Page 15 of 18 FirstFirst ... 512131415161718 LastLast
Results 211 to 225 of 270
  1. #211

    • "I Break Things"
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    California
    Posts
    12,369

    Re: Anyone else think the extended hours should be for regular Guests and not for AP'

    Quote Originally Posted by joannaorange View Post
    Two thoughts... As a tourist when I go to book my hotel room and see "20% off per AP's!" in the advertisement it gets me upset.
    What that should tell you immediately is that they aren't selling enough rooms. This could be an off season promotional which would be understandable (Vegas does something similar). Or, if it is year round, it could indicate that tourists aren't coming back as they had in years past. If it is year round it would demonstrate the shifting of the costs to the AP population (encouraging them to buy more due to a lack of tourist income).
    "Happiness is a Low Water Level"


    "Creating magical memories and making Managers cry since 1955!"


  2. #212

    • Banned User
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,497

    Re: Anyone else think the extended hours should be for regular Guests and not for AP'

    Quote Originally Posted by techskip View Post
    From a daily expenditure standpoint you are a net loss. Again this is numbers, not emotions. How much did you pay for a hotel stay that day? How much did you pay to park that day? How much did you pay for admission that day? How much did you spend on food? How much did you spend on souvenirs? Disney looks at each category. Again this is highly simplified numbers.
    There is no loss. Let's do some math.

    Some say there are 1 million APs. Let's say 83,000 buy or renew equally every month or 2777 per day. If they paid $300 for an AP, that is $833,333 in ticket revenue per day. This is equivalent to 9,803 day trippers @ $85 per day price. So 2,777 new APs are paying for 9,803 equivalent attendance (3.53x). In a year, APs could be contributing much more to park congestion than approximately 10,000. Thus that $85 per day price was never what Disney was going to get, but they get that $300 immediately and it pays for a baseline of park operations.

    You keep using the word "loss" without any examples.

    How exactly is going enough times to equal what you paid for the product only a perception of monetary worth? If the cost of my admission today is $500 vs a $100 ticket... and I go 5 times... that would be equal to my $500 admission.
    Let's use another term. It's called "frame". The framework was set by Disney. They only offer APs that cost a lot of money. They also set up a daily rate of $85 that is very high. The competition tried to match, but they largely given up. No one comes close to Disney.

    Thus to make it seem like there is value, the AP has a high multiple to give you perception of value. It's nice that you provided a 5x multiple. At Universal and Knott's, it is a 2x multiple. Knott's 2x multiple is based on an annual pass of $70 and the discounted daily price of $35.00 (not at the box office price).

  3. #213

    • Sorcerer Supreme Bean
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    3,080

    Re: Anyone else think the extended hours should be for regular Guests and not for AP'

    Quote Originally Posted by StevenW View Post
    There is no loss. Let's do some math.

    Some say there are 1 million APs. Let's say 83,000 buy or renew equally every month or 2777 per day. If they paid $300 for an AP, that is $833,333 in ticket revenue per day. This is equivalent to 9,803 day trippers @ $85 per day price. So 2,777 new APs are paying for 9,803 equivalent attendance (3.53x). In a year, APs could be contributing much more to park congestion than approximately 10,000. Thus that $85 per day price was never what Disney was going to get, but they get that $300 immediately and it pays for a baseline of park operations.

    You keep using the word "loss" without any examples.
    That bolded part is called a "loss", they're entirely expecting to get that money in addition to the money that they've already collected from APs

    But they cant, because the park actually does have a capacity cap, and if that cap is hit primarily because of people who are there with an AP, and perhaps that magic AP number where they start to 'go for free', the park is taking a 'loss' because they cant sell anymore hard tickets.

    While your point about the AP program contributing to congestion is entirely correct.
    There is no right or wrong in this debate. It is simply a matter of perspective.
    -Dr. Strange

  4. #214

    •   
    • Chicago Gal
    • Online

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    53,934
    Blog Entries
    120

    Re: Anyone else think the extended hours should be for regular Guests and not for AP'

    I don't pretend to know exactly why Disney does the things that they do. All I know is that I love to go to Disneyland. I used to always buy a parkhopper. I had a certain amount of money to spend on vacation, and I figured out how to get the best value for my dollar. I believe that the majority of park guests make their decisions on that criteria. Whether they are annual passholders, or day guests, or tourists that are staying in the local hotels.

    I have no animosity toward any particular group. I don't get angry when a certain group of park guests get perks that I don't get. There are all kinds of theories about fairness, and crowd control, and many other things. In fact since I first went to Disneyland in 2005 many things have changed in many different categories. As an educated guest, we need to find out what's up, and plan our vacations/and or day in the park, within those perimeters.
    My Next WDW Vacation is Aug 18, 2014 - Aug 23, 2014
    Pop Century Resort

  5. #215

    • Sock Puppet
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    orange county,ca
    Posts
    6,499

    Re: Anyone else think the extended hours should be for regular Guests and not for AP'

    ahould extended hours only be for guests and not AP holders?

