Visitors cap per day?

[Dad 2 M & M]

Ok, let me be more specific. When it comes to news generally I trust the media. When it comes to how they portray certain groups, and when they go on the opinion and analysis, no, I don't. And it doesn't matter which way they trend. In those spectrums their ultimate goal is to attract advertising dollars and get people to tune in or read, so a bit of stereotyping or painting with overly broad strokes to reach the point they want to appeal to the audience they want isn't a big deal.

I find that when I actually dig into real research and study, and especially when I get hands on with those groups, that what's out there is very often quite different than how they are portrayed. That's true of teens, college students, my generation, the homeless, and a number of other groups that if you saw the reality and then saw what's said about them in media, you'd wonder if they were even on the same planet sometimes. (and yes, I work directly with all of those groups through my work- my real job, not the YouTube bit)

Yes...the media is an easy group to target, and frankly the acts of more than a few have earned the target. You're spot on with your dig into real research and study as that is the ticket. Even the news presented "balanced" requires some digging for the entire story.

 

[Trackmaster]

Right on! Most people make the linear assumption and don't realize it is a curve, with diminishing returns involved, hence the curve. At some point it tracks back downward. My comment is extremely over-simplified, but holds true
At some point the additional guest does not equate to additional customer spending money, or more specifically, does not equate to spending the same amount of money......
You sound as if you have an Economic background (I'm not being sarcastic)?
Well done!

The APs are the issue with crowding of the Parks. Raising the ticket prices would do little to reduce the crowds.......the Economics of it are the Demand Curve is set, and has little if anything to do with Supply. The problem is more Micro, than Macro. In the Disney Attendance specific Macro, there are several Demand Curves in play. They would include AP Demand, Multi-Day, Single Day, International, etc....

The Price Elasticity would dictate what happens when the price is changed. Any change in price would result in a change the QUANTITY DEMANDED.....a movement along the existing Demand Curve, not move the Demand Curve.

Looking at all non-AP ticket sales, it appears Disney is operating on the Demand Curve where the price is Inelastic. There in lies the issue. When the price is Inelastic, you can increase the price without an inverse movement of the Quantity Demanded. So, Disney could raise the ticket prices, and not only not see a reduction in Quantity Demanded, but the continued increasing crowds. This is horrifying to think the current relationship with raising price and quantity demanded is a Direct Relationship, as they both move in the same direction. At some point prices would reach peak, and the relationship would become inverse, as higher prices would result in less ticket sales (this is the Law of Diminishing Returns). At this point the Price would be Elastic, and the Guest could expect less price volatility. When Price is Elastic, an increase in price would result in a decrease in Quantity Demanded.....we are nowhere near that part of the Curve.

One last note on Diminishing Returns........if Disney reached the point where a price increase reduced the quantity demanded, it would still be feasible, and quite likely the Revenue, AND Income form that next group of higher paying guests would not reduce......still more people buying tickets....

This was greatly over-simplified and was specific to Non-AP tickets sales......Disney is not really a place to attempt to apply any Economic principles or theory.....

To answer your question, I'm a CPA. I have a background in business, and while my job doesn't necessarily use a lot of economics, its something I have to be well versed in it. I think that we're mostly talking about micro-economics, and not necessarily macro-economics.

But anyway, seeing that parks like Disney struggle to staff food courts to appropriate levels, it seems like the age old adage of "get in as many people the park as possible to gouge them on food" may not be quite as true as people think it is. If parks really obsessed over in park revenue, they would put more staffing in those areas to make sure that the turnover was as high as possible, and there was never a customer who wanted to spend money who was turned away. I suspect that hotel and gate revenue is still pretty important for parks.

 

[Trackmaster]

Lol be careful what you ask for, over 50% of the US economy is based on consumerism. If people stop buying "objects", your wdw experience is going to drop precipitously. Those objects have tremendous markup and help pay for other stuff.

I disagree. I understand where you're coming from: people who love to waste money on worthless crap that they'll never use again subsidize myself so I can get the same experience as them for a fraction of the price.

But I don't know. As they pay more, they exert more leverage over management than I do. If my demographic exerted the leverage, the park would cater to my interests more, which is always good. I'd pay more for a park experience where you weren't allowed to carry anything in the park that couldn't fit in zipper pockets, and all in park purchases were mailed to you, picked up in a locker outside the park, or put in your hotel room. It would allow for physically demanding rides that had more substance to them, and people would really appreciate the experience itself as they weren't so into the worthless trinkets, and knew that it was an experience that they had to get the most out of because they were taking nothing with them and leaving only footprints.

Without the little doodads and extra stuff, the midways wouldn't be as crowded with unticketed excess stuff, people would be more efficient in line, and would be more aware of their surroundings so they weren't bumping into you.

It would be harder for people to do 12-14 hour days at parks, so people would visit in 3-5 hour bursts, meaning less midway loitering, and less plopping down in front of a show for 1-2 hours taking up the best seats.

A lot of interesting positive and negative externalities that change by changing the slightest detail of a situation.