Announcement

Collapse
1 of 2 < >

Privacy Policy and Terms of Use

Please review MiceChat's updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Links are provided at the bottom of the page. Thank you.
2 of 2 < >

MiceChat Forums Retheme

Hello Folks,

Delayed, due to unforeseen circumstances our presentation of "MiceChat Forum Makeover" has been delayed till next weekend.

MiceChat Forums will be going through a design change and much needed update. This update will give a more modern look as well as bring in mobile viewing options. So you may see the forums looking strange as we implement the new look.

Thank you all, and happy MiceChatting!
See more
See less

No or payment plans please

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by frihauf View Post

    Disney doesn't make as much on AP holders as you might think as a percentage of their gross revenue. I would bet a conservative estimate is that it takes at least 5 AP holders to spend what 1 Vacationing attendee pays. I wouldn't be surprised if the number was closer to 10:1. If Disney finds that by removing AP holders they would gain more vacation attendees AND keep the parks full, they will start cutting pass holders in a second. They have already started doing that with pricing and blackout dates.
    It's tough to say that considering that just like APs, vacationers' spending habits vary as much as APs do. Some APs get every new pin, new Dooney, or new limited offering. Some vacationers get a pair of ears and that's it. I'd say the variance is not that large; in fact, one-to-one, it might be a wash. The difference is that the park is at least half APs on any given day, and they're the people who will come back multiple times throughout the year. They'll make sure to get seasonal merchandise, try new foods, and partake in the little things that the vacationers don't want to waste time or money on, like the food and wine festival. So I would actually argue that AP revenue is higher because it is spread throughout the year.

    It's worth it for some of you to consider. For the next year or so, track everything you spend at Disneyland every time you go and report your numbers back. You as the average AP can be a good benchmark for what the average AP spending habit is like. You don't have to be a big spender to be a passionate fan, or vice versa.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Donald1980 View Post
      If it's not, then why has Disney not gotten rid of the AP program or any of it's levels yet? If it's not a huge source of income for the parks, then why keep the program? I highly doubt they keep it because APs spend so much money on food and merchandise (which in itself is a whole separate argument for another thread).
      I think you're taking the point to two extremes, when the truth is somewhere in the middle. It's not a matter of "huge revenue source" or "nobody-cares-cancel-the-program revenue source."

      Of course the APs provide legitimate revenue. But, your statement that the parks would be irreparably suffer ("You truly do not want to see what the parks would look like without the income") if there were fewer APs is very much exaggerated, IMO.

      Also, there have been pretty major changes to the AP program (including the elimination or restructuring of levels) several times in recent history. I'd be willing to bet there are more coming before 2019.

      Comment


      • #63
        I always say this, but if you look at the population of SoCal and it's growth since 1990 it is really eye-opening. There are just too many people living here in general and now we feel those effects everywhere - including Disneyland. Here are some numbers to show how the population has boomed in the last 25 years here.

        POPULATION IN MILLIONS (GROWTH%)
        SoCal County | 1990 | 2000 | 2010 | 2020 | TOTAL in last 25 years
        Ventura | 0.7 | 0.8 (+12%) | 0.8 (+0%) | 0.9 (+11%) | 0.2 (+22%)
        Santa Barbara | 0.4 | 0.4 (+0%) | 0.4 (+0%) | 0.5 (+20%) | 0.1 (+20%)
        San Diego | 2.5 | 2.8 (+11%) | 3.1 (+10%) | 3.5 (+11%) | 1.0 (+32%)
        San Bernardino | 1.4 | 1.7 (+18%) | 2.0 (+15%) | 2.2 (+9%) | 0.8 (+42%)
        Riverside | 1.2 | 1.5 (+20%) | 2.2 (+32%) | 2.6 (+15%) | 1.4 (+67%)
        Orange | 2.4 | 2.8 (+14%) | 3.0 (+7%) | 3.4 (+12%) | 1.0 (+33%)
        Los Angeles | 8.9 | 9.5 (+6%) | 9.8 (+3%) | 10.5 (+7%) | 1.6 (+16%)
        SoCal TOTAL | 17.5 | 19.5 (+10%) | 21.3 (+8%) | 23.6 (+10%) | 6.1 (+28%)
        You can see looking at these numbers that there are basically an extra 6.1 million people in SoCal now compared to 1990. And Riverside, Orange, San Bernardino and San Diego - all of which are right next to Disneyland saw the most growth in that time. 4.2 million more.

