A Spirited Perfect Ten

[UpAllNight]

Regarding the attractiveness of Disney as a destination; we've spent 5 days of a 14 day pass (here for just under 3 weeks) in Disney because the attraction count in 3 of the 4 parks hasn't justified spending more time in them. I appreciate we aren't exactly key demographic, but we're spending a fortune on food and drink in whatever park we are going in, and more often than not Disney is missing out on that from us (seeing how busy the parks are I'd guess they don't really care).

On my next planned trip staying in a Disney resort hotel is well down on the list;

Universal - Better priced, 2 great parks and easy STRESS FREE access. Decent night entertainment and reservation free dining options. The waterpark will probably also be open, and who knows what else the rate they're going at.

Pointe Orlando- good dining options....cheaper and easy access to Uni and Seaworld. Most hotels offer free shuttle to Disney.

International drive near Wet n Wild - good I ride options. Cheap. Free shuttle. Universal on doorstep.

I would love to stay at Disney (have done plenty of times in Paris) but there's so much else to do in the area I think it would restrict me if I didn't drive.

 

[AEfx]

That CGI, though...
It's hard to believe Universal spent $240 million on this thing. I wonder how much of that went to The Rock's salary.
He really likes calling people "cookiepuss," doesn't he?

Really??

Admittedly, I wasn't following it very closely. Didn't know that. That's a big old chunk of change. I'm a little less impressed now - but it does look fun. I can't really judge the CGI until I'm in person, but I do think that given the 360 screen, that was one hell of a CGI horsepower drain - like, many times over the same clock time of standard scope film footage.

I think CGI is way over-priced to begin with, given some of the quality work that can be done by a 14 year old and a Mac Book these days (is his $2000 investment really THAT much worse than $200M worth of CGI?), but even so...240M...that's about 100M more than I would have thought reasonable, LOL.

 

[Cesar R M]

Wow

had the same kind of surveys when I went lol.

infact, I had 2 surveys.. one for DVC (they told me the have a magical day routine after telling them I was not owner and was not interested)
the other was cut when I told them I was for a convention... (even if I had attended the parks!)

 

[Prog]

Here's to the thousand, here's to the thousand, here's to the thousand, here's to the thousand and you!
...
I apologize for that.
Now as for the ticket prices, my family has always stayed off-site. I don't think that we're particularly wealthy. I mean, numbers-wise, our income looks good, but we live in Connecticut, so we're pretty much lower middle-class for our area.
Most of my friends have been to Disney at least once, many of them more than once.
Bear in mind that I was born in 1998, in days where parents feel more obligated to bring their parents to WDW than they did in the past.
My parents brought me to WDW in 2000, 2003, 2004?, 2007, 2008, and 2015. The last three times included my sister, born 2005. Until the most recent visit, they viewed WDW as a great value. Expensive, sure, but a great value. The last two times we've driven down there to save money. Every time, except maybe the first, we stayed down for two weeks, until 2015, when missing the second week of school actually became a problem for me. This trip, we found that the tickets were getting kind of pricey, and the quality of the parks were slipping.
Some opinions on the non-castle parks. We've always viewed DHS as a dump, and only did it on approx. half of our trips. Epcot was received amongst my family this time as a "I'll do it twice a decade" experience; glad we saw it, but it's not worth frequently visiting. DAK was pretty good, but Dinosaur and Everest need some maintenance, Dinoland needs a nuke (or at least a paint job), and the park needs a couple more hours worth of stuff to do.
***WARNING: TRAVESTIES REGARDING MY DEMOGRAPHIC INFO***
Now, I think my family comprises the average middle-class WDW guest family. Generally, we charge across the parks looking for the next trill/nostalgia trip. We manipulate Fastpasses to the best of our ability and try to cram as many rides under our belt as we can, with the occasional show or character greeting. Among my group, The American Adventure, Carousel of Progress, and Maelstrom were seen as kind of boring.
Are we uncultured? Heck yeah. Just trying to offer some other perspectives, as it seems to be fairly one-sided amongst the members of this board.

