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

[BrianLo]

That's probably a consequence of Gen Z and Gen Alpha not really using "the web" the same way older gen-x / millennials do. They do most of their research and outreach via social media platforms and AI. Makes sense that a lot of younger families wouldn't be here.

Which of course, heavily tilits the opinions represented here away from reality as a whole.

Definitely. There’s a heavy tilt towards this missing demographic here because we are on a forum. Where most of us have been using forums for decades, if not outright this very one.

I vibe with forum users, but I’m very much on the cusp of not fitting the usual demographic, because I was early into the internet as a tween.

I do get some Facebook user groups on my newsfeeds (again, Facebook I know, I’m a weird Canadian generation who had it via University intranet). Facebook groups are so demographically unlike this forums user group. Particularly the DVC ones. Overrun with mid-millennials with young kids. Extremely different priorities, opinions (not all positive) and knowledge bases. One needs to merely stand anywhere in a Disney park and open their eyes to see the demographic worries are not yet setting in. They could! I am not shut down to that possibility, that’s why this conversation is so interesting.

 

[BrianLo]

What you're saying in the last couple of posts is you like Disney's marketing and branding more - not, objectively, their cruises. You might like their cruises more, too but that's not what you're talking about.

I thought you were going to delve into what each had to offer that actually made the experiences so different either in service or amenities, crew attitudes, various accommodations, etc., not try to lead me down the path of their various approaches to marketing hokum.

There’s definitely a very large subgroup who are simply in it for the IP marketing slathering over the line. Which is a massive reason there’s a cost premium and not because the line is always so premium itself.

Obviously that’s everyone’s prerogative and some folks eyes wide open are paying through the roof to have easy access to sail with Mickey, figuratively and literally.


To properly address your question. Crew to passenger ratios are another very reliable surrogate for classifying lines. In part what I was hinting at in the offering of a turndown service. Service we largely agree informs In ways what we are getting at. Mass market lines tend to be 2.5 guests to crew. Luxury 1.5 guests to crew. Disney runs in the middle at 2. This is smack dab where Celebrity runs, which is a bit easier to latch onto. Royal owns Celebrity and themselves define the latter as a more premium offering.

The trouble with broad brush strokes though on the cruise industry is that every ship acts as its own microcosm and things can become incredibly inconsistent. Much the same way that Disney does not have a luxury hotel, but there’s clear quality gaps within. Are you sailing in a “Deluxe” Grand Flo DVC or a “Deluxe” DVC Fort Wilderness cabin.

So when we hear X line has better entertainment, food, service, etc than DCL a given ship may actually meet those conditions. But a middle of the road Carnival ship versus a middle of the road DCL ship is going to be a much (much) less premium product.

Generally speaking within the industry all of Disneys’ fleet have high quality musical entertainment (not just the new ones). Food quality is above average. Service standards are above average. Itinerary destinations and choices are above the rather low benchmark Royal is now setting. They pride themselves on child programming, which is likely unmatched, outside of Royals newer ships, which definitely do things better for non brand indoctrinated tweens / adolescents.

Pricing is way, way above average and there’s where the Mickey tax comes in. I always trip at the pricing finish line.

Cruises I find interesting because it is not an area that Disney clearly is the market leader, nor the innovator. They seem to be able to maintain their pricing edge because they are so relatively niche. When DCL first launched there was no out of control “Mickey tax”.

 

[HauntedPirate]

I find it… interesting… that people automatically assume “staying in a DVC room = 100% Disney park attendance”. It could be 75%, 80%, or 90%, but there is zero chance that the occupants of every occupied DVC room are heading into a park every day.

 

[MrPromey]

To be fair, I’m probably overthinking a long response to what was a simple Disney insult. If you just want to grumble that people pay to much to see that daggone kitschy mouse, have at it.

Okay, so you don't actually know what their cruise experience is like compared to anyone else other than theirs is the only one you'll get Disney characters on. You are arguing from what you imagine the experience would probably feel like relative to the rest of the industry based on their commercials.

Gotcha.

I wish it hadn't taken multiple back and fourths for you to admit you don't know any better than I do what their cruises are actually like.

