Chi84
Premium Member
Well I’m sure you could spend $10,000 right now if you took enough people. I didn’t interpret the post that way.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Has Disney Pricing Increases/Atmosphere Cuts Altered YOUR FAMILIES WDW Attendance?
- Thread starter VaderTron
- Start date
erasure fan1
Well-Known Member
Yup, Disney has effectively priced us out. And with a lot of the nonsense going on there, I'm not all that upset about it. We will go next summer for the first time since 2016. Then I really dont see another trip for 3 or 4 more years. This is from a 30+ trip guy.
PixarPerfect
Active Member
I never said my lack of free time was because of work or from being apart from family. Quite the opposite and I'm happy living a very full life. Busy, but happy.
Look, everyone approaches the parks differently. There are blogs advising visitors to only eat quick service because table is a waste of park time. Others say to hit every rope drop and stay until close for every park, every day. And then there are others who suggest spending a lot of time at the resort pools. None of these fits my version of a Disney vacation.
There is no one-size fits all on vacationing, which is why there is such a variety of resort / dining / ride / shopping / activity options at WDW. If someone wants to save money and sit on the sidewalk, then that's great for them. The value is in that activity for them. If others want to spend $100 and have a seat set aside, then great for them. If people are spending the money, then there is demand and Disney is only acting like any intelligent corporation would in the situation. Why bash them?
Why are some people incredibly judgy and quick on the personal attacks on this forum? Not every opportunity will work for every person. Attacking because someone is willing to spend money on a service offered is, well, suggestive...
WEDYENSID
Member
You are so right. I have been following this site for 12 years or so. Only joined officially 4 years ago - Why do people post some of the mean stuff they put on here, just to stress themselves out? Life is too short, live your life as you see fit - and let others do the same???
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
I’d say I’d buy you a caipirinha at the new Brazil pavilion...but you won’t be there...and neither will I...and neither will it.
But they’ll have dessert parties...for sure
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
I don’t have issue with anything you said here. In many respects...I agree.
The problem is that “judgy” is correct. Everything is “hot button” when you’re on a web board and there is no inflection in the typed word. We don’t have the personal face to face to get subtlety in things.
I would make the suggestion to not put anything that can be misconstrued as “my time is too valuable”...to eliminate the possibility it’s taken that way. It’s a powder keg. And it derails things just as much as people taking money spent too personally does - as I believe you are correctly pointing out?
Cheers nonetheless.
eliza61nyc
Well-Known Member
yes I've been increasing my attendance. I have 3 trips planned for next year. Price is not the sole deciding factor to where I go on vacation
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
You’re what they want.
That’s cool.
My argument (always) has been that taking them up on the increases is never limited to an “individual” decision by their stat analysis. If the prices gain traction...it fans out to everything else.
The public gets “keelhauled” behind the pricing boat whether they want to be or not.
PixarPerfect
Active Member
Thank you and yes, cheers. I agree that online posting is a difficult method for communication. It would be helpful if people took words at face value rather than reading into and leaping to conclusions before attacking, no? 
Something that could help in this situation is slowing down and reading the posts clearly. It would help with the backtracking and stave off some arguments. For example, I never said my time was too valuable. I said it's limited and that I'm willing to pay to cut down on waste while on vacation. That's a reasonable action.
Something that could help in this situation is slowing down and reading the posts clearly. It would help with the backtracking and stave off some arguments. For example, I never said my time was too valuable. I said it's limited and that I'm willing to pay to cut down on waste while on vacation. That's a reasonable action.
eliza61nyc
Well-Known Member
but I can only make my decision based on the "individual". when I booked my trip for April, sorry I didn't say "gee if I continue to support this product the rest of John q. public will get heelhauled"?? there is no possible way to do that. there is always going to be people who can't afford the product (or feel it's not worth the cost) just like there are a multitude of place, things and experiences I cannot afford to partake in. All I've got is my family. yes I totally admit that we are selfish when we make our arrangements. Do we feel we get our monies worth for the product we are buying. that's the ONLY factor in our decision.
If they get keehauled then they stop going.
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
Probably not...
But I did mention on another thread I rented out the France overlook in Epcot for $18 an adult/$9 a child once...
It wasn't as “premium” as cupcakes and coke with 300 strangers...but I did buy a couple of cases of Moët and Chandon from weddings and we had 5x the food
...you do the math.
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
I didn’t say you did say that...now we need to concentrate on that from the other side. It was an “inference” admittedly on my part. It happens all the time.Thank you and yes, cheers. I agree that online posting is a difficult method for communication. It would be helpful if people took words at face value rather than reading into and leaping to conclusions before attacking, no?
