A Spirited Perfect Ten

[bakntime]

I've posted plenty of graphs regarding WDW ticket prices but perhaps the most revealing is one that compares WDW ticket prices relative to Median Household Income, using an adjusted baseline value of "1" for both in 1971:

View attachment 103926

(Note the Y-axis does not have a units; it's simply looking at relative changes to WDW ticket prices and household income.)

What this graph reveals is 3 ticket price eras at WDW.

The first is what I call the Walt Disney Legacy Era when ticket prices were relatively inexpensive. Walt Disney always emphasized to his subordinates that the company needed to provide its Guests with "good value". This pricing philosophy remained in place until Eisner took charge. Some who recall the time from their youths might have thought WDW was expensive but, relative to income, WDW was never less expensive. (I tell people I was able to afford a WDW vacation even though I was a lifeguard making a few dimes above minimum wage.)

The second is the Michael Eisner Era when ticket prices quickly increased by roughly 50% compared to Median Household Income and then held relatively steady for 15 years. There was a strong opinion in the industry in the mid-1980s that Disney theme park tickets were underpriced, and so the competition was relieved when Eisner hiked prices, even if WDW fans were furious. (And I was one of them!)

The third is the Paul Pressler/Jay Rasulo Era when price increases began a steady climb faster than Median Household Income. This era is dominated by a more analytical approach to pricing. "What's the biggest price increase we can get away with?"

This is the era we are in today.

Yeah, but what tickets are you quoting? A one day, one park ticket? A multi-day ticket? An annual pass? Second of all, how can you compare the 60s, 70s, and early 80s to today? What metric are you using? Back then, BOTH DL and WDW had one park until Epcot came along. Secondly, and far more importantly, park admission included a LIMITED number of ABCDE style attraction admission tickets (some admission tickets included ZERO attractions, and attraction tickets had to be purchased separately). Once you ran out of those very limited number of tickets (including only a few E-tickets, if any), you had to then purchase more. Are you taking into account all these factors? You can't compare the price of an all-you-can-eat buffet in 2015 to a value meal at McDonalds from 1990. Because modern tickets buy unlimited rides, and there are points at which it's almost apples and oranges when you're trying to compare multi-day tickets to single day.

Additionally, you might want to include other prices in the entertainment industry. Such as movies, sporting events, concerts, other theme parks such as Six Flags, Universal Studios, etc. Did WDW ticket prices increase at a faster/higher rate than those other said forms of entertainment? How about gas prices compared to median income of the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s? The entire economy of the United States is vastly different than it was 40 years ago.

You are trying to put Disney in a vacuum without context. Do you honestly think there's any product, service, or good that doesn't follow the "What's the biggest price we can get away with?" scheme? Any introductory economics class will tell you that's capitalism. Walt charged as much as he could, too.

This was written about Disneyland's opening:
http://academic.csuohio.edu/tah/rrr/docs/marling_ch3.pdf

"Walt's dream is a nightmare," wrote one particularly disillusioned member of the fourth estate. "To me [the park] felt like a giant cash register, clicking and clanging, as creatures of Disney magic came tumbling down from their lofty places in my daydreams." Other writers on assignment in the park agreed. To them, Disneyland was just another tourist trap-a bigger, pricier version of the Santa Claus villages and the seedy Storylands cast up by the postwar baby boom and the blandishments of the automobile industry. It was commercial, a roadside money machine, cynically exploiting the innocent dreams of childhood. On his second visit to the complex, a wire service reporter cornered Disney and asked him about his profit margin. Walt was furious. "We have to charge what we do because this Park cost a lot to build and maintain," he barked. "I have no government subsidy.

 

[bakntime]

There's a good chance that you could generate a similar chart looking at median household income vs. the cost of a gallon of milk.

Not a good chance, a great chance, but instead of milk (which is a somewhat regulated commodity based on it being considered a "necessity"), take a look at the rest of the travel and entertainment industry from the 90s onward. It's so easy to say "look at the huge Eisner/Pressler increases", but there's a lot of details and data missing from that chart, such as the details I mentioned above (type of ticket medium, number of days, etc), along with very critical things related to other cost of living prices (housing, car prices, gas prices, food prices, and on and on, all of which are relevant).

Additionally, things like housing prices, health insurance rates, taxes, and other factors are all in play when looking at the affordability of recreational activities.

