Are all Disney resort perks fair?

[mylittlebuttercup]

Disney is a business. They need to fill their hotels, and offering on site perks is a great way for them to attract people who are waffling between onsite and off-site. So I feel it is totally fair.

 

[BugsDaddy]

In all the excitement, I somehow went from 'Earning my Ears' to 'Mouseketeer' level.

 

[itchin2go]

In all the excitement, I somehow went from 'Earning my Ears' to 'Mouseketeer' level.

 

[BugsDaddy]

I think Disney resort guests who are loyal to the Disney brand and show that loyalty by choosing to stay onsite should be eligible for certain perks. That is basically what it is. An informal customer loyalty program.

 

[Aerinha]

If you can afford them. I don't care for the budget resorts because I feel like we lose perks by staying in them. I like the mods but they are getting awfully expensive for what they are. It's a balancing act.

Besides if you ask people why they stay onsite you mostly hear about the Disney bubble. That's there whether you get perks or not.

Speaking only for me, if not for the perks, I would stay at somewhere more luxurious where the bathroom door didn't hit the toilet for the price Disney is my lazy vacation where I don't have to decide on how I am getting from A to B. I hate the crowded buses, but have no plans to drive myself.

It is a choice, knowing what you give up to stay off site, knowing what you get for that. More hotel bang for your buck. Often inclided breakfasts. No one forces either choice. And it is a choice to avoid the budgets if mods cost too much. Yes, it would be a pain to lose the 180 and 60 day advantage, to stay off site, but Disney is a business and it is good business to give people a reason to stay in the bubble. I found the ME so awful I refuse to take it. I pay extra for a car service. Disney won't check me in to my flight because of it to smack my knuckles for ditching their control. Now I use the passbook on my phone to check in, making it less of an issue than the pre smartphone days. It is my choice to avoid their service, other than annoyance they didn't tell me I gave up check in, I can't really complain as I have the option to repeat my two hour trip to my hotel followed by a tour of four hotels and nearly missing my flight home if I decide I want to hate myself

 

[Planogirl]

Renting points has been an option. May be an opportunity for some who want the bubble. Though I keep reading that sometimes it is a deal and sometimes it is not.

We are one of those families that stay for the bubble. Though what perks they do have are appreciated.

I've never had much luck getting a good price. I have tried and I think that I'm snake bit.

Just like the Swan is on my short list and I can't ever catch a good deal there.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I've never had much luck getting a good price. I have tried and I think that I'm snake bit.

Just like the Swan is on my short list and I can't ever catch a good deal there.

Thought I remember some snatching good deals there. Maybe they are few and far between.

 

[momof2n2]

Aww, I opened this thread to post my opinion about resort perks. I kind of feel like I'm

Renting points has been an option. May be an opportunity for some who want the bubble. Though I keep reading that sometimes it is a deal and sometimes it is not.

We are one of those families that stay for the bubble. Though what perks they do have are appreciated.

I've looked into points as the only accommodations truly large enough for us are DVC properties. They are fully 3 times more costly than off-site. I can buy a lot of TS and Mickey Bars for that cost...
In the end it was FAR cheaper to get the rental house and a throwaway. (Which YES I will pay for 100% - no tricks.) So - I found something that will work for us.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I've looked into points as the only accommodations truly large enough for us are DVC properties. They are fully 3 times more costly than off-site. I can buy a lot of TS and Mickey Bars for that cost...
In the end it was FAR cheaper to get the rental house and a throwaway. (Which YES I will pay for 100% - no tricks.) So - I found something that will work for us.

I can understand that. We rented a Condo last year for a steal of a deal. In the end, we all get to go to Disney. We do what is best for our budget and overall enjoyment. I do prefer the bubble. But I don't knock that there are some wonderful off site properties that are just as good, if not better, than those in site for a fraction of the cost.

 

[Jennytoon]

I agree. I think the level of resot should not matter at all when Disney offers onsite guests a perk because those guests are giving Disney a pretty big financial commitment when they choose a Disney Resort. We always stay onsite, so I am a bit biased, but I think that giving guests who make that commitment a little jump start to FP or allowing ADR booking for length of stay is a fair decision. Now as much as I love a little bonus, I would have a hard time justifying a shut out of offsite guests. Something about Disney playing as fairly as possible makes me glad to spend my money there.

