Good Story On Costs

[TalkToEthan]

Wait, Disney has found a product/event in the Christmas party that is so popular with people that is sells out basically every night it is offered, and somehow this is a bad thing?

Yes, it is a bad thing…………because it comes at the expense of a rich and well appreciated park operation history and tradition. If this event “success” were in a vacuum, then great but for every party goer there just might be another guest adversely affected.

it’s no different than replacing a beloved attraction with a new one(as opposed to leaving things be and add a new one)

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Upsells are not a “positive”…because as they’ve focused on them…everything else has declined…

Which was 1000% predictable

Even dumb lawyers can do this kinda “math”

 

[osian]

Does DLP have a bad reputation in general in the UK? I definitely see the points you're making, but I'm surprised how many people travel to Orlando as opposed to just going to Paris, which I assume must be cheaper and easier?

The two are just not the same. DLP is not necessarily easier to get to, cheaper, nor suitable for more than a few days.

The studios park probably has a globally bad reputation, but Disneyland has a great reputation. I'm not convinced that the majority would be aware of a second park there.

I have friends who will pop over to DLP for a long weekend, maybe half a dozen times a year. They live in the south of England, close to ferry and train terminals, going to DLP is like a city break for them. It's not that easy for me. They go to WDW too, but not as often, and when they want a big holiday.

Orlando is the vacation capital, it's nothing like DLP.

The question is more applicable if you compare DLP with Anaheim. The two resorts are similar in size and facilities, and yes, more people from the UK go to DLP than Anaheim because it's easier and cheaper. Awareness is an issue too, DLP is pushed in ads here more than WDW I think, but I could well imagine that people here don't know about the Anaheim resort.

The reasons that sometimes people from the UK might choose WDW over DLP are the reasons already given. It's what they want to do at any particular time, it's not possible to generalise on "easier and cheaper", I'm not sure why you're pushing that narrative.

PS. Mark's post references that CMs are not as "nice" at DLP. Well, I think I've noticed that too, but I've not really experienced any outright rudeness, it's just that WDW CMs bend over backwards to to a greater angle! Oh and I think it's true, the food isn't as wonderful as you'd expect it to be. However, whether these aspects amount to a "bad reputation" such that people won't go there, I'm not convinced. I think there are other things at play when people choose WDW over DLP.

 

[mysto]

the money will be forgotten, but the memories will last forever

or some nonsense like that

On the other hand, Albert Einstein said, “The most powerful force in the Universe is compound interest.”

... and I'm definitely having trouble remembering things.

 

[JMcMahonEsq]

Yes, it is a bad thing…………because it comes at the expense of a rich and well appreciated park operation history and tradition. If this event “success” were in a vacuum, then great but for every party goer there just might be another guest adversely affected.

it’s no different than replacing a beloved attraction with a new one(as opposed to leaving things be and add a new one)

Time change, evolve or die. The park is 50 years plus old. Things need to change, rides attractions become stale and dated and should be replaced.

As to history and tradition, again times change. People want new offerings, new things. People who want to go to these special events (and they sell out every time so obviously people do) get to enjoy them. People who don’t want to experience them don’t have to. But just because you have some old stick in the muds who haven’t learned to just act their age and die already who want to hold on to a never changing experience, doesn’t mean WDW shouldn’t evolve and offer new and different things

 

[Mark Dunne]

Does DLP have a bad reputation in general in the UK? I definitely see the points you're making, but I'm surprised how many people travel to Orlando as opposed to just going to Paris, which I assume must be cheaper and easier?

For us it’s the weather and people, Paris weather is much the same as the UK, at least in Orlando you can pretty much wear tee’s all year round if the suns out( just about in January ) plus you have space in WDW, feels like DLP as pretty as it is, feels more cramped . We visited last November, in the ice cream parlour they were serving ice cream bars, not sundaes mind you but bars! I know it’s colder then, but I felt the food didn’t have the same variation as WDW, how could it, I mean WDW snacks have become legend status over the years. Also the 4 parks are so different in the US, your whole country is geared toward customer service , cleanliness , and you’re so darn helpful, Parisians not so much . But hey! At least you didn’t say why don’t we go to chessinton world of adventures instead of WDW, that would be a very different conversation . Take care all, see you all in October

 

[Chef Mickey]

I have found that with all the Disney resorts I have visited., each has its strengths and weaknesses. The Disneyland part of the complex is wonderful, detailed and unique, but the Studios part is one of the ugliest gates in all of the Disney universe. Paris is an amazing city, and can't see how anyone could bash it(not you but another poster).

