• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

Massive Ticket Price Increase at DL - is WDW next?

Sirwalterraleigh

Well-Known Member
What happened with TV??? first let me say, I really know nothing about Igers rein of terror, lol. I admit, I'm probably the anti thesis of you guys. I go to the parks, if I have a good time I return, if I have a couple of bad visits I take a break. secondly I have stock (not through my 401K) so I'm a happy camper when I saw that value increase. I apologize if this is a stupid question but What did Iger do to TV.?
Basically rode espn into the ground...and couple that with not moving on this vaunted new streaming service until late in the game.

15 years ago the largest chunk of Disney’s business was gleaned off charging for espn and ads - in a nutshell. As that has retreated, the second biggest - parks - has experienced massive price increases.

Coincidence, huh? That would be if you BELIEVED in coincidence. They didn’t have a choice...so they jacked it. We customers are stupid enough to allow it to succeed.

The story. It’s not about “undervalued” or “crowd control”....
Market factors aside...that is the basis of the story.
 

monothingie

Unscrupulous Mean Girl Man since 2005
Premium Member
Advertisement
Disney’s prices had been an absolute steal for decades which likely was one aspect of their success
Hmmmmmm. I guess it depends your perspective and on what you consider a steal. Comparatively speaking factoring cost of on property hotel, food, tickets, they have always been significantly higher than the competition.
 

tigerlight

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
Hmmmmmm. I guess it depends your perspective and on what you consider a steal. Comparatively speaking factoring cost of on property hotel, food, tickets, they have always been significantly higher than the competition.

The only thing that was arguably not that expensive, relatively speaking, was ticket prices. But I remember looking at the prices for tickets in shall we say the early 90s and thinking "wow $33 is a lot for a park ticket!"
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Well-Known Member
Hmmmmmm. I guess it depends your perspective and on what you consider a steal. Comparatively speaking factoring cost of on property hotel, food, tickets, they have always been significantly higher than the competition.
...and if was a “steal” before...how does that impact success now?

Bad strategy
 

peter11435

Well-Known Member
Hmmmmmm. I guess it depends your perspective and on what you consider a steal. Comparatively speaking factoring cost of on property hotel, food, tickets, they have always been significantly higher than the competition.
In 1971 a night at the Polynesian started at $29. This was not “significantly higher than the competition.”
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Well-Known Member
The only thing that was arguably not that expensive, relatively speaking, was ticket prices. But I remember looking at the prices for tickets in shall we say the early 90s and thinking "wow $33 is a lot for a park ticket!"
Correct.

But you have to look at it this way: how many people earn 4 times that now? How about 5?

That’s where we’ll be.

It’s a macro perspective
 

tigerlight

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
Basically rode espn into the ground...and couple that with not moving on this vaunted new streaming service until late in the game.

15 years ago the largest chunk of Disney’s business was gleaned off charging for espn and ads - in a nutshell. As that has retreated, the second biggest - parks - has experienced massive price increases.

Coincidence, huh? That would be if you BELIEVED in coincidence. They didn’t have a choice...so they jacked it. We customers are stupid enough to allow it to succeed.

The story. It’s not about “undervalued” or “crowd control”....
Market factors aside...that is the basis of the story.
So much completely wrong. Where do you get this information? While Iger makes the big decisions (along w/the board) on capital expenditures (i.e. rides, resorts, etc.) he certainly is NOT the day-to-day manager of ESPN (or the other businesses). So, first of all, a chunk of whatever blame is appropriate goes to the leadership of ESPN.

Second, ESPN got COMPETITION. During the timeframe you cite, before "15 years ago" there was basically no competition (Fox Sports, etc). In addition, ESPN is hurt badly by "cord cutters" as a big chunk of its revenue comes from cable companies who pay ESPN per subscriber. The business simply changed due to changing circumstances.

Third, late in the game to streaming? Have you heard of HULU? Disney was one of the founders! Netflix? Disney was one of the first partners (that's why you see so much Disney content on Netflix, and YES Netflix PAYS for Disney for this). Disney was the first major studio to jump onto the steaming bandwagon.... just because they didn't have one with their name on it doesn't meant they weren't THE MOST heavily involved. BTW, what other major studio (Paramount, Warner, Universal, Sony) has it's OWN streaming service coming online before the Disney service? Answer: NONE.
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Well-Known Member
In 1971 a night at the Polynesian started at $29. This was not “significantly higher than the competition.”
And they can’t sell what they charge now...

Do you believe that DVC conversions are “random”?

How about at DAKL? Wilderness Lodge?

The same story is behind all these things.

They have been successful in massively increasing prices from 2008-present. It has been successful FOR THIS TIME...but all arcs have a ceiling. As they saw with their hotel prices.
 
Last edited:

peter11435

Well-Known Member
And they can’t sell what they charge now...

Do you believe that DVC conversions are “random”?

How about at DAKL? Wilderness Lodge?

The same story is behind all these things.

They have been successful in massively increasing process from 2008-present. It has been successful FOR THIS TIME...but all arcs have a ceiling. As they saw with their hotel prices.
I already said they are making mistakes that will be detrimental to the brand.

I already said part of their success was built on the value they once offered.
 

tigerlight

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
In 1971 a night at the Polynesian started at $29. This was not “significantly higher than the competition.”
That's around $200/night in today's prices and a lot to spend at a resort in the middle of central Florida swampland in 1971 (w/one theme park w/very limited attractions and not nearly as many as its cousin in California). How much were the Hotel Plaza hotels charging then? I'm guessing half or less than half....
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Well-Known Member
So much completely wrong. Where do you get this information? While Iger makes the big decisions (along w/the board) on capital expenditures (i.e. rides, resorts, etc.) he certainly is NOT the day-to-day manager of ESPN (or the other businesses). So, first of all, a chunk of whatever blame is appropriate goes to the leadership of ESPN.

Second, ESPN got COMPETITION. During the timeframe you cite, before "15 years ago" there was basically no competition (Fox Sports, etc). In addition, ESPN is hurt badly by "cord cutters" as a big chunk of its revenue comes from cable companies who pay ESPN per subscriber. The business simply changed due to changing circumstances.

Third, late in the game to streaming? Have you heard of HULU? Disney was one of the founders! Netflix? Disney was one of the first partners (that's why you see so much Disney content on Netflix, and YES Netflix PAYS for Disney for this). Disney was the first major studio to jump onto the steaming bandwagon.... just because they didn't have one with their name on it doesn't meant they weren't THE MOST heavily involved. BTW, what other major studio (Paramount, Warner, Universal, Sony) has it's OWN streaming service coming online before the Disney service? Answer: NONE.
He’s ceo the buck stops here.

But you’re forgetting he is a tv guy and to not think he didn’t have a grasp on the problems with the 90’s tethers cable model is silly. Why do you think they wouldn’t know that revenue was going to recede?

Jeez...you make him out to be more of an idiot at the wheel than I do! That’s tough.

Why do you give them credit for being ten years behind hbo:go? Or beholden so much to Netflix?

They are in the top 3 of largest media corporations...you can’t be “shrewd” and be given a pass for having the blinders on.

But to a more basic point: have you not seen the numbers on the espn problem? He said that cable subscriptions were “declining” a few years back and the stock dropped about 20%...a slip up.

That’s smoke to you? No fire:
All coincidence?
 

tigerlight

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
And they can’t sell what they charge now...

Do you believe that DVC conversions are “random”?

How about at DAKL? Wilderness Lodge?

The same story is behind all these things.

They have been successful in massively increasing process from 2008-present. It has been successful FOR THIS TIME...but all arcs have a ceiling. As they saw with their hotel prices.
The conversions are an interesting point. How do you explain the new deluxe rooms going up near Fort Wilderness or the essentially deluxe extra rooms at Coronado in the tower? These additions will probably replace all the conversions AND the time shares are ridiculously profitable. Conversions don't mean they couldn't see the rooms at the rates..... it's about maximizing profits.
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Well-Known Member
I already said they are making mistakes that will be detrimental to the brand.

I already said part of their success was built on the value they once offered.
Ok...here’s where we can agree...

So if the success is based on value (no argument)...then where is the track going now? Longterm weakness...no?
 

tigerlight

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
He’s ceo the buck stops here.

But you’re forgetting he is a tv guy and to not think he didn’t have a grasp on the problems with the 90’s tethers cable model is silly. Why do you think they wouldn’t know that revenue was going to recede?

Jeez...you make him out to be more of an idiot at the wheel than I do! That’s tough.

Why do you give them credit for being ten years behind hbo:go? Or beholden so much to Netflix?

They are in the top 3 of largest media corporations...you can’t be “shrewd” and be given a pass for having the blinders on.

But to a more basic point: have you not seen the numbers on the espn problem? He said that cable subscriptions were “declining” a few years back and the stock dropped about 20%...a slip up.

That’s smoke to you? No fire:
All coincidence?
Business is always changing and the stock price has soared.... that's what matters to ownership (retirement funds, etc..)
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Well-Known Member
The conversions are an interesting point. How do you explain the new deluxe rooms going up near Fort Wilderness or the essentially deluxe extra rooms at Coronado in the tower? These additions will probably replace all the conversions AND the time shares are ridiculously profitable. Conversions don't mean they couldn't see the rooms at the rates..... it's about maximizing profits.
The river county development is the first legit “new development” they’ve had since they broke ground on Pop!

No...that’s the truth.

All the others are conversions using existing infrastructure to address fringe angles. Such as a business class tower at Coronado (makes sense) and a DVC experiment ontop of the horribly obsolete Caribbean beach.

All elaborate repurposing.

“Copper creek” is the real indicative one. Here’s some genuine “insider” knowledge (still have some contacts)
Wildness lodges occupancy rates had fallen down near the 50% range by 2015.

To anyone with WDW, finance or Disney resort experience I don’t have to convince you that’s DEFCON 2. And Lo and behold...what do we have now?

Why? A theory I can say is the starting rate going from $129 base in 2001 to $355 by 2014. Just a thought.

Even a place that was built amazing like that cannot stand under that kinda pressure. The glass ceiling was met and they bounced off it.
 
Last edited:

networkpro

Well-Known Member
Basically rode espn into the ground...and couple that with not moving on this vaunted new streaming service until late in the game.

15 years ago the largest chunk of Disney’s business was gleaned off charging for espn and ads - in a nutshell. As that has retreated, the second biggest - parks - has experienced massive price increases.

Coincidence, huh? That would be if you BELIEVED in coincidence. They didn’t have a choice...so they jacked it. We customers are stupid enough to allow it to succeed.

The story. It’s not about “undervalued” or “crowd control”....
Market factors aside...that is the basis of the story.
I disagree with your assertations on ESPN and the professional sports industry. Over time as the advertising revenue increased, so have the salaries of the performers in a never ending spiral. Exclusive access to talent and markets have driven prices higher for all parties. Some of the marketing practices for non-broadcast delivery have actually reduced margins.

The entertainment delivery industry is significantly changing with technologies, were no longer in the era of only having three "free" ad supported broadcast networks.
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Well-Known Member
Business is always changing and the stock price has soared.... that's what matters to ownership (retirement funds, etc..)
No argument...but the ceo is tasked with being two moves ahead on the chess board and they were 100% flatfooted with their gravy train. That is a fact.

The stock is “systemic” at this point...it’s an elaborate game of baccarat.

Would you be surprise if Disney’s is at $47 a share in 18 months? No one should be.
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Well-Known Member
I disagree with your assertations on ESPN and the professional sports industry. Over time as the advertising revenue increased, so have the salaries of the performers in a never ending spiral. Exclusive access to talent and markets have driven prices higher for all parties. Some of the marketing practices for non-broadcast delivery have actually reduced margins.

The entertainment delivery industry is significantly changing with technologies, were no longer in the era of only having three "free" ad supported broadcast networks.
Are cable subscriptions in steady decline? Did that cause advertising reveneues to steadily decline and make espn a cost heavy pig?

Yes and yes.

I’m not talking about systemic problems with sports...I don’t disagree but that’s not what happened to espn. It’s been reported. It’s silly to rehash a narrative that has been reported/agreed upon.
 
Top Bottom