Originally Posted By Doobie This topic is for discussion of the October 29 article: Kenversationsâ„¢ at <a href="News-ID111360.asp" target="_blank">http://LaughingPlace.com/News-ID111360.asp</a>.
Originally Posted By ssWEDguy Hard to argue, Ken. Good points, and you hit most of the major buttons. The really hard part would be the human part of the implementation, not the technology. How to weather the PR problems of weaning the public off POP and back onto PFP? It could be brutal. I like the phased approach. Brand new E-tickets that are separate admissions, and not included on the existing POP pass. Would get people accustomed to it over time. The digital technology is there! Disney could be the leader to move in the PFP direction. Others would follow once the payoff becomes evident.
Originally Posted By themur I see the biggest obstacle to acceptance is likely the So-Cal passholder. If a family is here on vacation from out of the area, they are likely indifferent to the change if the coupon book or smart card allows them to experience an appropriate amount of attractions during the day or two or three. A visitor is likely going to seek out to ride not only Splash and Space and Matterhorn but Small World and Alice in Wonderland. A 11 or 15 ticket "book" works great. The So-Cal passholder is not likely spreading himself or herself around as much. Why the Disney fan will still ride Peter Pan or Autopia, they are likely riding Splash and Space a disproportionately high amount. If they come 10 times during the year and if they ride Space, Splash, Matterhorn and Pirates twice each time (or some other combination of 8 E-tickets), then they are only spending less than a dollar for each ride - what a great deal!!!!!! That also doesn't take into accoutn any park entrance cost (for things like parades, Believe or Fantasmic) or taking in the other A through D attractions. Of course these people are going to be upset. DL is a fabulous bargain. Frankly I liked the coupon books. I had to work hard to "budget" my time and choices. We always got excited when Mom or Dad or maybe a grandparent parted with a valuable E-Ticket for one of the kids. Any kind of transition would be difficult. The obvious time would be to roll it out with a much larger than usual increase in the Daily Passport cost. If you think you can get the value out of a $70 passport then go for it otherwise a $35 or $40 ticket book looks like a good option. The other side would be a fairly substantial increase in the Annual Passport. Drop the low end AP's and only offer a Premium AP that is much more expensive. You will still have people who will want one of these but they are not likely the park "abusers." I think the technology exists and could result in some very positive change at the resort. DL's attractions have to pay for themselves more than the attractions at WDW where the high margin exists on the substantially larger amount of meals eaten on property and the hotel rooms. Keep an open mind. My thoughts aren't to put down AP's (I'm one myself and I live in Nor Cal)I just want so much more for the park that I love!
Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger One of the problems with smartcards (or any electronic system) and the benefit of ticket books is knowing how much you've got. It's easy for everyone in a group to count their 'E' tickets and then agree on the next ride. It's tougher if everyone has to go to a kiosk and then, one at a time, check their card to see if they have enough credits to go on the proposed ride.
Originally Posted By a1stav There are only a couple of concerns I have reguarding this system. #1 It could lead to a very expensive Dave&Busters arcade type experence with e-tickets costing $10+ (if you don't belive me check out manhatin express in vegas, it is over $12 per ride). #2 With some people spending $35-$40 for admission and a "cupon book" instead of everone spending $50 a pop to get in, than some people will have to spend $70-$80 to balance out the dollars taken in. If they price the admission and ride cost to directly reflect the ticket system as of 1981 taking into account inflation, than I would have no problem with this program.
Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger I think that we can postulate that one of three things can take place if they went back to any kind of PFP system: 1) Disney gives up some profit to improve the guest experience. (Guests win) 2) Disney carefully prices the new system so it generates the same amount of profit. (Break even) 3) Disney prices the system so that profits are increased. (Disney wins) It would be safe to say that #1 will not be allowed to happen.
Originally Posted By Brian Noble The only hole in all of this is that someone needs to explain to me why other parks with pay-one-price models both (a) grow the number of rides/attractions over time and (b) work hard to keep the ones they have operating at full capacity. I can think of several parks that fit this description. Further, I think this assumption of not being able to attribute revenue to new attractions is overly simplistic. Parks have a very good idea of how much new business is driven by a new attraction. For example, Cedar Fair's rule of thumb is that they attractions must pay their own freight within two years. Clearly, there must be some accounting guildelines to try to attribte revenue to new installations for this business model to make sense. This whole pay-for-play model strikes me as a hoped-for silver bullet to "fix" what is "wrong" with DLR.
