Is Disney World ours? And therefore,"those People" shouldn't be able to enjoy what we can't afford?

[TXDisney]

I'm assuming you're a person who doesn't own a DVC. I'm not one either, but I will be in the coming years when I have kids. That's really what your statement is referring to. A DVC member is a guaranteed income and guests for Disney wherever their home resort might be. So from an outsider looking in you say well I stayed at a wdw resort and spent $6000 on my last trip and I feel I should be important too. I feel 1st off that wdw makes everyone feel special while there, you feel it even more staying onsite and I'm sure even more so if a DVC member. But when a DVC member is spending $30000 on their timeshare along with maintenance fees and park tickets, they should be treated better bc of their financial commitment to Disney. If you were a DVC member and were treated just the same as people staying offsite and that come once every 10 years, you'd be upset at that.

 

[jloucks]

I don’t think anyone begrudges anyone the freedom to spend their money where they see fit or wants America to go all commie so “those people”—those poor lazy people—can go to Disney World. What I think some people find troubling is that:

1) Disney is now up-charging for things which should be standard at Disney-caliber parks (like Christmas parades, a place to watch fireworks, and umbrellas), and

2) Disney is catering more frequently, blatantly, and unabashedly to the very affluent in ways and in places that some find distasteful.

It’s not sour grapes at not being able to afford the Magic Kingdom After Hours. It’s about offering a premium experience only to those who are willing to pay extra—a lot extra— while the “other guests” are stuck with a lesser experience because there aren’t enough attractions in the world’s most popular and most lucrative theme park to reasonably accommodate the ever-growing crowds. Forget about whether or not certain people are able to pay more; the fact that anybody is willing to pay more than the price of a one day ticket for access to select attractions for a few hours after midnight says something about what the place is like during normal operating hours.

What if Disney started charging for FastPasses? I would pay. What if they started offering “VIP FastPasses” for say, $500 per day which allowed purchasers to skip all lines for every attraction without making reservations (like Univeral’s Express Pass)? Again I would pay because I’m lucky enough to be able to afford it. What if people willing to pay for “VIP Dining” got guaranteed tables at popular restaurants by bumping “other guests”? There are any number of perks for which certain people would be willing to pay extra. But that doesn’t mean Disney should go down this road paved with gold. Unfortunately it looks like that’s the direction they’re headed.

This is wrong not because some people can’t afford it. It’s wrong because a Disney theme park should not be two separate universes existing in the same space which offer one set of experiences for those who are willing or able to pay more and another set of experiences for those who are unwilling or unable to pay more.

Resort hotels are more appropriate places to soak—I mean cater to the affluent.

You won't get the affluent into the hotels if the parks are a cattle car experience. And that is a huge problem.

Ethically your logic is correct, but capitalistically it is massively flawed.

Walt Disney, Sam Walton, Henry Ford, etc., are all dead. With them, their vision of something beyond the bottom line is dead too.

Give up and embrace it. ...or vote liberal. ...or boycot the parks.

WDW should do whatever maximizes profit that is legal. Affluent people have more money than non-affluent and are therefore highly desirable target demo for WDW. Getting them into the parks to spend $$$ is important to the bottom line.

Conspiracy Theory: Crowd levels have been allowed to increase to create a market for premium times and tickets.

Demand is the core single biggest problem/opportunity here. The demand for these premium experiences would not be there if it weren't for everybody, affluent and non-affluent, crowding the parks.

My hypothesis is that the massive crowd levels impact affluent demand far more than it affects non-affluent demand. This of course is a huge problem since the affluent buy significantly more food and trinkets than the non-affluent.

So how to keep the affluent coming to the parks.... Which works best....

1) Double or triple ticket prices across the board. For everybody. This would be 'fair'. There would be no special experience in the parks. Everybody would experience low crowds, low lines, and great views of the show(s). This is my unpopular vote. I think it would work great. Also a big fan of flexible pricing. weekend tickets being the same price as weekday tickets is pretty silly.

