If the WDWMagic Forums existed in the 80s, what would folks be saying?

[Goofyernmost]

Uh...Hey Boss! I know a little bit about the '80's. I used to drive a cab for the Sunshine Cab Company back then. Question......Are you saying that SIZE matters?

Sure am, sometimes one can have to much of a good thing. Seriously, when Walt was planning the Experimental Prototype Community Of Tomorrow, a whole bunch of that land was going to be used for that purpose. Now they have 4 theme parks, 3 or 4 Golf courses, Mini- Golf, Camping areas, DTD, Water Parks spread out over thousands of acres which create a logistical maintenance and transportation nightmare and must be torture to keep up with. Which is something, as of late that seems to be catching up with them.

So many people today love to compare the early 80's with today and cannot seem to understand that the neat little area that encompassed the Magic Kingdom with Boats, Trams, Monorails and a couple of hotels along with a brand new, shiny EPCOT Ctr. was pretty easy to oversee. They think that there is no reason that any of that should affect anything else. They feel that Disney should be able to just duplicate their entire infrastructure at each venue and totally not see the enormous waste that this would create. However, to do what they need to do now, takes longer and cannot be solved with just throwing people at it. It's much more complex then that. Anyway, had they not had that "blessing of size", everything would be compacted into a more manageable space and not have the real or imagined problems that people tend to point to now. There probably wouldn't be as much of it either, which would also be a cause for contention.

 

[ParentsOf4]

So many people today love to compare the early 80's with today and cannot seem to understand that the neat little area that encompassed the Magic Kingdom with Boats, Trams, Monorails and a couple of hotels along with a brand new, shiny EPCOT Ctr. was pretty easy to oversee.

In 1999, with WDW being structurally the same as it is today, Theme Parks & Resorts operating income was $1.4B.

A four-day theme park ticket cost $167.

In 2013, a four-day theme park ticket cost $363.

That's an increase of 117%.

For some perspective, median household income is up 29%, the CPI is up 40%.

WDW's current prices have nothing to do with the cost of operating a "neat little area that encompassed the Magic Kingdom" in the 1980s.

 

[Goofyernmost]

In 1999, with WDW being structurally the same as it is today, Theme Parks & Resorts operating income was $1.4B.

A four-day theme park ticket cost $167.

In 2013, a four-day theme park ticket cost $363.

That's an increase of 117%.

For some perspective, median household income is up 29%, the CPI is up 40%.

WDW's current prices have nothing to do with the cost of operating a "neat little area that encompassed the Magic Kingdom" in the 1980s.

I understand that, but, some of it was justified. I was just listening to a news broadcast where they have pointed out that food prices have gone up, and yet, the government is still reporting that there is no significant inflation. I don't know for sure, but sometimes I suspect that we are not comparing real costs to inflation rates. I read someplace that they don't even include the cost of utilities (i.e. fuel, both heating and vehicular, or subsequently the increased costs of electricity) in those inflation figures. Think of the impact that food and utilities might have on a place like Disney that you might not find in other industries. Just saying.

The other part of basic economy rules is "what the public will bear", if the public continues to pay what they are asking and the fact that it is impossible to label a Disney visit as a necessity and you have prices that may be above whatever established inflation rate might be published. Quite a normal happening. The only reason that it is so noticeable is that it amounts to a large sum all at once, instead of being spread out over time.

 

[GenerationX]

I think the overarching theme of threads in the early 80s would've been about the opening and additions at Epcot. In the late 80s, the dominating thought would have been whether WDW was growing too fast or not. The most popular name for forum trolls would have been "Spittin' off the Skyway".

 

[ParentsOf4]

I understand that, but, some of it was justified. I was just listening to a news broadcast where they have pointed out that food prices have gone up, and yet, the government is still reporting that there is no significant inflation.

In 2011, a bacon cheeseburger was $7.49 at Cosmic Rays. Today, it's $10.19, up 36% in 3 years.

DDP prices increased 25% last year.