    Ummmmmmmm.. no. i think that it should be made for both groups.

  6. #216

    • "I Break Things"
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    California
    Posts
    12,369

    Re: Anyone else think the extended hours should be for regular Guests and not for AP'

    Quote Originally Posted by StevenW View Post
    There is no loss. Let's do some math.

    Some say there are 1 million APs. Let's say 83,000 buy or renew equally every month or 2777 per day. If they paid $300 for an AP, that is $833,333 in ticket revenue per day. This is equivalent to 9,803 day trippers @ $85 per day price. So 2,777 new APs are paying for 9,803 equivalent attendance (3.53x). In a year, APs could be contributing much more to park congestion than approximately 10,000. Thus that $85 per day price was never what Disney was going to get, but they get that $300 immediately and it pays for a baseline of park operations.
    The problem with that formula is that Disney is counting on X number of AP's either being sold or renewing per day. On days when that number isn't met they take a loss in comparison to their goal unless they sell Y park hoppers. EVEN if AP's enter the park, they must renew on that specific day otherwise the attendance doesn't reflect the ticketed media goal for that day. If a higher number of AP's are entering without having renewed and without making large purchases it would also reflect as a lowered per person spending on that day. Either way you formulate it there isn't enough renewals on a regular basis to overcome individuals that continue to visit and thereby drop the attendance revenue. Summers historically make the most money, with blockouts I might add, because everyone is paying a higher average to get in and spending more while visiting! A comparison of what is generated with AP's vs what is generated without them yields a loss if the AP visiting habit exceeds the initial upfront offer extended to them. From a numerical standpoint what would have been $85 a day becomes $35 which in turn becomes $20 a day...

    Quote Originally Posted by Poisonedapples View Post
    ahould extended hours only be for guests and not AP holders?

    Ummmmmmmm.. no. i think that it should be made for both groups.
    The problem there is that a benefit or perk offered to both parties ceases to become a benefit or a perk. Someone has to take the hit and oddly Disney decided it was the ones who pay more and have less time to visit.
    "Happiness is a Low Water Level"


    "Creating magical memories and making Managers cry since 1955!"


  7. #217

    • Senior Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Splash Mountain
    Posts
    7,929
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Anyone else think the extended hours should be for regular Guests and not for AP'

    Quote Originally Posted by techskip View Post
    Wait... I thought the promotion was trying to encourage you not to go early on Friday mornings ... you mean it only encouraged you to make extra trips and show up on Thursdays but if you wanted to you could still go Friday mornings? ... oh say it ain't so... I'd hate to think this wasn't a direct benefit to the tourists...
    I could...Im not since I have a budget and try to go to the parks only one time per month..I'm sure a few will go either way..but they are the ones who go too much as is....
    I'm just saying it made me go one more time then I would have this month

  8. #218

    • Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Paper St
    Posts
    1,346

    Re: Anyone else think the extended hours should be for regular Guests and not for AP'

    Quote Originally Posted by techskip View Post
    Either way you formulate it there isn't enough renewals on a regular basis to overcome individuals that continue to visit and thereby drop the attendance revenue. Summers historically make the most money, with blockouts I might add, because everyone is paying a higher average to get in and spending more while visiting! A comparison of what is generated with AP's vs what is generated without them yields a loss if the AP visiting habit exceeds the initial upfront offer extended to them. From a numerical standpoint what would have been $85 a day becomes $35 which in turn becomes $20 a day...
    This.

    Steven W, it's not just a coincidence that the most profitable days are ones where APs are blocked out. You forgot to consider that in your equation.

  9. #219

    • Special Agent
    • Online

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,085

    Re: Anyone else think the extended hours should be for regular Guests and not for AP'

    Quote Originally Posted by techskip View Post
    The problem with that formula is that Disney is counting on X number of AP's either being sold or renewing per day. On days when that number isn't met they take a loss in comparison to their goal unless they sell Y park hoppers.
    I know I am coming into this late, but it looks like you folks are arguing over semantics here. I think SteveW is technically right that the APs would not be considered a loss, since they are representing guests that wouldn't exist otherwise. But there should also be no doubt that APs spend less money than day trippers.

    Boiling this down to its most basic level: if the park has a minimum capacity of 10,000 visitors a day, and only 8,000 show up, you now have room to add and additional 2,000 guests at a discounted rate. You do this because the capacity is already there and paid for so its essentially free, and because you wouldn't have been able to expand your guest numbers otherwise. The optimal situation would be a capacity of 10,000 and 10,000 full price ticket holders willing to come in.