Something that could help in this situation is slowing down and reading the posts clearly. It would help with the backtracking and stave off some arguments. For example, I never said my time was too valuable. I said it's limited and that I'm willing to pay to cut down on waste while on vacation. That's a reasonable action.
What I said was anything that “infers” that...which “time is limited and I will pay” roughly translates to the Jokers around here.
But we agree on the problem: translation.
If hadn’t said that...somebody else would have on a more aggressive attack vector. I’ve seen this play before
We are flawed, limited creatures.
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
There needs to be more of a shared valuation of product at Disney parks to tame the beast a little.
My opinion...I’ll kindly leave it at that.
There is...actually...its rejecting products that cost more than is reasonable or are increased too rapidly
Last edited:
Understood. The point is that everyone has a price point for great value, decent value, average value, limited value, and no value. That price is never going to be the same from person to person. However, when you get to the point that large quantities of people are saying they have moved into the average-to-no-value end of the spectrum it's not a great sign of what's to come.
I know this isn't the best example, but humor me please. Many remember Roller Coaster Tycoon. One of the many choices the game player had to decide on was the prices for entry. When you had a lower price huge crowds would be flowing down the path towards the park. As you upped the price some would reach the turnstiles and simply turn around and leave because of the price. Others would enter. If you continued to up the price the number of visitors flowing towards the park would slow down eventually to a trickle. If you then dropped the price to attract the visitors again it would take time for the flow of visitors to ramp back up.
Similarly, most people who go to Disney plan months or even years ahead. That means you will not see the immediate impact of increased pricing/decreased value. Any reactionary attendance drop-off would take time to show itself; perhaps several months or even years. So, we likely won't see the results of the most recent price hikes and atmosphere cuts until next year and beyond. The thing is, Disney isn't going to just drop the prices back down like you could on a computer game. They may hold off on increases for a while (if the CEO had the longterm interests of Disney in mind...don't hold your breath), but that could take years to see results and much of the damage may already have been done. If, as a company, you have moved yourself into a smaller market (as would be the case if you market to the financially well-to-do at the expense of middle class patrons) there are less people to keep you going through down times such as a recession.
Anyway, most people would see my viewpoint as alarmist, and that is their right. But I see the answers so far to this poll as very telling, and the story isn't one with a happy ending.
Last edited:
PixarPerfect
Active Member
Right now the poll has ~50% of respondents saying that price has had no effect on their future plans. This is based on responses from registered posters on a very focused WDW forum. In other words, it's representative of a small, not entirely unbiased study group rather than the population as a whole.
It's interesting, but I'm not going to be selling my Disney stock based on this poll's results.
Not sure how large a margin you like to keep for your "approximation", but the poll has 23.9% of voters saying there is no effect to their current or future spending. That means 76.1% of voters already have or plan to reduce their spending and attendance at WDW in some fashion as a direct reaction to the price increases and reductions in atmosphere.Right now the poll has ~50% of respondents saying that price has had no effect on their future plans. This is based on responses from registered posters on a very focused WDW forum. In other words, it's representative of a small, not entirely unbiased study group rather than the population as a whole.
It's interesting, but I'm not going to be selling my Disney stock based on this poll's results.
PixarPerfect
Active Member
Your first two responses say "no effect." Combined they = ~50%.
That's why you have to read the whole thing. Skimming is the biggest cause of misunderstandings.
The whole thing reads (please read every word):
"No effect yet. However, recent changes have us planning to reduce our WDW spending."
So, that means that these people are the most recent ones to join the group who are dissatisfied with the cost/value ratio. While they may have attended recently or still have an AP that has a few months left, they are planning to change how often they go to WDW or reduce their time/amount of money spent when they do go. This category would include those who plan to make small cuts such as to ADRs, reduction in number of days spent at parks, changing the location or tier of hotel they stay at, and other similar reductions. But this group would also include those who recently went to WDW, however they now have decided that they are not going to go back.
While this group is diverse, there is one common denominator. In some way or fashion all those who voted plan to change their spending/attendance as a direct result of the increased prices and/or reduced atmosphere.
Last edited:
Chi84
Premium Member
76 percent sounds like a lot, but it’s 76 percent of the 160 people who voted. I know these “polls” are fun, but they don’t really mean anything.
Sure, 76 percent sounds like a lot because it is. And this is the result of a poll of people who 100% have heard of Disney World, 100% have gone to Disney World, and I would venture to say 100% enjoy Disney World (or some version of it in the past). This poll was directed towards Disney's "base". It's like a politician polling their base. If 76% say they are not in favor of the direction the candidate is going and it will affect their interaction with them most would say that is alarming.