2) keep ticket prices low and create a luxury class of visitors/experiences. This is the route WDW is experimenting with. Awkward for all involved. Likely effective tho.

3) keep ticket prices low and have massive crowds that pummel affluent demand. Lose significant income from food, premium hotels and trinkets.

4) keep prices artificially low and cap park capacity levels at a level which creates a great experience for all. I think this is the option people are really wanting. But it is at odds with capitalism. It would create a huge black market for tickets. Expensive tickets.

5) increase park supply. This is flawed logic because demand will always increase along with capacity/supply. I really wish folks would stop suggesting it like it would work as a stand alone solution. Super false perception.

Add to the mix the global demand for WDW and you have a recipe for premium VIP services.

 

[jloucks]

Lets make Disney vacations so cheap that the lowest of low class families can go. Bring on more trashy people, ghetto people, pick pocketing, the parks getting dirtier with littering, etc. Then all these pussies in the forums can have new things to complain about. Disney is a vacation plain and simple!! Im so sick of people in here viewing a trip to Disney as if its a constitutional right as a citizen. Id love to go to Bora Bora....its 15k and out of my price range. Excuse me while I go on a forum and blame the country for making it too expensive for me. Grow up! I swear I think the majority of the Disney adult fans on here act more like children then their own kids.

Blunt but correct.

 

[jloucks]

I'm assuming you're a person who doesn't own a DVC. I'm not one either, but I will be in the coming years when I have kids. That's really what your statement is referring to. A DVC member is a guaranteed income and guests for Disney wherever their home resort might be. So from an outsider looking in you say well I stayed at a wdw resort and spent $6000 on my last trip and I feel I should be important too. I feel 1st off that wdw makes everyone feel special while there, you feel it even more staying onsite and I'm sure even more so if a DVC member. But when a DVC member is spending $30000 on their timeshare along with maintenance fees and park tickets, they should be treated better bc of their financial commitment to Disney. If you were a DVC member and were treated just the same as people staying offsite and that come once every 10 years, you'd be upset at that.

Ahh! This is a very interesting facet of this discussion. Selling theses condos in excess of park supply/capacity is a huge problem waiting to happen. I guaran-darn-tee you that "parks so crowded you'll spend 3/4 of you day in lines" is not part of the sales pitch!

 

[Goofyernmost]

I don’t think anyone begrudges anyone the freedom to spend their money where they see fit or wants America to go all commie so “those people”—those poor lazy people—can go to Disney World. What I think some people find troubling is that:

1) Disney is now up-charging for things which should be standard at Disney-caliber parks (like Christmas parades, a place to watch fireworks, and umbrellas), and

2) Disney is catering more frequently, blatantly, and unabashedly to the very affluent in ways and in places that some find distasteful.

It’s not sour grapes at not being able to afford the Magic Kingdom After Hours. It’s about offering a premium experience only to those who are willing to pay extra—a lot extra— while the “other guests” are stuck with a lesser experience because there aren’t enough attractions in the world’s most popular and most lucrative theme park to reasonably accommodate the ever-growing crowds. Forget about whether or not certain people are able to pay more; the fact that anybody is willing to pay more than the price of a one day ticket for access to select attractions for a few hours after midnight says something about what the place is like during normal operating hours.

What if Disney started charging for FastPasses? I would pay. What if they started offering “VIP FastPasses” for say, $500 per day which allowed purchasers to skip all lines for every attraction without making reservations (like Univeral’s Express Pass)? Again I would pay because I’m lucky enough to be able to afford it. What if people willing to pay for “VIP Dining” got guaranteed tables at popular restaurants by bumping “other guests”? There are any number of perks for which certain people would be willing to pay extra. But that doesn’t mean Disney should go down this road paved with gold. Unfortunately it looks like that’s the direction they’re headed.

This is wrong not because some people can’t afford it. It’s wrong because a Disney theme park should not be two separate universes existing in the same space which offer one set of experiences for those who are willing or able to pay more and another set of experiences for those who are unwilling or unable to pay more.