I agree. Obviously in some sense these are first world problems, but I would never want to be the parent who is making that once in a lifetime trip with their kids on a budget and watching everyone pass them in the line because after everything they saved to get there, they couldn't scrape up the last bit of money for front of the line passes. As others have pointed out, you may not have the same availability for every available attraction with FP+ when you stay off-site, but at the point where you enter the gates everyone is equal.

 

[Jennytoon]

If you can afford them. I don't care for the budget resorts because I feel like we lose perks by staying in them. I like the mods but they are getting awfully expensive for what they are. It's a balancing act.

PG, I have to disagree with you on the availability / fairness of Uni Express pass vs. the on-site 60 day window. You have said a few times that you like Express pass better / feel it is more fair because you can just pay for it separately if you want to add it on. I won't argue that Uni gives you the option to do it once you get there and you don't have to plan in advance, but you can buy a 60-day booking window just as easily and for many, more cheaply than an express pass. All you need to do is book a room you don't plan to use, a-la the style of momof2n2. There are a lot of questions about the morality of booking a throwaway room for a single night, but I don't think most would argue that people aren't entitled to book a room for the entire length of their stay and simply not stay in it. Unless you are a solo traveler, the flat cost of $100 / night or so for a value room is cheaper than $60 per person for express pass add-on.

 

[momof2n2]

PG, I have to disagree with you on the availability / fairness of Uni Express pass vs. the on-site 60 day window. You have said a few times that you like Express pass better / feel it is more fair because you can just pay for it separately if you want to add it on. I won't argue that Uni gives you the option to do it once you get there and you don't have to plan in advance, but you can buy a 60-day booking window just as easily and for many, more cheaply than an express pass. All you need to do is book a room you don't plan to use, a-la the style of momof2n2. There are a lot of questions about the morality of booking a throwaway room for a single night, but I don't think most would argue that people aren't entitled to book a room for the entire length of their stay and simply not stay in it. Unless you are a solo traveler, the flat cost of $100 / night or so for a value room is cheaper than $60 per person for express pass add-on.

I must say, though, the effort I've had to make has been annoying. On some level just showing up at the gate with a bit more cash would be a lot easier.

 

[mom2rtk]

I must say, though, the effort I've had to make has been annoying. On some level just showing up at the gate with a bit more cash would be a lot easier.

And I imagine (and many others just like you) are doing a cost/benefit analysis every step of the way as you decide whether it's all truly worth it, both for this trip and potential future trips.

 

[Virtucomp]

I think giving perks to guests who stay at your hotel is a standard business practive. Hotels give free shuttle service, free breakfast, reservation services and as others have pointed out, fast pass service like FP+ and Front of the Line passes. I'm actually surprized that Disneyworld offers advanced fast passes and ADRs to guests outside their hotels. The fact that you can make any early reservations means guests staying in the resort are missing out on some spots.

Families who book ADRs 180 days out take spots for BOG that families staying at Disney Hotels cannot get.

 

[verleniahall]

The thing about all the fake user names lately is that it makes it really difficult to keep up with who is who. Maybe someone can send us a decoder ring or something? Fake user name people, please come up with an action plan. Discuss amongst yourselves. Or yourself. Whatever the case may be.

 

[mom2rtk]

I think giving perks to guests who stay at your hotel is a standard business practive. Hotels give free shuttle service, free breakfast, reservation services and as others have pointed out, fast pass service like FP+ and Front of the Line passes. I'm actually surprized that Disneyworld offers advanced fast passes and ADRs to guests outside their hotels. The fact that you can make any early reservations means guests staying in the resort are missing out on some spots.

Families who book ADRs 180 days out take spots for BOG that families staying at Disney Hotels cannot get.

Disney is walking a fine line. They need offsite guests to help them fill the parks. They have to be careful not to tick off a huge part of their customer base.

And lots of hotels offer perks AT their hotels. This is a little different since we're talking about offering perks in the parks for staying in a hotel. I know US does it, but the sheer quantity of rooms involved makes that an entirely different matter at WDW.