 

[Mike S]

That CGI, though...
It's hard to believe Universal spent $240 million on this thing. I wonder how much of that went to The Rock's salary.
He really likes calling people "cookiepuss," doesn't he?

Oh, and there's already some amusing footage of the thing breaking down and the Musion Eyeliner people vanishing into the aether:

Wait, the truck that rises up isnt part of the Musion effect? It's real? Cool. Also why were the voices so high pitched? Lol.

 

[Bairstow]

Also why were the voices so high pitched? Lol.

The video's uploader did that.
Probably some type of Youtube copyright avoidance tactic.

 

[Mike S]

Here's to the thousand, here's to the thousand, here's to the thousand, here's to the thousand and you!
...
I apologize for that.
Now as for the ticket prices, my family has always stayed off-site. I don't think that we're particularly wealthy. I mean, numbers-wise, our income looks good, but we live in Connecticut, so we're pretty much lower middle-class for our area.
Most of my friends have been to Disney at least once, many of them more than once.
Bear in mind that I was born in 1998, in days where parents feel more obligated to bring their parents to WDW than they did in the past.
My parents brought me to WDW in 2000, 2003, 2004?, 2007, 2008, and 2015. The last three times included my sister, born 2005. Until the most recent visit, they viewed WDW as a great value. Expensive, sure, but a great value. The last two times we've driven down there to save money. Every time, except maybe the first, we stayed down for two weeks, until 2015, when missing the second week of school actually became a problem for me. This trip, we found that the tickets were getting kind of pricey, and the quality of the parks were slipping.
Some opinions on the non-castle parks. We've always viewed DHS as a dump, and only did it on approx. half of our trips. Epcot was received amongst my family this time as a "I'll do it twice a decade" experience; glad we saw it, but it's not worth frequently visiting. DAK was pretty good, but Dinosaur and Everest need some maintenance, Dinoland needs a nuke (or at least a paint job), and the park needs a couple more hours worth of stuff to do.
***WARNING: TRAVESTIES REGARDING MY DEMOGRAPHIC INFO***
Now, I think my family comprises the average middle-class WDW guest family. Generally, we charge across the parks looking for the next trill/nostalgia trip. We manipulate Fastpasses to the best of our ability and try to cram as many rides under our belt as we can, with the occasional show or character greeting. Among my group, The American Adventure, Carousel of Progress, and Maelstrom were seen as kind of boring.
Are we uncultured? Heck yeah. Just trying to offer some other perspectives, as it seems to be fairly one-sided amongst the members of this board.

They do say the first step to fixing a problem is admitting you have one

 

[Prog]

I don't think cultured people discuss a theme park's management in great detail on an internet message board

 

[Mike S]

I don't think cultured people discuss a theme park's management in great detail on an internet message board

It was meant to be a joke, hence the winking smiley.

 

[Prog]

As was mine; sorry, I have trouble conveying this stuff at 2 AM

 

[Cesar R M]

Said it before and I'll say it again...
Villains are more fun.

until they "kill" the good guy (see megamind)

 

[Cesar R M]

And wish for the Blue Fairy for this to happen.

then wait 1,000+ years underwater for your battery to die.. just to get revived by futuristic robots and find that dreams do not come true?

 

[FigmentForver96]

I gotta say, for just a small portion of a larger attraction, that's a pretty darn impressive thing. The effect is very nicely done. People look like they are holding on for their life. The inside to outside effect looks very well-done. And the whole thing is a little PG-13, too. I was surprised. In general, looks like they have learned some lessons from the Kong attraction and have done it one better.

It actually has me wondering - since Orlando is getting a really really souped up Kong, I wonder how souped up our FF will be.

(And, I just have to say, until you guys were just talking about it and I went and looked, I thought you guys were talking about Fantastic Four and I was really confused - one, why Universal would have anything FF in California, and two, why is anyone talking about Fantastic Four, because even we must have some levels of taste requirements, as in the muck as it gets around here it can't be that bad...)

The racing sequence looked like something from an old PS2 game.

 

[asianway]

Sorry to derail your numerous derailings but ...