Originally Posted By Elderp Bringing back the pay per play system smells of idealism to me. Bottom line is DL would sink if they instituted this system. The reason DL switched to a Unlimited Passport is because Knott's and MM were taking over the market. Disney saw the reality and moved on. It is true it has been awhile since Indiana Jones but you don't take into consideration what they invested into DCA. DLR knows the park needs to grow but they also know they want to grow both parks. That is why DCA is getting TOT now, then in 2005 there will be a of new things for the 50th. DL has TRIED (maybe not hard) to get things going with things like Winnie the Pooh. Don't get me wrong I don't think there isn't room for improvement but improvement is based on many things. Money isn't the only problem DL has. Anyway, back to the topic. Pay per Play system is going to be a major deterent to the average guest. Some people may have a idealist view of "the good ol days" but the reality is people and DL are looking for value. Value doesn't always mean the best quality, and yes that is unfortunate. It is kind of like buying groceries. You know Grey Poupon is the best mustard but you buy Kraft mustard instead, because while it isn't the best you know it will do. Some might say "but Disney should be the best." I say it still is. Ask yourself this: Which is better? Disney or Knotts? If it is Disney then they are doing ok. If it is Knotts then don't go to Disney and they will get the point.
Originally Posted By woody The people who are advocating the adding SmartCards/PFP are missing a few important points. 1. Where's the comparison of gate admission revenue? Coupon book versus Passports (after accounting for inflation). Disney theme park revenue can be compared to before Passports and after Passports. I believe you'll find more revenue is currently being generated from the Passports. That's because people will see the value from a more expensive unlimited ride admission than a cheaper Coupon Book. 2. Will revenue gained from people purchasing additional ride credits offset the loss of revenue from a higher park entrance fee or people spending more time in the park, therefore spending more money in stores and restaurants? I think maybe not because most DLR customers are locals who are tighter with budgets. 3. Disneyland was always crowded whether it had coupons or not. 4. SmartCards will have no measurable benefit when park is crowded. Typically, large crowds mean less chance of getting on rides. 5. SmartCards will have no measurable benefit when park is light. See number 2. Hint: Less time spent in park means less spending. Is it better to let the people ride and stay in the park? Or is it better to let them go home when they they run out of ride credits? The people who are advocating the elimination of Annual Passports are missing a few important points. 1. Pressler is gone. There was no park maintenance issues before Pressler took control in his "reign of incompetence." 2. Disneyland was able to afford Indiana Jones before Pressler arrived. 3. Annual Passholders spend more money over the term of the AP than they would if they only arrive one time. Important points on both, adding SmartCards and eliminating of Annual Passports. 1. Theme park competition means Disney cannot go backwards. Every theme park in the world has benefited from Disney's innovations. However, this step is leading to Disney's demise. The competition will suddenly appear to be the better value. 2. Disney's poorest performing theme parks (DCA and Animal Kingdom) need incentives for guests to attend. Just watch things go downhill fast!!! 3. Despite the initial popularity of Tokyo DisneySeas, eventually attendance will drop. That's why TDS received Annual Passports after nearly two years of operation. The theme parks need Annual Passholders to keep operating. They need to look busy. It's like a party where nobody arrived. Low attendance begets low attendance. And SmartCards will contribute to people spending less time (and money) in the parks.
Originally Posted By SFH Just a couple of things... I'm not calling for the elimination of annual passes. I'm not calling for the elminitation of what would amount to a "pay one price" alternative. SFH
Originally Posted By arstogas Ken, you mention that your friend forwarded Fab's letter to Sklar, and then you proceeded to make a case for your version of a Smart Card system. But never was it made clear to me, whether this is something you were able to verify, to what extent any of this has been explored, or if all of this is just out of your head. If the latter is the case, it's an interesting, but rather exhausting read. I don't mean insult here, but do you get what I'm trying to say?
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Pay per Play feels too much like a carnival to me. Not a good idea for Disney at all. What Disney needs is a visionary spirit in their business divisions again. They are suffering from the 90's - 00's malaise of cut to the bone and cut some more. It is what shareholders expect, or rather the financial analysts that advise share holders. It sucks, but that is the way business is now. If Disney invested in the exhisting assets, they would be much better than building parks in Hong Kong, scoping China and investing in Sports. But truth be told, it would not make much of a difference to the bottom line. A take over by Eisner and Wells was great during the post Miller era, but it could have turned out a lot different. By Eisner diversifying and bringing in profit, it keeps the company alive. Imagine CP or 6 Flags taking over Disneyland. Vivendi cannot shed Universal, look at Knott's currently. The entertainment market is stiffled and the public are fickle. Can Disney do things better - most definately? Are their choices made to support the company - definately too. Are the company willing to gamble still - not at the mo. But I am still optimistic. We have been spoilt over the last 15 years, we are no going through a lean time, we will bounce back! Pay to play is not the way to go, it will hit the profit margin, annoy families (I do not like budgeting on vacation - I like liberty of choice), subject the micro elements of the park to market forces even more so, and perhaps even bring in a rough element who want to hang. Not my idea of fun at all.