 

[itchin2go]

I think giving perks to guests who stay at your hotel is a standard business practive. Hotels give free shuttle service, free breakfast, reservation services and as others have pointed out, fast pass service like FP+ and Front of the Line passes. I'm actually surprized that Disneyworld offers advanced fast passes and ADRs to guests outside their hotels. The fact that you can make any early reservations means guests staying in the resort are missing out on some spots.

Families who book ADRs 180 days out take spots for BOG that families staying at Disney Hotels cannot get.

Virtucomp - I agree that hotels give perks, but they are normally confined to the hotel, and don't extend into a related, but separate business. That's where people get a little ... confused.

Disney is walking a fine line. They need offsite guests to help them fill the parks. They have to be careful not to tick off a huge part of their customer base.

And lots of hotels offer perks AT their hotels. This is a little different since we're talking about offering perks in the parks for staying in a hotel. I know US does it, but the sheer quantity of rooms involved makes that an entirely different matter at WDW.

Oh, the fine line ...

The best guesses I could find about numbers of onsite vs. offsite guesses had it at roughly 50/50. If that's YOUR business, and 50% of your customers stay onsite and 50% stay off, what do you do? And I think you do exactly what Disney is doing. Try to offer your onsite guests perks with perceived value, but not have them be so valuable that you alienate offsite guests. Have them be valuable enough to maybe tip a would-be offsiter into staying onsite, but not so valuable that the would-be offsiter says, "Eh, let's not do DisneyWorld this year."

I think a lot of us would like to be a fly on the wall in business meetings discussing this stuff. On the other hand, we'd probably have trouble holding our tongues.

 

[momof2n2]

And I imagine (and many others just like you) are doing a cost/benefit analysis every step of the way as you decide whether it's all truly worth it, both for this trip and potential future trips.

Oh, for sure.
If we go to all this trouble and are still less satisfied than with FP-, we will not return as often as before. But my girls will have done the Princess thing and we can say we tried.

At the end of the day, er, trip, we still only have X amount to
give them. Disney is getting the same amount, but we will have to off set it with more QS & packed snacks than TS. That may or may not depreciate the value of our trip. Perhaps we will like faster meals, or even need the additional time for our touring. Perhaps we will be let down in missing the TS experiences.

We'll try it.
And share our experiences here.

 

[mom2rtk]

Virtucomp - I agree that hotels give perks, but they are normally confined to the hotel, and don't extend into a related, but separate business. That's where people get a little ... confused.



Oh, the fine line ...

The best guesses I could find about numbers of onsite vs. offsite guesses had it at roughly 50/50. If that's YOUR business, and 50% of your customers stay onsite and 50% stay off, what do you do? And I think you do exactly what Disney is doing. Try to offer your onsite guests perks with perceived value, but not have them be so valuable that you alienate offsite guests. Have them be valuable enough to maybe tip a would-be offsiter into staying onsite, but not so valuable that the would-be offsiter says, "Eh, let's not do DisneyWorld this year."

I think a lot of us would like to be a fly on the wall in business meetings discussing this stuff. On the other hand, we'd probably have trouble holding our tongues.

I agree. I think Disney has done a good job walking that fine line. I still wish they hadn't taken the 3rd hour of the EMH away, but I still think they are offering the right amount and type of perks to keep people onsite without ticking off half of their customer base.

I'm sure they would never want to operate (and absorb overhead for) enough hotels to fill the parks and are quite happy to have others doing that for them.

 

[Reddog1134]

I just want to point out (if it hasn't been pointed out already) I think that most people don't have a problem with Disney having onsite perks, I think they have a problem with perks that extend BEYOND the hotel and into the parks. They believe there should be a separation of "parks" and "resorts", so to speak.

However, Parks and Resorts are not only part of the same company, they are part of the same division of the company. Even though the perks do have the potential to enhance your park experience, Disney has done a good job of keeping those advantages "invisible". If you see someone going into Be Our Guest or riding 7 Dwarves mine train, you don't know if they are resort guests or just got lucky with the reservation.

Although, Magic Bands HAVE "unblurred" the lines a bit. If you see someone wearing a band, there's a good chance they're a resort guest.