Reanimating the Numbers - Exorcising the Blob of Stagnation
You think there is a problem with the way things are now. So what to do? Some facts to keep in mind:

1. Disney parks are expected to be profitable businesses, maximizing profits by investing money in ways that will bring the most return. Many institutional shareholders who control the corporation that owns and operates the parks don’t care about the long-term value of the properties; they just want short term performance.

2. On average, local guests tend to spend more per visit to a Disney park than annual passholders. On average, domestic-but-not-local guests tend to spend more than locals. On the average, guests visiting from out of the country will spend the most per visit.

3. Many annual passholders spend more per year at Disney parks than any other kind of guest, because they will eat at the Resort more times per year and they will collect merchandise, especially higher-end merchandise.

4. International guests alone are not going to fill the theme parks.

5. Consumers do like to buy in bulk, but they also like choices. If they are paying the same price and not getting the same value as other times (due to overcrowding, closed attractions, or their own physical limitations), they tend to have reduced satisfaction.

6. Disneyland Park was able to become an internationally-famous and respected destination, known for innovation, uniqueness, high quality, and family fun while using the “pay for play�? system, and technology for such systems has advanced tremendously since the program was phased out in favor of the "pay one price" system.

7. No one system will be perfect or preferred by everyone.

With that, I think a "smartcard" system that encourages "pay for play" is the best way for guests to be satisfied, for the parks to maximize their profits, and to keep things at the parks fresh, sparkling, and innovative. When guests vote with their wallets instead of just their feet, park management will have clear incentives to keep attraction capacity high, to maintain and improve attractions, and to add attractions without necessarily closing existing attractions. Adding attractions in "new" places is easier for the Walt Disney World theme parks than for Disneyland Park, but it is still possible for the original to increase the number of attractions inside the berm. There will be a clear indication just how much money each attraction is bringing in to the park, and what people are willing to pay for rather than what they will ride because they think it is free.

As I said in my previous discussion of this topic, this will encourage guests to actually experience attractions they claim should remain at the park, and when the numbers slip for an attraction at the park, management can decide to do one or more of the following: publicize the attraction; "plus" the attraction; replace the attraction; lower the "cost" of the attraction, recovering with increased attendance volume; replace the attraction with something else; or decide the attraction is worth "subsidizing" for overall brand reasons.

I'm not saying that annual passports should go away. It is essentially a "frequent customer" program, and frequent customers can be of great value. Perhaps the price of annual passports needs to be raised significantly, maybe sweetening the deal for the holders by kicking in more incentives to buy them? Disney may want to move to encourage the "spending" annual passholders and the ones who simply like to hang out at the park even if they don't ride something every visit, and move to discourage parents from dropping their kids off at the Resort with little or no money.

Also, some form of "unlimited passport" (POP) should be available, as there will be days where most people find that to be the best value. There will be other days when "pay for play" makes more sense. Having a choice will give the guest more control.

PFP is more critical to the Disneyland Resort than the Walt Disney World Resort, because Disneyland Resort is tightly surrounded by a megatropolis, whereas WDW Resort is more remote and more of a destination. But WDW Resort does still have convention-goers who would be more likely to pop into the parks for a few hours at a time if they didn't have to go the POP route.

Objections: Answering Those Mournful Cries in the Night
I know that people have a variety of objections to a PFP system. If not a total "pay for play" system, Disney might start having to charge separately for new "E" Ticket attractions until the investment is recovered and far surpassed. Perhaps that would be a way to phase in a "pay for play" system. At any rate, I think many of the objections for a PFP system go away when you still offer a form of a POP system (one that tracks attraction usage).

PFP will not result in the same kind of attraction being everywhere, because different people want different kinds of attractions, there are different spaces available that only will accommodate certain attractions. There were a variety of attractions offered under the old coupon books, and there will still be under a modern PFP system.

PFP will not result in park overcrowding. Disneyland Park's attendance numbers have actually been the highest under the POP-only system.

PFP will not be prohibitively confusing. A smartcard that can be updated at any register will quickly make sense to guests and will be appreciated by guests who don't want to pay for everything when they have no desire to ride everything. A smartcard could conceivably be used for other Disney goods and services as well.