Len Testa - “Disney positions itself as the all-American vacation. The irony is that most Americans can’t afford it.”

[MickeyLuv'r]

Agreed.

Some friends and I paid just over $2k a person to have a 4 bedroom house for 3 nights with unlimited golf at a very nice resort with multiple courses. I thought that was a great deal because we all love golf.

If you don't enjoy playing golf, that would be a horrible deal. It doesn't make any sense to compare it to visiting a theme park, or taking a cruise, or whatever other dissimilar thing you could be paying for instead.

While in some ways WDW is unique, in other ways it isn't, especially current WDW. Parts of WDW are in sad shape. Too many.

Over the summer, gosh, Winnie the Pooh was in really sad shape. Tigger didn't bounce, the puff of smoke (as is often the case) wasn't working, and all throughout the ride the paint was in bad shape. The Heffalump room was especially in bad shape with missing paint. Parts of the rain room weren't lighting. The end scene was also malfunctioning. The fence along the ride exit was also missing a LOT of color. It is badly worn.

Perfect Pooh might be better than a comparable dark ride elsewhere, but sad-shape Pooh, sad shape DINOSAUR, sad-shape of the fake plants in AK, whole areas torn apart.

Oh, and the hotels are also not in great shape right now. I had a short stay at several hotels and the water slides at both Poly and CBR are just nasty. To access the water slide at CBR, you have to walk through what I can only describe as a moat of fetid water. It was dark, muddy, slimy, and the temp of warm pee. The Poly's slide also has a similar gross puddle. Blech!

I'm much rather stay at a pristine Stella Nova than a decrepit Poly. The current state of WDW makes other options more comparable than they might have been in the past.

 

[TheMaxRebo]

You wouldn’t think that looking at the most recent promotions just announced for January and beyond. Cheapest value comes in at $220+/night with the ($13) “discount” for my dates. Then about $3,000 for four basic park passes for six days.

I can only assume bookings are either up or they’re hoping the cheerleading groups fill the place. At these prices I’ll look offsite or rent DVC. We’ll get our fill after 3+ years going elsewhere and then spend our summer vacation on a cruise.

I’m willing to bet my teenagers will go the same direction as adults even though they each spent a decade plus of multiple WDW trips. That’s because we openly talk about money with them and they choose cruising based on the experience and value, despite their love of Disney and many great memories. Proud parents.

Maybe it is getting away from that next year or thinking other elements of promotions will make up for it?

I know this year we stayed at a value for $124 and have another satay coming up in November for $155/night. Think those are fair pricing

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Exactly! That's why comparisons of the sort I was responding to don't make much sense. Those of us who continue to go are aware of what we're paying and consider it worth the price overall, regardless of whether alternative options would be more affordable or not.

That doesn't mean there aren't aspects of the experience to criticise, of course.

Nope…

Again…no sense in making it black and white to run interference for bad management (I’m beginning to think that’s just schtick…)

It’s not “I go…so I think it’s worth it! No discussion needed!”

No, no, no…we have investment and emotional attachment…that isn’t up for debate…but many of us are altering our habits and investment levels and voicing criticisms and very legitimate concerns when that is not the patterns until recently…

I know it’s easier to live in a two color world…but the one we actually live is an unlimited shades of grey

“Value” in not an absolute, finite concept. It may be great or poor…it may he increasing or declining…
That’s what your provider must manage. They’re not doing a noteworthy job of it and it’s been worsening…not improving

 

[HauntedPirate]

You wouldn’t think that looking at the most recent promotions just announced for January and beyond. Cheapest value comes in at $220+/night with the ($13) “discount” for my dates. Then about $3,000 for four basic park passes for six days.

I can only assume bookings are either up or they’re hoping the cheerleading groups fill the place. At these prices I’ll look offsite or rent DVC. We’ll get our fill after 3+ years going elsewhere and then spend our summer vacation on a cruise.

I’m willing to bet my teenagers will go the same direction as adults even though they each spent a decade plus of multiple WDW trips. That’s because we openly talk about money with them and they choose cruising based on the experience and value, despite their love of Disney and many great memories. Proud parents.

You nailed the main barrier to entry. It isn’t resorts but the lemmings keep thinking resort deals are some fantastical bargain and keep buying into it. Pawns on a chess board, they are, and Bob and Josh keep using them as such.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

You nailed the main barrier to entry. It isn’t resorts but the lemmings keep thinking resort deals are some fantastical bargain and keep buying into it. Pawns on a chess board, they are, and Bob and Josh keep using them as such.