There are a lot of things to not like about Paris, particularly DLP. It's too small. The hotels are a joke and stuck in 1992. The food is mid. Nothing there is as good as WDW's counterpart. There is no EPCOT or Animal Kingdom.

For Paris in general...The A/C isn't nearly adequate anywhere in Paris. It's dirty. Very dirty. Lot of weird people. Not particularly safe. It's too crowded. The sites are overrated and crowded. The service is basically hit or miss and mostly a miss. Getting around takes too long. Did I mention the smoke? Most people are rude. Graffiti is literally everywhere. The trains are consistently late. No one cares about hospitality. Everything is expensive but nothing feels worth the money. It stinks. Couldn't wait to leave.

Switzerland and parts of Germany are far better, although the cities in Germany suffer from the same issues.

 

[Chi84]

Time change, evolve or die. The park is 50 years plus old. Things need to change, rides attractions become stale and dated and should be replaced.

As to history and tradition, again times change. People want new offerings, new things. People who want to go to these special events (and they sell out every time so obviously people do) get to enjoy them. People who don’t want to experience them don’t have to. But just because you have some old stick in the muds who haven’t learned to just act their age and die already who want to hold on to a never changing experience, doesn’t mean WDW shouldn’t evolve and offer new and different things

I want the parks to evolve and offer new experiences - love the new attractions and special events too. I also happen to be old. So maybe don’t generalize so much

 

[DisneyHead123]

Time change, evolve or die. The park is 50 years plus old. Things need to change, rides attractions become stale and dated and should be replaced.

As to history and tradition, again times change. People want new offerings, new things. People who want to go to these special events (and they sell out every time so obviously people do) get to enjoy them. People who don’t want to experience them don’t have to. But just because you have some old stick in the muds who haven’t learned to just act their age and die already who want to hold on to a never changing experience, doesn’t mean WDW shouldn’t evolve and offer new and different things

I think the thing to remember is that “old for the sake of old” often sells as well as “new for the sake of new”. Would Cape May attract more visitors if they bulldozed Victorian buildings to install arcades? Would couples go on romantic weekend trips to Colonial Williamsburg if they rebuilt the colonial buildings and turned them into strip malls? Would Mount Vernon or Monticello get more visitors if they knocked them down and replaced them with “The Founding Fathers Experience”, much like the “experiences” one finds in malls, like Candytopia, that are mostly a series of social media phot opps? Would more people visit something as dull as the Hoover Dam if they made it a sleek new “Hoover Fountain”. No. I’m sorry, but slap some cobblestone and a crumbly looking building sinking into the landscape on something and I’m in baby, and clearly many people feel the same way.

I’m not against new things. I’m very much for them in many situations. But I don’t think this is a simple binary where “new is better”.

 

[Chi84]

I think the thing to remember is that “old for the sake of old” often sells as well as “new for the sake of new”. Would Cape May attract more visitors if they bulldozed Victorian buildings to install arcades? Would couples go on romantic weekend trips to Colonial Williamsburg if they rebuilt the colonial buildings and turned them into strip malls? Would Mount Vernon or Monticello get more visitors if they knocked them down and replaced them with “The Founding Fathers Experience”, much like the “experiences” one finds in malls, like Candytopia, that are mostly a series of social media phot opps? Would more people visit something as dull as the Hoover Dam if they made it a sleek new “Hoover Fountain”. No. I’m sorry, but slap some cobblestone and a crumbly looking building sinking into the landscape on something and I’m in baby, and clearly many people feel the same way.

I’m not against new things. I’m very much for them in many situations. But I don’t think this is a simple binary where “new is better”.

Well no, historical landmarks and such are expected to remain the same. I don’t think anyone would argue otherwise. People are going to those places to experience their historical aspect.

 

[DisneyHead123]

Well no, historical landmarks and such are expected to remain the same. I don’t think anyone would argue otherwise. People are going to those places to experience their historical aspect.

Many historical landmarks were run of the mill places at one time though. I think it takes a discerning eye to see where historical value exists and where updates would be better. My general point, though, is that “newer is always better” is just as clearly untrue as “older is always better”. They both have their places.

