Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
Kinda hard to say “great value” when it’s 40% off, no?
That argument is self defeating
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Disney World Hits All-Time High Revenue in Q3 2025, Strong Bookings Continue into Q4
- Thread starter wdwmagic
- Start date
That argument is self defeating
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
Prices are out of control because foolishly the public has been groomed to accept suppliers don’t have to worry about competition and value in the marketplace…but instead are expected to charge the maximum possible to the breaking point. It’s horrible economic “theory”.
…some companies come to mind.
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
The immunity has begun to “wear off” for the last few years
Is it time to point they have NEVER had an attendance decline in their history without a full financial recession? And they have done that consistently since 2015. That’s not including the plague effects.
5 million gate clicks a year just “dried up” and didn’t return…with other dips before and after. That may be “herd immunity”…but not total
Last edited:
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
There’s no way to dispute that…except the concept of “value” would eliminate a lot of the discussion of different income level/means…
“I make plenty…so I can afford it” is a valid statement. “I make plenty…so it’s a better value” is not.
I go on…but I think the customer has a responsibility to themselves to at least understand the concept of value…it maintains the market more effectively.
DisneyCane
Well-Known Member
To your point, I can easily afford any of the LL product tiers but I don't see a value in it so I've never paid for it. I haven't used a FP/LL entrance since they started charging for it.
So far, my Florida resident AP still provides enough value to keep renewing but the value keeps declining. There will be a point that, even though I can afford the passes, the value will not be there and I'll stop renewing. People who just continue to pay whatever Disney decides to charge for everything allow Disney to keep charging whatever they want and provide lower quality.
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
Dranth
Well-Known Member
You seem to spend more time and money at WDW then most of the people on these boards so why do you still find enough value to keep going?
I disagree as value is entirely subjective and nearly always dependent on ones monetary situation.
JMcMahonEsq
Well-Known Member
But the problem is that the concept of "value" as you try to make here, related to non-indexed non commodity based things is completely irrelevant, or at least completely subjective.
You can make any statement you want about the value of what WDW offers, the value of a park ticket, special event, bubble wand, and I or someone else with a different opinion can just say, you are wrong. And there is absolutely nothing you can point to to objectively back up or support your version of value vs mine vs anyones. At the same time once i say you are wrong, and you say well prove it....I got nothing to say other than "I think" or "In my opinion."
Value as far as services or non-indexed items, is completely personal. You could offer me tickets to the [insert soccer team here] for a dollar, and to me it has absolutely no value whatsoever, because soccer is terrible, and like polio, we should make it a national priority to wipe it out. But tickets to the Red Sox or Patriots, even the modern post TB12 Pats, i would find have more value than the world cup finals at the meadowlands.
A customer has a responsibility to themselves, to make decisions for themselves. That's why the market helps determine the correct price for services, not "value." If WDW is selling Christmas party tickets at $200 per night, and the market keeps buying them, then it means WDW is pricing them correctly. Objectively the market is responding that the price is such that it is not exceeding demand. Value really doesn't have much to do with it, except you can objectively state the market is made up of enough people that each subjectively value the service enough to pay the offered price.
As to available resources, earning and their effect on value, the amount of disposable income certainly won't per se automatically effect a subjective determination of value. Take the previous soccer example. I could afford seats for the world cup, and i am lucky enough that it wouldn't effect my budget, even at standard pricing. But it doesn't matter because again I would rather sit through a root canal than a soccer match. Just like there are some people that save and save, and possibly go into debt, or cut into the normal budget to go on a vacation, because to them the subjective value of the time away is worth it to them. However, there does come a certain point where available resources and pricing makes even the subjective issue of value largely a non-factor. Take the $600 dollar dinner someone mentioned earlier in this thread. We went to Ruth Chris last weekend, and the bill was right around there. If i wanted to look at the idea of that meal from an objective "value" standpoint there is no question i could have bought steaks at a lessor cost and made them myself, or gone to another local restaurant and paid less for food that maybe was as good, or close to it. But I am fortunate enough that it really doesn't matter to our budget if the meal that night was $600, $400, $200, or $800. We felt like steak, and that was the place everyone wanted to go. The same is true for a certain group of people and WDW pricing. At a certain income level, for a once a year trip to the Christmas party, there really is no functional difference between tickets that are 200 per night, 150 per night, or 300 per night. The only question there are asking is do we want to go. If that answer is yes, they buy the tickets, no need for even a subjective review of is the price commensurate with the "value."
Chi84
Premium Member
Your posts seem to be discussing the objective “worth” of the product. Value is always subjective. See “price gouging.”
You may think it’s semantics and the word “value” is often used to represent both concepts but there is a difference that causes confusion when they’re used interchangeably.
Ayla
Well-Known Member
Side note~ that poster has 7 children, I believe, so he's dropping a pretty penny for a family of 9.
Disstevefan1
Well-Known Member
I personally define value as, did I get what I payed for. If I payed less for what I got in return, to me, I got more value.
It’s hard to use “value” when you pay for an experience. I pay for go to a ball game, it could be a great game that becomes a core memory or an awful game where my team gets killed.
I can’t measure a WDW using the word value, no matter what, I know I am Paying too much for everything, that said, I do notice recently, a rare occasion's, like a counter service item is about what I pay off site place to eat, I think the off site places have simply learned to charge more.
Many times at WDW, I am saying, “oh they don’t have that any more, too bad, I liked that, in general, I understand there is no “value” in my visit to WDW, I just hope for a good experience and not a poor experience.
It’s hard to use “value” when you pay for an experience. I pay for go to a ball game, it could be a great game that becomes a core memory or an awful game where my team gets killed.
