Disney parks costs, crowds, and categorizations

[JimmyBean42]

Anyways I think we should move on from schools and back to Disney

Agree . One thing I think we could all agree on is I don't think prices are ever going to drop. They may stay flat or not increase a high of a percentage, but I don't ever see Disney lowering prices. For a few reasons. Mainly - can anyone ever remember a company lowering prices on any product or service once it's been set? Sure they have sales, but the starting price is never lowered. And we've seen less and less availability for discounts (amount of free dining rooms available, amount of steep rooms discounts available) . Until people stop showing up (which has not happened, numbers may be lower but overall revenue seems good), they are not forced to make a change. And I'd say 90% of the board here is probably to blame for that since we all keep going back no matter what (I'm 100% to blame for this but I've been ok with crowds). And what we've really seen is the summer crowds are now displaced to the fall. At least that is what it feels like.

 

[BuckeyeBama]

It's a bit silly I think, arguing about temperatures in schools. If deemed to make sense by the school board, they'd add A/C if practical. No different than adding heat to combat the cold winter temps. Schools will adjust based on what they value. If the school system valued a year round approach, they'd probably go for it. If it makes sense, they'll do it. I for one, don't believe any school will make that change because disney execs decided to lobby for it.

They looked at it here and the cost to make the change was in the millions just to install and run air conditioning - and that was just in one of the schools in our district. So, no, they couldn't just do it. We have a hard enough time getting enough money to pay janitorial staff.

 

[BuckeyeBama]

Agree . One thing I think we could all agree on is I don't think prices are ever going to drop. They may stay flat or not increase a high of a percentage, but I don't ever see Disney lowering prices. For a few reasons. Mainly - can anyone ever remember a company lowering prices on any product or service once it's been set? Sure they have sales, but the starting price is never lowered. And we've seen less and less availability for discounts (amount of free dining rooms available, amount of steep rooms discounts available) . Until people stop showing up (which has not happened, numbers may be lower but overall revenue seems good), they are not forced to make a change. And I'd say 90% of the board here is probably to blame for that since we all keep going back no matter what (I'm 100% to blame for this but I've been ok with crowds). And what we've really seen is the summer crowds are now displaced to the fall. At least that is what it feels like.

That is why Disney needs to open a new park at another location. They introduce the park as a lower priced option without all of the luxury amenities, at a lower rate. It allows them to keep from moving backward in pricing at Disneyland and WDW, which keeps the investors happy.

And the idea is not to "spread out" current Disney Park patrons. The idea is to tap back into a "new" market - the market that used to be the Disney base market, but has been priced out. Everyone else will still keep coming, and most will still go to the park that is their favorite (for me, WDW). Some may skip a visit to WDW for a trip to the new park, but most will return to WDW once they see that they are not "equal". And those who cannot afford WDW will have a new "home".

 

[sachilles]

They looked at it here and the cost to make the change was in the millions just to install and run air conditioning - and that was just in one of the schools in our district. So, no, they couldn't just do it. We have a hard enough time getting enough money to pay janitorial staff.

??? Of course they could just do it, but they are PRACTICAL and don't think it's worth the investment. Like most schools, there aren't swimming around in extra budget that needs to be spent.
It can be done. Just doesn't make fiscal sense in any way shape or form.
The second it costs more to heat the building than it does cool it, then people will take another look at the return on investment

 

[ShadeDK]

As someone with kids in schools in the Northeast I could not be more against this idea. The summer break is something kids need. If you are going to push full year schooling it should be for the entire country not for a select region. I think that idea by Len is asinine. Let's change schooling for one section of the country to help crowding during vacation season, really? It gets extremely hot and humid in a lot of northeast schools and most do not have air conditioning. So great idea Len, let's risk our children's health so that we can spread out vacations more across the calendar year. Awful idea in my opinion and not well thought out at all.