        As long as the population continues to grow in Souther California, the traffic will only grow worse, droughts will only be more severe when they happen and Disneyland will only get more crowded. Some areas in LA (and probably other counties as well) don't even have a "rush-hour" anymore - the entire day, from 6am-8pm, has bad traffic now. I've noticed a big difference in my commutes going from decent in the late 90's to bad in the early 2000's to horrific now in 2017. Disneyland has seen the same trends as well.
        Last edited by cakvalasc; 03-16-2017, 11:47 AM. Reason: Mod Edit: Corrected Columns on Darth's layout.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by longbeachaztec View Post

          I think you're taking the point to two extremes, when the truth is somewhere in the middle. It's not a matter of "huge revenue source" or "nobody-cares-cancel-the-program revenue source."

          Of course the APs provide legitimate revenue. But, your statement that the parks would be irreparably suffer ("You truly do not want to see what the parks would look like without the income") if there were fewer APs is very much exaggerated, IMO.

          Also, there have been pretty major changes to the AP program (including the elimination or restructuring of levels) several times in recent history. I'd be willing to bet there are more coming before 2019.
          Ok, I understand. Again, we are getting off topic, so this will be my last reply on the topic, but Disney hasn't technically eliminated any levels of the pass, in fact they have added another level recently. One of the SoCal Passes wasn't discontinued but temporarily not available to anyone to buy, which is now available again. People were still able to renew that level of pass.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by DarthBrett78 View Post
            I always say this, but if you look at the population of SoCal and it's growth since 1990 it is really eye-opening. There are just too many people living here in general and now we feel those effects everywhere - including Disneyland. Here are some numbers to show how the population has boomed in the last 25 years here.

            POPULATION IN MILLIONS (GROWTH%)
            SoCal County | 1990 | 2000 | 2010 | 2020 | TOTAL Growth in last 25 years
            Ventura | 0.7 | 0.8 (+12%) | 0.8 (+0%) | 0.9 (+11%) | 0.2 (+22%)
            Santa Barbara | 0.4 | 0.4 (+0%) | 0.4 (+0%) | 0.5 (+20%) | 0.1 (+20%)
            San Diego }| 2.5 | 2.8 (+11%) | 3.1 (+10%) | 3.5 (+11%) | 1.0 (+32%)
            San Bernardino | 1.4 | 1.7 (+18%) | 2.0 (+15%) | 2.2 (+9%) | 0.8 (+42%)
            Riverside | 1.2 | 1.5 (+20%) | 2.2 (+32%) | 2.6 (+15%) | 1.4 (+67%)
            Orange | 2.4 | 2.8 (+14%) | 3.0 (+7%) | 3.4 (+12%) | 1.0 (+33%)
            Los Angeles | 8.9 | 9.5 (+6%) | 9.8 (+3%) | 10.5 (+7%) | 1.6 (+16%)
            SoCal TOTAL | 17.5 | 19.5 (+10%) | 21.3 (+8%) | 23.6 (+10%) | 6.1 (+28%)


            You can see looking at these numbers that there are basically an extra 6.1 million people in SoCal now compared to 1990. And Riverside, Orange, San Bernardino and San Diego - all of which are right next to Disneyland saw the most growth in that time. 4.2 million more.

            As long as the population continues to grow in Souther California, the traffic will only grow worse, droughts will only be more severe when they happen and Disneyland will only get more crowded. Some areas in LA (and probably other counties as well) don't even have a "rush-hour" anymore - the entire day, from 6am-8pm, has bad traffic now. I've noticed a big difference in my commutes going from decent in the late 90's to bad in the early 2000's to horrific now in 2017. Disneyland has seen the same trends as well.
            This is a factor that most people do not want to admit could be a good part of the reasoning behind the crowds at the parks these days.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by DarthBrett78 View Post
              I always say this, but if you look at the population of SoCal and it's growth since 1990 it is really eye-opening. There are just too many people living here in general and now we feel those effects everywhere - including Disneyland. Here are some numbers to show how the population has boomed in the last 25 years here.