Realistically, has [insert your favorite chain restaurant] prices increased that much?

Has your grocery store prices increased that much?

Disney is not simply passing on cost. Disney is raising prices as much as they think they can get away with.

 

[Goofyernmost]

In 2011, a bacon cheeseburger was $7.49 at Cosmic Rays. Today, it's $10.19, up 36% in 3 years.

DDP prices increased 25% last year.

Realistically, has [insert your favorite chain restaurant] prices increased that much?

Has your grocery store prices increased that much?

Disney is not simply passing on cost. Disney is raising prices as much as they think they can get away with.

Where is it written that they have to or even should just pass along price increases. Supply and demand. You are in a park the size of a small city and you are hungry, you have no place else to go. Small supply (choice), huge demand. I'd like to see them cheaper as well, but, I don't expect that will have much impact on them. As long as people go, they will pay those prices, why shouldn't they charge that, they don't owe us a (sorry) free lunch. Don't want to pay it bring a PB&J sandwich, they still allow us to bring food into the parks if we want. Grocery stores are also considered a conveyer of necessities, however, they have competition, key factor! If they didn't you would need a mortgage to buy a dozen eggs.

If they stopped us from bring in our own, I would back a mini-revolution to get the prices lowered. Might even threaten them by telling them that I will wear a Harry Potter T-shirt to the parks if they don't.

 

[ParentsOf4]

Where is it written that they have to or even should just pass along price increases. Supply and demand.

I'm simply responding to your earlier post:

"So many people today love to compare the early 80's with today and cannot seem to understand that the neat little area that encompassed the Magic Kingdom with Boats, Trams, Monorails and a couple of hotels along with a brand new, shiny EPCOT Ctr. was pretty easy to oversee."

After providing you with concrete example of WDW's prices in recent years, hopefully you realize that what Disney charges today has nothing to do with the growth of the parks since the early 1980s.

As you wrote, it's "supply and demand" or, more accurately, "whatever the market will bear."

 

[Goofyernmost]

I'm simply responding to your earlier post:

"So many people today love to compare the early 80's with today and cannot seem to understand that the neat little area that encompassed the Magic Kingdom with Boats, Trams, Monorails and a couple of hotels along with a brand new, shiny EPCOT Ctr. was pretty easy to oversee."

After providing you with concrete example of WDW's prices in recent years, hopefully you realize that what Disney charges today has nothing to do with the growth of the parks since the early 1980s.

As you wrote, it's "supply and demand" or, more accurately, "whatever the market will bear."

No I don't think that at all. It was $35.00 for a two park pass for three days in 1983. There is some connection due to the fact that there are now 4 parks, so lets just double that to be used as a base point. That's $70.00 for four at the same rate as in 83. Now add in inflationary costs from then to now. (I'd try to figure it out, but I just don't care that much) Now the difference falls under the category of "whatever the market will bear". There really is nothing to really argue about, because as long as we, as a group, are willing to pay that, it will be what it will be.

 

[The Empress Lilly]

Sure am, sometimes one can have to much of a good thing. Seriously, when Walt was planning the Experimental Prototype Community Of Tomorrow, a whole bunch of that land was going to be used for that purpose. Now they have 4 theme parks, 3 or 4 Golf courses, Mini- Golf, Camping areas, DTD, Water Parks spread out over thousands of acres which create a logistical maintenance and transportation nightmare and must be torture to keep up with. Which is something, as of late that seems to be catching up with them.

So many people today love to compare the early 80's with today and cannot seem to understand that the neat little area that encompassed the Magic Kingdom with Boats, Trams, Monorails and a couple of hotels along with a brand new, shiny EPCOT Ctr. was pretty easy to oversee. They think that there is no reason that any of that should affect anything else. They feel that Disney should be able to just duplicate their entire infrastructure at each venue and totally not see the enormous waste that this would create. However, to do what they need to do now, takes longer and cannot be solved with just throwing people at it. It's much more complex then that. Anyway, had they not had that "blessing of size", everything would be compacted into a more manageable space and not have the real or imagined problems that people tend to point to now. There probably wouldn't be as much of it either, which would also be a cause for contention.

