News 2018 ticket price increases

[beachlover4444]

It is surprising how many people think that MK IS THE ONLY PARK - and they call IT Disney World.

In other words, even if you put more rides in the other 3 parks, IMO it would barely make a dent in the crowding at MK.[/QUOTEi know MK is the iconic park but if there were more rides or even shows, attractions in the other parks it would help spread the crowds around. How many people avoided AK because it closed early and had no parade or night show. Now it’s becoming a park after the sun goes down and it’s wonderful. So many ppl ru to AK ride Dino, Everest, and maybe the safari then would leave and spend the rest of the day at other parks. Now pandora keeps them there later, the evening safari and the tree lighting are great changes for that park.

 

[beachlover4444]

I think it would be interesting to see the numbers for returning guests. I'm sure Disney must keep track of such things. Are returning guests visiting as much or as often as they once did? However, I suspect that Disney makes most of their money on 1st time visitors.

Here, you state that "many won't return because it was not as 'magical' as they thought it would be." I imagine that most 1st time visitors find WDW extremely magical. From my experiences and discussions with 1st time visitors, they are overwhelmed by the Disney experience. Many talk of going again someday. Whether they make it or not depends on many factors, not the least of which is the fact that Disney is priced as a premium vacation.

Yet, it seems that the dissatisfaction occurs more with the repeat visitors. Is this because the parks have been diminished over the years (as many have suggested) or is it due to familiarity. Part of the initial appeal of WDW is the superiority of the experiences when compared to other (local) theme parks. It is hard to reproduce that initial "wow" factor in subsequent visits, and the more people go, the more dissatisfied they seem to become. They start to see all of the blemishes.

For myself, at the end of the day, I'd still rather be at WDW than just about anyplace else (I only wish I was also uber-wealthy so I could afford to do so).

Agree I think Disney would love more newbies who spend. I have been. Ore than 50 times since 1989. I try. It to ruin rides for first timers, i love seeing the parks through fresh eyes hearing their gasps and reactions. I think if they wanna thin crowds, do it by really raising the Florida annual passes and Florida ticket prices. I live in SC and am considering an annual pass but this price increase made me really pause. And no I don’t spend much in the parks anymore. I do enjoy the mid range meals.

 

[ford91exploder]

True, but I would expect attendance levels to flatline then begin to decline as price increases exceed customers congestion tolerance.

Flatline attendance also flatlines food and merch sales which is contrary to the foundational principle of FP+. Increasing prices to reduce attendance also deflates food and merch sales. Long term reliance on price increases for growth is not viable.

Long term growth/prosperity will come from expansion that provides a superior customer experience.

Which will never happen under current management whose time horizon is 'the current quarter'

 

[Po'Rich]

I think if they wanna thin crowds, do it by really raising the Florida annual passes and Florida ticket prices.

As has been discussed on these boards, one way to thin crowds would be to raise prices. However, raising prices for Florida residents alone risks creating ill-will in the community. Yet, raising prices is not always the best way to control access to desired products. Disney needs to weigh such decisions versus their mission. I'm sure there are those out there whose heads have just exploded and want to exclaim, "THEY'RE A BUSINESS; THEIR MISSION IS TO MAKE MONEY!" This is a very cut-throat capitalist approach. While companies do want to seek profit, many are not designed with the sole aim of doing so.

As many have mentioned, Walt Disney did not create Disneyland and WDW with the sole purpose of making as much money as possible. He wanted a place where families could go. If that is still part of the mission of Disney, then they should be concerned whenever they price families out of the market.

Obviously building more capacity is one answer. Yet, that process is slow and expensive. Another answer is what we've seen Disney do: provide incentives to try to spread out the demand to under-used times. Additionally, they could simply limit the number of guests they let in.

The point is simply that raising prices is not the only way that a company can affect demand. In fact, of all the ways possible, it is likely the most harmful in the long term.