              POPULATION IN MILLIONS (GROWTH%)
              SoCal County | 1990 | 2000 | 2010 | 2020 | TOTAL Growth in last 25 years
              Ventura | 0.7 | 0.8 (+12%) | 0.8 (+0%) | 0.9 (+11%) | 0.2 (+22%)
              Santa Barbara | 0.4 | 0.4 (+0%) | 0.4 (+0%) | 0.5 (+20%) | 0.1 (+20%)
              San Diego }| 2.5 | 2.8 (+11%) | 3.1 (+10%) | 3.5 (+11%) | 1.0 (+32%)
              San Bernardino | 1.4 | 1.7 (+18%) | 2.0 (+15%) | 2.2 (+9%) | 0.8 (+42%)
              Riverside | 1.2 | 1.5 (+20%) | 2.2 (+32%) | 2.6 (+15%) | 1.4 (+67%)
              Orange | 2.4 | 2.8 (+14%) | 3.0 (+7%) | 3.4 (+12%) | 1.0 (+33%)
              Los Angeles | 8.9 | 9.5 (+6%) | 9.8 (+3%) | 10.5 (+7%) | 1.6 (+16%)
              SoCal TOTAL | 17.5 | 19.5 (+10%) | 21.3 (+8%) | 23.6 (+10%) | 6.1 (+28%)


              You can see looking at these numbers that there are basically an extra 6.1 million people in SoCal now compared to 1990. And Riverside, Orange, San Bernardino and San Diego - all of which are right next to Disneyland saw the most growth in that time. 4.2 million more.

              As long as the population continues to grow in Souther California, the traffic will only grow worse, droughts will only be more severe when they happen and Disneyland will only get more crowded. Some areas in LA (and probably other counties as well) don't even have a "rush-hour" anymore - the entire day, from 6am-8pm, has bad traffic now. I've noticed a big difference in my commutes going from decent in the late 90's to bad in the early 2000's to horrific now in 2017. Disneyland has seen the same trends as well.
              It could be argued that they grew with the traffic. It could also be argued that they recognized the growth as a business opportunity by creating the monthly payment program as a way to attract all of these people to the parks. I am inclined to believe it's more a smart strategy than a reaction to the surrounding growth.

              Comment


              • #67
                A more easier way to read the numbers lol

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Barbaraann View Post
                  Disneyland Annual Passes on the Monthly Payment Plan, are in my opinion comparable to leasing an expensive Apple iPhone at your local phone store. Not too many people can plop down 600+ for a phone, so they pay by the month instead. It makes more people able to enjoy the features of an iPhone. Perhaps Apple copied Disney who came up with this idea, to get more people into it's California park. However, many people for a long time have thought that Disney created a monster with this idea. Crowds seems to be the biggest complaint here. I don't see Disney axing the payment plan any time soon. As far as the above comment about WDW not being as crowded as Disneyland, I did not find that to be true on my last WDW trip.
                  Interesting comparison. However, most phones are no longer being purchased for (as much as) $200.00, with the remainder being subsidized through the price of the monthly payments on contract. Now, people do have to pay for their own phones, typically on a credit card, and just get the benefit of paying less for the actual plan and not being tied to a contract. The point is that even though phone buyers no longer get their phones subsidized and have to provide their own source of credit, the number of new phones being purchased really hasn't changed. Likewise, I think that ending monthly payments wouldn't have nearly as much affect on DLR crowding as some people think.
                  Dead Mice Tell No Tails!

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Donald1980 View Post

                    This is a factor that most people do not want to admit could be a good part of the reasoning behind the crowds at the parks these days.
                    I think everybody understands the population growth issue. But, it's only an indirect cause. If Disney put its prices at true market value, there would be no difference in crowds based on SoCal population alone.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by DarthBrett78 View Post
                      I always say this, but if you look at the population of SoCal and it's growth since 1990 it is really eye-opening. There are just too many people living here in general and now we feel those effects everywhere - including Disneyland. Here are some numbers to show how the population has boomed in the last 25 years here.