 

[bakntime]

you're taking the discounted model and not rake prices.
besides, you cant usually take big discounts in one thing and get another (example, no room discount if you get free dinning.. which I remember, was crippled even further)

For ticket prices, I took "rack" prices.

For our free dining package, I compared prices, and I think paid $27/night more than the lowest available room-only discounted room rate (it might have been $25 more, I don't remember exactly). For that $27 "difference", the two of us get total: 4 QS meals and 2 snacks per day (plus the mugs). You're lucky if you can get 2 QS meals + drinks for $27, let alone 4 meals + drinks + desserts + 2 snacks. So I'm not sure what you mean by it being crippled, but for a value resort, free dining saves a huge amount of money over paying food out of pocket, even if you get a good room-only discount.

My point is that offers exist if you want to take advantage. A savvy consumer can still take a trip to WDW for an affordable amount, similar to what an equivalent vacation would cost years ago. Maybe a little bit higher, but then again, the economy still isn't what it used to be, and the entertainment industry as a whole is pretty darn expensive.

Another part of the problem with comparing WDW ticket prices to median income is that the entertainment industry has always operated separately of household income. Other factors are at play when it comes to expendable income, such as families living together longer because it's cheaper, which leaves more expendable income. Kids who used to move out and get their own homes after college are remaining at home a lot longer, and even with the lower income compared to ticket prices, vacations are still affordable.

Again, WDW room rates, even rack rates, are something else that need to be factored in with the affordability of a WDW vacation. Ticket prices alone only tell so much in the scheme of a "full vacation," especially because WDW now discounts multi-day tickets WAY more than they used to. You couldn't even buy 10 day tickets in the 90s. Today you can buy them and the average cost per day of that ticket is under $40.

Another factor is food/meal costs, room rates, etc. These aren't mentioned. These prices might be (I just don't know) even more discounted than in the past, because Disney (wisely) wants to encourage people to stay on property. So ticket prices compared to the 90s might be slightly more (depending on length), but room rates and other discounts (such as free dining which saves me a ton of money, far more than a room-only discount would) can result in an overall more affordable vacation.

I remember us (family of four) taking our first trip in 1994, and we stayed just 1 week. I'd have to ask my dad if he remembers, but I don't think that we paid less than $2000 total for tickets (probably 4/5 days), room, food, etc, which, as I pointed out in my post yesterday, is around $3400 in 2015 (adjusted for inflation only). That 3400 can buy you a free dining package for a family of 4 at a value resort, including 10 day hoppers for all 4, for a total of 14 nights. (Yes, I priced this out at the end of June when I was booking my vacation).

 

[bakntime]

Far more? Care to illustrate how you come up with that? There's less at the other 3 Parks which is offset of the addition of AK. Would love to see your analysis...

While it's debatable the "quality" of what's available, both MK and Epcot have at least now than they did in the 90s. Epcot is probably a wash (Body Wars, Making of Me, Cranium Command gone, while Soarin and Turtle Talk probably mostly offset those. Depending on who you ask, anyway). Whether or not you agree with the changes that have happened at Epcot (believe me, I miss Horizons, WoM, and Imagination 1.0, myself, but they weren't flat out removed), by raw attraction count it's really not much different. And MK has only lost 20k leagues, while adding things like Splash in the early 90s, the new Fantasyland, etc. Anything that's been lost has easily been replaced, by pure numbers standpoints.

Obviously DHS is in a bad state, but much of that was with an eye towards the new expansion. And also remember that Tower of Terror, Rock'n'Roller, Toy Story Mania, Star Tours 2, Fantasmic, and Lights Motors Action have all been added since opening day (in the case of Star Tours, it was just upgraded), and it's arguable that the park now has even better quality attractions than it did on opening day. The loss of the "original" extensive backlot tour is the greatest take away that's happened since park opening. Nothing else of real significance has closed until very recently.

Basically, my point is that even DHS in its current state is arguably better today than it was in the early 90s, until ToT came along. And AK, while not as classically-ride-laden as the other parks, is still an entire park with several attractions. Epcot can be argued to be a very different park than it was, but purely based on the number of experiences, it's really not "less" than it was in the 90s. And MK has had a net gain, for sure. Just based on attraction count, WDW probably has 30% more attractions than it did before the mid 90s Splash Mountain / Tower of Terror era kicked in.

