Guest experience · UCF research
Guest experience and communication
A UCF research project on how theme park content shapes what guests expect, a communication sample I wrote from it, and notes from my work in attractions operations.
Scope: The research below is a completed UCF academic project with three respondents. The communication sample is an original writing sample, not a Universal procedure or deployed initiative. No operational performance improvement is claimed.
Guests form expectations before they arrive.
My original paper asked how theme park content on social platforms shapes expectations. Working in attractions made that question feel practical: people arrive with an idea of the experience, then have to make decisions in a busy, unfamiliar setting.
How can content build excitement while helping someone understand what to expect?
The audience for the recommendations was a theme park marketing or guest experience team. The objective was to examine the relationship between promotional content, anticipation, and trust, then identify questions worth investigating further.
What the research shows, and what it does not.
I combined a literature review with a student-targeted survey using scaled, multiple-choice, and open-ended questions. The three respondents studied hospitality/theme park management, theatre, and entertainment management. All reported visiting parks at least four times per year.
What the paper reports
All three selected ride previews and behind-the-scenes footage among appealing content types. Trust ratings for promotional materials ranged from 2 to 4 on a five-point scale.
What that cannot establish
This small convenience sample cannot represent park audiences or prove content causes dissatisfaction. None of the three reported that their actual visit was disappointing.
My interpretation now
The original paper makes some broad recommendations. With three respondents, I would frame those as ideas for further testing. The useful next question is whether a realistic, decision-focused preview helps a particular audience understand an experience without reducing its appeal.
That distinction matters to my development in analytics: a finding can be interesting and still be too limited to justify a broad claim.
What operations work taught me about explaining things.
At Epic Universe, I helped commission and open attractions, and I work in attractions operations at Constellation Carousel and Curse of the Werewolf. The work is explaining new things to people who are new to them and answering questions until the material makes sense.
I also build the materials my venues teach with: a laminated stroller pass produced with Guest Services, voided Attraction Assistance Pass samples, regular and gold, sourced with the Express team, and a radio-codes curriculum I created (a quick-match activity and flashcard set).
I see a clear connection to content: establish the context, make the next step understandable, and check whether the audience took away what you intended.
This is a high-level professional reflection. No internal training materials, procedures, incident details, or guest records are reproduced.
A planning sample written for guests.
To apply that thinking, I developed a short planning-content sample for a mixed-preference group. This is an original hypothetical sample, written to apply the research question rather than presented as a finding from the survey.
Web and social planning card
Before you pick your next stop
Start with one thing each person wants from the day. A ride? Time to explore? A shared meal?
Choose a moment to enjoy together and agree on where to meet if you split up. Check current attraction information before making the plan.
Different choices can still be part of the same day.
Why this wording
It starts with a decision the guest can make. The examples are concrete. It does not assume everyone wants the same experience or promise fixed timing.
How I would adapt it
Use the full version on a planning page. Turn each question into a short carousel slide. Pair a captioned vertical edit with a link to current official information.
How I would test whether it works.
I would show the card to five adults planning a group visit, ask each of them to describe the next step in their own words, and record where the wording becomes unclear. My proposed revision gate is four of five understanding the takeaway. It is a usability check, not a representative research result.
What I would do differently next time
Recruit beyond classmates, define the target segment before collecting responses, preserve anonymized raw results, and separate exploratory observations from claims that require a larger study. I would also test an actual content sample rather than asking only general questions about promotional media.
The academic paper, this reflection on method, and the communication sample are complete as presented. The sample has not been audience tested; the five-person usability check above is the test I designed for it, and a revision would follow from what people say or do.