Since we've both been to Walt Disney World, can we agree that unlike the commercials, the parks never look as empty as they show, that you'll never get an encounter with just you and a princess on the lawn in front of the castle or experience a ride on the tea cups with an Alice in Wonderland character or really, have any chance encounter with a character unless it's someone d-list like an evil step sister? That what you will encounter is things like inadequate seating in quick-service restaurants at lunch time, standby lines, strollers everywhere, and an inability to go from Jungle Cruse right to a Safari with real animals?

Despite loving the parks, I know their commercials and advertisements have never represented a real day there except maybe for the ultra-wealthy. Can we agree on that?

If so, wouldn't it make sense to take a slightly more critical look at the way they advertise their cruise experiences, too?

That aside...

You seem to have taken offense to me referring to the Disney experience as more novelty and kitsch, than luxury despite me multiple times saying that's more my thing, too.

Disney is pop art which, by that very definition, is kitsch. If that somehow wounds you to hear, I'm sorry. I personally, have zero shame in liking either novelty or kitsch and I'm 100% more comfortable in the crowd that attracts than the type that are typically looking for full luxury.

Just the same, a dollar is a dollar and I know the difference between a nice steak and a twenty-something in a costume pretending to be a famous character. For my child, I'll always choose the character (until he outgrows it) but for me, I know the value in a good cut of meat.

I also know the reason Disney refuses to offer both in most cases is the meat is expensive, the character is cheap and for their audience, they know they only need the character.

... but they'll still charge like the premium steak is there, too.

To me, that kinda sucks.

BTW, I looked it up and it appears the characters on Carnival cruse ships are Seuss. Not what I'd have expected but I guess the budget cruise line most people commonly compare Disney favorably to has paid to license some well known child specific IP to show up in costumes. I can't imagine that being a huge deciding factor for a lot of people, though.

Apparently Norwegian had Nickelodeon characters at one time like Spongebob and Dora and Royal Caribbean did Dreamworks stuff for a while so others either do or have experimented with the kind of stuff on some level. I'm guessing the ones that dropped it, did so because it didn't move any needles for them enough or maybe it changed their demographics in ways that disrupted their existing audience's experiences?

Hard to say.

 

[MrPromey]

There’s definitely a very large subgroup who are simply in it for the IP marketing slathering over the line. Which is a massive reason there’s a cost premium and not because the line is always so premium itself.

Obviously that’s everyone’s prerogative and some folks eyes wide open are paying through the roof to have easy access to sail with Mickey, figuratively and literally.


To properly address your question. Crew to passenger ratios are another very reliable surrogate for classifying lines. In part what I was hinting at in the offering of a turndown service. Service we largely agree informs In ways what we are getting at. Mass market lines tend to be 2.5 guests to crew. Luxury 1.5 guests to crew. Disney runs in the middle at 2. This is smack dab where Celebrity runs, which is a bit easier to latch onto. Royal owns Celebrity and themselves define the latter as a more premium offering.

The trouble with broad brush strokes though on the cruise industry is that every ship acts as its own microcosm and things can become incredibly inconsistent. Much the same way that Disney does not have a luxury hotel, but there’s clear quality gaps within. Are you sailing in a “Deluxe” Grand Flo DVC or a “Deluxe” DVC Fort Wilderness cabin.

So when we hear X line has better entertainment, food, service, etc than DCL a given ship may actually meet those conditions. But a middle of the road Carnival ship versus a middle of the road DCL ship is going to be a much (much) less premium product.

Generally speaking within the industry all of Disneys’ fleet have high quality musical entertainment (not just the new ones). Food quality is above average. Service standards are above average. Itinerary destinations and choices are above the rather low benchmark Royal is now setting. They pride themselves on child programming, which is likely unmatched, outside of Royals newer ships, which definitely do things better for non brand indoctrinated tweens / adolescents.

Pricing is way, way above average and there’s where the Mickey tax comes in. I always trip at the pricing finish line.

Cruises I find interesting because it is not an area that Disney clearly is the market leader, nor the innovator. They seem to be able to maintain their pricing edge because they are so relatively niche. When DCL first launched there was no out of control “Mickey tax”.

Thank you for the insights. I know that wasn't a quick post to make.

This speaks to me a lot more than someone telling me, a person who's been on this Disney forum for a quarter of a century that I apparently don't understand Disney.