 

[NearTheEars]

Yeah, but what tickets are you quoting? A one day, one park ticket? A multi-day ticket? An annual pass? Second of all, how can you compare the 60s, 70s, and early 80s to today? What metric are you using? Back then, BOTH DL and WDW had one park until Epcot came along. Secondly, and far more importantly, park admission included a LIMITED number of ABCDE style attraction admission tickets (some admission tickets included ZERO attractions, and attraction tickets had to be purchased separately). Once you ran out of those very limited number of tickets (including only a few E-tickets, if any), you had to then purchase more. Are you taking into account all these factors? You can't compare the price of an all-you-can-eat buffet in 2015 to a value meal at McDonalds from 1990. Because modern tickets buy unlimited rides, and there are points at which it's almost apples and oranges when you're trying to compare multi-day tickets to single day.

Additionally, you might want to include other prices in the entertainment industry. Such as movies, sporting events, concerts, other theme parks such as Six Flags, Universal Studios, etc. Did WDW ticket prices increase at a faster/higher rate than those other said forms of entertainment? How about gas prices compared to median income of the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s? The entire economy of the United States is vastly different than it was 40 years ago.

You are trying to put Disney in a vacuum without context. Do you honestly think there's any product, service, or good that doesn't follow the "What's the biggest price we can get away with?" scheme? Any introductory economics class will tell you that's capitalism. Walt charged as much as he could, too.

This was written about Disneyland's opening:
http://academic.csuohio.edu/tah/rrr/docs/marling_ch3.pdf

I could be wrong, but I believe @ParentsOf4 uses the highest valued ticket book from those early years and then single day tickets from then on.

 

[bakntime]

I could be wrong, but I believe @ParentsOf4 uses the highest valued ticket book from those early years and then single day tickets from then on.

Thanks!

Even then, however (and this isn't directed at you, but just at the "thread" in general), it's a more than bit of an oversimplification to include pre-1980-ish tickets in any chart or comparison, as there was (I believe) no all-you-can-eat option back then, and Disney parks were a completely different animal.

I suppose there's slightly more relevance from the 80s onward, but there are just so many factors it's kind of hard to make an argument for "What WDW costs" by using just one day ticket prices. There's so much more that factors in (multi-day costs, 4 parks vs. 2 back in the 80s, food, hotels, the economy, the prices at entertainment-industry peers, etc).

But anyway, I relent. Even if I'm wrong, I've said what I wanted to say, and I'm good with that being my last word on it.

 

[ParentsOf4]

I could be wrong, but I believe @ParentsOf4 uses the highest valued ticket book from those early years and then single day tickets from then on.

From the pre-Epcot days, I added the most expensive Adventure Book to the price of admission. Beyond that, I used all ticket types as input data, comparing year-to-year changes. Also, in years when Disney raised ticket prices more than once, I simply lumped them together as a single price increase for that year.

It gets slightly tricky the few times WDW introduces a completely new ticket type since there is not always an appropriate ticket to compare it with from the previous year.

For example, when the base (i.e. no hopper) Magic Your Way (MYW) ticket was introduced in 2005, there was nothing like it in 2004. Thus, the 2005 price change did not factor in that ticket. However, other ticket types (e.g. hopper and 'no expiration') could be compared from 2004 to 2005. For the base MYW ticket, its price changes started to be included in 2006.

At this point, I'd like to believe that I've established a reputation for using reliable data and methodologies on these threads.

To anyone reading this, please let me know if you agree.

 

[asianway]

While it's debatable the "quality" of what's available, both MK and Epcot have at least now than they did in the 90s. Epcot is probably a wash (Body Wars, Making of Me, Cranium Command gone, while Soarin and Turtle Talk probably mostly offset those. Depending on who you ask, anyway). Whether or not you agree with the changes that have happened at Epcot (believe me, I miss Horizons, WoM, and Imagination 1.0, myself, but they weren't flat out removed), by raw attraction count it's really not much different. And MK has only lost 20k leagues, while adding things like Splash in the early 90s, the new Fantasyland, etc. Anything that's been lost has easily been replaced, by pure numbers standpoints.

