News Disney CFO Hugh Johnston Says Dynamic Pricing Is Coming to the Parks

[MrPromey]

This may be an unpopular opinion here but I think Disney is primarily for kids.

In terms of the cruise lines, families with young kids was absolutely the original goal and it was a great strategy for entering the market because until then, kids were mostly treated as an afterthought in that industry.

There's been a societal shift, though. When I was in my early 20's, people thought I was weird for liking Disney World. Explaining that there was more to it than just the Magic Kingdom and Dumbo was hard.

This was before the birth of the "Disney Adult" when it was suddenly considered normal for a 45 year old with no kids to want to wear Mickey ears and ride Dumbo before getting into a 40 minute line to get their picture taken with Minnie, though.

No judgement of anyone - just an observation.

 

[Chi84]

In terms of the cruise lines, families with young kids was absolutely the original goal and it was a great strategy for entering the market because until then, kids were mostly treated as an afterthought.

There's been a societal shift, though. When I was in my early 20's, people thought I was weird for liking Disney World. Explaining that there was more to it than just the Magic Kingdom and Dumbo was hard.

This was before the birth of the "Disney Adult" when it was suddenly considered normal for a 45 year old with no kids to want to wear Mickey ears and ride Dumbo, though.

No judgement of anyone - just an observation.

I don’t judge how people choose to have fun.

But I think it’s unrealistic to expect luxury experiences when one is wearing Mickey ears. That’s kind of the fun of the place. You don’t have to dress up to go to a nice bar or restaurant.

If I want to do that I can stay in my home city.

 

[BrianLo]

DVC occupancy averages around 95%, IIRC. So you can get a decent approximation of guests in the park from that.

What would you approximate in terms of attendance mix?

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

In terms of the cruise lines, families with young kids was absolutely the original goal and it was a great strategy for entering the market because until then, kids were mostly treated as an afterthought.

There's been a societal shift shift, though. When I was in my early 20's, people thought I was weird for liking Disney World. Explaining that there was more to it than just the Magic Kingdom and Dumbo was hard.

This was before the birth of the "Disney Adult" when it suddenly became considered normal for a 45 year old with no kids to want to wear Mickey ears and ride Dumbo, though.

No judgement of anyone - just an observation.

Things have a specific design and purpose…but Disney’s quality has always allowed them to flex to other areas to a certain extent…that’s a testament to them.

As you pointed out…adult “good timing” to wdw has grown and doesn’t seem out of place like it would have in the 1980s

Dcl was meant as a family ship…and has been successful. Remember that it was a gamble that Eisner was discouraged from getting into…he won that one. It has evolved a bit…so allowed some flex. Little more adult stuff on board and a little more sailing options

But with both wdw and dcl…that “flex” doesn’t cover the “luxury” realm. Nope. No matter what you pay…you’re not getting it.

 

[BrianLo]

That is not sound logic for this discussion. We're talking about unique customers..

That one is published online, there appears to be about 250k unique owners in the DVC portfolio. Though that really doesn’t help with attendance mix, for all the reasons you say. Particularly that kids are not on contracts.

 

[Chi84]

Things have a specific design and purpose…but Disney’s quality has always allowed them to flex to other areas to a certain extent…that’s a testament to them.

As you pointed out…adult “good timing” to wdw has grown and doesn’t seem out of place like it would have in the 1980s

Dcl was meant as a family ship…and has been successful. Remember that it was a gamble that Eisner was discouraged from getting into…he won that one. It has evolved a bit…so allowed some flex. Little more adult stuff on board and a little more sailing options

But with both wdw and dcl…that “flex” doesn’t cover the “luxury” realm. Nope. Bj matter what you pay…you’re not getting it.

Again, I don’t know who goes to a theme park expecting a true luxury experience.

People are paying a premium for access and convenience, not for luxury.

 

[MrPromey]

I don’t judge how people choose to have fun.

But I think it’s unrealistic to expect luxury experiences when one is wearing Mickey ears. That’s kind of the fun of the place. You don’t have to dress up to go to a nice bar or restaurant.

If I want to do that I can stay in my home city.

Are Mickey ears allowed in Victoria & Albert's?

But that kind of goes back to the heart of how nothing Disney has ever done was designed as luxury or really for the top 10% even though that seems to be how they're trying to position themselves these days without changing how they do things.

All of my life as an adult before having a child, I felt like a guest in someone else's space when I was in the Disney parks, though - welcome and accepted but clearly not who it was built for.