Originally Posted By SFH Dave- there would be tickets for your and your family that you'd like. BUT- there would also be tickets for locals who don't want to pay 50+ per person when there are three or four major attractions closed. arstogas- My earlier column on "pay per play" was printed out by an Imagineer and sent to Sklar because the Imagineer already supported the idea and wanted to present someone else's (mine, in this case) calls for change as support. Then, last week, Fab's column talking about the smartcard system appeared on JHM. I mentioned her column because it prompted me to write my follow-up reiterating my thoughts. Bringing back a "pay for play" system (or, charging an extra fee to ride the newest attration) is not a new idea. They are not something I came up with sitting under an apple tree. People inside Disney have been suggesting such a things for many years now. SFH
Originally Posted By ash_eng If DL were to change to a PFP system they would need to make it as flexible as possible to keep as many people as possbile happy. One question, would it be a sensible to option to make the gate entry all translate into credit for the attractions. So if you aren't an AP and pay the full $50 gate fee you get $50 of credit for rides? Also would you need to pay for shows etc? There various options I've though of would include: 1. An option for locals (but not specifically so) who like to hang out at the park, similar to the current AP, it gets them entrace to the park (if there still is a gate fee) and a limited amount of ride credit for each entry, this would lead to an argument for A-E ticket as if it was monetary amount for each ride as people would then be given a $10 credit for each entry. This option would need to be priced similarly to the current AP, but perhaps slightly higher. 2. An unlimited passport, but highly priced in the $500 region to eliminate the babysitter pass. 3. A holiday pass, for visitors to the park, giving them 3,4,5 etc days entry and a certain amount of credit, but not enough to fully enjoy the park so that they would need to purchase extra. Priced similary to the current hopper tickets. How this would all work with DCA is another issue, perhaps make it just another 'land' with the attractions priced accordingly, i.e. ToT, Screaming, SOC and GRR beng the top priced ones. But thiis could be seen as DisCo admiting defeat on their 2nd park. Any comment/further ideas? Ash+
Originally Posted By SFH Right now, DCA gets a lot of passholders and multi-day ticket holders because they consider it "free" with their paid admission to DL. More "one day" or "half day" visitors would hit DCA and pay for the attractions there, maybe eating meals there, too, if they didn't have to pay a full admission price. Maybe someone wants to spend the day at DL, but there are a few things at DCA they'd like to hit. While they will NOT buy an extra ticket or an extra day on their ticket, they'd be willing to may a few more dollars, and that's money Disney might not otherwise get. SFH
Originally Posted By a1stav There has been many good points made. I think the most important is the precived "value" of a pay-one-price system. I have been in sales for 10 years and belive me it is not the deal the coustmer gets that matters, it's the deal he thinks he gets. In other words if the coustmer precives that he is getting a better value for his money, even if he is not, the precived reality of the coustmer has nothing to do with "real" reality.
Originally Posted By oklahoops On the surface the ticket idea may work for those casual Disney visitors, but it would be detriminal to those who travel. Many like my family come to the park and spend our times riding as many rides as possible. As much as these vacations cost, I can't imagine our bill if we have to "pay" for each ride. The current system works for us.
Originally Posted By arstogas >>>Bringing back a "pay for play" system (or, charging an extra fee to ride the newest attration) is not a new idea.<<< Of course. But the way you worded your first few paragraphs... kind of inferred that this new impetus was sort of brought on by your original column. Just take a second look at the way it kind of comes across.
Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger I'd like for those who absolutely think that PFP is a bad idea to address the very good analogy in Ken's article: What kind of effect do you think it would have if the admission price included all-you-can-eat at any DL eateries? What do you think of the parallel between this idea and the rides?
Originally Posted By FigmentMI I've posted about the holes in this plan before, and I don't see anything new presented in this argument that would plug them. But let me add this: if the company is so consumed by the bottom line, what makes you think that any additional revenues they take in will be put back into the park instead of going to the shareholders? They've already established that they can reduce maintenance and spending on new attractions without affecting attendance - how does this change that? All this is going to do is make it more expensive for you and me to visit the parks (because at the very least they have to recoup the money spent on installing and running this new system). I admire the folks championing this cause, and if I thought it would actually improve the parks I'd be all for it. I just don't think it will change anything other than lightening my wallet. There's only one thing we can really do to force their hand: stop spending money there. That will make them take a serious look at the parks and decide whether they're worth the additional investment to restore attendence or not. As long as you keep spending money at Disneyland, smart cards or not, you are voting for the status quo. Figment