    Now a whole different set of problems occur when you have an additional capacity for 2,000 guests and an additional 3,000 or 4,000 show up. Its not operating at a loss, but it certainly ends up costing dollars to chase pennies then. That seems to be the motivation of the private parties... To move the folks around in a way that lets them balance park capacity issues. What it points to is an AP population which is getting too big to control, but is still desperately needed to fill in the still existing attendance gaps. With all the work they are putting into this, and the recent discontinuation of the resident salute discounts, it seems clear that they are trying to make the AP program work, when every stated goal of the last ten years has been to increase resort visits and decrease local attendance. The two goals seem to be at odds.

  10. #220

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    843

    Re: Anyone else think the extended hours should be for regular Guests and not for AP'

    Quote Originally Posted by MrLiver View Post
    I know I am coming into this late, but it looks like you folks are arguing over semantics here. I think SteveW is technically right that the APs would not be considered a loss, since they are representing guests that wouldn't exist otherwise. But there should also be no doubt that APs spend less money than day trippers.

    Boiling this down to its most basic level: if the park has a minimum capacity of 10,000 visitors a day, and only 8,000 show up, you now have room to add and additional 2,000 guests at a discounted rate. You do this because the capacity is already there and paid for so its essentially free, and because you wouldn't have been able to expand your guest numbers otherwise. The optimal situation would be a capacity of 10,000 and 10,000 full price ticket holders willing to come in.

    Now a whole different set of problems occur when you have an additional capacity for 2,000 guests and an additional 3,000 or 4,000 show up. Its not operating at a loss, but it certainly ends up costing dollars to chase pennies then. That seems to be the motivation of the private parties... To move the folks around in a way that lets them balance park capacity issues. What it points to is an AP population which is getting too big to control, but is still desperately needed to fill in the still existing attendance gaps. With all the work they are putting into this, and the recent discontinuation of the resident salute discounts, it seems clear that they are trying to make the AP program work, when every stated goal of the last ten years has been to increase resort visits and decrease local attendance. The two goals seem to be at odds.
    Multiple threads on APs and finally someone puts into simple words what I've wanted and tried to say, but couldn't!
    In the quest for quality, I have no problem with the characters footing the bill.

  11. #221

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    North Bay Area
    Posts
    501

    Re: Anyone else think the extended hours should be for regular Guests and not for AP'

    Quote Originally Posted by Barbaraann View Post
    I don't pretend to know exactly why Disney does the things that they do. All I know is that I love to go to Disneyland. I used to always buy a parkhopper. I had a certain amount of money to spend on vacation, and I figured out how to get the best value for my dollar. I believe that the majority of park guests make their decisions on that criteria. Whether they are annual passholders, or day guests, or tourists that are staying in the local hotels.

    I have no animosity toward any particular group. I don't get angry when a certain group of park guests get perks that I don't get. There are all kinds of theories about fairness, and crowd control, and many other things. In fact since I first went to Disneyland in 2005 many things have changed in many different categories. As an educated guest, we need to find out what's up, and plan our vacations/and or day in the park, within those perimeters.
    This is a great post We are all there to simply enjoy the park and what Disney management decides to do is far out of our control, there make their decisions for a reason...

  12. #222

    • Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Paper St
    Posts
    1,346

    Re: Anyone else think the extended hours should be for regular Guests and not for AP'

    Quote Originally Posted by MrLiver View Post
    I know I am coming into this late, but it looks like you folks are arguing over semantics here. I think SteveW is technically right that the APs would not be considered a loss, since they are representing guests that wouldn't exist otherwise. But there should also be no doubt that APs spend less money than day trippers.

    Boiling this down to its most basic level: if the park has a minimum capacity of 10,000 visitors a day, and only 8,000 show up, you now have room to add and additional 2,000 guests at a discounted rate. You do this because the capacity is already there and paid for so its essentially free, and because you wouldn't have been able to expand your guest numbers otherwise. The optimal situation would be a capacity of 10,000 and 10,000 full price ticket holders willing to come in.

    Now a whole different set of problems occur when you have an additional capacity for 2,000 guests and an additional 3,000 or 4,000 show up. Its not operating at a loss, but it certainly ends up costing dollars to chase pennies then. That seems to be the motivation of the private parties... To move the folks around in a way that lets them balance park capacity issues. What it points to is an AP population which is getting too big to control, but is still desperately needed to fill in the still existing attendance gaps. With all the work they are putting into this, and the recent discontinuation of the resident salute discounts, it seems clear that they are trying to make the AP program work, when every stated goal of the last ten years has been to increase resort visits and decrease local attendance. The two goals seem to be at odds.
    This doesn't change the fact that APs are technically saving money per visit, which is the main point in arguing that it seems strange to give them the extra perk of extra hours.