That’s one part

The “deals” are on hotel rooms that are only one of about 4 categories of “mandatory” costs for anyone to get there.m

And Hotels are very properly described as “kohls pricing” as well.

What has really changed in the larger picture is the ticket fees. That was Designed as a loss leader to get you there to spend more money on higher profit goods…

Now combined with the extra tickets and like skips it’s a barrier to travel/entry…it’s a 180

 

[LittleBuford]

Nope…

Again…no sense in making it black and white to run interference for bad management (I’m beginning to think that’s just schtick…)

It’s not “I go…so I think it’s worth it! No discussion needed!”

No, no, no…we have investment and emotional attachment…that isn’t up for debate…but many of us are altering our habits and investment levels and voicing criticisms and very legitimate concerns when that is not the patterns until recently…

I know it’s easier to live in a two color world…but the one we actually live is an unlimited shades of grey

“Value” in not an absolute, finite concept. It may be great or poor…it may he increasing or declining…
That’s what your provider must manage. They’re not doing a noteworthy job of it and it’s been worsening…not improving

You're free to disagree with me. My point is not limited to Disney, by the way; it applies to all destinations. People should spend their money on choices that make them happy. Yes, I realise that emotional attachment to an old favourite can complicate matters (again, this holds true beyond Disney), but I stand by my earlier view that most consumers are savvy enough to weigh up their options (which are many) and make informed decisions for themselves.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

Did you read the article? Look at the evidence they give for the headline and then all the alternative explanations that come toward the end.

The headline may say what many want to believe, and I honestly would also be fine with consumers switching off Disney for being too expensive. You don't need particularly developed critical reading skills, though, to see they have a sensationalist headline that isn't actually supported by much evidence. It is also, in part, the worst, laziest kind of journalism of the "some people online are saying" variety. You could just as easily write an article about people complaining about crowds or Disney being as magical as ever if you quoted different people on TikTok, Reddit, here, or wherever.

Unfortunately sensationalism and click bait headlines are the standard operating procedure for most “news” now

I haven’t been to the parks in several months but I’ve been seeing been more and more Disney YouTubers talking about how slow the parks are, fresh baked does weekly state of DL shows and the last couple months he’s constantly mentioning how attendance feels down, I watched a Dev show today where he was at AK and they were surprised they could walk right into Yak and Yeti and be seated immediately with no reservation, they were also disappointed Disney was closing kiosks over an hour before the park closed, sure it’s anecdotal but when it’s coming from multiple people who’ve all spent years covering the parks I feel you have to give that more weight than the average Joe.

If it was just Fresh Baked, or just Dev, or just TimTracker, etc it would be easy to dismiss them but when they’re all saying the same thing it becomes much harder to ignore.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

I’ve been around long enough to know that what’s happening is certainly not normal.

This is not a simple ebb and flow of demand. This is a sizable sentiment shift in the public towards the brand. Pick your reason (price, politics, Josh’s extra tight pants - a plus for me btw) but the Disney brand is in the toilet of public perception, and you can thank Bob for that.

To be honest, my impression is that Disney is concerned about public perception of the brand. As you hint, though, that is wrapped up in broader issues such as growing political polarisation for which Disney became an important target and, as the article that sparked this thread suggests, growing concentration of wealth. The latter shapes how many companies far beyond Disney are operating because, at least according to that argument, a decreasing number of people have disposable income for things like a WDW vacation, but those people have a growing amount of it.

What has surprised me is how well Disney attendance has held up amidst moves that, for me personally, make WDW too expensive and too much work to be appealing. Figuring out why that is the case is therefore more interesting to me than what can resemble efforts to manifest a comeuppance for current management. Maybe the chickens are finally coming to roost, however I would want more evidence of that than the kind presented in that Fox New article because, as I mentioned, I've heard those kinds of statements many times before.

Of course Bob Iger is not immune from criticism, nor are the executive team more broadly. I do find making the debate just about Iger, Amaro, and co. misses the point. It is also appealingly simple because, if Iger is to blame for all this, then getting rid of him is one route to solving all of Disney's issues. If how Disney is being run reflects the environment in which they are operating, however, that raises more difficult questions.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I’ve been around long enough to know that what’s happening is certainly not normal.

This is not a simple ebb and flow of demand. This is a sizable sentiment shift in the public towards the brand. Pick your reason (price, politics, Josh’s extra tight pants - a plus for me btw) but the Disney brand is in the toilet of public perception, and you can thank Bob for that.