Resort hotels are more appropriate places to soak—I mean cater to the affluent.

I can afford it, but, for all the reasons you just mentioned, I will not pay it. They can take the place and put it where the sun don't shine. I pay for unlimited access, like it's advertised, not with the idea that "for a few bucks more we can even make it fun". So it isn't just those that cannot afford it, it also is those that feel that they already paid for what was supposed to be a fun experience and it is Disney's responsibility to deliver on their promises and give me what they already charged me for and said I would get. I can, and do, easily take my money elsewhere. I don't think that just because one has money they should be suckers. If they are... I have this ocean front land in Arizona that I'll sell at a good price.

 

[thomas998]

Just took a quick look at Hilton vs Disney Value Resorts pricing for next week. The All-Stars are $135 non-discounted and the cheapest Hilton in Lake Buena Vista is $97 (Buena Vista Palace in Disney Springs), with the next cheapest being a Hampton (Palm PKWY) @ $136 bucks.

That was a quick look and only compared non-discounted All-Stars to Hilton. The Ap discount gets the All-Star price below Hilton.

I'll take another look soon and have a broader range in the comparison.

Not sure that comparing a Hilton or Hampton is a fair comparison to the All-stars.... The All-star rooms are very cramped and size wise are probably more at the level of a Motel 6. We staying in an All-star one time but wouldn't do it again even if the price were $75.... just not enough room and way to spartan for my taste.

 

[Dad 2 M & M]

How many people would go at $60?

 

[Dad 2 M & M]

Apologies if I am wrong, but my use of the phrase "lucky enough" seems to have stoked your ire. Would you have preferred I wrote "fortunate enough," "rich enough," or "successful enough"? Would that have made a difference? What's your point and what does it have to do with my comments?

No apology necessary as you didn't stoke anything. The reason I asked is you indicated would be willing to pay $500 for a one day perk. Not sure if you were being serious, sarcastic, etc. Anywho.......welcome to the Magic

 

[Dad 2 M & M]

Not sure that comparing a Hilton or Hampton is a fair comparison to the All-stars.... The All-star rooms are very cramped and size wise are probably more at the level of a Motel 6. We staying in an All-star one time but wouldn't do it again even if the price were $75.... just not enough room and way to spartan for my taste.

The comparison was to your point of the Disney Resorts pricing themselves out of the market. Having a Hilton close by for the same $$$ as an AP discounted Value Room furthered your point. I didn't even take the time to look for a true (or as close as possible) Apples to Apples comparison to the All-Stars.
With that said, I must point out (if it wasn't obvious from my sig) we love the Value Resorts and stay there more than any where else. We do prefer Pop, but the All-Stars are fine as well. And, we don't put much value in a hotel room - after safe and clean, we see a room as a toilet, shower and bed. Just a place to crash at night....

 

[thomas998]

The comparison was to your point of the Disney Resorts pricing themselves out of the market. Having a Hilton close by for the same $$$ as an AP discounted Value Room furthered your point. I didn't even take the time to look for a true (or as close as possible) Apples to Apples comparison to the All-Stars.
With that said, I must point out (if it wasn't obvious from my sig) we love the Value Resorts and stay there more than any where else. We do prefer Pop, but the All-Stars are fine as well. And, we don't put much value in a hotel room - after safe and clean, we see a room as a toilet, shower and bed. Just a place to crash at night....

I understand where you are coming from, that used to be my view of hotels at Disney as well but after you've been to the park as many times as we have you realize you don't want to spend every waking moment in them and a nice hotel room starts to matter a bit more, and judging by the number of times you've been there I willing to bet you'll be looking for a nicer hotel and less park time in the not to distant future.

