VTP Annual Pass Changes

[Brad2912]

That’s not been their strategy in any other holiday season, I personally don’t feel that’s the case. 

An annual pass whether bought today or in February still gives you access to 1 Xmas holiday period so either way the value remains the same 

[Santa07]

199 does seem a bit pricey IMO but 139 is perfect, about time they pushed the price up.

[Jackson13Walasek]

I hope they stay consistent with their prices and don’t change them to frequently from here on out.

I am all for a little price boost as I think the parks are worthy of it, especially with the inclusions and extra events included.

I was going to comment on how expensive they were, but that was until I realised you can still purchase 7 and 14 day tickets (for holidays, Otherwise $200pp for a family of 4 would be ridiculous!)

In reality you’re only going to be buying the annual pass if you plan on visiting each park multiple times across the year and most likely attend the included events, in which case the money is worth it.

Warm welcome to the One Pass

 

Edited November 29, 2017 by Jackson13Walasek

[rappa]

Basically I think that what is is saying is that any customer that thinks $200 for an annual pass is too expensive is no longer the customer the park wants... and it's about time!

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

12 hours ago, RossL said:

They've just pushed the price up because it almost school holidays.

Bet the price comes back down at least a bit in mid-January to February as it is outside of the holiday period.

I bet you're wrong.

Whilst they've done this in the past, the passes that were discounted always expired on June 30. These passes are 12 months from purchase, so the value of the pass is not diminished by the season or period in which it is purchased.

[grrofunger]

$200 is still an absolute bargain 

[webslave]

On 11/30/2017 at 9:28 AM, djrappa said:

Basically I think that what is is saying is that any customer that thinks $200 for an annual pass is too expensive is no longer the customer the park wants... and it's about time!

It's a foolhardy business that allows that type of thinking to creep into the business.  

[New display name]

14 minutes ago, webslave said:

It's a foolhardy business that allows that type of thinking to creep into the business.  

Really because DW have also said the days of cheap annual passes is no longer viable for them too.  It would be foolhardy to continue with something that is not viable.  If DW start getting crowds again DW will match MW.  If DW don't start getting crowds back soon than the unthinkable will happen.

[pushbutton]

The "bank" at Movie World is no longer the Membership Centre.

That makes me think they probably are phasing out memberships.

 

[Brad2912]

1 minute ago, pushbutton said:

The "bank" at Movie World is no longer the Membership Centre.

That makes me think they probably are phasing out memberships.

 

Memberships no longer exist, except for those currently on them, who will retain their prices and benefits.

The membership centre was for signing up new members and taking photos - so no longer necessary 

[Richard]

6 hours ago, webslave said:

It's a foolhardy business that allows that type of thinking to creep into the business.  

It's wrong for a business to select their target audience and price themselves accordingly? Beyond that, it's a bit hard to believe that this decision was made without exhaustive market research and external consultation to back up such a sudden shift.

[themagician]

The new commercial for VRTP, I think is really good: 

 

[Johnny]

How did you find that video? It's unlisted.

[RossL]

On 11/30/2017 at 8:42 AM, AlexB said:

I bet you're wrong.

Whilst they've done this in the past, the passes that were discounted always expired on June 30. These passes are 12 months from purchase, so the value of the pass is not diminished by the season or period in which it is purchased.

Already the VIP magic pass is down to $169 on groupon...this is likely to be the pass that is discounted rather than the onepass which is really just replacing $12/month memberships at $139 for locals.

Seven days at $149 is still cheaper for most tourists though for now.

VIP magic passes will almost certainly be discounted after school holidays...although I hadn't really thought about the Commonwealth Games...

[Brad2912]

You can’t buy vip magic passes from VTP. They don’t exist anymore, it seems they only apply/exist to a few promotional re-sellers, and I imagine that will only be for a limited time whilst existing contacts are seen through..

[Original]

Again another great improvement, this ad looks great and makes you excited about the parks. I can see people’s faces on the rides, but the scale of the rides, just how big DC Rivals is and love the tag of saying the best roller coaster. 

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

10 hours ago, RossL said:

Already the VIP magic pass is down to $169 on groupon...this is likely to be the pass that is discounted rather than the onepass which is really just replacing $12/month memberships at $139 for locals.

Seven days at $149 is still cheaper for most tourists though for now.

VIP magic passes will almost certainly be discounted after school holidays...although I hadn't really thought about the Commonwealth Games...

