Josh D'Amaro comments on rising prices and "additional" or removed services: "An inevitable result of progress"

[el_super]

People almost never know the cost of rooms there anyways.

This just feels like a broken defense though... that Disney had no reason to charge for parking because no one cares about how much the hotel prices are anyway... So we go right back around to saying that there was no reason for Disney to essentially offer a discount to people who don't drive to the resort because people would have paid the increased rate anyway?

Why not offer a discount to people who don't drive?

 

[Lilofan]

This just feels like a broken defense though... that Disney had no reason to charge for parking because no one cares about how much the hotel prices are anyway... So we go right back around to saying that there was no reason for Disney to essentially offer a discount to people who don't drive to the resort because people would have paid the increased rate anyway?

Why not offer a discount to people who don't drive?

I miss the discount given to resort guests. Decline housekeeping services several years ago, and receive merchandise gift card.

 

[UNCgolf]

This just feels like a broken defense though... that Disney had no reason to charge for parking because no one cares about how much the hotel prices are anyway... So we go right back around to saying that there was no reason for Disney to essentially offer a discount to people who don't drive to the resort because people would have paid the increased rate anyway?

Why not offer a discount to people who don't drive?

Is there any evidence that's true?

I haven't looked at the room rates over the years, but I recall people pointing out that the rate changes have been basically the same regardless of the parking fee addition.

If that's true, then there is no non-driving discount. People who don't drive are still paying for the parking lots etc. the way they always have; Disney is just getting more on top from drivers.

 

[LSLS]

This just feels like a broken defense though... that Disney had no reason to charge for parking because no one cares about how much the hotel prices are anyway... So we go right back around to saying that there was no reason for Disney to essentially offer a discount to people who don't drive to the resort because people would have paid the increased rate anyway?

Why not offer a discount to people who don't drive?

Because they haven't stopped with increases because of the fee, and perks matter when you are charging big prices. Free parking in an area it's not included is a big perk. It doesn't matter if it's not being used, it's optics. It's the same reason the Magic Express was counted as a perk by those who drove. It gives an appearance as being above the rest. The argument of "Well others are doing it so we did it too" is pretty terrible optics for a company that pushes itself as being a step above the rest.

 

[el_super]

If that's true, then there is no non-driving discount. People who don't drive are still paying for the parking lots etc. the way they always have; Disney is just getting more on top from drivers.

Huh? People who don't drive pay less per night (today) than the people who need to park a car through the parking fee.

Did they stop charging the parking fee?

 

[el_super]

Because they haven't stopped with increases because of the fee, and perks matter when you are charging big prices. Free parking in an area it's not included is a big perk.

Perks aren't needed because of exceptional demand.

Prices continue to increase, even past the point of the parking fees, because of exceptional demand.

Disney has to spend more, across the board, to service more guests, so it would make sense that Disney has to charge more because of that exceptional demand.

 

[UNCgolf]

Huh? People who don't drive pay less per night (today) than the people who need to park a car through the parking fee.

Did they stop charging the parking fee?

This is a hilarious obfuscation.

That's not how a discount works. You're not getting a discount on your meal because you didn't order a cocktail with yours and the person next to you did.

The price of parking lots, etc. was always included in the room rates and it still is. You're not getting a discount on your room because you aren't paying a parking fee; that would only be true if the room rates didn't increase because of the parking fee.

Instead, you're paying for something you're not using (as you always have), and other people are paying twice.

 

[erasure fan1]

The argument of "Well others are doing it so we did it too" is pretty terrible optics for a company that pushes itself as being a step above the rest.

Exactly right. The fact that there are people on this board, who are all huge Disney fans, defend the "everyone else does it" excuse, is mind boggling. If you are a fan of Disney, the last thing you should be excusing is being like everyone else.

 

[Indy_UK]

You do realize that Bob Chapek is on the National Board for the Make-A-Wish foundation right?

Aren't those families going through enough?

 

[LSLS]

Perks aren't needed because of exceptional demand.

Prices continue to increase, even past the point of the parking fees, because of exceptional demand.

Disney has to spend more, across the board, to service more guests, so it would make sense that Disney has to charge more because of that exceptional demand.

Hang on. They don't need perks because of demand and they can continue raising prices because of demand. BUT, if they raised that price another $10 and don't charge parking, the demand bottoms out?