Setting aside the question (message) of whether year-round schooling is a good or bad thing, Disney isn't the right messenger for the question. It reminds me somewhat of the situation we have here in Virginia with the "Kings Dominion law" - which was passed years ago to prohibit schools in the state from starting classes until after Labor Day (absent a waiver). The tourism industry (including the regional parks which employed and relied on the labor of many high school students, as well as vacationing families visiting during the short summer season) lobbied for the law and it's stayed on the books - despite challenges every year in recent memory to have it repealed. A (fair) criticism has been that the economic interests of the parks, hotels and tourist attractions shouldn't govern the school calendar and the best interests of the students (whatever those are - opinions differ). The Disney situation seems a bit different - assuming it spoke with school systems about calendar changes instead of legislative changes. I don't have a horse in this race on either side - just pointing out that there is some precedent for parks getting involved with school calendars and that the approach has the potential to backfire.

 

[JimmyBean42]

Setting aside the question (message) of whether year-round schooling is a good or bad thing, Disney isn't the right messenger for the question. It reminds me somewhat of the situation we have here in Virginia with the "Kings Dominion law" - which was passed years ago to prohibit schools in the state from starting classes until after Labor Day (absent a waiver). The tourism industry (including the regional parks which employed and relied on the labor of many high school students, as well as vacationing families visiting during the short summer season) lobbied for the law and it's stayed on the books - despite challenges every year in recent memory to have it repealed. A (fair) criticism has been that the economic interests of the parks, hotels and tourist attractions shouldn't govern the school calendar and the best interests of the students (whatever those are - opinions differ). The Disney situation seems a bit different - assuming it spoke with school systems about calendar changes instead of legislative changes. I don't have a horse in this race on either side - just pointing out that there is some precedent for parks getting involved with school calendars and that the approach has the potential to backfire.

I used to love Kings Dominion as a kid. Very different back then, haven't been there in years. Probably helps that Busch Gardens isn't too far away either for the "Kings Dominion Law". I was at BG last week in August, no crowds during the week. I can understand KD pushing on local government and getting some things passed, as well as WDW getting some leeway in Florida. But not in many other states.

 

[JimmyBean42]

That is why Disney needs to open a new park at another location. They introduce the park as a lower priced option without all of the luxury amenities, at a lower rate. It allows them to keep from moving backward in pricing at Disneyland and WDW, which keeps the investors happy.

And the idea is not to "spread out" current Disney Park patrons. The idea is to tap back into a "new" market - the market that used to be the Disney base market, but has been priced out. Everyone else will still keep coming, and most will still go to the park that is their favorite (for me, WDW). Some may skip a visit to WDW for a trip to the new park, but most will return to WDW once they see that they are not "equal". And those who cannot afford WDW will have a new "home".

So here's what I think on another stateside park. While I love the idea (b/c it would mean travel to another state for me), I don't see it happening. Only because it would then pull some (not all but some) from visiting the other two parks in the country. And Disney would not want to pull attendance from their other parks in order to populate a less expensive parks. Plus the infrastructure cost alone on a new park doing it the "Disney Way" would take probably a decade of building and billions of dollars. Even for a smaller park. Because they would be starting at ground zero on any new park.

I think if Disney were to build another park, we are looking at another international one in a highly populated area. I would think India would be a candidate based on population alone, but Disney Studios India didn't fair as well as they would have liked so that may have soured them on that prospect. Plus the costs of Shanghai had to put some doubt into building a new theme park again. It would be great to have a 3rd park stateside, I just think economically it's a long shot.

 

[mshanson3121]

But they didn't at all discuss the impact that would have on crowds. Because I guarantee that if prices were significantly more affordable, the parks would be even more crowded and these boards would be filled with folks swearing off of Disney because it's too crowded. I don't know what the answer is but I wish they would have discussed this.

Great point. I wonder what the solution would be to this. Tiering multi-day passes? Reducing the multi-day pass discount?

 

[beer dave]

The way I have always seen it presented to me is that you cannot achieve 100% occupancy at WDW. Everyone has different vacation lengths and everyone travels at different times.[/QUOTE

Great point. I wonder what the solution would be to this. Tiering multi-day passes? Reducing the multi-day pass discount?