Obviously DHS is in a bad state, but much of that was with an eye towards the new expansion. And also remember that Tower of Terror, Rock'n'Roller, Toy Story Mania, Star Tours 2, Fantasmic, and Lights Motors Action have all been added since opening day (in the case of Star Tours, it was just upgraded), and it's arguable that the park now has even better quality attractions than it did on opening day. The loss of the "original" extensive backlot tour is the greatest take away that's happened since park opening. Nothing else of real significance has closed until very recently.

Basically, my point is that even DHS in its current state is arguably better today than it was in the early 90s, until ToT came along. And AK, while not as classically-ride-laden as the other parks, is still an entire park with several attractions. Epcot can be argued to be a very different park than it was, but purely based on the number of experiences, it's really not "less" than it was in the 90s. And MK has had a net gain, for sure. Just based on attraction count, WDW probably has 30% more attractions than it did before the mid 90s Splash Mountain / Tower of Terror era kicked in.

selective memory-got it

 

[Andrew_Ryan]

While it's debatable the "quality" of what's available, both MK and Epcot have at least now than they did in the 90s. Epcot is probably a wash (Body Wars, Making of Me, Cranium Command gone, while Soarin and Turtle Talk probably mostly offset those. Depending on who you ask, anyway). Whether or not you agree with the changes that have happened at Epcot (believe me, I miss Horizons, WoM, and Imagination 1.0, myself, but they weren't flat out removed), by raw attraction count it's really not much different. And MK has only lost 20k leagues, while adding things like Splash in the early 90s, the new Fantasyland, etc. Anything that's been lost has easily been replaced, by pure numbers standpoints.

Obviously DHS is in a bad state, but much of that was with an eye towards the new expansion. And also remember that Tower of Terror, Rock'n'Roller, Toy Story Mania, Star Tours 2, Fantasmic, and Lights Motors Action have all been added since opening day (in the case of Star Tours, it was just upgraded), and it's arguable that the park now has even better quality attractions than it did on opening day. The loss of the "original" extensive backlot tour is the greatest take away that's happened since park opening. Nothing else of real significance has closed until very recently.

Basically, my point is that even DHS in its current state is arguably better today than it was in the early 90s, until ToT came along. And AK, while not as classically-ride-laden as the other parks, is still an entire park with several attractions. Epcot can be argued to be a very different park than it was, but purely based on the number of experiences, it's really not "less" than it was in the 90s. And MK has had a net gain, for sure. Just based on attraction count, WDW probably has 30% more attractions than it did before the mid 90s Splash Mountain / Tower of Terror era kicked in.

But wouldn't you agree that the Disney/MGM Studios was an entirely different experience in the 90s, so that comparing number of attractions is sort of a moot point? The original intention of the studios, as I recall, was to spend about half of your time on the extensive studio tour. That tour was quite different than the one that closed last year. (They may as well have just renamed the whole thing Catastrophy Canyon.)

I feel like that's why you can't ignore the quality and extensiveness of these attractions when comparing these two time periods. We are at a point in time where Meet and Greets, quick service restaurants, and themed bathrooms are being lauded as notable additions to the parks.

 

[PhotoDave219]

But wouldn't you agree that the Disney/MGM Studios was an entirely different experience in the 90s, so that comparing number of attractions is sort of a moot point? The original intention of the studios, as I recall, was to spend about half of your time on the extensive studio tour. That tour was quite different than the one that closed last year. (They may as well have just renamed the whole thing Catastrophy Canyon.)

I feel like that's why you can't ignore the quality and extensiveness of these attractions when comparing these two time periods. We are at a point in time where Meet and Greets, quick service restaurants, and themed bathrooms are being lauded as notable additions to the parks.

Lauded by some. Laughable by the rest.

 

[PhotoDave219]

So. We've talked about how busy its been this summer, especially MK. MK is pulling record summer numbers, to the point where my Bothans are like Lewis Black trying to explain why there's a Starbucks across the street from a Starbucks. We have no idea why.... It just is.

So here's the visual representation of the observed crowd levels last year vs this year, starting at Memorial Day and going until yesterday.

The pattern stays the same of how the crowds visit, it is just that they're larger. I'm just simply trying to show how much larger.

There's no way MK can continue this pace of peak (8+) crowds.

 

[Bairstow]

So. We've talked about how busy its been this summer, especially MK. MK is pulling record summer numbers, to the point where my Bothans are like Lewis Black trying to explain why there's a Starbucks across the street from a Starbucks. We have no idea why.... It just is.

