Interesting Disney Parks Survey Question I got Today - Tiered Ticket Pricing by Season

[Gringrinngghost]

It's worth noting, the same survey is out for Disneyland too it appears. However I've not found their calendar yet. Anyone with the link to the survey, I would like to check it out please message it to me if you would like to. The images below we're found by luck.

WDW B Image:

DLR A Image:

DLR B Image:

Update: DLR C Image found.

DLR C Image:

 

[DisneyCane]

If that's the case then the people who go anywhere during a peak time theoretically should pay less. Do you know anyone who would rather go when it is crowded compared to not crowded? Kind of defeats the purpose of the whole thing.

In the case of what they are apparently looking to do (and what airlines do), they aren't pricing at a premium for a better experience. They are pricing at a premium when there is higher demand. Anybody would rather fly on a plane that is 1/3 empty so that you have a chance of getting an empty seat next to you. The fares for the more desirable flight are cheaper because they are trying to get more people to purchase and get more revenue. For the sold out flight, the capacity is filled so the goal is to charge as much as possible for those tickets to maximize revenue.

The goal of this pricing "proposal" doesn't seem to be to spread the crowds out. It seems to be about revenue maximization. For example, if a busy day sells 30,000 tickets (single day for simplicity) at $105, that's $3.15 million in revenue. If they only sell 27,000 tickets at $125, that's $3.375 million. They don't care if those 3,000 people go another day. In fact, Disney would probably prefer that they didn't. They have increased revenue by $225,000 but have to serve 3,000 less people.

 

[Jon81uk]

At least the calender in the DLR C image is simple and predictable.

 

[xdan0920]

In the case of what they are apparently looking to do (and what airlines do), they aren't pricing at a premium for a better experience. They are pricing at a premium when there is higher demand. Anybody would rather fly on a plane that is 1/3 empty so that you have a chance of getting an empty seat next to you. The fares for the more desirable flight are cheaper because they are trying to get more people to purchase and get more revenue. For the sold out flight, the capacity is filled so the goal is to charge as much as possible for those tickets to maximize revenue.

The goal of this pricing "proposal" doesn't seem to be to spread the crowds out. It seems to be about revenue maximization. For example, if a busy day sells 30,000 tickets (single day for simplicity) at $105, that's $3.15 million in revenue. If they only sell 27,000 tickets at $125, that's $3.375 million. They don't care if those 3,000 people go another day. In fact, Disney would probably prefer that they didn't. They have increased revenue by $225,000 but have to serve 3,000 less people.

Don't discount the fact that a park that is 10% emptier is a more fun place to be. Hence the questions regarding spending more for a less crowded experience.

 

[konthego]

This is an interesting attempt at some hotel-style revenue management on behalf of Disney, but the dates are really all over the place. If they went through with a calendar this complicated, I think the pretty scattered dates for the tiers would upset guests more than the relatively small pricing premiums.

 

[Gringrinngghost]

Pricing will be even more joyous when you start counting in hard ticketed events.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

In the case of what they are apparently looking to do (and what airlines do), they aren't pricing at a premium for a better experience. They are pricing at a premium when there is higher demand. Anybody would rather fly on a plane that is 1/3 empty so that you have a chance of getting an empty seat next to you. The fares for the more desirable flight are cheaper because they are trying to get more people to purchase and get more revenue. For the sold out flight, the capacity is filled so the goal is to charge as much as possible for those tickets to maximize revenue.

The goal of this pricing "proposal" doesn't seem to be to spread the crowds out. It seems to be about revenue maximization. For example, if a busy day sells 30,000 tickets (single day for simplicity) at $105, that's $3.15 million in revenue. If they only sell 27,000 tickets at $125, that's $3.375 million. They don't care if those 3,000 people go another day. In fact, Disney would probably prefer that they didn't. They have increased revenue by $225,000 but have to serve 3,000 less people.

Well said. If any significant portion of this forum understood the concept of price elasticity of demand, they'd realize that WDW is actually priced WELL below it's revenue maximizing equilibrium.

 

[konthego]

In the case of what they are apparently looking to do (and what airlines do), they aren't pricing at a premium for a better experience. They are pricing at a premium when there is higher demand. Anybody would rather fly on a plane that is 1/3 empty so that you have a chance of getting an empty seat next to you. The fares for the more desirable flight are cheaper because they are trying to get more people to purchase and get more revenue. For the sold out flight, the capacity is filled so the goal is to charge as much as possible for those tickets to maximize revenue.

The goal of this pricing "proposal" doesn't seem to be to spread the crowds out. It seems to be about revenue maximization. For example, if a busy day sells 30,000 tickets (single day for simplicity) at $105, that's $3.15 million in revenue. If they only sell 27,000 tickets at $125, that's $3.375 million. They don't care if those 3,000 people go another day. In fact, Disney would probably prefer that they didn't. They have increased revenue by $225,000 but have to serve 3,000 less people.

Definitely. Also, the tier system and spreading out the price increases would in a way mask some of the bad press Disney receives every time they raise the base ticket price. The problem is that for weeklong vacations, it is possible for a guest to cross several price tiers. This can happen for a hotel stay, but it's not as obvious to the guest.

 

[Rinx]

The goal of this pricing "proposal" doesn't seem to be to spread the crowds out. It seems to be about revenue maximization. For example, if a busy day sells 30,000 tickets (single day for simplicity) at $105, that's $3.15 million in revenue. If they only sell 27,000 tickets at $125, that's $3.375 million. They don't care if those 3,000 people go another day. In fact, Disney would probably prefer that they didn't. They have increased revenue by $225,000 but have to serve 3,000 less people.