I'd be good with a multiplier of about 1.5. Pay more, a lot less people, and they make the same or better for the stock holders.

 

[TheMaxRebo]

I'd be good with a multiplier of about 1.5. Pay more, a lot less people, and they make the same or better for the stock holders.

Don't disagree but the whole point Len was making is the prices are too high to start with so you are pricing out a whole generation of people that haven't developed a loyalty to the brand

 

[mshanson3121]

I'd be good with a multiplier of about 1.5. Pay more, a lot less people, and they make the same or better for the stock holders.

While I don't disagree, I also clearly don't have your budget. For Disney to do something like this, I think would backfire. There is a price point that will cost them, and quite honestly, given the numbers over the last couple years, I think we're starting to see it. I don't think they have much farther to go before they completely ruin their illusion of Disney being the "All American Family Destination", and instead turn it into a "Rich Man's Playground". And once you ruin that illusion, that "dream", it will go downhill fast.

 

[beer dave]

While I don't disagree, I also clearly don't have your budget. For Disney to do something like this, I think would backfire. There is a price point that will cost them, and quite honestly, given the numbers over the last couple years, I think we're starting to see it. I don't think they have much farther to go before they completely ruin their illusion of Disney being the "All American Family Destination", and instead turn it into a "Rich Man's Playground". And once you ruin that illusion, that "dream", it will go downhill fast.

It's not necessarily budget based--- long time DVC and the resident annual pass is about 400 now..... and no air fare...

And I agree with all from you and max-- my idea would not be for long term success-- just for some instant grat I guess.

 

[BuckeyeBama]

Their next logical move is to increase the number of blackout dates for FL Resident APs, then the rest of the AP pools. Disney makes almost nothing on those guests.

 

[TheMaxRebo]

While I don't disagree, I also clearly don't have your budget. For Disney to do something like this, I think would backfire. There is a price point that will cost them, and quite honestly, given the numbers over the last couple years, I think we're starting to see it. I don't think they have much farther to go before they completely ruin their illusion of Disney being the "All American Family Destination", and instead turn it into a "Rich Man's Playground". And once you ruin that illusion, that "dream", it will go downhill fast.

and I think it is fair to ask is Disney the "all American Family Destination" or is it more of a luxury item already? If you look at the categories that Disney data scientists examine, the LOWEST level of income group are people in the 50th-87th percentile. So they don't even consider half the country and the vast majority of the groups examined are in the top 20% percentile (there was some overlap)

And I think what Len is asking and a lot of the discussion around is: Is this what Disney should do - or overtime are you making the population of people willing to stretch their vacation budgets for Disney smaller and smaller by not enabling a broader group of people to get the "Disney experience", to build that loyalty that they can pass on to the next generation

 

[TheMaxRebo]

It's not necessarily budget based--- long time DVC and the resident annual pass is about 400 now..... and no air fare...

And I agree with all from you and max-- my idea would not be for long term success-- just for some instant grat I guess.

oh, I've thought about that too ... and it would need to come with really capping the number of people allowed in the park. So their total revenue is the same but from far fewer guests so you can get as much accomplished in 4 days as you do in 7 now (or something)

Long term I don't think it is the best, but when you keep raising prices and the crowd levels are still very high (and too high for many people - or high enough that it leads to complaining) you have to think of something

 

[dlavender]

and I think it is fair to ask is Disney the "all American Family Destination" or is it more of a luxury item already? If you look at the categories that Disney data scientists examine, the LOWEST level of income group are people in the 50th-87th percentile. So they don't even consider half the country and the vast majority of the groups examined are in the top 20% percentile (there was some overlap)

And I think what Len is asking and a lot of the discussion around is: Is this what Disney should do - or overtime are you making the population of people willing to stretch their vacation budgets for Disney smaller and smaller by not enabling a broader group of people to get the "Disney experience", to build that loyalty that they can pass on to the next generation

That's definitely a valid question and concern.

Without a "taste" of the product, its hard to get one hooked - at least to the degree Disney needs them/us to be to spend the $ required.