We need to get a big, flashing billboard to hang above these threads:

“The Walt Disney company has NEVER suffered a decline in attendance/demand for its parks without an economic recession”

There is nothing “normal” about this…to not believe the significance and try to brush it off means you don’t understand the parks…not the market, design, or how consumers embrace it.

 

[monothingie]

To be honest, my impression is that Disney is concerned about public perception of the brand. As you hint, though, that is wrapped up in broader issues such as growing political polarisation for which Disney became an important target and, as the article that sparked this thread suggests, growing concentration of wealth. The latter shapes how many companies far beyond Disney are operating because, at least according to that argument, a decreasing number of people have disposable income for things like a WDW vacation, but those people have a growing amount of it.

From end of quarter earnings calls, to never admitting failure, or gaslighting customers into thinking negative changes are great, image is everything to TWDC. The problem is that it has created this echo chamber within the company that is devoid of reality. Just so long as they can show YOY growth, even though the ship's taking on water at an alarming rate.

What has surprised me is how well Disney attendance has held up amidst moves that, for me personally, make WDW too expensive and too much work to be appealing. Figuring out why that is the case is therefore more interesting to me than what can resemble efforts to manifest a comeuppance for current management. Maybe the chickens are finally coming to roost, however I would want more evidence of that than the kind presented in that Fox New article because, as I mentioned, I've heard those kinds of statements many times before.

What you've seen is an unsustainable transition of demographics from mostly families to Disney Adults. Disney adults are typically more in line with the company's actions, less sensitive to price increases, generally spend more per person than a typical family. The problem is that the Disney Adults have not showed up in number to displace the families that have been lost. This should be terrifying to anyone paying attention because they have effectively kneecapped their guest ecosystem by not being able to hook them in young. They're going elsewhere.

Of course Bob Iger is not immune from criticism, nor are the executive team more broadly. I do find making the debate just about Iger, Amaro, and co. misses the point. It is also appealingly simple because, if Iger is to blame for all this, then getting rid of him is one route to solving all of Disney's issues. If how Disney is being run reflects the environment in which they are operating, however, that raises more difficult questions.

Iger has a prominent role in most if not all of the negative changes that have happened and accelerated in the past decade. While he can lay out a good line of BS about being story tellers and creatives and whatever malarky marketing and PR feeds hims, the truth is that TWDC is more concerned about delivering "Product" for consumption regardless of the quality. All you have to do is look at the "product" Marvel, Star Wars, Pixar, WDI, etc have farted out in the past 5 years to see that the culture and environment has been corrupted from 90's when everything was peak Disney when Eisner built the foundation for Iger to rule on. Everyone poops on Chapek, and rightfully so for a lot, but you saw how he was deliberately kneecapped by the deep state within Disney that still saw Iger as the leader when he tried to lead. This is the rot that has and continues to infest TWDC and it's the reason why the company can't get out of its own way.

Ironically I think Iger realizes this to some extent but the damage is so far ingrained in the structure of the company he can't do anything about it. (Other than break it up and sell the pieces, which I still think is a very good possibility)

 

[Sir_Cliff]

What you've seen is an unsustainable transition of demographics from mostly families to Disney Adults. Disney adults are typically more in line with the company's actions, less sensitive to price increases, generally spend more per person than a typical family. The problem is that the Disney Adults have not showed up in number to displace the families that have been lost. This should be terrifying to anyone paying attention because they have effectively kneecapped their guest ecosystem by not being able to hook them in young. They're going elsewhere.

My first question about this would be how we know this is true. I am not saying it isn't (and suspect it is at least partially the case), but I would be curious to know how much of this argument about the changing demographics visiting Disney parks is based more on impressions, common sense, and the general disdain recently directed toward "Disney Adults" even by adult Disney fans. In terms of attendance dropping off, that particularly seems less clear to me.

The other question would be how much changing demographics would map onto the changing distribution of income mentioned in the NYTimes article. For example, do those who have the money to take vacations have less or fewer children than the more middle class market to which WDW used to appeal? If the point about changing demographics is true, that may help (or not) to explain why.

I agree they should be concerned about the longterm health of their business if that is true. If the big middle class families who used to visit generally don't have the money to do so anymore, however, they have a bit of a conundrum. Investors are not going to be happy with lower profits now based on the argument it will pay off in 20 years or so.