Ooooooooooooohhhhhhhhh You were talking about the VIP passes... that makes a lot more sense. Since the entire discussion (bar one line where someone said 'vip passes are still sold at $xx') has been about the 'new' pass structures, it really wasn't clear what you were referring to.

[Richard]

10 hours ago, RossL said:

Already the VIP magic pass is down to $169 on groupon...

Look at the Groupon deal again. It expires in June 2018 and has none of the add-ons. It's a completely different pass... and not much of a deal at all. 

[webslave]

On 12/1/2017 at 6:56 PM, Richard said:

It's wrong for a business to select their target audience and price themselves accordingly? Beyond that, it's a bit hard to believe that this decision was made without exhaustive market research and external consultation to back up such a sudden shift.

It tends to be, yes.  In an environment where your customer has been conditioned at a particular price-point for many years it's indeed foolhardy to increase the price for no incremental benefit in the thought that any customer that doesn't want to go along with it is no longer the customer you want.  It is suggestive of the idea that price in isolation is the only determinant of value - which anyone even passingly familiar with consumer behaviour knows is far from the case.  There's plenty of models for this; ranging from the simple value = benefit/cost, through the functional/monetary/social/psychological value model, and beyond.  There's an oft-repeated mantra in many businesses that when you start allowing the type of thinking that customer x is the not the type of customer you want you're letting the accountants run the show (and yes; there are some exceptions, and no; theme parks are not usually among them).

I can see why you'd be inclined to believe this decision was made after exhaustive market research and external consultation - these are after all very large businesses presumably operated by "serious people" (my air-quotes).  Is that really borne out in reality, though?  After all, these very forums and wider site are littered with extensive documentation of the many ongoing pain points of the market; many of which are relatively trivial to rectify.  We've seen these parks make countless missteps over the journey that even some of the most glass-half-full users here could see a mile off was poor business.  I guess what I'm asking is; can we really take it as a given that these parks are relying heavily on exhaustive market research and external consultation?  I wouldn't bet on it.  At the very least you can make market research support practically any change you'd like to make...

[Richard]

38 minutes ago, webslave said:

I guess what I'm asking is; can we really take it as a given that these parks are relying heavily on exhaustive market research and external consultation?

OK I'll rephrase in slightly more definitive terms: one of the Big Four was commissioned for a full-scale review of VRTP pricing strategies.

I don't think anyone needs convincing that I'm a skeptic when it comes to our parks, but there's little doubt in my mind that this is a course correction that might hurt in the short-term but is the right play long-term.

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

Despite the 'price conditioning' of the past decade, I, and many other people I know (not all of which are enthusiasts) always felt that the VIP\Q150 pricing model was far too low, and ought to have been priced higher from the start, given the inclusions.

Originally the Q150 was 'just an entry' and as it progressed, the VIP started having other benefits - night entries and so on, without much movement on the price.

Those who expected to pay higher for what they were buying will stick around, satisfied the park has now priced itself more appropriately.

Those who focus entirely on the bottom dollar and not at what they get for that price (hint: they're the kind of folks who leave comments on social media saying things like "we paid $400 for a family of four and...") are probably more pain than what they're worth. The percentage they lose because the price was reasonably increased will be offset by the reasonable increased price paid by those who see the good value in the product on offer.

[webslave]

That's some fascinating profiling there, but the notion that the average consumer is asking for a higher price for an identical product is rather far-fetched, as is the assumption that a consumer that sees better value in a lower ticket price is somehow going to be more trouble than they are worth.  If, on the other hand, this is an admission that the idea of charging a lower entry fee and ultimately generating more revenue through incremental selling has failed then that's something you could properly read into.

Although, reading between the lines here it would seem like you're somehow hoping that this will price out those who you say are more pain than they were worth.  That's an interesting one, because it would suggest that those with better financial resources would not be priced out.  Do those of means not care about value or something?  That would seem strange given in many cases they didn't become of means by not caring about value.

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

*Wry Smile*

You've read more into what i've said that I intended to convey, so i'll just leave it at that.

[wikiverse]

I'm just going to leave this here.

 

[Brad2912]

I get that at $200 a pop, a large family is going to find it tough to stump up $1000+ upfront, but in saying that, that’s assuming they are not locals, and are obviously holidaying on the GC more than once a year (or else why buy an annual when shorter terms are available), so I guess if you can afford to holiday interstate 2-3 times a year, you need to factor your entertainment requirements into your holiday budgets.