  13. #223

    • Banned User
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,497

    Re: Anyone else think the extended hours should be for regular Guests and not for AP'

    Quote Originally Posted by techskip View Post
    The problem with that formula is that Disney is counting on X number of AP's either being sold or renewing per day. On days when that number isn't met they take a loss in comparison to their goal unless they sell Y park hoppers. EVEN if AP's enter the park, they must renew on that specific day otherwise the attendance doesn't reflect the ticketed media goal for that day. If a higher number of AP's are entering without having renewed and without making large purchases it would also reflect as a lowered per person spending on that day. Either way you formulate it there isn't enough renewals on a regular basis to overcome individuals that continue to visit and thereby drop the attendance revenue. Summers historically make the most money, with blockouts I might add, because everyone is paying a higher average to get in and spending more while visiting! A comparison of what is generated with AP's vs what is generated without them yields a loss if the AP visiting habit exceeds the initial upfront offer extended to them. From a numerical standpoint what would have been $85 a day becomes $35 which in turn becomes $20 a day...
    You keep using the word loss without knowing what that actually means. Loss means more expenses than revenue. There is no evidence that Disney theme parks operate on a loss. It is quite profitable.

    Also, you took my example as if Disney cannot operate when people buy their APs unevenly. There is no actual loss. A sale is a sale and Disney sells plenty of APs and ALL DIFFERENT Ticketing media.

    You look at APs in isolation as if the only choice is APs or day trippers. Why not look at the full slate of ticketing options?

    1 day - $87
    2 day - $170
    3 day - $220
    4 day - $245
    5 day - $260

    Premium AP - $649
    Deluxe AP - $469
    SoCal AP - $329
    SoCalS AP - $269

    Again, where is the loss if people buy tickets that cost more than the 1 day 1 park ticket of $87? You focus on the highest margin product, the 1 day ticket, when Disney wants to get more money from you and the park operates on FIXED COSTS, the rides and labor are fairly consistent on a daily basis.

    You have this big section on APs not renewing and not spending money. Huh? If they are in the parks, it means their APs were renewed for the year. Their money was spent. To think they won't spend any more money is a big assumption. It is the same assumption that other park goers will spend money. Why are we assuming that APs who spent more money on admission than the tourists will end up spending less money in the parks? On aggregate, they will spend more money per year than the tourist.

    As for your comments on Summers, it is wrong. Summers historically make more money because that's when most people go. Attendance is best during the summer. Kids are out of school. Parents and families take vacation.

    You keep saying APs that goes more means there is a loss. Disney still got their money. Sorry. Any money they spend in the parks is revenue gain that would not be possible if they stayed home. Even with your example, $20 is not a loss. It never goes to negative (less than zero).
    Last edited by StevenW; 02-21-2013 at 08:14 AM.

  14. #224

    • Banned User
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,497

    Re: Anyone else think the extended hours should be for regular Guests and not for AP'

    Quote Originally Posted by MrLiver View Post
    I know I am coming into this late, but it looks like you folks are arguing over semantics here. I think SteveW is technically right that the APs would not be considered a loss, since they are representing guests that wouldn't exist otherwise. But there should also be no doubt that APs spend less money than day trippers.
    I disagree with your assumptions, but let's take it for this example. If there are no APs, why would Disney convert APs to day trippers for that extra in park spending when Disney can get their money NOW before the guest sets his foot in the park. Disney will be working much harder for that extra $100. That $100 in park spending is actually less due to cost of materials and labor. The extra $100 in AP ticket pricing could be pure profit since APs are much more expensive than day tickets, and park expenses are fixed.

  15. #225

    • Banned User
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,497

    Re: Anyone else think the extended hours should be for regular Guests and not for AP'

    Quote Originally Posted by TylerDurden View Post
    This.

    Steven W, it's not just a coincidence that the most profitable days are ones where APs are blocked out. You forgot to consider that in your equation.
    This is irrelevant. APs are blocked due to park capacity. Did you know you can still buy your APs on a block out date?

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-04-2008, 11:12 PM
  2. Replies: 77
    Last Post: 07-16-2005, 02:24 AM
  3. Anyone Else Enter The 50th Music CD Contest... And Lose?
    By MickeyJCA in forum MiceChat Main Lounge
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-25-2005, 04:31 PM
  4. Anyone else miss the chicken and potato's?
    By socal05 in forum Disneyland Resort
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 04-12-2005, 01:26 PM
  5. Does anyone else miss the Tahitian Terrace?
    By tahitian_terrace22 in forum Disneyland Resort
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 03-09-2005, 07:10 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •