News WDW Resorts to add fees for parking

[Bandini]

Fewer guests spending more per head can be profitable as long as the parks remain a desired destination - given our fascination with the fad of the day I can envision a scenario where a "Disney vacation is so yesterday!" happens. Coming back from that would be a difficult endeavor.

I don't think WDW will remain a desired destination with the current management.
Most young parents have a limited vacation budget that may prevent them from bringing their kids to WDW. If those kids aren't exposed to WDW, they probably won't have a nostalgic tie to WDW and therefore no reason to visit with their kids.

But Iger and his cronies aren't thinking about the WDW legacy.

 

[RobbinsDad]

I don't think WDW will remain a desired destination with the current management.
Most young parents have a limited vacation budget that may prevent them from bringing their kids to WDW. If those kids aren't exposed to WDW, they probably won't have a nostalgic tie to WDW and therefore no reason to visit with their kids.

But Iger and his cronies aren't thinking about the WDW legacy.

It will still be desired as long as there are animated movies and a Disney Channel. But I believe the "Disney families" who frequent the World is decreasing and will continue to in the future.

 

[flynnibus]

The bolded is where I disagree. There's no evidence that current prices are reaching a tipping point. People have been making that claim for a decade.

Well maybe that's why Disney hasn't been able to drive attendance growth as a means of growth for a decade and hasn't added new resorts, etc and instead turned to converting existing capacity into timeshares? They've been using price increases and 'higher per capita spending' to drive growth in the division. And why the DCA transformation was such a swing from the mantra for so long... because it was a true growth driver, not just a monetization plan.

 

[bunnyman]

Jumping in late to this discussion, but I seem to remember a similar posting last year when the fee concept was in the "survey" phase. As I felt at that time, the fee concept is not overly unusual, but given Disney's pricing structure with Value, Moderate, and Deluxe, not to mention DVC, they're been building in the price of their perceived perks (i.e. Magical Express, parking, wifi, etc.) into the over inflated rack rates for years. Yes Disneyland charges a daily parking fee (not surprising as space is at a premium out there with a more urban locale), but their daily resort fee was rolled into the daily room rate several years ago so you don't see a separate line item on your bill. Most people I know who have rewards memberships with national chains stay off property; Disney gives you nothing for years non-DVC vacationing there. As someone who travels a decent amount to various destinations, given the rates Disney charges already (I am staying at the Contemporary next month) if they stick these resort fees on top of existing rates I'll start to seriously consider my Disney lodging options in the future (have stayed onsite every year since 2000). I mean come on, even basic chains like Choice Hotels, IHG resorts, Hilton, etc. quite often give you at least free coffee and a newspaper, not to mention some sort of breakfast; room delivered newspapers at Disney disappeared a long time ago unless you find one or two near the front desk.

 

[LuvtheGoof]

Well maybe that's why Disney hasn't been able to drive attendance growth as a means of growth for a decade and hasn't added new resorts, etc and instead turned to converting existing capacity into timeshares? They've been using price increases and 'higher per capita spending' to drive growth in the division. And why the DCA transformation was such a swing from the mantra for so long... because it was a true growth driver, not just a monetization plan.

You do know that Art of Animation just opened in 2012, right? I mean, that's only an additional 2800+ rooms.

 

[RustySpork]

You do know that Art of Animation just opened in 2012, right? I mean, that's only an additional 2800+ rooms.

All of those rooms didn't open with the resort on opening day. Everything was open by the end of 2012 though.

 

[flynnibus]

You do know that Art of Animation just opened in 2012, right? I mean, that's only an additional 2800+ rooms.

And the last resort to open before that was Pop in 2003... so AoA (and all other growth) was less than 10% growth over THIRTEEN YEARS... yeah.. you got me there..

It took almost 9 years to get around to finishing AoA - I think that pretty much paints the picture of lethargic growth in demand.

Disney has been driving the bottom line by filling in the rest of the calendar and raising prices, not expanding the customer base. It would be interesting to know where P&R would be now if they hadn't done DVC and DCL.

 

[Kamikaze]

And the last resort to open before that was Pop in 2003... so AoA (and all other growth) was less than 10% growth over THIRTEEN YEARS... yeah.. you got me there..

It took almost 9 years to get around to finishing AoA - I think that pretty much paints the picture of lethargic growth in demand.

Disney has been driving the bottom line by filling in the rest of the calendar and raising prices, not expanding the customer base. It would be interesting to know where P&R would be now if they hadn't done DVC and DCL.

To be completely fair, the post 9/11 vacationing drop had a lot more to do with the halt of Pop/AoA then anything else. The resort would have been completed in its Pop Century original design if it wasn't for that.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Well maybe that's why Disney hasn't been able to drive attendance growth as a means of growth for a decade and hasn't added new resorts, etc and instead turned to converting existing capacity into timeshares? They've been using price increases and 'higher per capita spending' to drive growth in the division. And why the DCA transformation was such a swing from the mantra for so long... because it was a true growth driver, not just a monetization plan.

The difference between WDW and DCA is that WDW is already a full-week vacation destination. Any expansion at this point would have diminishing marginal returns because most Americans can't afford or don't have the vacation time to travel for longer than that.

 

[LuvtheGoof]

And the last resort to open before that was Pop in 2003... so AoA (and all other growth) was less than 10% growth over THIRTEEN YEARS... yeah.. you got me there..