To your first paragraph. Size doesn't matter for operational efficiency. WDW is not a one man hobby, who gets overwhelmed. On the contrary. The larger WDW gets, the more efficient it can be run. You can specialise, and you can enjoy benefits of scale. WDW becomes easier to maintain as it grows instead of more difficult.
You can grow past optimum size, where bureacracy sets in or local workforce is depleted. But these should not outweight the benefits of scale WDW enjoys.


To your second point. Insofar as its size has made WDW unmanagable, this is entirely the result of poor expansion since the 80s. That grew WDW into a suburban sprawling mess. If WDW had had a European or Japanese planologist, there would've have been a compact, sensible build space with an incredibly fast and efficient transport.

 

[Goofyernmost]

To your first paragraph. Size doesn't matter for operational efficiency. WDW is not a one man hobby, who gets overwhelmed. On the contrary. The larger WDW gets, the more efficient it can be run. You can specialise, and you can enjoy benefits of scale. WDW becomes easier to maintain as it grows instead of more difficult.
You can grow past optimum size, where bureacracy sets in or local workforce is depleted. But these should not outweight the benefits of scale WDW enjoys.


To your second point. Insofar as its size has made WDW unmanagable, this is entirely the result of poor expansion since the 80s. That grew WDW into a suburban sprawling mess. If WDW had had a European or Japanese planologist, there would've have been a compact, sensible build space with an incredibly fast and efficient transport.

But would it have made any more sense to bunch everything together when they had that much land to play with. Wouldn't not having the sprawl cause massive traffic problems all in one place? One thing to remember is the independent mobility issue in this country. You don't park that many people in a square mile, park their vehicles and not have total disaster at the end of the day. This ain't Japan or Europe where population centers are in cities and not in rural/suburban more spaced out groupings. We haven't indoctrinated everyone to public transportation yet. Maybe someday.

We are going to have to disagree on that first part. I do think that having stuff that disjointed will and does have an affect on the operation. Unless you look at it as if it is feasible to have duplicated staffing for every module of the property, then the staffing will still be spread out, observational management will be more fragmented and you get the situation were the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. In an operation like Disney, unique when compared to conventional business, then you will either spend money unnecessarily or have delays in dispatching maintenance as well as communications problems.

 

[ToyStorygirl]

We would be saying:

"Wouldn't it be great if they stopped characters roaming around and had us all line up in the blistering heat for a non spontaneous photo whilst we're de-hydrated and looking miserable?"

"Wow, I wish they would invent autograph books for people pretending to be people who don't exist to sign"

 

[rnese]

Sure am, sometimes one can have to much of a good thing. Seriously, when Walt was planning the Experimental Prototype Community Of Tomorrow, a whole bunch of that land was going to be used for that purpose. Now they have 4 theme parks, 3 or 4 Golf courses, Mini- Golf, Camping areas, DTD, Water Parks spread out over thousands of acres which create a logistical maintenance and transportation nightmare and must be torture to keep up with. Which is something, as of late that seems to be catching up with them.

So many people today love to compare the early 80's with today and cannot seem to understand that the neat little area that encompassed the Magic Kingdom with Boats, Trams, Monorails and a couple of hotels along with a brand new, shiny EPCOT Ctr. was pretty easy to oversee. They think that there is no reason that any of that should affect anything else. They feel that Disney should be able to just duplicate their entire infrastructure at each venue and totally not see the enormous waste that this would create. However, to do what they need to do now, takes longer and cannot be solved with just throwing people at it. It's much more complex then that. Anyway, had they not had that "blessing of size", everything would be compacted into a more manageable space and not have the real or imagined problems that people tend to point to now. There probably wouldn't be as much of it either, which would also be a cause for contention.

Uh...wait a second. What are we talking about again?

 

[Goofyernmost]

Uh...wait a second. What are we talking about again?

Slowing down for a yellow light! Keep up!