 

[MisterPenguin]

As has been discussed on these boards, one way to thin crowds would be to raise prices. However, raising prices for Florida residents alone risks creating ill-will in the community. Yet, raising prices is not always the best way to control access to desired products. Disney needs to weigh such decisions versus their mission. I'm sure there are those out there whose heads have just exploded and want to exclaim, "THEY'RE A BUSINESS; THEIR MISSION IS TO MAKE MONEY!" This is a very cut-throat capitalist approach. While companies do want to seek profit, many are not designed with the sole aim of doing so.

As many have mentioned, Walt Disney did not create Disneyland and WDW with the sole purpose of making as much money as possible. He wanted a place where families could go. If that is still part of the mission of Disney, then they should be concerned whenever they price families out of the market.

Obviously building more capacity is one answer. Yet, that process is slow and expensive. Another answer is what we've seen Disney do: provide incentives to try to spread out the demand to under-used times. Additionally, they could simply limit the number of guests they let in.

The point is simply that raising prices is not the only way that a company can affect demand. In fact, of all the ways possible, it is likely the most harmful in the long term.

What if every time you increase capacity, more people show up and make it as over-crowded as before?

The new SWL will increase capacity. But it will also make it more over-crowded than ever before.

Continually increasing capacity is not the solution. At least, not the only one.

There is another way, a nuclear option: Limit ticket sales based on the day. No more any-time tickets. No more unlimited Annual Passes. Just like you get a ticket for a specific day for a Halloween Party Night at the MK, you get a day-ticket which is only good for that day and the number of tickets is limited to prevent overcrowding. It will work. Many will hate it. But, Disney will sell out. Guests are guaranteed that lines won't hit three hours for the big attractions.

 

[Po'Rich]

What if every time you increase capacity, more people show up and make it as over-crowded as before?

The new SWL will increase capacity. But it will also make it more over-crowded than ever before.

Continually increasing capacity is not the solution. At least, not the only one.

There is another way, a nuclear option: Limit ticket sales based on the day. No more any-time tickets. No more unlimited Annual Passes. Just like you get a ticket for a specific day for a Halloween Party Night at the MK, you get a day-ticket which is only good for that day and the number of tickets is limited to prevent overcrowding. It will work. Many will hate it. But, Disney will sell out. Guests are guaranteed that lines won't hit three hours for the big attractions.

I agree with you that increasing capacity is not the only option. In fact, I also mentioned limiting entrance as a way to control crowds (Disney could control entrance even without going to the extremes that you mention). However, I don't think that increasing capacity necessarily equates to more crowds. This view assumes that there are more people who would arrive if they knew that the crowds were less. While it is true that new rides might cause a spike in attendance (especially if the new rides/lands are particularly desirable (such as Star Wars), I don't think we should assume that every new attraction will equate to more people arriving. For example, the formerly proposed theater in Magic Kingdom probably wouldn't have increased attendance by much (if at all), but it would eat up a lot of people who otherwise would be standing in line somewhere.

 

[njDizFan]

What if every time you increase capacity, more people show up and make it as over-crowded as before?

The new SWL will increase capacity. But it will also make it more over-crowded than ever before.

Continually increasing capacity is not the solution. At least, not the only one.

There is another way, a nuclear option: Limit ticket sales based on the day. No more any-time tickets. No more unlimited Annual Passes. Just like you get a ticket for a specific day for a Halloween Party Night at the MK, you get a day-ticket which is only good for that day and the number of tickets is limited to prevent overcrowding. It will work. Many will hate it. But, Disney will sell out. Guests are guaranteed that lines won't hit three hours for the big attractions.

Wow that nuclear option would be insane. So insane it may actually work. Like a play, concert or sporting event, they only sell 50K admissions per day for the MK, the price I am sure would be jacked up considerably. Would they draw enough if this left out APs, gate passes and Fl resident discounts? That would be an interesting experiment. The exclusivity may draw in more bookings.

Subsequently just because a ticket was sold for that day does not mean it will be redeemed or perhaps guests will come late and/or leave early. The bean counters would want to resell those tickets like a phase closing day, slowly let customers buy tickets at the gate so that merch and food sales don't sag.

I highly doubt the feasibility of this option. But I am sure they could manipulate daily pricing to ensure an almost full house every day.

