Now you're just ignoring your own arguments.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Was WDW always expensive?
- Thread starter CP_alum08
- Start date
Now you're just ignoring your own arguments.
Well, you tell me ... how many people (out of 1,000) are visiting three or more parks at WDW on any particular day? Make your best guess. My best guess is 1.
Tigger1988
Well-Known Member
Yup and know many others who have too. Pretty much anytime I go to AK I'm out of the park by 11am -12pm and onto another park, after a break at my resort I go onto a 3rd park at night. And believe it or not I'm not running at break neck speed to do it.
So, how do you know it's "a teeny tiny group of people"? Have you done surveys? If so, how many people were involved? How many samples did you take? How long were you standing by the turnstiles compiling this information? Or, are you perhaps pulling all these numbers and statistics out of your backside?
How so? You could visit 2 parks in one day in 1982, the same as the vast majority of guests can in one day in 2010. Therefore, the amount of parks you can visit in one day should not be an explanation for increased admission prices over the 30 year period for the vast majority of people.
And you would very likely lose....
But, as for those who would like to visit two parks, who is to decide which two they may visit? MK-EP? EP-HS? HS-AK? AK-MK? Again, the cost increases came about because the options across the board were increased, and exponentially. Rides, restaurants, resorts and parks. Sorry that WDW wouldn't remain in a time-warp of 1982, with no strollers, EPCOT Center, and holiday decorations remaining in the background, but that's just the way things turned out. And not all for the negative, either.....
Are you asking me if I spend my days standing on Main Street taking unofficial guest surveys as people enter the gates? Nope, that's not what I do for a living. I just make best estimates based on my experiences and the experiences of my friends and family. I didn't realize we had to fund market research in order to offer opinions on this board.
Obviously you've done such market research yourself ... so please enlighten us on the percentage of park guests that visit three or more parks on a particular day. I wait with bated breath.
Oh, I see ... you were just trolling. Good to know. I thought you were trying to have a serious conversation on the topic of the thread.
Yes, I was just trolling. Truly, I'm the negative one here, par excellence. Please, report me to the mods for simply recounting your own statements to you.
And your attempts at a serious conversation went out with the window when you asserted that only one person in 1,000 would ever visit three parks in one day.....
Tigger1988
Well-Known Member
You're not stating opinions, you're throwing out statistics, acting like those are factual and then arguing with anyone who dares disagree with your obviously flawed logic.
And no, unlike you I don't make broad statements based on my own personal experience. I don't "estimate" and make up numbers in attempts to validate a dying argument. I speak only for myself and of those I know, I suggest you do the same rather than speaking for 1000s or more.
Oh, so because you don't or can't make an estimate based on your experience, nobody else is allowed to either. Good to know. I didn't realize nobody else was allowed to have an opinion or best guess until you've decided you're qualified to express one on the matter.
Several times you've said you disagree with my estimate that less than .1% of all park guests visit more than two parks in a day. I've asked what you think the percentage is and your response is that you don't know and don't want to make a guess. Okay. That's not my problem. If you're point is that because you can't make an educated guess, nobody else can - sorry, I disagree. Feel free to point me towards the forum by-laws that mandate all estimates be made only after hours of guest research.
I have an opinion. You disagree. Wow, this is the first time two people have ever had a difference of opinion on an internet message board! Groundbreaking.
Tigger1988
Well-Known Member
Yeah, what a shame that I have enough sense to not make assumptions and "estimates" based off of...nothing. You're pulling that number out of thin air, it makes your entire argument laughable. I could make up numbers if I wanted to, doesn't mean anything because there's no factual basis to them.
It's also not an "educated guess" unless you've somehow read up on the touring patterns of WDW guests.
But keep going, I'm curious to see what kind of numbers and statistics you make up next.
It's also not an "educated guess" unless you've somehow read up on the touring patterns of WDW guests.
But keep going, I'm curious to see what kind of numbers and statistics you make up next.
sweetpee_1993
Well-Known Member
I think maybe the OP's ?? wasn't so much based in numbers as it was in what it was like for the average guest financially. There are an infinite number of variables that can influence each person's perspective. I think in the numbers-based approaches there isn't a definitive right or wrong. There's just different perspectives.
Back to the original question, it's hard to say what's expensive or not because that's a matter of opinion. Always has been. Like I think anything more than $100 for a pair of jeans is expensive. My mother wants to roll over & die at the thought of spending more than $25. Lol! Even back in the 70s or 80s for some families the cost wasn't so bad. When my parents took me & my brother when we were toddlers (1976-ish) it was a huge deal that required a lot of pinching pennies because we were a single-income military family.