Iger has a prominent role in most if not all of the negative changes that have happened and accelerated in the past decade. While he can lay out a good line of BS about being story tellers and creatives and whatever malarky marketing and PR feeds hims, the truth is that TWDC is more concerned about delivering "Product" for consumption regardless of the quality. All you have to do is look at the "product" Marvel, Star Wars, Pixar, WDI, etc have farted out in the past 5 years to see that the culture and environment has been corrupted from 90's when everything was peak Disney when Eisner built the foundation for Iger to rule on. Everyone poops on Chapek, and rightfully so for a lot, but you saw how he was deliberately kneecapped by the deep state within Disney that still saw Iger as the leader when he tried to lead. This is the rot that has and continues to infest TWDC and it's the reason why the company can't get out of its own way.

While I don't love a lot of things that have happened under Iger, I think this is a big re-writing of history to make it seem like the company's issues are very personally centred in him.

By the time Iger came to the company and in the decade before he took over, Disney was in a very clear downward spiral. Sticking to the parks, they were mostly churning out cheap, under built and often low quality products like DCA, WDSP, and HKDL that were neither creatively nor financially successful. Also remember Eisner was very proud of his statement that he would rather win a Bank of America award than an Academy Award and also bragged in his annual letter to shareholders how cheap Rock'n'RollerCoaster had been to build. Maintenance got so bad at Disneyland that people died. So, to say Eisner laid a foundation of high quality and creativity that was squandered by Iger and his greed is a simplification at best.

 

[monothingie]

My first question about this would be how we know this is true. I am not saying it isn't (and suspect it is at least partially the case), but I would be curious to know how much of this argument about the changing demographics visiting Disney parks is based more on impressions, common sense, and the general disdain recently directed toward "Disney Adults" even by adult Disney fans. In terms of attendance dropping off, that particularly seems less clear to me.

You can see indirect evidence of the lower attendance and shifting peak seasons. Incredibly slow summers or holiday periods when school is out is a major change in behavior for families. The shift towards January and February and late October through Early November is more in line with the childless guests who don't have to worry about school.

The other question would be how much changing demographics would map onto the changing distribution of income mentioned in the NYTimes article. For example, do those who have the money to take vacations have less or fewer children than the more middle class market to which WDW used to appeal? If the point about changing demographics is true, that may help (or not) to explain why.

Putting merch aside, looking at Food and Beverage, an adult guest will spend significantly more than a child. Add festivals and alcohol and that spending number increases many times over.

I agree they should be concerned about the longterm health of their business if that is true. If the big middle class families who used to visit generally don't have the money to do so anymore, however, they have a bit of a conundrum. Investors are not going to be happy with lower profits now based on the argument it will pay off in 20 years or so.

But that was the intention to appeal to the higher margin guest. They created offerings to appeal to higher income guest, and it has worked, but there is a cost to that which is fewer guests through the gate. Which makes Disney more reliant on higher margins guests, so they raise prices and offer upcharges, which means fewer people through the gate, so they raise prices and offer upcharges, which means fewer people through the gate, so they raise prices...

While I don't love a lot of things that have happened under Iger, I think this is a big re-writing of history to make it seem like the company's issues are very personally centred in him.

By the time Iger came to the company and in the decade before he took over, Disney was in a very clear downward spiral. Sticking to the parks, they were churning out cheap, under built and mostly low quality products like DCA, WDSP, and HKDL that were neither creatively nor financially successful. Also remember Eisner was very proud of his statement that he would rather win a Bank of America award than an Academy Award and also bragged in his annual letter to shareholders how cheap Rock'n'RollerCoaster had been to built. Maintenance got so bad at Disneyland that people died. So, to say Eisner laid a foundation of high quality and creativity that was squandered by Iger and his greed is a simplification at best.

There were missteps, but you can't just gloss over the highs. DAK, Hotels like (AKL, WL, Boardwalk/Yacht, Beach), DVC resorts, Water Parks, Rides like TOT, Splash, Soarin, EE, etc. Eisner did not do things to damage the brand the way Iger has.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

You're free to disagree with me. My point is not limited to Disney, by the way; it applies to all destinations. People should spend their money on choices that make them happy. Yes, I realise that emotional attachment to an old favourite can complicate matters (again, this holds true beyond Disney), but I stand by my earlier view that most consumers are savvy enough to weigh up their options (which are many) and make informed decisions for themselves.

I give disneylanders way more credit for being “savvy”…they just have a higher ingrained loyalty history…

The swamp? Is almost the opposite. It may be the worst/least “savvy” consumer base you can find it’s in the running at a minimum

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

To be honest, my impression is that Disney is concerned about public perception of the brand.

The case has never been easier to be made that they DON’T care about the public perception of the brand.