And the less people they have to serve, the less CM's they need to pay for that day, further adding to the bank.

 

[Hakunamatata]

Well said. If any significant portion of this forum understood the concept of price elasticity of demand, they'd realize that WDW is actually priced WELL below it's revenue maximizing equilibrium.

Problem is, there is a chunk of society that operates under the "fairness" principle and have very little intent to ever acknowledge the concept of supply and demand and its impact on pricing.

 

[Nubs70]

In the case of what they are apparently looking to do (and what airlines do), they aren't pricing at a premium for a better experience. They are pricing at a premium when there is higher demand. Anybody would rather fly on a plane that is 1/3 empty so that you have a chance of getting an empty seat next to you. The fares for the more desirable flight are cheaper because they are trying to get more people to purchase and get more revenue. For the sold out flight, the capacity is filled so the goal is to charge as much as possible for those tickets to maximize revenue.

The goal of this pricing "proposal" doesn't seem to be to spread the crowds out. It seems to be about revenue maximization. For example, if a busy day sells 30,000 tickets (single day for simplicity) at $105, that's $3.15 million in revenue. If they only sell 27,000 tickets at $125, that's $3.375 million. They don't care if those 3,000 people go another day. In fact, Disney would probably prefer that they didn't. They have increased revenue by $225,000 but have to serve 3,000 less people.

And we all know what a freaking joy air travel has become. Flying to MCO is the least enjoyable part of my trip. So WDW wants to emulate the least desirable part of my vacation?

 

[GhostHost1000]

why don't they just fix and expand what they have and enable and attract more guests to visit at the same time to increase their income rather than continue to complicate a WDW vacation and turn some away?

oh I know... because the idiots who make decisions like this don't have a freakin' clue of a day in the life of a normal park guest

 

[xstech25]

The goal of this pricing "proposal" doesn't seem to be to spread the crowds out. It seems to be about revenue maximization.

Welcome to earth, it's good to have you here .

Well said. If any significant portion of this forum understood the concept of price elasticity of demand, they'd realize that WDW is actually priced WELL below it's revenue maximizing equilibrium.

This is 100% true, I teach at a community college in socal and as a fun project we calculate elasticty for Disneyland. If they were going strictly by market conditions I believe a day ticket's ideal price is between around $130-$140. Disney i'm sure wants to increase revenues every year so they are priced below and raise prices a bit at a certain time every year.

 

[tirian]

Are you people for real? This is nothing but a price gouge, and you're willing to accept it? I'm sorry, but this has got to be one of the most greedy price changes proposed, and you both are minimizing it? My true thoughts are being repressed as I do subscribe to the axiom If you don't have anything nice to say then don't say anything.

THIS.

 

[lostpro9het]

We are testing a number of different ways that theme park tickets could be priced...

Thankful for my AP. Of course its only a matter of time before they mess with that too.

 

[xstech25]

People get really offended when they get priced out of things but the truth is it doesn't matter: sucks to be you haha. I gave up going to sporting events around 10-15 years ago but that hasn't stopped the NFL from raking in over $15 billion a year. If they can find people to pay the prices/buy the merch/watch it on TV for ad revenues then good for them.

Chalk up another topic for the wambulance. Doesn't seem like anyone is actually reading the posts about price elasticity and how Disney is actually under market price, and would rather **** and moan about things they know nothing about .

 

[xdan0920]

THIS.

Except, no.

She/he went off the deep end on two posters who neither said liked the idea.

 

[GhostHost1000]

it would make way more sense to just keep offering package discounts during particular times of the year.

I see AP pricing changes coming too depending on the time of year they are used. sigh

 

[DisneyCane]

why don't they just fix and expand what they have and enable and attract more guests to visit at the same time to increase their income rather than continue to complicate a WDW vacation and turn some away?

oh I know... because the idiots who make decisions like this don't have a freakin' clue of a day in the life of a normal park guest

Because business is not about income, it is about profit. Attracting more guests is not always a good thing. It costs more to attract and serve those guests.

I like to refer to an analysis I did a few years ago when I was involved in a small movie theatre chain. People always talked about lowering concession prices to increase sales. What I determined was that if you cut the prices in half, even if you actually doubled sales (which you wouldn't), you would end up making less profit. You would make less gross margin and it would take more staff to sell the product.

Disney is selling theme park admission but it is the same concept. With your idea, you are asking them to spend more to bring in more people but there is a point where attracting more people leads to a lower profit due to the capital expense and the staffing expense. Also, no matter how many attractions you try to add, each park will reach a practical limit.

If you somehow added 10 attractions to MK and it increased attendance 50%, you'd still end up with a miserable experience with ridiculous lines.

 

[GhostHost1000]

Because business is not about income, it is about profit. Attracting more guests is not always a good thing. It costs more to attract and serve those guests.

I like to refer to an analysis I did a few years ago when I was involved in a small movie theatre chain. People always talked about lowering concession prices to increase sales. What I determined was that if you cut the prices in half, even if you actually doubled sales (which you wouldn't), you would end up making less profit. You would make less gross margin and it would take more staff to sell the product.

Disney is selling theme park admission but it is the same concept. With your idea, you are asking them to spend more to bring in more people but there is a point where attracting more people leads to a lower profit due to the capital expense and the staffing expense. Also, no matter how many attractions you try to add, each park will reach a practical limit.

If you somehow added 10 attractions to MK and it increased attendance 50%, you'd still end up with a miserable experience with ridiculous lines.

I know what you're getting at... but with all the monkeying around with things like this... there is a point to where some are just going to say it's not worth the hassle or cost. Also with Uni growing like crazy... Disney in my opinion is stupid to keep telling us park guests to just bend over and take it more and more each year