 

[jloucks]

I can afford it, but, for all the reasons you just mentioned, I will not pay it. They can take the place and put it where the sun don't shine. I pay for unlimited access, like it's advertised, not with the idea that "for a few bucks more we can even make it fun". So it isn't just those that cannot afford it, it also is those that feel that they already paid for what was supposed to be a fun experience and it is Disney's responsibility to deliver on their promises and give me what they already charged me for and said I would get. I can, and do, easily take my money elsewhere. I don't think that just because one has money they should be suckers. If they are... I have this ocean front land in Arizona that I'll sell at a good price.

The problem with "make it fun" is that it is an opinion that varies from person to person. I detest overcrowding, but many many (stupendous numbers of) people are just fine with it. Makes overcrowding normal and acceptable apparently.

For me, fun is defined as not bat-poo-crazy crowded. I am an anomaly, and therefore have to pay a premium to obtain my anomaly. This is not me being a sucker. It make sense. Calling people that pay for luxury goods or premium services "suckers" is a little extreme. People like what they like. Insisting that a premium service should be free or included with a basic package is not very capitalistic.

All that being said, WDW has at least $8,000 less of my money. The last trip I was supposed to take I cancelled due to other less crowded opportunities being preferable.

Vote with your wallet, it is the only vote most of us have.

 

[Goofyernmost]

The problem with "make it fun" is that it is an opinion that varies from person to person. I detest overcrowding, but many many (stupendous numbers of) people are just fine with it. Makes overcrowding normal and acceptable apparently.

For me, fun is defined as not bat-poo-crazy crowded. I am an anomaly, and therefore have to pay a premium to obtain my anomaly. This is not me being a sucker. It make sense. Calling people that pay for luxury goods or premium services "suckers" is a little extreme. People like what they like. Insisting that a premium service should be free or included with a basic package is not very capitalistic.

All that being said, WDW has at least $8,000 less of my money. The last trip I was supposed to take I cancelled due to other less crowded opportunities being preferable.

Vote with your wallet, it is the only vote most of us have.

It seems to me that if it isn't fun to be in crowds that WDW is the last place you would go or even attempt to go. However, if you are willing to pay that obscene amount of money for it, well, have fun. I wouldn't. I don't like crowds either which is why I spent most of my time, in MK at least, in the evening when the crowds were lighter, but, I wouldn't want to pay extra to get what I used to get for my original cost of admission. Crowds are also why I go in February. The combination of heat and crowds, are an automatic absolutely you are not going to find me there.

 

[Dad 2 M & M]

I understand where you are coming from, that used to be my view of hotels at Disney as well but after you've been to the park as many times as we have you realize you don't want to spend every waking moment in them and a nice hotel room starts to matter a bit more, and judging by the number of times you've been there I willing to bet you'll be looking for a nicer hotel and less park time in the not to distant future.

Maybe....just not there yet....might be in the future

 

[rkleinlein]

many many (stupendous numbers of) people are just fine with it. Makes overcrowding normal and acceptable apparently.

I don't think anybody is fine with overcrowding. People go during crowded times not because they don't mind crowds but because it's the only time they can go without pulling their kids out of school. I may be wrong, but my guess is that the new tiered pricing will do nothing to deter people from going during peak times. Credit should be given to Disney for addressing overcrowding by expanding capacity at attractions with long waits (Dumbo, Toy Story, etc.) and adding new lands and attractions. But I don't think they should deal with overcrowding by offering VIP access for those willing to pay for it.

Should Disney resort guests get the perk of an extra early morning hour in one park? Sure. But what if they push Magic Kingdom opening at peak season up to 10am everyday and began CHARGING for two hours of "VIP access" at 8? Would some people pay it? Of course. Should Disney do it? No. Because it would limit access for everyone else and create a two tiered experience. (This is the reason that I think the Halloween and Christmas parties are a boondoggle.) It's one thing to do this in hotels, quite another in the parks.

And before anyone tells me not to get bent out of shape for something that hasn't happened, realize I'm trying to make the point that not all up-charges and "premium experiences" are wise despite the fact that some people might think they're worth it and would be willing to pay. It's a question of balance. And worse is when things which used to be or should be standard at the world's premier theme park/vacation destination are now being classified as premium and up-charged: Christmas parades and umbrellas, for example.