Finally had a chance to see Dr. Blondie/Cupcake up close and in person today. As long as she wears that same skin-tight dress she had on at 7 am on a Saturday, she's welcome to use her social media PhD to Twitter all over my Facebook any time she wants.

Was it the green number?

 

[Goofyernmost]

So basically, a week of WDW parks (a 3-day and a 4-day ticket) cost about the same back then as the pricing you pay for ONE DAY now, and that's with the 7-day discount. So a week admission at Disney has gone up around 7x what it used to cost.

Given the attractions that we have lost (and some of them rather lengthy rides, replaced by much shorter) - I really wonder how much more "bang" you truly get today more, even when you include the two additional parks. Certainly some, don't get me wrong - but exponentially? No way jose...

Those were really sobering numbers. Very few things that cost that much then have gone up to that degree. I'm not even paying 7x more for milk or gas...

Yes, but remember that was for two (2) parks. Double that for four (4) parks and you have added value by two fold. Then compare the difference in the times factor. Gas is easily 3X more expensive. Then look at the big one... housing. In the early 80's you could buy a new home for less then 50K in Vermont. Today that same house is 250K that's 5X and it's the same house.

Yes, I will agree it has risen faster then many things, but, when all is said and done instead of it being overpriced now, there can be an argument made that it was, based on demand, vastly underpriced then. It really depends on how we want to spin it. The real measuring stick is this. Since it is not a necessity of life, people are paying those prices in higher numbers then in the past. What should that tell us? It should be saying it is still within market acceptance whether we like it or not. We cannot look back at another time and focus on what things once cost. My first new car in 1971 was 3.5K. That equivalent vehicle (no AC, AM radio, bias ply tires, crank widows, engine that required tuneup every 10,000 miles, expected life 75K to 95K), today just about any car you buy is 10X that. I can remember going to movies for $1.00... what are they now?

I'm not saying that Disney isn't expensive, I'm saying that it is considered a high luxury item and that is what it costs and to just continue that argument that is always there, if it costs to much, don't spend it. Value for any item that isn't a necessity for life is from the individual, not dictated by a standard price scale. One persons garbage is another persons gold.

 

[AEfx]

Yes, but remember that was for two (2) parks. Double that for four (4) parks and you have added value by two fold. Then compare the difference in the times factor.

Yeah, I get that - but on the other hand, like I said, I honestly think both AK and the Studio's are half-parks to begin with, LOL - and EPCOT had a lot more back then (just the live entertainment alone was a nice afternoon). I don't feel like WDW has doubled as an experience, let's put it that way.

Regardless, since you can only be in one place at once, it seems an odd way to look at it - you are paying for the same amount of hours. Well, that's a lie...LOL, because the parks used to be open later back then and there were less "closing at 7PM for private/hard ticket event" crap going on, too.

In any case, those numbers are insane, especially when you consider admission isn't the real revenue stream anyway. When you look at how much more visitors rely on Disney for everything these days, people are a heck of a lot more profitable now. Back then, the average person stayed off-site, and ate 1 one meal on property, maybe 2, a day. And that was before stuffed animals cost $50, too.

When you consider that has totally flipped to staying on-site in premium priced accommodations (for what they would be worth anywhere else), buying 3 meals a day, all snacks, drinks, etc. from you, they don't step one foot off of your property for 6 or 7 days straight, and every cent you spend once you board the Magical Express until you are dropped off at the airport goes into Disney's pockets.

Hell, at this point, admission should be complementary when you truly figure how much more Disney is making these days versus back then, when they had just made all these capital investments to boot.

I'm not saying that Disney isn't expensive, I'm saying that it is considered a high luxury item...

And that's what's so terribly sad. It didn't used to be a "high luxury item". It used to be a middle-class item, and even lower income people could save up for a "once in a lifetime trip" or drive down, stay on the strip, and still get to have pretty much the same day at Disney as anyone else. I think you'll find that was part of the charm - if you could get through those turnstyles, it didn't matter who you were.

Times have certainly changed. A lot of it was a slow creep, but MM+ just put that pedal to the metal and put the whole thing into overdrive. There was at least an approximation of it before, but now it's literally a special club with special magic bracelets and everything, and the new WDW steerage class - who ironically, are probably paying more for admission than anyone else. Cripes, it sounds like the health care system, LOL. Not so magical anymore.