Good thought-provoking question. I'll be sure to discuss this very thing with mom when I see her in another week or so!
:wave:
Back to the original question, it's hard to say what's expensive or not because that's a matter of opinion. Always has been. Like I think anything more than $100 for a pair of jeans is expensive. My mother wants to roll over & die at the thought of spending more than $25. Lol! Even back in the 70s or 80s for some families the cost wasn't so bad. When my parents took me & my brother when we were toddlers (1976-ish) it was a huge deal that required a lot of pinching pennies because we were a single-income military family.
Good thought-provoking question. I'll be sure to discuss this very thing with mom when I see her in another week or so!
:wave:
I think some of you are missing Krack's point. Let's ignore park hopping for the moment and things like construction, etc. Just because there is more to do, they still have separate costs of admission. We have four parks. A one day ticket to any ONE of those four parks is what, $79? Let's assume an equal value of entertainment for all four parks. Now let's say Disney builds a fifth theme park. Now a one day ticket is $100.00. Krack's point is that there have been no changes to the other four parks that could possibly justify such a large increase in price. The existence of an additional entertainment option doesn't increase the value of entertainment at any of the other four parks. Construction costs should be absorbed by the admissions to the new park.
This is all theoretical. But that's Krack's point. Other businesses haven't seen as drastic increases as Disney's ticket prices (and others have). But construction of hotels and other parks shouldn't result in significant increases in ticket costs. You can only visit one park at a time. And while I admit that I don't know any facts and figures, I think the members of this board overestimate how many people actually park hop. But park hopping is an additional charge...and yopu are receiving less value per park by doing it (technically...of course it depends on crowd levels, etc.) since you are in each of the parks less than what others are.
But all of this is conjecture. As others have pointed out, no business is immune from gouging its customers. It's all profit-driven. It's not enough to earn a profit. Companies want to increase their profits, and the cheapest way is to cut costs and raise prices and not offer anything new.
This is all theoretical. But that's Krack's point. Other businesses haven't seen as drastic increases as Disney's ticket prices (and others have). But construction of hotels and other parks shouldn't result in significant increases in ticket costs. You can only visit one park at a time. And while I admit that I don't know any facts and figures, I think the members of this board overestimate how many people actually park hop. But park hopping is an additional charge...and yopu are receiving less value per park by doing it (technically...of course it depends on crowd levels, etc.) since you are in each of the parks less than what others are.
But all of this is conjecture. As others have pointed out, no business is immune from gouging its customers. It's all profit-driven. It's not enough to earn a profit. Companies want to increase their profits, and the cheapest way is to cut costs and raise prices and not offer anything new.
TRONorail10
Active Member
Not that i'm on either side of the argument about how expensive Disney is, but I thought I would at least throw out a fact that gives somewhat of a justification for the high prices. Though we all know Everest is broken, don't need another thread about that, Everest was the most expensive roller coaster ever constructed. While most coasters can range anywhere from 15-25 million dollars to construct, Everest cost $100,000,000!!! I can understand why ticket prices are high and why new rides don't open every year. But if Everest cost 100 million, lord only knows how much Disney is dumping into the Fantasyland Expansion!
PhilharMagician
Well-Known Member
Over the past 2+ years the US economy has been stagnent with 0% inflation if not deflation in our economy. Disney has still managed to increase food, lodging and admission prices multiple times during that same 2+ year time frame. If the Disney and the US/World economies are following the same curve than it is understandable but if they are not then at some point it will correct itself like all things historically do.
Joshua&CalebDad
Well-Known Member
Before I begin adding in my own two cents to this discussion, I would like to point out that I am fairly new to the Boards and love reading everyone's opinion...However as a current Business student who is perilously wading his way through Macroeconomics this semester let me point this out. The inflation rate is computed using the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Even though the CPI is used economists will agree that there are some flaws in this method:
1. CPI is computed using what is called a "fixed basket," it watches the prices of certain goods which the typical consumer will buy. For arguments sake, although everyone on this site is a Huge Disney Fan, a vacation to WDW is not a vacation which a typical consumer will experience on a yearly basis and dare I say everyother year,
2. The second isssue with computing CPI, and therefore the price of inflation, is that CPI does not take into account the introduction of new goods and the added value of these new goods to the market. It has already been pointed out that Disney has added many new things into the park over the last 40 years so using an inflation rate can be difficult and misleading because the increase in price does not necessarily take into account the all of the new offereings such as new rides, new parts of the park and so on, finally,
3. Inflation does not take into account the fact that overall quality of WDW may have increased or decreased over the years, this issue can sometimes be computed but other times can be highly subjective. While some people may think that the quality of food has increased at Disney over the years and therefore substantiates a higher cost others may say the opposite.