The closest parallel that immediately comes to mind is airlines: taking away leg room and then requiring people to buy it back, or letting people pick their seats and then charging more for aisle seats. People pay it but they resent it. I know it's not a perfect comparison (somebody may come up with better one) but you get my point: People should not feel like they're getting ripped-off or nicked-and-dimed when they go to Disney. And, no, nobody is forced to go to Disney or to buy anything they don't want, but my point stands. Once a company begins to go down this road, it's very difficult to pull back because there's always something else that they can up-charge under the guise of "premium" or "VIP." The result is that "Disney difference," or "magic," or whatever you want to call it, gets blown away in a whirlwind of cash.

Insisting that a premium service should be free or included with a basic package is not very capitalistic.

Also, I'm interested to know what specific "premium services" you're referring to. We may agree. Again, I think it's a question of balance. But I do think that what's good for capitalism or a company's bottom line, is not always good for its customers, its reputation, or its longterm success.

 

[Dad 2 M & M]

I'm still miffed people don't realize what the ramifications are when saying the tiered pricing will not alleviate crowds during peak times. That means Disney didn't raise prices as high as they could.

 

[FettFan]

I don't understand the issue. If you can afford it, then you get to do it, just like literally everything else in the world.

Not in the impractical world of Millennial Whiners and "FeelTheBern" hashtags.

"Fun is a HUMAN RIGHT! It says so right there in the Constitution! 'Pursuit of Happiness'!" - Idiot Millennial Crybaby

 

[Dad 2 M & M]

Not in the impractical world of Millennial Whiners and "FeelTheBern" hashtags.

"Fun is a HUMAN RIGHT! It says so right there in the Constitution! 'Pursuit of Happiness'!" - Idiot Millennial Crybaby

My my...we are getting more like our grandparents everyday!!

 

[rufio]

Not in the impractical world of Millennial Whiners and "FeelTheBern" hashtags.

"Fun is a HUMAN RIGHT! It says so right there in the Constitution! 'Pursuit of Happiness'!" - Idiot Millennial Crybaby

Wow. How do age and politics come into play here?

 

[zweltar]

Except that to us, the quality hasn't diminished, and yes, I've been going there since 1978. Main Street hasn't looked this good in 20 years, and they are refurbing all over the place. While no one has specifically said the word cesspool, the inference is there. We completely disagree, and we go there multiple times every year. Is everything perfect? Of course not, but guess what, it wasn't perfect back in the 80's or 90's either as some people here seem to claim.

Talking about price increases is like talking to a wall. Everything goes up in price all the time. People just don't like the fact that Disney has raised their prices. Heck, 40 years ago a Super Bowl ticket was only $12. This past year, the cheapest ticket was $1200. A hundred fold increase. A 1 day ticket to MK in 1981 was $8, and it is now $105 for regular days. That's only increased 13 fold. And the price only gets better with multi-day tickets.

Yes, that is a valid comparison. No one has the right to go to WDW. No one has the right to go to the Super Bowl. They are both luxuries. People do what they can afford to do, just like forever. If Disney has priced you out of going there, well, sorry, but I never got to go there as a child either as my parents could never afford to go. My first trip in 1978 was as an adult when I moved to Orlando.

Sure, there's no right to go to Disney or the Super Bowl. But I think the comparison of price is very inappropriate. Disney World is open 365 days a year with a product that remains largely the same from year-to-year. The super bowl is one day a year and, depending on the teams involved, draws from vey different pools of people each year. So the scarcity of a Super Bowl ticket drives the ticket price up substantially more than a Disney World ticket. Oh, and there's the fact that the whole world pays attention to the Super Bowl, while the same interest is not as widespread in going to Disney World.
So I feel the comparison is not necessarily appropriate.

 

[Dad 2 M & M]

Wow. How do age and politics come into play here?

Someone can always find an angle.....