 

[dis13]

He didn't bury the first one: http://www.msn.com/en-sg/money/other/disney-ceo-fumbles-entry-to-china/ar-BBhJ56W?srcref=rss

Not so sure about that... (right mouse click - View Page Info / View Page Source) I'm not an html expert or anything, but it looks to me like it was recently posted. The date in the html head data is 2015-6-11. I would think that means it was posted on June 11.

Edit: added quote / deleted image - realized it was showing the page I was referred from.

 

[Goofyernmost]

And that's what's so terribly sad. It didn't used to be a "high luxury item". It used to be a middle-class item, and even lower income people could save up for a "once in a lifetime trip" or drive down, stay on the strip, and still get to have pretty much the same day at Disney as anyone else. I think you'll find that was part of the charm - if you could get through those turnstyles, it didn't matter who you were.

It's always been that way though. I'll tell a short story. Back in the middle ages (1970's) I managed a Ben Franklin Store. Along with the 5 & 10 cent items we sold ladies apparel. Polyester Pant Suits were the rage. We sold them for $8.99. Down the street there was a "high end" department store which sold the exact same pant suit, manufacturer, etc., for $48.99. And they out sold us. Why? Because the public, in all their brain power, were sold on the idea that the high end store was better quality, therefore worth more money.

That is as sad a story about humanity that there is. They would pay $40.00 more for the same thing because of status and the smoke screen that they got what they paid for. Still though when you purchase right at Disney, it isn't all that much more expensive then it was 30 years ago. It's all in what one perceives as value. You, for example, and myself as far as that goes, consider both DAK and DHS to be half day parks. Many others do not. For them, by the time they are done exploring and riding the rides have used up a day. For many people, myself included, a day doesn't necessarily mean 8 AM to midnight. That is a very long day in my mind and there are other things I want to do besides just park in one place for hours on end. The point is, we are all individuals with individual ways of measuring what our needs and wants are.

That is why all this concern about the price of tickets is so futile. It will stop only when it isn't worth it to everyone, not just a few of us that remember when it was $15.00 per day. I actually remember and purchased gas for my car when it was 29 cents per gallon. It doesn't matter what it was. The only thing that matters is are we willing and able to pay the higher price that it is now. In the case of Disney it certainly must be worth it to some people other wise we could wander about and hardly see another person.

 

[matt9112]

Excuse me, but don't use my research to advance your own agenda.

I'm trying to prove a point that Disney's lack of investment in the secondary parks is resulting in little growth over the long term and you're trying to twist my words to advance your own agenda.

Poor form.

I have no agenda. I am not spirit. I am a normal disney fan. However I am just making an observation.

 

[lentesta]

It is almost like the 'powers that be' realized that this company has spent the majority of its existence catering to the middle-class and suddenly thought, "wait a minute, maybe there is an entire other level of clientele that we haven't really tapped into yet," as the middle class slowly dissolves into yesteryear.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the top 20% of US households by income, spend more on vacation each year than the bottom 80% combined. That's what Disney is focusing on.

Those of you with access to Disney's TA marketing material, look for a document titled "Selling Disney Destinations: Seven Market Segments." It lists Disney's 7 "priority" demographics, along with how much those families spend on vacation each year.

Here are those vacation spend levels: $1,860 / $3,100 / $3,820 / $4,170 / $6,970 / $7,650 / $7,890

6 of the 7 "priority" demographics are in the top 20% of US household incomes; two of them spend double what the top 20% does, which probably puts them in the top 5% (or higher).

To put that in perspective, 6 of Disney's 7 "priority" demographics come from households making $100,000/year or more. (Here's a handy tool to figure this out.) The top couple of demographics are probably from households making $140,000 - $180,000+ per year.

That said, I think a lot of this debate, including a lot of what I wrote, is really a proxy for a discussion about income inequality in general. I would care a whole lot less about the cost of a Disney vacation if it was affordable to the top 50% of US households instead of the top 20%. But that's another subject.