Missing20K
Well-Known Member
You're right. I was thinking of Fazoli's. I was mostly trying to make a very poor joke. My apologies '74.
~Fazoli's is the McDonald's of Italian Food~ :ROFLOL:
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Soda price increase
- Thread starter disneydata
- Start date
You're right. I was thinking of Fazoli's. I was mostly trying to make a very poor joke. My apologies '74.
~Fazoli's is the McDonald's of Italian Food~ :ROFLOL:
Phonedave
Well-Known Member
I will argue, and I know many will defend them, that Casey's dogs are - not so good.
I would much rather have a dirty water dog than a Casey's - at less than half the price.
If you want to get "fancy" I can get franks from the German buthers for about half the price.
-dave
Pumbas Nakasak
Heading for the great escape.
In park dining I would say both are ahead in qulaity and less in price than Disney. Out of park isnt a fair comparison for Disney as Universal relies on chain restaurants, which are good for what they are. though I have to say i thought the Palm at the HRH was excellent.
wvdisneyfamily
Well-Known Member
SoccerMickey
Active Member
In terms of comparitive quality in food in the other Orlando parks, I would have to disagree with the poster on Universal's food. (and this is NOT Universal bashing, The Simpsons Ride and Dueling Dragons are my favorite Orlando attractions) but I have not enjoyed the food in any of the counter service restaurants. But at the same time I am not really raving about the food in the Disney counter service restaurants except for the Mexico and Japan's counter service restaurant. The table service though is pretty good.
Sea World has the best counter service food in Orlando and table service...and the one thing Im surprised has not come up in conversation...the chocolate in the Shamu bars is far superior to the Mickey bars.
Sea World has the best counter service food in Orlando and table service...and the one thing Im surprised has not come up in conversation...the chocolate in the Shamu bars is far superior to the Mickey bars.
hokielutz
Well-Known Member
Although I do not have the hard facts in front of me... but based on my life experiences of going to Redskins Games (my afformentioned example of $20), Capitals Games, College Football Games, Kings Dominion, Six Flags in Maryland, Pro & College Basketball, and taking in a movie at a national chain theater...
I can make the observation that the prices that Disney charges for its concessions and quick service meals are very similar to all the above entertainment venues. Sometimes worse... sometimes better.
You could argue, and I believe you have, that Disney should not follow the crowd and keep prices for this lower, possibly kept along the lines of a shopping mall food court prices. But the problem with the notion is the food service operations are not just funding themselves and their own isolated operations within the park.
This is where the apples to apples comparison lies.
The additional money that a consessions/foodservice location takes in is also spread across the park to cover operations that don't have a revenue stream. Street sweeping doesn't have a revenue stream. Fireworks displays on regular nights, does not have a stand setup so guests can purchase a mortar that will be launched at night. I can go on but you get the point. Most every other entertainment venue that I mentioned earlier is the same. They don't/can't depend on gate ticket sales to cover all of their expenses and still be able to turn over some form of a profit.
I would like to offer up an additional theory. And maybe those of you who actually were walking and paying for your park experiences in the 70s can offer up some insight. (I was in diapers being pushed around the park in '78) As best as I can understand history, Disney had the A - E Ride tickets until Epcot opened. The older 1970s system of park admission and sale of ride tickets, possibly brought in more $$ as a % of the overall revenue stream, than a park admission does today.
If this theory is true, then this might explain why prices for food, merchandise, and other services in the parks needs to be higher. I don't have a statement of income from the park operations of the 70's vs today to compare or provide proof that my theory has merit... but its possible the change in park admission could explain the need for higher margins from food sales.
anyways... I may not have answered all of your questions in the above... but let's see.
blackthidot
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- Yes
We gotta drink, so we gotta pay for it! :kiss:
WDW1974
Well-Known Member
Correct.
Salad bar.
Tasty. Fresh. Good for you. And when it's two-for-one, as it's been almost all the time of late (thanks depression), quite a deal.
~Pass the greens~
WDW1974
Well-Known Member
I honestly couldn't tell you what the percentages were then vs. now.
I can tell you that WDW's labor costs and all the ancillary costs ... have gone up.
But Disney also makes umpteen times what it did before based on the fact that in the 70s resort revenue was tiny ... now with 30,000 rooms and timeshares you're bringing in millions upon millions even in times like today.
So while costs of running everything have increased, the amount of visitors and how long they stay and how much they spend on all things Disney have increased exponentially.
And, I'll add, Disney has cut so much quality and detail that they like to term 'fat' so they are running so much leaner and meaner than they ever were 30 years ago or even 15 years ago.
I may be missing your point completely (been a long day/night) but I think it is all interconnected. And I don't think Disney needs to charge $10 for a dog, fries and a Coke because they've expanded so much.
Now the fact they have expanded so much is the absolute No. 1 reason why quality has suffered so much. Way too big, way too fast. But that's another debate I'd love to have.