Imagine if Disney took their "black box" attraction concept and designed new ships with spaces for something like that? That seems like it would be really something only Disney would do.

... but I guess, if their guests are willing to pay the Disney tax for character meets and Disney IP, there's no need for them make those sorts of investments, is there?

It's been decades since my last cruise and I have memories, as a child of about five or six, being rushed through a smoky casino I was both not allowed to be in but also had to pass through multiple times a day by design, to access certain parts of the ship. That wasn't what I'd call traumatizing but it felt bad enough to still remember.

That alone would make me give Disney a hard look before booking anything else with my son... but it sounds like most of the other lines have caught on since the launch of DCL originally proved successful.

 

[BrianLo]

It's been decades since my last cruise and I have memories, as a child of about five or six being rushed through a smoky casino I was both not allowed to be in but also had to pass through multiple times a day by design, to access certain parts of the ship. That wasn't what I'd call traumatizing but it felt bad enough to still remember.

That alone would make me give Disney a hard look before booking anything else with my son... but it sounds like most of the other lines have caught on since the launch of DCL originally proved successful.

No problem! DCL lacks Casinos completely. That is one of the other definable brand standards above every other mass market line. A non insignificant revenue generator they forgo.

Some people treat DCL as their core line, which absolutely is their prerogative. For the right age demo though, IF you also happen to have Disney affinity, it’s a bit hard to overcome what they offer for families. Save for some of the new Royal ships visiting their island destinations. Royal I think skews even more successfully family than Universal manages to on land.

DCL is certainly a generally very good product, not to the price it commands, but it is premium to ostensibly someone who doesn’t identify as their champion. I have criticisms of all the lines in various minutae, which is well beyond what anyone would probably be interested in hearing me go on about any longer!

 

[BrianLo]

I find it… interesting… that people automatically assume “staying in a DVC room = 100% Disney park attendance”. It could be 75%, 80%, or 90%, but there is zero chance that the occupants of every occupied DVC room are heading into a park every day.

Re-read what I wrote above. It’s quite the opposite of that. That’s what I really am curious about what this 3 per DVC unit number is a product of. Hard room occupancy averages, or rather a benchmark of unit to park attendance. It sounds like this is an estimate of the latter, but at the same token it accounts for zero non Disney unit contribution.

What you are suggesting further lowers the contribution of DVC on WDW gate attendance into mid single digits - and I was getting an unusual amount of flack at first suggesting that. That’s what I also strongly believe. Your logic is sound, I suspect DVC guests utilize the parks less frequently than regular cash. It sounds you are landing towards the same conclusion, mid single digits?

 

[MrPromey]

No problem! DCL lacks Casinos completely. That is one of the other definable brand standards above every other mass market line. A non insignificant revenue generator they forgo.

Some people treat DCL as their core line, which absolutely is their prerogative. For the right age demo though, IF you also happen to have Disney affinity, it’s a bit hard to overcome what they offer for families. Save for some of the new Royal ships visiting their island destinations. Royal I think skews even more successfully family than Universal manages to on land.

DCL is certainly a generally very good product, not to the price it commands, but it is premium to ostensibly someone who doesn’t identify as their champion.

That makes sense. I could see that.

I have criticisms of all the lines in various minutae, which is well beyond what anyone would probably be interested in hearing me go on about any longer!

Don't you dare threaten me with a good time!

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Great so 4800 declared units * 0.95 occupancy * 3 guests * 365 days = 4.993M attendance clicks / 48.77M annual attendance = 10.2%

More towards 10 since I am using 2024 figures with November 2025 declaration and not all declared units are sold. 10% seems to be the top end.

-Do you think it requires any further adjustment for Disney company sold occupancy? Or is the 95% occupancy purely made of DVC owners.
-Do you think “3 guests” has essentially already taken into account skipped park days by virtue of its surrogate as an attendance estimate?

Exactly. With the one caveat that I think undeclared units are treated purely within the purview of the cash inventory, I believe?

Disney also experiences a non insignificant amount of breakage and shockingly trading of (low-yield) points by members for their other revenue products like international hotels or cruises.

I think typically the 2% they own legally are to account for loss of inventory during refurbs. They do own above this threshold for most resorts as they typically declare sell out around 95%, so they are often sitting on points they are willing to sell (Grand Cal being the one that is always tight). Most of their rentals of units are ultimately from breakage, points they are sitting on from estates or bankruptcy, member trades or undeclared units.