 

[disneyflush]

There is another way, a nuclear option: Limit ticket sales based on the day. No more any-time tickets. No more unlimited Annual Passes. Just like you get a ticket for a specific day for a Halloween Party Night at the MK, you get a day-ticket which is only good for that day and the number of tickets is limited to prevent overcrowding. It will work. Many will hate it. But, Disney will sell out. Guests are guaranteed that lines won't hit three hours for the big attractions.

What if they publicly published the amount of tickets they will sell for each day of the year when they release the ticket price (a presell). Then they take a specific day every month and cut the amount of tickets for that day in half but raise the ticket price by 100% for that day (to offset the loss of concessions and merchandize sales for the day). Would it be financially worth it to experience the park with half the guests gone if you knew in advance that would be the situation?

 

[disneyflush]

Wow that nuclear option would be insane. So insane it may actually work. Like a play, concert or sporting event, they only sell 50K admissions per day for the MK, the price I am sure would be jacked up considerably. Would they draw enough if this left out APs, gate passes and Fl resident discounts? That would be an interesting experiment. The exclusivity may draw in more bookings.

Subsequently just because a ticket was sold for that day does not mean it will be redeemed or perhaps guests will come late and/or leave early. The bean counters would want to resell those tickets like a phase closing day, slowly let customers buy tickets at the gate so that merch and food sales don't sag.

I highly doubt the feasibility of this option. But I am sure they could manipulate daily pricing to ensure an almost full house every day.

Jinx, you owe me a Coke.

 

[HauntedPirate]

What if every time you increase capacity, more people show up and make it as over-crowded as before?

The new SWL will increase capacity. But it will also make it more over-crowded than ever before.

Continually increasing capacity is not the solution. At least, not the only one.

There is another way, a nuclear option: Limit ticket sales based on the day. No more any-time tickets. No more unlimited Annual Passes. Just like you get a ticket for a specific day for a Halloween Party Night at the MK, you get a day-ticket which is only good for that day and the number of tickets is limited to prevent overcrowding. It will work. Many will hate it. But, Disney will sell out. Guests are guaranteed that lines won't hit three hours for the big attractions.

...Presuming they don't sell so many tickets that attraction wait times aren't three hours. Or they don't sell the parks twice each day, which could lead to other problems.

I agree that it could work, but I think it could also work against them by allowing guests to do things in the parks more quickly and thus not want to stay in a park all day.

 

[GhostHost1000]

True, but I would expect attendance levels to flatline then begin to decline as price increases exceed customers congestion tolerance.

I think this is why we continue to see so many DVC resorts/rooms being built. It's pretty much guaranteed attendance either by the owner or whoever they rent out to - owners won't waste their expensive points

 

[DisneyJoe]

I think this is why we continue to see so many DVC resorts/rooms being built. It's pretty much guaranteed attendance either by the owner or whoever they rent out to - owners won't waste their expensive points

I disagree. Those owning and staying dvc don't always go to the parks, I know many that don't, so many that it surprises me. They vacation differently.

 

[Tavernacle12]

What if every time you increase capacity, more people show up and make it as over-crowded as before?

The new SWL will increase capacity. But it will also make it more over-crowded than ever before.

Continually increasing capacity is not the solution. At least, not the only one.

I'd argue it depends on what's increasing the capacity. Big E tickets like Star Wars increase capacity and popularity. Smaller rides like Toy Story Land likely won't cause any substantial long-term influx of visitors who weren't already planning a trip. Ideally you'd create smaller high capacity rides for every popularity driving E-Ticket you bring out. Not every ride will bring the crowds, but many smaller rides will eat them. Not that I want a bunch of Toy Story Lands sprouting up everywhere to eat some crowds, but there's gotta be some mid-tier ride that can be made to boost crowd capacity but no one will plan a trip for.

 

[tlking88]

I disagree. Those owning and staying dvc don't always go to the parks, I know many that don't, so many that it surprises me. They vacation differently.

We own DVC. We go maybe once a year for that, but only visit the parks 1-2 days mostly just 1 depending on the length of the visit. Honestly we don't go to the parks much anymore..