That's why it's odd for me to see adults arguing for why the MK should serve alcohol everywhere now but adults without children have more disposable income, I guess. They can more afford the resort stay and the tickets into the park and the lightning lane to get on Peter Pan's flight than who that attraction was originally designed to entertain.

Still, it's weird to me, people treating it like it's something worthy of the increasingly hign-end pricing; I guess the modern term is ""bougie", when the whole property was built to be approachable for the masses and the quality, if anything, has gone down over the years rather than up, completely out of step with how they want the public to perceive it.

 

[Chi84]

Are Mickey ears allowed in Victoria & Albert's?

But that kind of goes back to the heart of how nothing Disney has ever done was designed as luxury or really for the top 10% even though that seems to be how they're trying to position themselves these days without changing how they do things.

All of my life as an adult before having a child, I felt like a guest in someone else's space when I was in the Disney parks, though - welcome but not who it was built for. That's why it's weird for me to see adults arguing for why the MK should serve alcohol everywhere, now.

Well you’ll pass quite a few adults wearing Mickey ears and kids being kids on your way in. The overall atmosphere of a theme park resort does not exude luxury.

Disney can charge whatever it wants because it’s a unique destination. It’s the uniqueness and multigenerational appeal that make it a premium experience.

Other than calling its deluxe resorts “deluxe” I’m at a loss as to how Disney is marketing itself as a luxury vacation spot.

The fact that few people can afford it makes it a luxury spend for them but not a luxury experience.

 

[BrianLo]

There’s tradeoffs for sure…

DCL is nice for sure…but they don’t offer much that could fit the “luxury” category either. There are those…but it’s not DCL.

They have their own niche…but it’s not luxury

Let me preface by saying I am very much not a DCL defender. DCL is probably my 5th choice line. I don’t think they have ever defined themselves as a luxury line, though. They are a premium line, with luxury adjacent pricing (which is the problem).

I think this is a distinction from the hotel argument, they haven’t really broken nomenclature of the product from Industry standard. They do offer twice daily room servicing; which does fall into that service category.

 

[MrPromey]

Well you’ll pass quite a few adults wearing Mickey ears and kids being kids on your way in. The overall atmosphere of a theme park resort does not exude luxury.

Disney can charge whatever it wants because it’s a unique destination. It’s the uniqueness and multigenerational appeal that make it a premium experience.

Other than calling its deluxe resorts “deluxe” I’m at a loss as to how Disney is marketing itself as a luxury vacation spot.

The fact that few people can afford it makes it a luxury spend for them but not a luxury experience.

I agree with you.

They've been trying for quite a while now, though.

Remember that embarrassing tent city experiment in Tomorrowland?

That "Crown" branding thing for stuff across the resort where they didn't actually change anything but wanted people to think it was somehow for the elite that seemed to fizzle out?

There have been others but those are the two that are top of mind and obvious since they were looking for champagne results on a moonshine budget in those examples.

Of course, Golden Oak and their own Four Seasons are the two most successful examples, I think.

I wonder how adoption has been with the east coast Club 33.*


*Open thought - I have absolutely no idea if it's met management's targets or not.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

They are a premium line, with luxury adjacent pricing (which is the problem).

Then everything north of carnival is “premium”…because they all offer what Disney does or more in some cases. With some notable swaps

Disney offers more kids and all ages things…the others more adult stuff. Kinda offsets.

“Premium” is what the price that they charge is. Nothing more
It worked on a small fleet because they limited supply…we’ll see if they mess with that too much?

 

[Chi84]

I agree with you.

They've been trying for quite a while now, though.

Remember that tent city experiment in Tomorrowland?

That "Crown" branding thing for stuff across the resort where they didn't actually change anything but wanted people to think it was somehow for the elite that seemed to fizzle out?

There have been others but those are the two that are top of mind and obvious since they were looking for champagne results on a moonshine budget in those examples.

Of course, Golden Oak and their own Waldorf Astoria are the two most successful examples, I think.

I wonder how adoption has been with the east coast Club 33.

I don’t think tents in the MK is luxury. Premium, definitely.

We agree; we’re just using slightly different definitions.

People clearly will pay for these premium experiences as long as they provide something they want. Posters who think they shouldn’t keep pointing out that they are not true “luxury” experiences. They know. They’re okay with it.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Remember that tent city experiment in Tomorrowland?

That "Crown" branding thing for stuff across the resort where they didn't actually change anything but wanted people to think it was somehow for the elite that seemed to fizzle out?