                      POPULATION IN MILLIONS (GROWTH%)
                      SoCal County | 1990 | 2000 | 2010 | 2020 | TOTAL Growth in last 25 years
                      Ventura | 0.7 | 0.8 (+12%) | 0.8 (+0%) | 0.9 (+11%) | 0.2 (+22%)
                      Santa Barbara | 0.4 | 0.4 (+0%) | 0.4 (+0%) | 0.5 (+20%) | 0.1 (+20%)
                      San Diego }| 2.5 | 2.8 (+11%) | 3.1 (+10%) | 3.5 (+11%) | 1.0 (+32%)
                      San Bernardino | 1.4 | 1.7 (+18%) | 2.0 (+15%) | 2.2 (+9%) | 0.8 (+42%)
                      Riverside | 1.2 | 1.5 (+20%) | 2.2 (+32%) | 2.6 (+15%) | 1.4 (+67%)
                      Orange | 2.4 | 2.8 (+14%) | 3.0 (+7%) | 3.4 (+12%) | 1.0 (+33%)
                      Los Angeles | 8.9 | 9.5 (+6%) | 9.8 (+3%) | 10.5 (+7%) | 1.6 (+16%)
                      SoCal TOTAL | 17.5 | 19.5 (+10%) | 21.3 (+8%) | 23.6 (+10%) | 6.1 (+28%)


                      You can see looking at these numbers that there are basically an extra 6.1 million people in SoCal now compared to 1990. And Riverside, Orange, San Bernardino and San Diego - all of which are right next to Disneyland saw the most growth in that time. 4.2 million more.

                      As long as the population continues to grow in Souther California, the traffic will only grow worse, droughts will only be more severe when they happen and Disneyland will only get more crowded. Some areas in LA (and probably other counties as well) don't even have a "rush-hour" anymore - the entire day, from 6am-8pm, has bad traffic now. I've noticed a big difference in my commutes going from decent in the late 90's to bad in the early 2000's to horrific now in 2017. Disneyland has seen the same trends as well.
                      Thjs is abkthwr good point, Living in NorCal then moving to SoCal has been eye opening to how dense everything is down here. Again, another good reason why trying to make the park less busy by decreasing amount of people is a long pointless uphill battle.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by longbeachaztec View Post

                        I think everybody understands the population growth issue. But, it's only an indirect cause. If Disney put its prices at true market value, there would be no difference in crowds based on SoCal population alone.
                        Yes, but some people are still quick to blame APs as the sole reason for crowding issues and not willing to look at other possible factors, which is the point I was attempting to make.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by amyuilani View Post

                          It could be argued that they grew with the traffic. It could also be argued that they recognized the growth as a business opportunity by creating the monthly payment program as a way to attract all of these people to the parks. I am inclined to believe it's more a smart strategy than a reaction to the surrounding growth.
                          I just wanted to post numbers to show folks on here that the crowds and over congestion in Disneyland probably have way more to do with the area's population becoming increasingly bigger in the last 25 years than base APs or a monthly payment plan. Sure, the payment plans probably help a little. But the base passes were around in 2001 and we did not see the crowds that we do now back then. I truly believe an extra 6.1 million people living in the area now since 1990 has everything to do with the crowds.

                          And of course Disney and Marvel and Star Wars being more mainstream and popular now than they ever were before.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by DarthBrett78 View Post

                            I just wanted to post numbers to show folks on here that the crowds and over congestion in Disneyland probably have way more to do with the area's population becoming increasingly bigger in the last 25 years than base APs or a monthly payment plan. Sure, the payment plans probably help a little. But the base passes were around in 2001 and we did not see the crowds that we do now back then. I truly believe an extra 6.1 million people living in the area now since 1990 has everything to do with the crowds.

                            And of course Disney and Marvel and Star Wars being more mainstream and popular now than they ever were before.
                            To be fair, a lot of crowds being lower between 2001 and 2005, people kind of forget how huge a hit 9/21 took on travel, local and distant. I'd say 2006 or 07 is more of a fiat year to start showing "average" crowds.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by GameNBurger View Post

                              To be fair, a lot of crowds being lower between 2001 and 2005, people kind of forget how huge a hit 9/21 took on travel, local and distant. I'd say 2006 or 07 is more of a fiat year to start showing "average" crowds.
                              The 50th anniversary is what changed everything for Disney. A lot of people give the success of the 50th anniversary as the reason the crowds started to come back.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Donald1980 View Post

                                The 50th anniversary is what changed everything for Disney. A lot of people give the success of the 50th anniversary as the reason the crowds started to come back.
                                This is exactly right, Which is why 2007 is prob a better year to gauge what "average" was for the park before recently, ad in pretty sure the 50th bled over till the end of 06 right?