You’re spiraling toward the dead band in deep space here…

Backup. What premise are you trying to reverse engineer with your study here?

Unless I’m misunderstanding…wasn’t it “dvc and annual passholders (Anaheim) aren’t THAT big of a chunk of daily attendance…”

Que?

 

[BrianLo]

You’re spiraling toward the dead band in deep space here…

Backup. What premise are you trying to reverse engineer with your study here?

Unless I’m misunderstanding…wasn’t it “dvc and annual passholders (Anaheim) aren’t THAT big of a chunk of daily attendance…”

Que?

Ah, got it! What you really want to know is my intentions, happy to clear that up.

It was simply because Animaniac first posed the question, which I thought was a really interesting thing worth discussing. Not malicious. Not to paint DVC as somehow strategically meaningless (it isn’t) or their vibrant anti-consumer pricing as somehow consumer positive (it isn’t).

This is another case of you thinking I had a very different intent than I did. I’ll try to explain my intention better. It’s not a case of chasing data to give anyone a win, it’s to chase some data because I think it makes everyone’s conversations much more interesting (for me at least). Plus, we were asked.

A lot of people are locked into WDW trips because of their DVC contract

If it wasn't for their timeshare program, how much worse off would WDW be?

My response in part was that I thought people had a tendency to over-estimate the size of DVC. Which probably was not an unfair characterization.


As per my own comment about Disneyland AP - I was bouncing off his third and final sentence. That DVC for Florida is really analogous to AP for Disneyland. Analogous in the sense that they are so unusually out of whack for each parks base and the parks strategically use them in a way no other resort in their portfolio does.

What would happen if DVC goes away in Florida, what would happen if APs go away in Anaheim? That’s all I was commenting on.

Most certainly they are not the same. For starters I’d guess a median DVC owner has much more purchasing power than an Anaheim local passholder.

It's the only Disney theme park resort globally that is so dependent on them.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Ah, got it! What you really want to know is my intentions, happy to clear that up.

It was simply because Animaniac first posed the question, which I thought was a really interesting thing worth discussing. Not malicious. Not to paint DVC as somehow strategically meaningless (it isn’t) or their vibrant anti-consumer pricing as somehow consumer positive (it isn’t).

This is another case of you thinking I had a very different intent than I did. I’ll try to explain my intention better. It’s not a case of chasing data to give anyone a win, it’s to chase some data because I think it makes everyone’s conversations much more interesting (for me at least). Plus, we were asked.



My response in part was that I thought people had a tendency to over-estimate the size of DVC. Which probably was not an unfair characterization.


As per my own comment about Disneyland AP - I was bouncing off his third and final sentence. That DVC for Florida is really analogous to AP for Disneyland. Analogous in the sense that they are so unusually out of whack for each parks base and the parks strategically use them in a way no other resort in their portfolio does.

What would happen if DVC goes away in Florida, what would happen if APs go away in Anaheim? That’s all I was commenting on.

Most certainly they are not the same. For starters I’d guess a median DVC owner has much more purchasing power than an Anaheim local passholder.

Right…

This tries to present that each day…it’s “mostly” a collection of first timers, and seldoms showing up at the gates in both complexes?

Yeah…no…not in the slightest

Annual passholders in Anaheim keep the place running…
As locals, dvc and annuals form the backbone of the Orlando market. They’re incapacitated without it.

You’re confusing what these idiots in charge have tried to spin for 10 years with the truth…which are in no way the same thing.

I didn’t misunderstand you at all…I thought you were running interference trying to say they don’t “depend” on their frequenters.

GONG! We have some nice parting gifts for you there.

Now that they are heading down and can’t avoid admitting it any longer after shell games for years…we see similar “they have options…cause they’re smart” type stuff popping up on threads.

I assure you they don’t…and they are not smart.

but let’s let it play…a consumer crisis is underway…I’m sure another round of price increases to push quarterlies and a 10% coupon discount will hit the spot

 

[BrianLo]

Right…

This tries to present that each day…it’s “mostly” a collection of first timers, and seldoms showing up at the gates in both complexes?