I can’t measure a WDW using the word value, no matter what, I know I am Paying too much for everything, that said, I do notice recently, a rare occasion's, like a counter service item is about what I pay off site place to eat, I think the off site places have simply learned to charge more.
Many times at WDW, I am saying, “oh they don’t have that any more, too bad, I liked that, in general, I understand there is no “value” in my visit to WDW, I just hope for a good experience and not a poor experience.
Disgruntled Walt
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
My party of 11 ate at several all-you-can-eat restaurants during our trip last month, and that's part of what we always loved about WDW. The buffets and family style meals are largely fantastic, and the 4 kids in our party (8 yrs old and younger), really enjoyed the character meals. It's very expensive, but we knew that going into it. It was worth it for the experience we had.
Of the meals we had this year, I'd rank them as follows:
Of the meals we had this year, I'd rank them as follows:
- Boma
- Cape May Cafe
- Crystal Palace
- Hollywood & Vine
- Liberty Tree Tavern
and then a large gap - Chef Mickey's
Disstevefan1
Well-Known Member
Vegas Disney Fan
Well-Known Member
We still enjoy it also but for us it’s become a rare visit rather than a regular visit, it’s just hard to justify frequent visits with all the extra costs now.
For us it’s about opportunity costs more than value, we still love Disney but as it gets more and more expensive it gets harder to ignore the alternatives, we just spent a full week in Yellowstone, stayed at the Lake Yellowstone Inn, ate and bought whatever we wanted, and it cost less than what a weekend at DL would have cost, we have a 12 days land and sea cruise in Alaska next month on Princess with the premium package that includes all the specialty restaurants, drinks, internet, etc, and we paid less than what a normal 7 day DCL cruise would have cost, we have 2 European cruises booked on Viking next year, they’re insanely expensive but when you compare what you get to a few days in WDW along with a DCL cruise it seems reasonable… we still love Disney but when you compare it to the alternatives (in what is now a similar price range) it gets really hard to justify choosing WDW really quick.
We will absolutely do WDW again but the Disney parks are no longer our go to trip because there’s so many other options now in a similar price range.
BrianLo
Well-Known Member
There’s happy addicts, angry addicts and recovered addicts. I see no moral superiority between any of the groups.
Angry addicts taking out their frustration on the company makes sense. Angry addicts taking out their frustrations on the happy addicts while pretending like they hold the moral high ground is a pretty weak position to find oneself.
Angry addicts taking out their frustration on the company makes sense. Angry addicts taking out their frustrations on the happy addicts while pretending like they hold the moral high ground is a pretty weak position to find oneself.
Chi84
Premium Member
I don’t even mind arguing with them if there’s something to discuss.
But the insults and rude memes can be tough to take.
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
Yeah all that “well articulated” stuff?…you could have just said this…
So you believe the planet is inhabited by 8,000,000,000 individuals? And that’s how a market functions?
Maybe
Or the statement above is the exact mentality needed by the consumer for the supplier to diminish the quality and raise the price…which destroys any concept of “value”. A race to the bottom. Divide and conquer the whole.
Very subtle here…
As I get older…I did change my views on one thing in this regard:
There is an actual difference between complaints and constructive criticism. I never thought that years ago. They look the same on the surface…but completely different motivations.
The first group are angry at a fixation point as a means of soothing flaws in life otherwise. Maybe unhappiness (conscious or otherwise), trauma, or real serious stuff…like having been fired once or having the boyfriend dump them at the end of college program or after they moved to be with them after? The real heavy stuff
The other group boil down to loving it too much…which comes out as criticism because they worry about the future not lining up with their attachment to the nostaligia of the past. It may not even be about “them”…but more of an abstract of the whole group. I’d say that’s true most cases.
Two baskets…and just a guess it’s about 95% of what B-Lo described above as “angry addicts” fall into one basket.
If you can’t see the difference between the two (anyone…not “you”)…the fandom is never gonna make A lot of sense.
Chi84
Premium Member
The market is based on the individual decisions of consumers. What other system are you proposing? Who decides for those who value different things and how would those decisions ever be enforced?
When it comes to matters of societal well-being we enter into a social compact to cooperate for the common good. Even in this case people cannot agree, which is why we turn over the decision making to elected officials.
Discretionary spending at a ludicrously expensive vacation destination falls into the first category. Mixing the two concepts is never going to work.
wedenterprises
Well-Known Member
How much of this revenue is from Lightning Lane purchases? That’s all they care about now.
JMcMahonEsq
Well-Known Member
So at least you abandoned any attempt to defend your bs value post, which makes sense bc when ever you seem to be pushed on it, you start moving goalposts and posted others senile non-sequitors.
And yes simple facts are the world is inhabited by individual consumers. The 8B number is pretty stupid because there is no market that is targeting the entire population of the planet, but yes the market is dictated by individual market participants. We don’t live in a collective market. We don’t do group purchasing of goods or services, at least for discretionary items. Walt Disney is not the Army, or the National highway system. It’s not social program where arguably there by social contract there is communal choice. How much “choice” the “community”
Actually has for such spending is a whole other topic.
And seriously stop your BS subjective commentary on “value” or “quality.” No one cares what you find valuable. No one cares what your subjective view on quality is. I live in a world, like the rest of most people, that are happy to allow each person to judge for themselves what has value to them, and let them spend their money accordingly. Personal choice on personal decisions, without judgement. And as tickets keep getting bought and rooms booked, I take great comfort that from objective sales perspective, the market is passing your old paternalistic views by.