                                Comment


                                • #76
                                  Originally posted by GameNBurger View Post

                                  This is exactly right, Which is why 2007 is prob a better year to gauge what "average" was for the park before recently, ad in pretty sure the 50th bled over till the end of 06 right?
                                  Correct, the 50th celebration went from I believe May '05 to September '06.

                                  Comment


                                  • #77
                                    Originally posted by amyuilani View Post

                                    It's tough to say that considering that just like APs, vacationers' spending habits vary as much as APs do. Some APs get every new pin, new Dooney, or new limited offering. Some vacationers get a pair of ears and that's it. I'd say the variance is not that large; in fact, one-to-one, it might be a wash. The difference is that the park is at least half APs on any given day, and they're the people who will come back multiple times throughout the year. They'll make sure to get seasonal merchandise, try new foods, and partake in the little things that the vacationers don't want to waste time or money on, like the food and wine festival. So I would actually argue that AP revenue is higher because it is spread throughout the year.

                                    It's worth it for some of you to consider. For the next year or so, track everything you spend at Disneyland every time you go and report your numbers back. You as the average AP can be a good benchmark for what the average AP spending habit is like. You don't have to be a big spender to be a passionate fan, or vice versa.
                                    I think you raise a good point that everything is ultimately anecdotal. No doubt you can find high-spending APs that are likely worth more than lower-spending tourists.

                                    Where it boils down for me, though, is the fact that a high-roller tourist who spends five days at the resort is going to drop a lot more cash than even a high-roller AP will in the same number of days. The same is true for mid-spending tourists vs. mid-spending APs, and on down the line. So, give Disney the choice between a park full of tourists, and a park full of APs whose incomes and general demographics are roughly equal, and the choice is a no-brainer.

                                    Of course, high-spending tourists don't grow on trees, and don't tend to frequent Anaheim in mid-February in great numbers. So, there will always be room for APs, etc.

                                    Comment


                                    • #78
                                      If memory serves, didn't the monthly payment plan start a couple of years after the 50th? It seems like 2009-2010ish after the recession kicked in...

                                      It seems like I've read that's when the number of APs exploded to 1m+.

                                      Comment


                                      • #79
                                        Originally posted by longbeachaztec View Post
                                        If memory serves, didn't the monthly payment plan start a couple of years after the 50th? It seems like 2009-2010ish after the recession kicked in...

                                        It seems like I've read that's when the number of APs exploded to 1m+.
                                        Disney has never provided official number but 10 years ago annual passes where so cheap there wasn't really a need for payments for anyone really, it was pretty affordable.
                                        Check Out my Instagram - http://instagram.com/bradinsocal

                                        Comment


                                        • #80
                                          Originally posted by longbeachaztec View Post

                                          I think you raise a good point that everything is ultimately anecdotal. No doubt you can find high-spending APs that are likely worth more than lower-spending tourists.

                                          Where it boils down for me, though, is the fact that a high-roller tourist who spends five days at the resort is going to drop a lot more cash than even a high-roller AP will in the same number of days. The same is true for mid-spending tourists vs. mid-spending APs, and on down the line. So, give Disney the choice between a park full of tourists, and a park full of APs whose incomes and general demographics are roughly equal, and the choice is a no-brainer.

                                          Of course, high-spending tourists don't grow on trees, and don't tend to frequent Anaheim in mid-February in great numbers. So, there will always be room for APs, etc.
                                          Exactly right, this is one of the reasons the AP program exists, only Disney knows for sure, but there is a myth of an endless supply of superspending tourists who drop oodles of cash. In fact, many are budget travelers who have spent most of their budget on airfare, lodging (NON-Disney) food (off park to save money) and transportation. They just don't have tons of disposable cash for bags of toys, trinkets, and baubles. They may visit every few years so tallying their total annual spend over that time is quite low.

                                          The park wouldn't be nearly as full and revenue would be lower. Disney doesn't do an AP program because its a charity, they do it because it is profitable. I suspect that the total annual spend for APs is higher than the average for guests. This is why they pour money into marketing the plan, offer enticements like discounts, special acknowledgements (AP days, pins, exclusive offers) etc. They would prefer people become APs because that is more cash committed to Disney as opposed to competitors.

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X