Yeah…no…not in the slightest


…
I didn’t misunderstand you at all…I thought you were running interference trying to say they don’t “depend” on their frequenters.

GONG! We have some nice parting gifts for you there.

No, that’s not an argument I’m making. I’m barely making an argument, I’m in pursuit of an answer. We are clearly still misunderstanding each other.

DVC is not the exclusive right holder of loyal repeat customers. I’d imagine the majority of this forum are not DVC owners.

Are you asking me the percentage of guests that are loyal repeat customers? Royal Caribbean has a statistic that they are around 40% repeat business, so I’d reliably say Disney is at (above) that threshold. If Disney loses its repeat customer base it’s cooked, it isn’t functioning on first timers.

 

[lentesta]

-Do you think it requires any further adjustment for Disney company sold occupancy? Or is the 95% occupancy purely made of DVC owners.
-Do you think “3 guests” has essentially already taken into account skipped park days by virtue of its surrogate as an attendance estimate?

1. I don't think so. I think the 95% is for "someone - anyone - is in the room", so not necessarily DVC owners.

2. Yeah, I do. Good point there @BrianLo.

 

[DisneyHead123]

Okay, so you don't actually know what their cruise experience is like compared to anyone else other than theirs is the only one you'll get Disney characters on. You are arguing from what you imagine the experience would probably feel like relative to the rest of the industry based on their commercials.

Gotcha.

I wish it hadn't taken multiple back and fourths for you to admit you don't know any better than I do what their cruises are actually like.

Since we've both been to Walt Disney World, can we agree that unlike the commercials, the parks never look as empty as they show, that you'll never get an encounter with just you and a princess on the lawn in front of the castle or experience a ride on the tea cups with an Alice in Wonderland character or really, have any chance encounter with a character unless it's someone d-list like an evil step sister? That what you will encounter is things like inadequate seating in quick-service restaurants at lunch time, standby lines, strollers everywhere, and an inability to go from Jungle Cruse right to a Safari with real animals?

Despite loving the parks, I know their commercials and advertisements have never represented a real day there except maybe for the ultra-wealthy. Can we agree on that?

If so, wouldn't it make sense to take a slightly more critical look at the way they advertise their cruise experiences, too?

That aside...

You seem to have taken offense to me referring to the Disney experience as more novelty and kitsch, than luxury despite me multiple times saying that's more my thing, too.

Disney is pop art which, by that very definition, is kitsch. If that somehow wounds you to hear, I'm sorry. I personally, have zero shame in liking either novelty or kitsch and I'm 100% more comfortable in the crowd that attracts than the type that are typically looking for full luxury.

Just the same, a dollar is a dollar and I know the difference between a nice steak and a twenty-something in a costume pretending to be a famous character. For my child, I'll always choose the character (until he outgrows it) but for me, I know the value in a good cut of meat.

I also know the reason Disney refuses to offer both in most cases is the meat is expensive, the character is cheap and for their audience, they know they only need the character.

... but they'll still charge like the premium steak is there, too.

To me, that kinda sucks.

BTW, I looked it up and it appears the characters on Carnival cruse ships are Seuss. Not what I'd have expected but I guess the budget cruise line most people commonly compare Disney favorably to has paid to license some well known child specific IP to show up in costumes. I can't imagine that being a huge deciding factor for a lot of people, though.

Apparently Norwegian had Nickelodeon characters at one time like Spongebob and Dora and Royal Caribbean did Dreamworks stuff for a while so others either do or have experimented with the kind of stuff on some level. I'm guessing the ones that dropped it, did so because it didn't move any needles for them enough or maybe it changed their demographics in ways that disrupted their existing audience's experiences?

Hard to say.

- I’ve watched multiple vlogs of cruises, of course I know in person there will be things like lines. If the cruises are so wildly different in person that I couldn’t know what they’re like from a vlog, ok, but that seems unlikely. I’ve researched other travel destinations and not found that to be the case.

- Again with saying they are “kitsch” - all I’m trying to convey to you is that other people might see things differently, and to describe what that difference is for me. Strangely we can’t seem to establish that. I feel like you’re insisting that your interpretation is objectively correct and not just, well, your personal experience.