 

[Club Cooloholic]

There are a lot of things to not like about Paris, particularly DLP. It's too small. The hotels are a joke and stuck in 1992. The food is mid. Nothing there is as good as WDW's counterpart. There is no EPCOT or Animal Kingdom.

For Paris in general...The A/C isn't nearly adequate anywhere in Paris. It's dirty. Very dirty. Lot of weird people. Not particularly safe. It's too crowded. The sites are overrated and crowded. The service is basically hit or miss and mostly a miss. Getting around takes too long. Did I mention the smoke? Most people are rude. Graffiti is literally everywhere. The trains are consistently late. No one cares about hospitality. Everything is expensive but nothing feels worth the money. It stinks. Couldn't wait to leave.

Switzerland and parts of Germany are far better, although the cities in Germany suffer from the same issues.

As far as your critiques of the city, I couldn't disagree more but that's ok. Some people like the beach while others would rather be in thee mountains.

 

[jloucks]

There are a lot of things to not like about Paris, particularly DLP. It's too small. The hotels are a joke and stuck in 1992. The food is mid. Nothing there is as good as WDW's counterpart. There is no EPCOT or Animal Kingdom.

For Paris in general...The A/C isn't nearly adequate anywhere in Paris. It's dirty. Very dirty. Lot of weird people. Not particularly safe. It's too crowded. The sites are overrated and crowded. The service is basically hit or miss and mostly a miss. Getting around takes too long. Did I mention the smoke? Most people are rude. Graffiti is literally everywhere. The trains are consistently late. No one cares about hospitality. Everything is expensive but nothing feels worth the money. It stinks. Couldn't wait to leave.

Switzerland and parts of Germany are far better, although the cities in Germany suffer from the same issues.

The people, or at least a suspiciously large number, seem to just really hate tourists. Maybe they just hate everybody? My mom was there a while back, and they traumatized her. Speaking just from my observations, and heavily in reaction to my mom's experience, I think the place is a maird hole.

Culture, Architecture, and History is pretty good tho.... if you can get past the denizens.

 

[The Colonel]

Disney is unwilling to give up the revenue stream. Most guests hate paid FPs and/or are totally confused by it. Possible solution: Make a one time price increase across the board to account for the revenue from paid FPs and then do away with them. Go back to the old system. Then resume the regular annual or semi-annual price increases. Fans are happy, Disney makes the money, the elites can still get plaids so they can feel special. The parks remain democratized. Everyone is happy.

 

[TalkToEthan]

As to history and tradition, again times change. People want new offerings, new things. People who want to go to these special events (and they sell out every time so obviously people do) get to enjoy them.

You missed my point, entirely

Let’s try this again:
The parties needlessly and adversely affect non party goers.

Your reliance on popularity of event as a blanket justification is misplaced here. It doesn’t matter if parties are sellout or half full…it’s irrelevant.

Disney willfully chooses not to satisfy both party and non party guest when it most certainly can satisfy both.

 

[JMcMahonEsq]

Many historical landmarks were run of the mill places at one time though. I think it takes a discerning eye to see where historical value exists and where updates would be better. My general point, though, is that “newer is always better” is just as clearly untrue as “older is always better”. They both have their places.

Historical landmarks are visited specifically because of the historical significance of either the place itself, or what happened there. There is no relationship between that and a theme park/service type business.

 

[JMcMahonEsq]

You missed my point, entirely

Let’s try this again:
The parties needlessly and adversely affect non party goers.

Your reliance on popularity of event as a blanket justification is misplaced here. It doesn’t matter if parties are sellout or half full…it’s irrelevant.

Disney willfully chooses not to satisfy both party and non party guest when it most certainly can satisfy both.

No you clearly don’t get it. The parties offer something that people want. A special event that differs from the standard offering that you can get with a standard ticket. Enough people want that special event that there is a high demand market for it, and the pricing is reasonable so it keeps selling out. By the very definition of offering something special that you don’t get with a standard ticket on a standard night, you are going to change what happens at the park. It is also the only thing that is relevant. WDW is a business, finding things that its customers want, at a price they are willing to pay, is the only thing that it relevant.

Second, there is no needless or adverse effect on non-party goers. The whole point of a special event, is that you are paying for something that is different and not available with a standard ticket/night. So yes, people who buy those tickets are getting something different than those that didn't, or to put it another way, people who elect NOT to pay for those special events will NOT get what people who do elect to pay get. Just like people who pay more for park hoppers get to enjoy multiple parks, while people who paid for a single park ticket don't. You get what you pay for, and by your choice you get a different experience.