So here's the visual representation of the observed crowd levels last year vs this year, starting at Memorial Day and going until yesterday.


View attachment 103986

The pattern stays the same of how the crowds visit, it is just that they're larger. I'm just simply trying to show how much larger.

There's no way MK can continue this pace of peak (8+) crowds.

Why not?

Also, what's the source of these numbers? Isn't the 10-point crowd level scale rather arbitrary anyway?

 

[PhotoDave219]

Why not?

Also, what's the source of these numbers? Isn't the 10-point crowd level scale rather arbitrary anyway?

Ive posted the source many times previously.

You want to argue with the numbers, argue with them.

 

[Bairstow]

Ive posted the source many times previously.

You want to argue with the numbers, argue with them.

Well is it going to kill you to post your source again? I don't read everything you type.

So why exactly don't you think the parks can maintain their current attendance levels?

 

[JoeRohdesEarring]

So. We've talked about how busy its been this summer, especially MK. MK is pulling record summer numbers, to the point where my Bothans are like Lewis Black trying to explain why there's a Starbucks across the street from a Starbucks. We have no idea why.... It just is.

So here's the visual representation of the observed crowd levels last year vs this year, starting at Memorial Day and going until yesterday.


View attachment 103986

The pattern stays the same of how the crowds visit, it is just that they're larger. I'm just simply trying to show how much larger.

There's no way MK can continue this pace of peak (8+) crowds.

This chart is crazy! No wonder everything has been insane this year, yikes.

 

[PhotoDave219]

Well is it going to kill you to post your source again? I don't read everything you type.

So why exactly don't you think the parks can maintain their current attendance levels?

Because they simply can't maintain 35% peak (8+) attendance for the entire year. Last year was 14, year before that was 16%.

They'd need 110 days out of the year at that level to hit 30%. I just don't see it happening when all of September drops to off-peak days for 3 straight weeks.

 

[PhotoDave219]

This chart is crazy! No wonder everything has been insane this year, yikes.

That's just Memorial Day through now.

Same pattern just busier.

 

[Cosmic Commando]

Why not?

Also, what's the source of these numbers? Isn't the 10-point crowd level scale rather arbitrary anyway?

That's my only issue with putting too much stock in these numbers. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that a 10 from Touring Plans simply means that that day is in the top 10% busiest days for that park. By definition, they should only get 10s 10% of the time. Same with any other number on the crowd calendar. If there are too many days towards the upper end of the crowd calendar, then Touring Plans would, should, could, or possibly already did adjust the scale. The goal of the crowd calendar, as I understand it, is to slice up the calendar into ten equal slices as a way to guide vacation date choices, not to provide a year-over-year record of how crowds rise or fall. You could do that on a limited basis, but I'm guessing that TP at some point has adjusted the scale. MK attendance is up 16% since the crowd calendar began in 2006... that has to have some effect on wait times.

 

[The Empress Lilly]

That's my only issue with putting too much stock in these numbers. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that a 10 from Touring Plans simply means that that day is in the top 10% busiest days for that park. By definition, they should only get 10s 10% of the time. Same with any other number on the crowd calendar. If there are too many days towards the upper end of the crowd calendar, then Touring Plans would, should, could, or possibly already did adjust the scale. The goal of the crowd calendar, as I understand it, is to slice up the calendar into ten equal slices as a way to guide vacation date choices, not to provide a year-over-year record of how crowds rise or fall. You could do that on a limited basis, but I'm guessing that TP at some point has adjusted the scale. MK attendance is up 16% since the crowd calendar began in 2006... that has to have some effect on wait times.

Lol, so we just learned that the MK 'can not maintain' ten percent of its days being ten percent of its days.

 

[Cesar R M]

So. We've talked about how busy its been this summer, especially MK. MK is pulling record summer numbers, to the point where my Bothans are like Lewis Black trying to explain why there's a Starbucks across the street from a Starbucks. We have no idea why.... It just is.

So here's the visual representation of the observed crowd levels last year vs this year, starting at Memorial Day and going until yesterday.


View attachment 103986

The pattern stays the same of how the crowds visit, it is just that they're larger. I'm just simply trying to show how much larger.

There's no way MK can continue this pace of peak (8+) crowds.

funny how the peaks of the first dates do not match between the years.. its like the patterns changed. But the later dates.. the patterns are almost identical.