If we can’t establish that different people have different perspectives, probably no point in continuing this conversation. (Having flashbacks to endless debates over the is / ought problem, lol, of which this is actually a variant. I know from experience that they never go anywhere. If you don’t see a difference between subjective experience and objective fact, I will not be the one to convince you.)

 

[MrPromey]

- Again with saying they are “kitsch” - all I’m trying to convey to you is that other people might see things differently, and to describe what that difference is for me. Strangely we can’t seem to establish that. I feel like you’re insisting that your interpretation is objectively correct and not just, well, your personal experience.

It doesn't matter how YOU see it or I see it. Unless you subscribe to the theory of alternate facts, there is a pretty clear definition for what kitsch is:

Considered to be in bad taste - open to opinion (in my opinion, no but many non-Disney fans would disagree)
Designed for the masses?
Emphasis on ascetics over deeper meaning?
Garish/gaudy - open to opinion (In my opinion, sometimes yes but by design. I'd call Bibbidi Bobbidi Boutique intentionally gaudy. I'm sure an eight year old girl would disagree with me. Maybe you disagree with me.)
Excessive sentimentality?
Naturalistic standards of beauty?
Lacking in the conceptual depth of fine art?
Earnest?
Quirky?
Marketable?
Mass-produced?

Basically, most of Pop Culture falls into the category of kitsch. That's generally why it's POPular Culture to begin with.

Kitsch doesn't automatically mean low quality or bad design - it can but it often doesn't.

LITERAL example of kitsch as it comes to DCL:

Fun whimsical touch? Yes. (my opinion)

Cute? Yes (my opinion)

Kitsch? Opinion doesn't really apply, here. If you understand what kitsch actually is in a cultural and artistic sense, that's what it was deigned to be as is nearly everything Disney produces.

Andy Warhol's artwork was Kitsch, intentionally and by design. Liking Andy Warhol's art doesn't somehow make you a loser. He was a bit controversial for his time in the art world but his art sits in museums and is highly sought after by serious art collectors today. Trying to say it isn't kitsch doesn't change the fact that it is, though and Andy never disputed it, himself.

Disney designs for the masses. Mass appeal. Plastic painted gold means as much as gold. They very seldom (with the Disney brand) touch on mature or truly serious topics because that alienates customers.* You're not supposed to think about any of it that hard. Why does Mickey consider Pluto a pet but Goofy a friend when they're both dogs? There is zero depth to "When you wish upon a star" because while it sounds nice, we all know that wishing upon a star does not actually make dreams come true, right?

... right?

We know when a castmember is trained to say "Have a Magical Day!" they are not in fact casting some spell intended to bring actual magic into your life as some trained wizard but are just coached to say this cute quirky line as part of their brand.

If any normal person said that to you at work (assuming you don't work at Disney) or at a car dealership, or like, at the Dr. office you'd wonder what was wrong with them, wouldn't you?

That's all literally kitsch - shallow, with emphasis on ascetics over deeper meaning, heavy on sentiment and intended to be embraced by the masses.*

AND THERE IS NOTHING OBJECTIVELY WRONG WITH THAT.

You can agree to disagree on objective facts there but thems the facts.

A popcorn bucket shaped like figment made of cheap plastic that barely holds popcorn and creates lines hours long in the middle of a theme park is by definition, kitsch.**

A gilded mickey ear design on a banister, is kitsch.

And again, that's not an objectively bad thing.

A Mickey necklace made of plastic is more than likely landfill waiting to happen. A Mickey necklace made of gold is luxury. Both are still kitsch in design.

My point is, you don't usually pay big premiums in life for stuff that is designed to be consumed by the masses unless there is something else to it. The Mickey necklace in gold is objectively more valuable than the one in plastic BECAUSE IT IS MADE OF GOLD but your offering by pure design - by meaning and intent - is not high art, elite, exclusive or luxury if both Walmart and Dollar Tree carry it.

We all know Disney's an exception on the pricing front. We even have a term for it: The Disney tax.

That we all expect it, shouldn't forgive it, though.

Plastic should not be priced like it's gold... or even brass.

*If you want to tell me how deep the stories in Moana and Frozen are, I'll ask you compared to what? We're not exactly talking Crime and Punishment or Heart of Darkness, here which again, is perfectly fine. It's cool they put lessons adults can appreciate in movies aimed at kids but they're still movies intended to be understood by kids with things like singing snowmen in them.