Anecdotally, DW was not raised a WDW enthusiast as I was. In the early years of our married life with our first little one, we didn't have that much (kids take it all - most of you know this). We got a 4 day package at a value for around $700. Did not include food. We ended up spending about $1,200 over that four day period. DW was hooked from that moment on.

Fast forward to today's structure, and I completely get what Len is saying. Without that trip, I don't know if DW would have ever of had that opportunity to really "get" it. We wouldn't have been able to plunk down $2000 for that same trip today. But who knows.......

 

[TheMaxRebo]

That's definitely a valid question and concern.

Without a "taste" of the product, its hard to get one hooked - at least to the degree Disney needs them/us to be to spend the $ required.

Anecdotally, DW was not raised a WDW enthusiast as I was. In the early years of our married life with our first little one, we didn't have that much (kids take it all - most of you know this). We got a 4 day package at a value for around $700. Did not include food. We ended up spending about $1,200 over that four day period. DW was hooked from that moment on.

Fast forward to today's structure, and I completely get what Len is saying. Without that trip, I don't know if DW would have ever of had that opportunity to really "get" it. We wouldn't have been able to plunk down $2000 for that same trip today. But who knows.......

great example and exactly what I think the discussion needs to be about - how does Disney get the next generation "hooked" (sounds like how a drug dealer must think)

I wonder if they could structure it so the values resorts really are values and make the packages where if you book as a package you almost get the hotel or the dining or both for free so all in it seems like a better deal (and then you get people hooked and staying on site and spending on other stuff, etc.)

So in your example, yeah, the pieces would add to $2,000 but as a package it would still cost $1,200 (or maybe $1,400 or something)

Still have DVC and the fancier resorts for those that can and want to pay (after their hooked) but make that entry level experience that much more attainable and doable

 

[JimmyBean42]

great example and exactly what I think the discussion needs to be about - how does Disney get the next generation "hooked" (sounds like how a drug dealer must think)

I wonder if they could structure it so the values resorts really are values and make the packages where if you book as a package you almost get the hotel or the dining or both for free so all in it seems like a better deal (and then you get people hooked and staying on site and spending on other stuff, etc.)

So in your example, yeah, the pieces would add to $2,000 but as a package it would still cost $1,200 (or maybe $1,400 or something)

Still have DVC and the fancier resorts for those that can and want to pay (after their hooked) but make that entry level experience that much more attainable and doable

I'd say right now, my kids are probably hooked for life from the number of trips we have taken to WDW. They don't know we are going this year (surprise trip, let's see how that works out) and all they keep asking is "why aren't we going this year?". Part of me didn't want to take them b/c I don't want them to feel entitled but I also know they are only this age once and it's just as much for me as it is for them. Maybe more for me. I went once as a kid as clearly I am hooked. But even if my kids are hooked (and the DIS board members kids), you are looking at a gap of 20-25 years until they are paying for their own WDW trips. Which brings us back to the main issue - what can be done about now. With the amount of rooms that will open up from the expansion of Coronado Springs and the new DVC at Caribbean Beach, you would think that there will be vacancies in the WDW resorts. Vacancies lead to promotions. If bookings still lag, it leads to even better promotions. But it all depends on one thing: Capacity. If park and hotel capacity are good, there is no reason for Disney to offer discounts or promotions. So as long as the numbers stay above their breaking point, we won't see anything happen I'm afraid. And you know that numbers will be high for probably the first year or two after Star Wars land opens.

 

[rteetz]

Their next logical move is to increase the number of blackout dates for FL Resident APs, then the rest of the AP pools. Disney makes almost nothing on those guests.

There aren’t as many APs going to WDW as you think. Disneyland doing that makes sense but WDW not as much.

 

[BuckeyeBama]

I'd say right now, my kids are probably hooked for life from the number of trips we have taken to WDW.

My kids, on the other hand, are not. They have been to WDW every year of their lives and enjoy the parks, but they both say that they wouldn't go on their own. They might or might not continue to visit WDW - depends largely on their future spouses. They could both take or leave WDW.