Just trying to bring some facts into the discussion. And you do know that we've had both 9/11 and a pretty sever depression in between? And now they are adding to Caribbean Beach. That is NOT going to be DVC unless it is a completely separate entity, and some here have stated that this is only phase 1 of more to come there.

 

[ford91exploder]

Fewer guests spending more per head can be profitable as long as the parks remain a desired destination - given our fascination with the fad of the day I can envision a scenario where a "Disney vacation is so yesterday!" happens. Coming back from that would be a difficult endeavor.

Unfortunately Disney is pushing for the day a "Disney vacation is so yesterday!" with their constant cuts in quality and service and forcing people to decide where they want to eat for crying out loud 6 months ahead of time.

Disney got to where they are by blowing guests away with extreme quality and service, The current strategy seems to be Waldorf-Astoria pricing coupled with Motel 6 (Hotels), Golden Corral (Dining) and DMV (Parks) levels of service. Not a winning strategy long term especially since the competitor down the road picked up Disney's discarded playbook and is making bank using it.

 

[King Panda 77]

The difference between WDW and DCA is that WDW is already a full-week vacation destination. Any expansion at this point would have diminishing marginal returns because most Americans can't afford or don't have the vacation time to travel for longer than that.

Are Americans the target audience for WDW ?
Other countries have a different view on holiday time.

 

[LuvtheGoof]

And the last resort to open before that was Pop in 2003... so AoA (and all other growth) was less than 10% growth over THIRTEEN YEARS... yeah.. you got me there..

It took almost 9 years to get around to finishing AoA - I think that pretty much paints the picture of lethargic growth in demand.

Forgot to add this, so wanted to be sure you saw it. Between 1971 and 1989 - 18 years - Disney added exactly ZERO resorts. I guess they were only about the money back then, too.

 

[flynnibus]

To be completely fair, the post 9/11 vacationing drop had a lot more to do with the halt of Pop/AoA then anything else. The resort would have been completed in its Pop Century original design if it wasn't for that.

My point was that not that ZERO growth has happened - that attendance growth has been anemic an Disney is not growing the business through customer growth, but through sucking more out of the same. When @CaptainAmerica discounts the concerns about a tipping point because there is no sign of it.. sure there is.. the fact growth is not happening. Demand isn't growing. The customer base is probably NOT growing.. but instead we are sucking more out of the same people.

The difference between WDW and DCA is that WDW is already a full-week vacation destination. Any expansion at this point would have diminishing marginal returns because most Americans can't afford or don't have the vacation time to travel for longer than that.

I'm referring to growing attendance and more specifically.. concurrent capacity. Growth in capacity because you need to satisfy more customer demand. Instead Disney has been focusing on eliminating sack demand (which is smart). But I don't take that success which drives the bottom line to ignore what they are doing across the board and the risks to attracting and retaining customers.

Just trying to bring some facts into the discussion. And you do know that we've had both 9/11 and a pretty sever depression in between? And now they are adding to Caribbean Beach. That is NOT going to be DVC unless it is a completely separate entity, and some here have stated that this is only phase 1 of more to come there.

We don't know what CBR will be, or if it will be growth. But even if it is.. we are still talking single digits over MANY years.. that's the point. That's anemic and we can not confuse growth in the revenue line with growth in true demand and customer growth.

 

[RustySpork]

Forgot to add this, so wanted to be sure you saw it. Between 1971 and 1989 - 18 years - Disney added exactly ZERO resorts. I guess they were only about the money back then, too.

They were still filling in the swamp back then.

 

[flynnibus]

Forgot to add this, so wanted to be sure you saw it. Between 1971 and 1989 - 18 years - Disney added exactly ZERO resorts. I guess they were only about the money back then, too.

You introduced hotel rooms as a measuring stick.. not me. So you are pretty much arguing with yourself.

 

[LuvtheGoof]

You introduced hotel rooms as a measuring stick.. not me. So you are pretty much arguing with yourself.

Actually, you were the one that stated they hadn't opened a new resort in over a decade. Which wasn't true. I was just trying to make you understand that they went 18 years between resorts in the past, so going from 2003 to 2012 during a major recession and 9/11 isn't a big deal.

I wasn't making any other statements about anything concerning a measuring stick.

And I'm not arguing with you at all. Just stating facts as they are. If you consider that "arguing", well, I feel sorry for you.

 

[flynnibus]

Actually, you were the one that stated they hadn't opened a new resort in over a decade. Which wasn't true.

Ok, I see what you picked up on.. that was a detail I wasn't focusing on, but yes, I did say 'new resorts'. I still contest tho that the percentage of added rooms there over the period in question is minor and doesn't detract from the point that actual growth in capacity has been anemic.

 

[L.C. Clench]

Forgot to add this, so wanted to be sure you saw it. Between 1971 and 1989 - 18 years - Disney added exactly ZERO resorts. I guess they were only about the money back then, too.

So to make today's Disney leadership look good we have to compare them to the Ron Miller days. That in and of itself tells a pretty sad story.

 

[LuvtheGoof]

Ok, I see what you picked up on.. that was a detail I wasn't focusing on, but yes, I did say 'new resorts'. I still contest tho that the percentage of added rooms there over the period in question is minor and doesn't detract from the point that actual growth in capacity has been anemic.

And I would agree with that. The only thing, is that we had a recession and 9/11 to contend with, and management was probably hesitant to spend millions on rooms that they knew weren't going to get filled. I can't fault that thinking. I think the biggest bad is the lack of expansion in the parks.