**I wanted one of those, btw. Sadly, didn't get it and refuse to pay Ebay scalpers.

If we can’t establish that different people have different perspectives, probably no point in continuing this conversation. (Having flashbacks to endless debates over the is / ought problem, lol, of which this is actually a variant. I know from experience that they never go anywhere. If you don’t see a difference between subjective experience and objective fact, I will not be the one to convince you.)

Dude, the difference you're pointing out here is exactly what I've been talking about this whole time. You are the one who decided to debate this with me. The original statement I made which set you off was:

"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."

Notice the part I bolded there? The part about how non-Star Wars fans may not be impressed by a Star Wars themed bar but how Star Wars fans really have no choice when it comes to a Star Wars themed bar because Disney holds all the cards, there?

That's what I would call having a different perspective. You apparently had a problem with that.

My point was, Disney could lean a little more into the luxury without giving up the novelty and kitsch we all love. They choose not to because they know they don't have to.

Why?

Because nobody else can provide that same novelty and kitsch so if that's what you want, you aren't going to find it at a higher quality level anywhere else.

Do you disagree?

 

[jah4955]

It doesn't matter how YOU see it or I see it. Unless you subscribe to the theory of alternate facts, there is a pretty clear definition for what kitsch is:

Considered to be in bad taste - open to opinion (in my opinion, no but to many non-Disney fans would disagree)
Designed for the masses?
Emphasis on ascetics over deeper meaning?
Garish/gaudy - open to opinion (In my opinion, sometimes yes but by design. I'd call Bibbidi Bobbidi Boutique intentionally gaudy. I'm sure an eight year old girl would disagree with me. Maybe you disagree with me.)
Excessive sentimentality?

Basically, most of Pop Culture falls into the category of kitsch. That's generally why it's POPular Culture to begin with.

Kitsch doesn't automatically mean low quality or bad design - it can but it often doesn't.

LITERAL example of kitsch as it comes to DCL:

View attachment 894471

Fun whimsical touch? Yes. (my opinion)

Cute? Yes (my opinion)

Kitsch? Opinion doesn't really apply, here. If you understand what kitsch actually is in a cultural and artistic sense, that's what it was deigned to be as is nearly everything Disney produces.

Andy Warhol's artwork was Kitsch, intentionally and by design. Liking Andy Warhol's art doesn't somehow make you a loser. He was a bit controversial for his time in the art world but his art sits in museums and is highly sought after by collectors today. Trying to say it isn't kitsch doesn't change the fact that it is, though and Andy never disputed it, himself.

Disney designs for the masses. Mass appeal. Plastic painted gold means as much as gold. They very seldom (with the Disney brand) touch on mature or truly serious topics because that alienates customers.* You're not supposed to think about any of it that hard. Why does Mickey consider Pluto a pet but Goofy a friend when they're both dogs? There is zero depth to "When you wish upon a star" becasue while it sounds nice, we all know that wishing upon a star does not actually make dreams come true, right?

... right?

We know when a castmember is trained to say "Have a Magical Day!" they are not in fact casting some spell intended to bring actual magic into your life as some trained wizard but are just coached to say this cute quirky line as part of their brand.

If any normal person said that to you at work (assuming you don't work at Disney) or at a car dealership, or like, at the Dr. office you'd wonder what was wrong with them, wouldn't you?

That's all literally kitsch - shallow, with emphasis on ascetics over deeper meaning, heavy on sentiment and intended to be embraced by the masses.*

AND THERE IS NOTHING OBJECTIVELY WRONG WITH THAT.

You can agree to disagree on objective facts there but thems the facts.

A popcorn bucket shaped like figment made of cheap plastic that barely holds popcorn and creates lines hours long in the middle of a theme park is by definition, kitsch.**

A gilded mickey ear design on a banister, is kitsch.

And again, that's not an objectively bad thing.

A Mickey necklace made of plastic is more than likely landfill waiting to happen. A Mickey neclkace made of gold is luxury. Both are still kitsch in design.

My point is, you don't usually pay big premiums in life for stuff that is designed to be consumed by the masses unless there is something else to it. Your offering is not high art, elite, exclusive or luxury if both Walmart and Dollar Tree carry it.