 

[MisterPenguin]

I'd argue it depends on what's increasing the capacity. Big E tickets like Star Wars increase capacity and popularity. Smaller rides like Toy Story Land likely won't cause any substantial long-term influx of visitors who weren't already planning a trip. Ideally you'd create smaller high capacity rides for every popularity driving E-Ticket you bring out. Not every ride will bring the crowds, but many smaller rides will eat them. Not that I want a bunch of Toy Story Lands sprouting up everywhere to eat some crowds, but there's gotta be some mid-tier ride that can be made to boost crowd capacity but no one will plan a trip for.

What if the plentiful number of filler rides which soaks up crowds convinces large crowds to show up to enjoy the lack of crowds which only crowds it?

Transportation experts tell us that if you build more roads, then the roads get used more. What if a successful park is always just successful. And whatever they do to make it more successful, such as ad filler rides, only make it more successful?

Or, look at it this way: in WDW, aside from the MK, the other three parks have a dearth of rides, but, they're often just as crowded as the MK. The MK has lots of filler rides, therefor, it shouldn't be as crowded as the other three parks, and yet, it's the most crowded.

"Increasing capacity" isn't a solution because it causes increased attendance.

A successful park will fill up with crowds to the point that attendance levels off because people don't want to deal with the crowds. More capacity is the same dynamic, just with more numbers.

 

[CalebS]

What if the plentiful number of filler rides which soaks up crowds convinces large crowds to show up to enjoy the lack of crowds which only crowds it?

Transportation experts tell us that if you build more roads, then the roads get used more. What if a successful park is always just successful. And whatever they do to make it more successful, such as ad filler rides, only make it more successful?

Or, look at it this way: in WDW, aside from the MK, the other three parks have a dearth of rides, but, they're often just as crowded as the MK. The MK has lots of filler rides, therefor, it shouldn't be as crowded as the other three parks, and yet, it's the most crowded.

"Increasing capacity" isn't a solution because it causes increased attendance.

A successful park will fill up with crowds to the point that attendance levels off because people don't want to deal with the crowds. More capacity is the same dynamic, just with more numbers.

I agree with everything you said, but I do believe if the other parks had more it would help a little, but not a ton

 

[MisterPenguin]

I agree with everything you said, but I do believe if the other parks had more it would help a little, but not a ton

You'd have to keep building constantly and quickly to stay ahead of the curve. But all you're doing is outpacing housing/hotels. Then you build more hotels to keep up with the demand...

 

[larryz]

So your options are
(a) keep building until you can't keep building any more, then comes the inevitable decline in attendance and overall failure
(b) build out moderately and price accordingly to manage attendance
(c) sell off the parks to an investor group and lease them the Disney name

 

[PasstheDisneyPlease]

So your options are
(a) keep building until you can't keep building any more, then comes the inevitable decline in attendance and overall failure
(b) build out moderately and price accordingly to manage attendance
(c) sell off the parks to an investor group and lease them the Disney name

I like b- but with the focus on "moderately". I feel like someone hit "full speed ahead" on the lever and it hasn't slowed down since 2011/2012. I haven't been able to do any digging, but is it only because of the Anniversary in 2021 that all this is going on? Will we get some sort of reprieve after that?

 

[Tom P.]

What if a successful park is always just successful.

I think this is the most salient thing that has been said this entire thread.

We, here on the forums, tend to pick everything apart. And, unfortunately, the perception tends to often be that the sky is falling because of whatever the latest thing is that Disney has done. But the truth is, Walt Disney World is literally the most popular vacation destination in the world. It has been for decades. And that shows no signs of changing.

Truth is, people love WDW. They're still coming in absolutely enormous amounts, every single year. Price increases, crowds, nothing has changed that. Even something as major and tragic as 9/11 only caused a temporary dip in attendance. And don't kid yourself. WDW is not now a place just for the uber-rich that the middle class can no longer manage. Magic Kingdom averages over 20 million visitors a year. If it's out of reach of the middle class, we have WAY more uber-wealthy people in this country than anyone realizes.

I don't think this year's price increases are going to cause attendance to drop. I don't think all the new stuff opening in the next few years is going to cause crowds to be smaller. I just think WDW is a place that folks love to visit, and they are going to continue doing so, now matter how much we gripe about things on an Internet forum.