DisneyRunner
Active Member
This all seems fuzzy to me. Limiting daily refills is not unlimited refills.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
The end for refillable mugs?
- Thread starter MegaPowersPT
- Start date
PurpleDragon
Well-Known Member
Didn't they used to have signs up that said "For use with resort cups only" or something like that? I could be wrong but I thought I remember them having signs up like that at one point as a mild deterrent to keep people from using their 64oz Quicktrip cups at the resorts. :lol:
I would agree. It it fairly safe to assume that Disney knows that it looses X every year due to people reusing mugs, filling non resort mugs, etc. They also know that it will cost them Y to install a system that will stop this issue. Until X is greater than Y they will continue to look the other way.
LoriMistress
Well-Known Member
I find it weird that there would be a debate regarding on the whole "reuse your mug that your purchased on a previous trip." DH and I always purchase our resort mugs for every trip. If Disney are going to "strict" on their policy, then they have every right to do so. Having 10-20 percent of people who "don't" follow the resort mug rules will give others an impression that they don't have to pay for drinks and use their old resort mugs that's probably 5+ years old. There are probably CMs that have seen increasing issues/problems regarding guests abusing the resort mug polices.
Cynderella
Well-Known Member
Maybe they should just put a tax on soda like they are doing in Philadelphia. :brick:
I am one who brings my old mugs back every year as long as the design is the same for that time frame. I go every year and I refuse to have 5 of the same mug sitting in my cabinet at home since I have so many already. But if they get a new design then I will buy a new mug. So when I go again in 2011, if they change the mug design, I'll buy a new one. If not, the old ones coming with me. Hate me if you will, I dont really care
I am one who brings my old mugs back every year as long as the design is the same for that time frame. I go every year and I refuse to have 5 of the same mug sitting in my cabinet at home since I have so many already. But if they get a new design then I will buy a new mug. So when I go again in 2011, if they change the mug design, I'll buy a new one. If not, the old ones coming with me. Hate me if you will, I dont really care
DisneyMusician2
Well-Known Member
Hey, if there really was a lifetime refill policy, then Disney will be forced to recognize it. Otherwise....
I believe that it doesn't matter how much the beverages actually cost. On the Disney books, they are probably showing a small loss written off as 'theft', a line that many small businesses have.
Whether it costs Disney $5 or $5 mil, it is still showing as a loss or they would not take the time to address it. Whether the people doing it morally see it as theft as a whole different issue I don't want to get in to on this thread.
I believe that it doesn't matter how much the beverages actually cost. On the Disney books, they are probably showing a small loss written off as 'theft', a line that many small businesses have.
Whether it costs Disney $5 or $5 mil, it is still showing as a loss or they would not take the time to address it. Whether the people doing it morally see it as theft as a whole different issue I don't want to get in to on this thread.
Kamikaze
Well-Known Member
Its far less pennies than normal soda, as well. They have a few good deal with Coke on the fountain drinks.
DisneyMusician2
Well-Known Member
Again, so what? I don't see why the cost of the loss should matter.
The amount of loss would be very important. You would not spend $100 to stop a 1 cent loss.
bradk
Member
When we operate under the assumption that Disney is in fact getting the syrup for free, we simply mean there is no money being handed over for it. Coke is otherwise getting something that most companies have to pay for: heavy product placement. There is a tangible cost and it's simply a means of bartering.
I have no doubt that at least one of the two parties is keeping tabs on how much syrup is making its way onto property. It's certainly a costly endeavor to Coke, isn't it? of course someone is monitoring the real world cost of that 'free' stuff.
Regardless, this is guest mentality vs business mentality. It's easy enough to justify for a guest that it's okay to take as much coke as you want because Disney isn't paying for it and thus it's a 'victimless crime.' In fact, one could even argue that with the markup being huge on anything (especially soft goods), one might be entitled to take advantage of something they can even if it does blur the lines of what they're contractually allowed.