There have been others but those are the two that are top of mind and obvious since they were looking for champagne results on a moonshine budget in those examples.

I just snarfed…

I had blacked out on the smokers tents totally

 

[MrPromey]

Then everything north of carnival is “premium”…because they all offer what Disney does or more in some cases. With some notable swaps

Disney offers more kids and all ages things…the others more adult stuff. Kinda offsets.

“Premium” is what the price that they charge is. Nothing more
It worked on a small fleet because they limited supply…we’ll see if they mess with that too much?

As someone who's not big into cruses and has no idea what they're talking about here, I'm going to say something, anyway :

It seems to me like they have more wiggle room to adjust cruise pricing downward if they needed to either shorter term or longer if they needed to reposition there without brand damage than they could with the Florida property, to me.

That Asian ship they're reworking is intended for a more budget and high volume audience on the other side of the world already, isn't it?

 

[BrianLo]

Then everything north of carnival is “premium”…because they all offer what Disney does or more in some cases. With some notable swaps

Like hotels, the nomenclature should be partly service based. NCL and RCL do not offer twice daily room service. Being flashy isn’t necessarily premium. Disney hotels are incredibly flashy. Royal ships are flashier than Celebrity.

But it’s all a weird gradient, I’ll grant you. Even within a line there’s major differences in product between ship classes. I really just wanted to say that DCL does not call itself luxury.

 

[WorldExplorer]

It's accurate.

In no way is the GF in anyway a flagship resort. Everything has been made cookie cutter as to minimize costs. Each deluxe has exactly the same amenities and features and benefits as every other deluxe resort on property. The merch in the gift shop is the mostly the same, the drinks at the pool bar are the same, the QS items are all variations of the same thing, the in room toiletries are the same, the beds and sheets are the same, the room categories are the same, the pool features are the same, etc. etc. There's no opulence or luxury, just economization in the name of cost cutting.

I don't think this is true. Grand has the spa and is the only one with rentable pool cabanas (or there might be one more), Yacht and Beach have Stormalong Bay with its unique features, Boardwalk has the boardwalk with the entertainment that comes with it, Animal Kingdom Lodge has the animals, MK resorts get the Electric Water Pageant, each one has different modes of transportation, fireworks view is only available at MK resorts for obvious reasons, Crescent Lake resorts have their own ice cream shops, AKL has cultural representatives, only certain resorts get Blizzard Beach direct buses...

And you're exaggerating how standard the QS menus are. There's some sharing, but Polynesian and AKL are standouts for food items unique to them (and Boardwalk if you count Blue Ribbon Corndogs) and there's usually at least a couple exclusive dishes for all of them, plus multiple unique desserts.


I haven't had enough experience to say how it ranks compared to non Disney resorts, and I believe if they were making any of these things today none of those unique things would be there (the Boardwalk boardwalk is already rapidly getting worse), but there's still variation in the resorts. Otherwise I couldn't say so confidently that Crescent Lake resorts are the best ones.

 

[DisneyHead123]

I think that was his point. The tradeoff is luxury for novelty and kitsch.

You may find a nicer bar on another ship but it won't be Star Wars themed. For a non-Star Wars fan, that theme may seem stupid and tacky and immature as a "grown-up" place to go do "adult" things without kids but if that's what you want, then you won't find it on a more luxurious ship with a better bar and overall higher-end amenities so you have to make your choices.

Disney doesn't even bother trying to compete on that level because for their fan base, they don't feel they need to. Instead they charge luxury prices for the ® and ™ that Disney owns.

I don’t know that it’s a simple as novelty and kitsch. When I was in the “dual income no kids” (or nieces and nephews) stage of life, I spent my travel budget on silent or meditation / yoga retreats. That is probably my natural habitat, but not a possibility at this stage in life.

Maybe I’m a weird outlier, but, if not, maybe that’s a bit of insight into the mindset Disney taps into? Traditional luxury experiences sort of put a hierarchical dynamic at the forefront. Is Disney some kind of egalitarian utopia? No, clearly not, it actually costs a bajillion dollars to go there. But at least it kinda pretends to be? Kindness, creativity, acceptance, joy and wonder are the type of subjective experiences they put at the forefront. Again, there’s no denying that this is in part for the sake of sales, but I think it’s a better description of the dream they’re selling and what people hope to immerse themselves in.