My point in saying all of this, which no one will probably read is that, trying to say that Disney is more or less expensive based on the inflation rate is not the best method. Do I believe that the price of a WDW vacation goes up every year, sure I do, but I also know that in a typical economy, which we are not in right now, my income would probably increase yearly thereby allowing me to cover the increase of a vaction at Disney.
1. CPI is computed using what is called a "fixed basket," it watches the prices of certain goods which the typical consumer will buy. For arguments sake, although everyone on this site is a Huge Disney Fan, a vacation to WDW is not a vacation which a typical consumer will experience on a yearly basis and dare I say everyother year,
2. The second isssue with computing CPI, and therefore the price of inflation, is that CPI does not take into account the introduction of new goods and the added value of these new goods to the market. It has already been pointed out that Disney has added many new things into the park over the last 40 years so using an inflation rate can be difficult and misleading because the increase in price does not necessarily take into account the all of the new offereings such as new rides, new parts of the park and so on, finally,
3. Inflation does not take into account the fact that overall quality of WDW may have increased or decreased over the years, this issue can sometimes be computed but other times can be highly subjective. While some people may think that the quality of food has increased at Disney over the years and therefore substantiates a higher cost others may say the opposite.
My point in saying all of this, which no one will probably read is that, trying to say that Disney is more or less expensive based on the inflation rate is not the best method. Do I believe that the price of a WDW vacation goes up every year, sure I do, but I also know that in a typical economy, which we are not in right now, my income would probably increase yearly thereby allowing me to cover the increase of a vaction at Disney.
Depending on the time of year, park hopping can give me more value and more time in the parks than others...
For example, with AK only open until 5pm, I can go at open and spend 8-9 hours in that park, and then hop to another park and potentially spend 4-6 hours (or possibly even more, depending on EMH) in that park. Granted, the person spending all day in the second park has spent the same number of hours (minus the time it took me to switch parks), but the person with only a base ticket and started the day in AK was done at 5pm.
If all of the parks were open the same hours, then you would be correct and there would be very little value to park hopping, except to escape crowds. I park hop to maximize my days based on the available hours.
Wow. I thought a simple question about prices wouldn't be something to argue about
First off...I'd really like to know where you are going to movie theaters for $7.50 because I'd like to go there! But that's besides the point.
I understand that 'expensive' is relative to how much money you have regardless of the year. I also understand that WDW is less expensive than say a vacation to someplace exotic. But I would have to believe that there are more middle-class families traveling to WDW than to Spain or Italy (i don't really know if these are considered exotic or not, they just came to my head first).
I think this pretty much sums up the inflation statistic argument. There are may ways to skew statistics in either direction but anyway you look at it it comes down to personal experience or preference.
First off...I'd really like to know where you are going to movie theaters for $7.50 because I'd like to go there! But that's besides the point.
I understand that 'expensive' is relative to how much money you have regardless of the year. I also understand that WDW is less expensive than say a vacation to someplace exotic. But I would have to believe that there are more middle-class families traveling to WDW than to Spain or Italy (i don't really know if these are considered exotic or not, they just came to my head first).
I think this pretty much sums up the inflation statistic argument. There are may ways to skew statistics in either direction but anyway you look at it it comes down to personal experience or preference.
Thread win right there. So many things in our economy rise faster that the calculated inflation due to supply and demand that it always baffles that it is still being used.
jakeman
Well-Known Member
I am not a business major (or minor, or even a lackey), so there is a very real possibility that I used it incorrectly.
I was trying to normalize the prices for a better comparison between years.
It's easy to point out that gas was a nickle in 1970 and it's almost $3 now and rage incoherently about it (and even after adjusting for inflation incoherent rage probably still isn't a bad thing) but I think some context needs to be provided and unless there is a better index out there for adjusting prices (there could be I have no idea) that is what I used.
It wasn't being used to justify increase but more to put into perspective the OMG ELEVENITY BILLION PERCENT INCREASE that was being thrown around.
I didn't put it in my original post because that wasn't the direct conversation, but I agree.
It is quite possible that Disney wasn't expensive enough to satisfy demand in its early years and over the past 15 years or so we have seen a pushing to find where that "sweet spot" is.
I'm not really one to say it is right or wrong. It's hard to assign morality to profit to a purely discretionary income based industry. I don't need Disney. If it ever became too expensive, I would simply stop going.