However, the bottom line is that theft is theft, no matter how much the person you're stealing from paid for what it is you're stealing. If the bully down the street steals your bike that you got FOR FREE as a birthday present, are you really going to sit back and accept it because it didn't cost you anything anyway?
Pennies add to dollars.
Back to the original point, you aren't drinking just the 'free' syrup either. You are drinking a concoction that's mostly water and requires an electric machine to mix it and real people with real wages to service it.
There's a reason why something costs 3x as much as it does on Disney property. Because it can. Is anyone really crying over spilled coke here? Probably not, but if there's an opportunity to control the distribution of it and make a bigger buck from it, why not? That's the business sense here.
Too many focused on the losses here. Not enough focused on the potential gains.
I have no doubt that at least one of the two parties is keeping tabs on how much syrup is making its way onto property. It's certainly a costly endeavor to Coke, isn't it? of course someone is monitoring the real world cost of that 'free' stuff.
Regardless, this is guest mentality vs business mentality. It's easy enough to justify for a guest that it's okay to take as much coke as you want because Disney isn't paying for it and thus it's a 'victimless crime.' In fact, one could even argue that with the markup being huge on anything (especially soft goods), one might be entitled to take advantage of something they can even if it does blur the lines of what they're contractually allowed.
However, the bottom line is that theft is theft, no matter how much the person you're stealing from paid for what it is you're stealing. If the bully down the street steals your bike that you got FOR FREE as a birthday present, are you really going to sit back and accept it because it didn't cost you anything anyway?
Pennies add to dollars.
Back to the original point, you aren't drinking just the 'free' syrup either. You are drinking a concoction that's mostly water and requires an electric machine to mix it and real people with real wages to service it.
There's a reason why something costs 3x as much as it does on Disney property. Because it can. Is anyone really crying over spilled coke here? Probably not, but if there's an opportunity to control the distribution of it and make a bigger buck from it, why not? That's the business sense here.
Too many focused on the losses here. Not enough focused on the potential gains.
bradk
Member
you absolutely would.
if you're suggesting someone bringing back an old mug is costing the company $.01 because of it, the company now has a HUGE justification for turning around and charging that person $13.
trr1
Well-Known Member
i dont think its about the soda itself but about the sale of the cups($13.84 with tax). that 55.36 for a family of 4 with 2 trips a year that is 110.72
lost because someone used the same mug from years ago that what i think its all about
The numbers were just numbers they have no basis in reality and no you wouldn't spend $100 to stop a 1 cent loss unless of course making a profit is of no concern to you. Like I said earlier if Disney thought that the cost of preventing beverage theft was less that what they were loosing due to it the bar code system would be in place tomorrow.
I would agree with this as well. If they are making ~$10 on the sale of the cup, then for every person that doesn't pay for the cup, they are losing $10.
Sure, some people would argue that they wouldn't buy the cup and would drink water...
That is where the potential for greater loss resides but again I go back to what I said earlier. If Disney thought that the cost of preventing people reusing mugs was less that what they loose then they would do something about it. It all goes back to return on investment.
DisneyMusician2
Well-Known Member
Yes, but if the RFID chips are coming anyway, they found a cheap way to stop it. Once the chips are in the cards, new programming cost very little.
But I do think that even a $.01 loss times the number of uses per day times the number of people doing it could add up.
You may be right about the cost effectiveness, but a loss is a loss. It will eventually add up. Maybe they have just hit that point.
My thought is it shouldn't matter what the loss is, the company should care. And fix the issue.
The reality is that cost does matter. There is no logical reason to put a multi-million dollar security system into a house worth $200k.
DisneyMusician2
Well-Known Member
Depends on what's in it. If $2,000 sneaks out the door every year in possessions, it will eventually be worth it.
They seems concerned about it at the water parks. Perhaps they tried the system there with the barcodes and didn't like it.
I won't pretend to know what the thinking is, but if the losses were that small, they might not be bothering with this at all.