Third WDW does satisfy both its party and non-party going guests. If you don't want to go the party, that's your choice (complete aside i highly recommend going to each at least once.) You can still go to MK that day and stay the entire day, from opening, to when the park closes that day for general public guests. OR you can go to another park that day, and decide to visit MK when there isn't a party scheduled, OR choose to visit WDW at a time when there are no parties scheduled at all, OR you can go to the party. WDW makes all those choices available to all its customers. But just because some people elect to pay more to spend more time at the park after it closes for the day to the general public, and YOU don't doesn't mean that your experience is negatively effected. If i elect to pay more for first class, it doesn't mean your experience is negatively effected bc you choice to pay for coach. Or if I go to Sky Zone and pay for my kids to jump for 2 hours, but you chose to only pay for an hour, its not negatively effecting your experience when they kick your kid out of the trampolines after their hour is up.

 

[Chi84]

No you clearly don’t get it. The parties offer something that people want. A special event that differs from the standard offering that you can get with a standard ticket. Enough people want that special event that there is a high demand market for it, and the pricing is reasonable so it keeps selling out. By the very definition of offering something special that you don’t get with a standard ticket on a standard night, you are going to change what happens at the park. It is also the only thing that is relevant. WDW is a business, finding things that its customers want, at a price they are willing to pay, is the only thing that it relevant.

Second, there is no needless or adverse effect on non-party goers. The whole point of a special event, is that you are paying for something that is different and not available with a standard ticket/night. So yes, people who buy those tickets are getting something different than those that didn't, or to put it another way, people who elect NOT to pay for those special events will NOT get what people who do elect to pay get. Just like people who pay more for park hoppers get to enjoy multiple parks, while people who paid for a single park ticket don't. You get what you pay for, and by your choice you get a different experience.

Third WDW does satisfy both its party and non-party going guests. If you don't want to go the party, that's your choice (complete aside i highly recommend going to each at least once.) You can still go to MK that day and stay the entire day, from opening, to when the park closes that day for general public guests. OR you can go to another park that day, and decide to visit MK when there isn't a party scheduled, OR choose to visit WDW at a time when there are no parties scheduled at all, OR you can go to the party. WDW makes all those choices available to all its customers. But just because some people elect to pay more to spend more time at the park after it closes for the day to the general public, and YOU don't doesn't mean that your experience is negatively effected. If i elect to pay more for first class, it doesn't mean your experience is negatively effected bc you choice to pay for coach. Or if I go to Sky Zone and pay for my kids to jump for 2 hours, but you chose to only pay for an hour, its not negatively effecting your experience when they kick your kid out of the trampolines after their hour is up.

I think people understand this; they just don't like it. It falls under the heading of "just because you CAN do something doesn't mean it's a good idea." If Disney has decided to cater to into an increasingly wealthy audience, they better be sure it exists in sufficient numbers.

I agree with what you are saying about Disney being a business, but that may be because I don't have the emotional connection some seem to have to it. I'll enjoy what WDW has to offer until I don't, then I'll stop going. But there are people here who have a deep, nostalgic connection to the parks when guest experience was on a whole different level and they're worried that the current grasp for money is going to mean an end to Disney. Just because someone doesn't feel that way doesn't mean it's not a valid concern.

I'm fine with the way the parks have expanded and changed throughout the years and I agree with you about the special events, but again, I'm not emotionally invested in Disney's continued existence. There are a lot of us out there, maybe not so many on these discussion boards.

 

[Poseidon Quest]

The reasons that sometimes people from the UK might choose WDW over DLP are the reasons already given. It's what they want to do at any particular time, it's not possible to generalise on "easier and cheaper", I'm not sure why you're pushing that narrative.

No narrative being pushed, just curious about why people would choose to fly farther for what I thought was significantly more expensive.

 

[Poseidon Quest]

But hey! At least you didn’t say why don’t we go to chessinton world of adventures instead of WDW, that would be a very different conversation . Take care all, see you all in October

I'm under no illusion that UK parks can really match theme parks in the U.S., but a lot of parks throughout Europe do seem a lot more interesting to me. I feel like I could spend a few days at Europa Park and not be able to see it all.