I might argue that Disney should have largely stopped building any major projects after 1996 and kept their premium image and pricing ... that means BW would have been the last resort to open and that DAK (well, it was under construction so maybe we could have slipped it under ...
~Bigger is not better ... I mean with Disney resorts, of course~
SoccerMickey
Active Member
I remember hearing a quote that based on people who are comped or with free admission, like visiting CM's Disney loses about $8.00 per person on people who are in the park. And that the mark up on food, merchandise,
and services are what makes up for that. Not sure if that's true or not, but I know its expensive to run a theme park so it seems possible. (Not saying that charging the prices they do is right, it just seems plausible.)
and services are what makes up for that. Not sure if that's true or not, but I know its expensive to run a theme park so it seems possible. (Not saying that charging the prices they do is right, it just seems plausible.)
hrcollectibles
Active Member
hrcollectibles
Active Member
So does that mean it costs Disney $8.00 per person to admit someone into the park??? Wow that's quite a mark-up.
unkadug
Follower of "Saget"The Cult
The way I interpret that was that they lose $8.00 in PROFIT, not that $8.00 is the COST of the admission.
Pumbas Nakasak
Heading for the great escape.
that cant be right, otherwise everyone who buys a multiday ticket would mean Disney were operating at a loss.
SoccerMickey
Active Member
That's exactly what I was told that Disney operates at a loss. Based on admission alone. The other aspects is what generates the revenue.
I think that what you sometimes fail to take into consideration is the value of the dollar over time makes it very difficult for Disney to continue to operate the way it once did. While everyone knows that the dollar is worth less today than in the seventies, some people don't realize that the equivalent amount of money today doesn't necessarily cover what it would have back then. For instance, $5 in 1974 is worth a little less than $21 now. However, that doesn't mean you have the equivalent purchasing power, so you may not be able to buy for $21 what you were able to buy for $5 in 1974. Of course, that depends on what you're buying. I don't make a claim that this justifies Disney's prices, but it can be argued that certain luxuries they offered in the past just were no longer financially justifiable.
Like everyone else, Disney has to pay taxes on its real estate. The more they build, the more they are taxed. The higher they value the experience, the higher the tax rate is. So yes they are bringing in millions of dollars in resorts and parks and restaurants. But all of those have staff, all must have electricity and other supplies. Consider the Animal Kingdom alone, which easily must be Disney's most expensive park to operate. The amount of food required to care for those animals, the number of zoologists they must employ to care for them, not to mention the normal costs of operations of a theme park make somewhat high prices a necessity. While I personally agree that with the quality of food at Disney to be less than adequate (those chicken nuggets are absolutely disgusting), they are still cheaper than most regional theme parks. What Disney is really gouging the public on is gate admission (over a short period of time) and hotel accomodations. Yes, the Grand Floridian and Animal Kingdom Lodge might be about right in price for a comparable hotel elsewhere, the moderates and values are overpriced.
So while I agree with you that Disney may have cut down in quality to save money, I disagree with your assertion that they seem to be keeping all the savings to themselves. The truth is, things just don't cost what they used to. Some things they could probably afford to bring back, but some cuts may have been justifiable. I personally think they would save millions per year if they reduced the fireworks shows. It isn't necessary to have them every day of the year.
jmvd20
Well-Known Member
That is one way for them to account costs and it does not surprise me at all. The overhead to operate the parks would be more than income generated by ticket sales. Of course the trinkets, souvenirs, food etc... would make up the difference.
Pumbas Nakasak
Heading for the great escape.
Not a very good business model, that you are relying on the sale of additional services to help cover the cost of your primary business and to deliver all of the profit. Especially when your giving that service forfree several times of the year.
I can see them accepting a reduced profit margin on multi day tickets but that would still see a set amount of profit built in.
jmvd20
Well-Known Member
If you were to add up all of the expenses for daily operations at the parks including staff, utilities, food, insurance, etc... I would bet that the ticket sales alone do not cover all of these costs. It wouldn't be operating at a loss, it is just that generally no one revenue source can cover the overhead of an entire company.
I would relate it to a professional sports franchise. Most teams do not cover all expenses on ticket sales alone. They have to rely on TV deals, selling advertising spaces, concessions etc... to cover all of their expenses.
Pumbas Nakasak
Heading for the great escape.
A sports franchise does not operate on a daily basis, and the wages , which tend to be the largest cost despite the limited head count, are driven by different factors to normal jobs. I would argue that if it weren't for such high sponsorship and tv rights players wouldnt get such inflated salaries.
I would agree that all parts do augment each other, I just cant see how you would let something with the largest costs run at a loss relying on a smaller element to not only cover its costs but that of the larger divison and then make a profit. Especially as I have said you are offering that service for free.
Ive just re read that and you included catering staff costs in the wage bill, I wouldnt as they would be covered in the eateries operating profit/loss.
So effectively at quiet times it would imply that Disney is relying on hotel income and pin sales to cover he costs of the parks and restaurants? No wonder theres no money for maintenance and new attractions.