotel guests get some sort of special privilege at no extra cost, it's unlikely to have that big an impact on the park as a whole, because they represent a much smaller number of park guests as compared to WDW. <<< There is no doubt that the plan is to upsell as many guests as possible. The problem will be getting guests to accept that what was once free is now a chargeable event. >>> Well, there's another way it could unfold at DLR: a distinction not so much between Disney resort hotel guests and others, but between AP holders and others. Already, we see this to some extent: Resort hotel guests get early entry every day during their stay that it's offered. Multi-day ticket holders get it once during the validity period of their ticket. AP holders and single-day guests don't get it at all. It would be very easy for DLR to go to a model where everyone but AP holders gets the premium experience for free (perhaps with some bias toward Disney hotel guests), whereas AP holders must pay for it. In addition to catering to the "most desirable guests" in terms of revenue per turnstile click (gate, F&B, and merchandise), it would also serve to limit the population of guests with the extra benefits in order to make it workable (e.g. you can't give every guest front-of-the-line privileges and have it work). I can also see a model where each AP comes with a certain allowance per year of special privileges (in current terms, think of each AP coming with X number of early entries per year) so that they are not completely left out. This could be explained away rather easily in terms of "fairness" while in actuality making only a very small number of AP turnstile clicks eligible for the extra privileges for free. To put this another way, I can easily see how the exact same set of NGE technologies could end up being deployed with vastly different operational and revenue models at DLR and WDW. Look no further than the current ticketing models to see how they are very different at the two resorts for a variety of reasons when at first glance they both are "just Disney parks."
Originally Posted By SuperDry ... which brings up another issue. Especially with the consolidation of management teams between DLR and WDW into single teams, mostly based in and focused on WDW, I'll be very interested to see how this all turns out at DLR. Any time these consolidations happen in the corporate world, there is the tendency if not temptation to have the larger part of the consolidation dominate the smaller part. Whether it be systems issues or policy issues, one of the main benefits touted of consolidation always is the cost savings in not having to maintain two sets of everything. The larger part of the consolidation inevitably finds itself wondering "why do *those people* at the (smaller part) always have to do everything differently? We're a much larger operation, we have a track record of larger profit, so we know better." This often results in the imposition of technology and policy from the larger part onto the smaller part. But, the smaller part often did things differently because its market dictated that things be different, not always because they made inferior or just different decisions.