We all know Disney's an exception on the pricing front. We even have a term for it: The Disney tax.


*If you want to tell me how deep the stories in Moana and Frozen are, I'll ask you compared to what? We're not exactly talking Crime and Punishment or Heart of Darkness, here which again, is perfectly fine. It's cool they put lessons adults can appreciate in movies aimed at kids but they're still movies intended to be understood by kids with things like singing snowmen in them.

**I wanted one of those, btw. Sadly, didn't get it and refuse to pay Ebay scalpers.



Dude, the difference you're pointing out here is exactly what I've been talking about this whole time. You are the one who decided to debate this with me. The original statement I made which set you off was:

"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."

Notice the part I bolded there? The part about how non-Star Wars fans may not be impressed by a Star Wars themed bar but how Star Wars fans really have no choice when it comes to a Star Wars themed bar because Disney holds all the cards, there?

That's what I would call having a different perspective. You apparently had a problem with that.

My point was, Disney could lean a little more into the luxury without giving up the novelty and kitsch we all love. They choose not to because they know they don't have to.

Why?

Because nobody else can provide that same novelty and kitsch so if that's what you want, you aren't going to find it at a higher quality level anywhere else.

Do you disagree?

although over a quarter-century old, this is still a great, valid read (or re-read!)

Designing Disney's Theme Parks: The Architecture of Reassurance​

 

[MrPromey]

although over a quarter-century old, this is still a great, valid read (or re-read!)

Designing Disney's Theme Parks: The Architecture of Reassurance​

That is a great book!

 

[DisneyHead123]

Do you disagree?

Like I said, I think if we can’t agree that people have different opinions and no one’s opinion is Objective Fact, there’s no point in continuing this conversation.

 

[MrPromey]

Like I said, I think if we can’t agree that people have different opinions and no one’s opinion is Objective Fact, there’s no point in continuing this conversation.

I can agree with that.

Never said I couldn't.

Still don't understand why you think that unless you are still having trouble with the concept of kitsch.

For purposes here, I'll refrain from using the term since that seems to be triggering you.

So to be clear, you are okay paying luxury prices without the luxury as long as you get the Disney branding, the Minnie costume, the "have a magical day", the princess theater show?

Or are you saying you think that is luxury and justifies the pricing?

You wouldn't prefer to get that Disney stuff AND have the whole experience be more in line with the standard they're charging for?

(this of course, all being hypothetical since neither of us has ever actually paid for the cruise we're talking about)

You wouldn't prefer for a Deluxe resort to actually be deluxe by the standard of neighboring non-Disney hotels as well as in close proximity to a theme park?

Is it your opinion that because it is Disney and their branding and their marketing that they shouldn't have to work as hard as the competition for your business?

In my opinion, that sounds like what you're conveying.

If so, we have differing opinions and that's that. If I'm getting you wrong, I'd genuinely like to clear up the misunderstanding.

 

[Chi84]

I can agree with that.

Never said I couldn't.

Still don't understand why you think that unless you are still having trouble with the concept of kitsch.

For purposes here, I'll refrain from using the term since that seems to be triggering you.

So to be clear, you are okay paying luxury prices without the luxury as long as you get the Disney branding, the Minnie costume, the "have a magical day", the princess theater show?

Or are you saying you think that is luxury and justifies the pricing?

You wouldn't prefer to get that Disney stuff AND have the whole experience be more in line with the standard they're charging for?

(this of course, all being hypothetical since neither of us has ever actually paid for the cruise we're talking about)

You wouldn't prefer for a Deluxe resort to actually be deluxe by the standard of neighboring non-Disney hotels as well as in close proximity to a theme park?

Is it your opinion that because it is Disney and their branding and their marketing that they shouldn't have to work as hard as the competition for your business?

In my opinion, that sounds like what you're conveying.

If so, we have differing opinions and that's that. If I'm getting you wrong, I'd genuinely like to clear up the misunderstanding.

Stop talking about the misplaced concept of luxury and it becomes so much more understandable.

People are okay with paying a higher price for what Disney provides.

What Disney does best is allow people to have some nicer hotels and restaurants combined with the casualness and hectic pace of a theme park atmosphere and without having to leave the premises.

They get extra money for that because a whole lot of people want it.