 

[monothingie]

I don't think this is true. Grand has the spa and is the only one with rentable pool cabanas (or there might be one more), Yacht and Beach have Stormalong Bay with its unique features, Boardwalk has the boardwalk with the entertainment that comes with it, Animal Kingdom Lodge has the animals, MK resorts get the Electric Water Pageant, each one has different modes of transportation, fireworks view is only available at MK resorts for obvious reasons, Crescent Lake resorts have their own ice cream shops, AKL has cultural representatives, only certain resorts get Blizzard Beach direct buses...

And you're exaggerating how standard the QS menus are. There's some sharing, but Polynesian and AKL are standouts for food items unique to them (and Boardwalk if you count Blue Ribbon Corndogs) and there's usually at least a couple exclusive dishes for all of them, plus multiple unique desserts.


I haven't had enough experience to say how it ranks compared to non Disney resorts, and I believe if they were making any of these things today none of those unique things would be there (the Boardwalk boardwalk is already rapidly getting worse), but there's still variation in the resorts. Otherwise I couldn't say so confidently that Crescent Lake resorts are the best ones.

The formula is the same at every deluxe. At least 2 TS, at least 1 qs, at least one feature pool and at least one quiet pool, a pool bar at the future pool that serves the same cocktails property wide, minimum one gift job that sells the same trinkets that you’d get at every other resort gift shop property wide, rooms with the same amenities and features property wide. As was said earlier, the construction is different, but the features are still the same. The merch is still the same. The food is more or less still the same. All of it is designed to minimize cost through standardization.

 

[MrPromey]

q

I don’t know that it’s a simple as novelty and kitsch. When I was in the “dual income no kids” (or nieces and nephews) stage of life, I spent my travel budget on silent or meditation / yoga retreats. That is probably my natural habitat, but not a possibility at this stage in life.

Maybe I’m a weird outlier, but, if not, maybe that’s a bit of insight into the mindset Disney taps into? Traditional luxury experiences sort of put a hierarchical dynamic at the forefront. Is Disney some kind of egalitarian utopia? No, clearly not, it actually costs a bajillion dollars to go there. But at least it kinda pretends to be? Kindness, creativity, acceptance, joy and wonder are the type of subjective experiences they put at the forefront. Again, there’s no denying that this is in part for the sake of sales, but I think it’s a better description of the dream they’re selling and what people hope to immerse themselves in.

Aren't nearly all cruises mostly inclusive amenity-wise? As someone who doesn't frequent cruises, that's stated as part of the appeal (outside of excursions) from my friends who consider it a hobby/lifestyle.

Surely, a Regent or Oceania cruise doesn't work like this, does it?:



... although second class in that video does feel like most of Orlando... I'm clearly a second-classer, soon to be aspiring second-classer/steerage at the rate the economy is going.

 

[WorldExplorer]

The formula is the same at every deluxe. At least 2 TS, at least 1 qs, at least one feature pool and at least one quiet pool, a pool bar at the future pool that serves the same cocktails property wide, minimum one gift job that sells the same trinkets that you’d get at every other resort gift shop property wide, rooms with the same amenities and features property wide. As was said earlier, the construction is different, but the features are still the same. The merch is still the same. The food is more or less still the same. All of it is designed to minimize cost through standardization.

Using "at least" so much makes this really shaky; so Polynesian having two sit downs and Grand having four is the same because they both have at least 2? The fact that Beach Club has one gift shop that doubles as the quick service is the same as Grand Floridian having three gift shops that are completely separate from the QS because they both have at least one gift shop? The fact that I can easily go get a sundae at Boardwalk but can't at Wilderness doesn't count for anything because they both have at least one quick service? Stormalong Bay being huge, with a sand bar and lazy river is the same as Contemporary's completely normal pool because they are both a "feature" pool?

that sells the same trinkets that you’d get at every other resort gift shop property wide

AKL has a large amount of African art for sale, Polynesian sells Hawaiian imports and tiki themed ceramics, Wilderness Lodge sells general woodsy stuff (e.g. Smokey the Bear). They all also carry resort themed items, though I'm guessing those don't count because they're stuff like t-shirts and beach blankets and Disney sells t-shirts and beach blankets with other designs elsewhere.

a pool bar at the future pool that serves the same cocktails property wide,

Not at Wilderness; it has a lakeside bar with a much bigger selection of food, sandwiched between the quiet and feature pools. Grand and Polynesian also have bars at both pools.

The food is more or less still the same.

Way too much of this post is just claiming they're all the same so long as you don't count anything that makes them different.