Not only have they made mistakes to hurt it…they don’t believe it when they’re proven to be affecting them and have insisted they’re right.

Theres an easy word for that…

And why? Very bad strategy that you are splaining away. They have been saying/hinting at it for more than 10 years…but Disney gets a long fuse…but it still burns

 

[SamusAranX]

A lot of people wonder (well by a lot, I mean myself) how BG Tampa, Six Flags etc are still in business. Last time I went to BG I was appalled at its state compared as recently as ten years ago.

Putting the reasons aside, the reason parks like BG and Six Flags are still in business among others is what @Sirwalterraleigh pointed out; they rather eat the loss on tickets because they know once they get you in, they can upsell the hell out of you and wring you dry. It’s how they sustain the yearly “buy a day get a year” promotions, the free tickets for annual passholders, etc Disney USED to understand this. Now they want tickets to be a luxury purchase itself and make money on that AND merch, food, liquor and so on. If I’m spending 400 on a 3 day park hopper, you can bet I’m packing water bottles, snacks and not spending 40 dollars on a shirt. Versus BG; those 19 dollar mediocre chicken tenders don’t seem bad when I got in for “free” for the 8th time this year with my fun card.

It’s a tried and true model. It’s used by airlines, game console makers, and so on.

Rant over

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

Putting the reasons aside, the reason parks like BG and Six Flags are still in business among others is what @Sirwalterraleigh pointed out; they rather eat the loss on tickets because they know once they get you in, they can upsell the hell out of you and wring you dry. It’s how they sustain the yearly “buy a day get a year” promotions, the free tickets for annual passholders, etc Disney USED to understand this. Now they want tickets to be a luxury purchase itself and make money on that AND merch, food, liquor and so on. If I’m spending 400 on a 3 day park hopper, you can bet I’m packing water bottles, snacks and not spending 40 dollars on a shirt. Versus BG; those 19 dollar mediocre chicken tenders don’t seem bad when I got in for “free” for the 8th time this year with my fun card.

It’s a tried and true model. It’s used by airlines, game console makers, and so on.

Rant over

This is another example which applies to both Disney and Vegas, “loss leaders” are a concept of the past. Vegas used to be famous for its cheap buffets, free drinks for even penny gamblers, free lounge acts, etc… losing a few dollars on something that would get you in the door dropping $20s in a machine was viewed as a good investment, that mindset is unfortunately gone, now everything has to be profitable on its own or it’s cut.

The 3 o’clock parade may not have driven attendance but it kept a lot of people in the park in the afternoon buying lunch and churros, the fireworks kept people in the park buying snacks and visiting the gift shops until dark… now they’re limited to only the busiest times of the year and weekends because Disney doesn’t see the value in spending money to make money.

 

[LittleBuford]

The 3 o’clock parade may not have driven attendance but it kept a lot of people in the park in the afternoon buying lunch and churros, the fireworks kept people in the park buying snacks and visiting the gift shops until dark… now they’re limited to only the busiest times of the year and weekends because Disney doesn’t see the value in spending money to make money.

Those offerings are still daily at WDW. Indeed, with the recent introduction of Starlight, which runs twice a night, things are better at the Magic Kingdom in this particular regard than they have been for some time.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

The case has never been easier to be made that they DON’T care about the public perception or the brand.

Totally agree, this is why Disney should change leadership frequently, when a CEO and the board start worrying about their legacy rather than the companies legacy they need to go.

Even Walt Disney had this issue when he wanted to be known for more than a mouse. He had the common sense to leave the park and movie operations to others while he focused on Epcot though.

The parks need someone running them who’s only goal is running the best theme parks in the world, the studios need someone running them who’s only goal is putting out the most entertaining movies they can make… when those company goals get replaced by personal legacy goals it’s time for changes at the top.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

Those offerings are still daily at WDW. Indeed, with the recent introduction of Starlight, which runs twice a night, things are better at the Magic Kingdom in this particular regard than they have been for some time.

Sort of, they have good offering at MK, still have a good fireworks show at EP, and have F! at HS but that’s about it. Maybe a few cavalcades that replaced former parades. AK has nothing now, I can’t remember the last time I saw a parade or a nighttime show at that park.

A decade ago we’d buy parkhoppers simply to watch the fireworks at HS and then run over to EP for their fireworks, those days are long gone except for a few special events now.

 

[LittleBuford]

Sort of, they have good offering at MK, still have a good fireworks show at EP, and have F! at HS but that’s about it.

I was responding to your statement that these things are only offered at busy times or weekends, when they are, in fact, daily.