Also, they have spent more on what exactly? We have less housekeeping, and bulk soaps in the tubs. What are they spending more on. Look, you want to say they are milking every dime out of people they can BECAUSE people continue to fill them up, I can't really argue it. But they aren't sparing those poor fliers from paying for the parking lots that were built decades ago, nor are they increasing their spending at the hotels to improve the guest experience. I'm not going to sit here and tell you they are cratering the future with this stuff, but I do think the idea that they were better than everything else is falling back to earth some.

 

[Disorbust]

Wait for the resort fees ...

 

[el_super]

The price of parking lots, etc. was always included in the room rates and it still is.

That is a faulty assumption. Just because the prices are high, doesn't mean that they are still being used to pay for parking.

And indeed, if I tell them I do not have a vehicle at the time of check-in, I don't have to pay the parking fee. I pay less because I don't drive. No reason to assume I am still paying the parking fee, just because the prices have increased.

You want to keep insisting they are tied together, when Disney is saying they aren't and the evidence points to them not being tied together.

 

[el_super]

Hang on. They don't need perks because of demand and they can continue raising prices because of demand. BUT, if they raised that price another $10 and don't charge parking, the demand bottoms out?

The problem here is not realizing the context in the timeframe these changes were occurring. The demand could have been different between the time when they introduced the parking fees and when they started significantly increasing the hotel rates.

The demand could be different tomorrow too and necessitate more increases over what's already been implemented.

 

[Andrew C]

Charitable Giving - Disney Social Responsibility

We bring comfort, optimism, and joy to our communities and inspire hope, especially for children.

impact.disney.com

 

[LSLS]

The problem here is not realizing the context in the timeframe these changes were occurring. The demand could have been different between the time when they introduced the parking fees and when they started significantly increasing the hotel rates.

The demand could be different tomorrow too and necessitate more increases over what's already been implemented.

Didn't 2018 see a big increase in hotel cost? And they increased again for 2019.

 

[drizgirl]

And indeed, if I tell them I do not have a vehicle at the time of check-in, I don't have to pay the parking fee. I pay less because I don't drive. No reason to assume I am still paying the parking fee, just because the prices have increased.

You don't pay less. You just don't pay more.

 

[UNCgolf]

That is a faulty assumption. Just because the prices are high, doesn't mean that they are still being used to pay for parking.

And indeed, if I tell them I do not have a vehicle at the time of check-in, I don't have to pay the parking fee. I pay less because I don't drive. No reason to assume I am still paying the parking fee, just because the prices have increased.

You want to keep insisting they are tied together, when Disney is saying they aren't and the evidence points to them not being tied together.

I'm not insisting anything -- I'm looking at the evidence and making a logical extrapolation. If they were tied together, the room rates would increase at a lesser rate because the parking fee revenue would now cover those costs. They would no longer need to include it in the room rate, and thus it actually would be a discount for resort guests.

Of course we can't know for sure without seeing Disney's internal numbers, but the evidence we do have contradicts what you're suggesting. Beyond that, why would you assume a company is doing something to reduce profit instead of increase it without concrete evidence to support that assumption?

It's a bit naive to think Disney is doing you a favor on room rates.

 

[Phil12]

Walt is looking up from his resting place and smiling.

 

[LSLS]

This is a claim with no evidence -- a perfect example of a faulty assumption, actually. If you want to believe that, that's fine, but you can't expect other people to believe it just because you say so when there's nothing to support your claim.

The evidence points to them NOT being tied together. If they were, the room rates would increase at a much smaller rate because the parking fee revenue would now cover those costs. It would no longer need to be included in the room rate.

Of course we can't know for sure without seeing Disney's internal numbers, but the evidence we actually have contradicts your argument. You're making an illogical argument -- why would you assume a company is doing something to reduce profit instead of increase it without concrete evidence to support that assumption?

If it is just to cover the cost of parking, then what is the concrete being made out of at the Art of Animation, and why is it different than for the Polynesian lots? Though even if the fee is used for the lots, previously, that was included in the price you paid. They did not drop the rack rate once the fee was instituted. So no matter what the fee goes to on the books, you just increased the cost of the room for ALL guests by $15-$25. And the rates continue to rise. There is simply no way it's not an extra profit boost.

 

[GimpYancIent]

You do realize that Bob Chapek is on the National Board for the Make-A-Wish foundation right?

Yes, the CEO of the Disney Co. is on the National Board for the Make-A-Wish foundation. That applies to whoever is that position. As an organization Disney Co. still does not meet the philanthropic standards, just enough is done for show (P.R.), B.C. makes sure of that.