Are Disney prices too high?

[hsmamato2]

I don't mind any sort of discussion.... and I agree on the prices vs. the quality of what the prices get you..... That's why I would never ever pay prices for mediocre 'high end' Disney restaurants.... but I would in Nyc or elsewhere if the quality of what I was getting was on par with the prices. That's the very essence of finding 'value' I think..... Diseny prices are high,NYC prices are high. I will pay to do Disney for the things that I feel are worth my money. But to what OP originally stated, I don't think a lot of things at Disney are worth paying for,and I don't. If/When I felt like my hotel,tickets or anything else is not worth what I pay for it, then I stop going there. As with anything else. Right now I am still finding bargains and that is ok with me. (this isn't a post saying all things at Disney are worth the high price,b/c I don't think they are,i.e. I drink free ice water,not overpriced soda or bottled water)

 

[MrInfinity]

That is entirely my concern as well! What further disappoints me, is how so many take it with a smile and indifference, then take issue with those that speak out about it. As long as those people exist (and they always will..), Disney will continue to push the market limits and continue raising prices at several times the rate of inflation.

So if I understand this right, you are publicly speaking out about how you take issue with people publicly speaking out that they take issue with you.

Is Disney stuff is overpriced? Of course it is. Vacations are luxury items. Food at Disney costs more than it's inherent value as food, and a sweatshirt costs more than a sweatshirt a Walmart. This is nothing new.

Do I "take it with a smile and indifference"? That's kind of negative for something as happy as choosing to spend money on a vacation. I'm not indifferent. I choose what I spend on carefully. But ultimately the choice to spend on the things I do, is done with a smile. If it didn't make for good times or wasn't worth the money, we wouldn't go.

 

[Pirate Jeff]

I don't mind any sort of discussion.... and I agree on the prices vs. the quality of what the prices get you..... That's why I would never ever pay prices for mediocre 'high end' Disney restaurants.... but I would in Nyc or elsewhere if the quality of what I was getting was on par with the prices. That's the very essence of finding 'value' I think..... Diseny prices are high,NYC prices are high. I will pay to do Disney for the things that I feel are worth my money. But to what OP originally stated, I don't think a lot of things at Disney are worth paying for,and I don't. If/When I felt like my hotel,tickets or anything else is not worth what I pay for it, then I stop going there. As with anything else. Right now I am still finding bargains and that is ok with me. (this isn't a post saying all things at Disney are worth the high price,b/c I don't think they are,i.e. I drink free ice water,not overpriced soda or bottled water)

Agreed! Funny thing, your statement about the "water" reminds me of an experience I remember well! On a particularly hot day, I went to a vendor to ask for a cup of ice water for my wife and I. In front of me, a gentleman bought 5 bottled waters for his family and he dropped almost $20.00. I watched in amazement how he gladly handed over that bill to pay for....: water! Crazy! I cannot do it. No matter how hard I try!

 

[Pirate Jeff]

So if I understand this right, you are publicly speaking out about how you take issue with people publicly speaking out that they take issue with you.

Is Disney stuff is overpriced? Of course it is. Vacations are luxury items. Food at Disney costs more than it's inherent value as food, and a sweatshirt will cost way more than a sweatshirt a Walmart. This is nothing new.

Do I "take it with a smile and indifference"? That's pretty negative for something as happy as choosing to spend hard-earned money on a vacation. I'm not indifferent. I choose what I spend on very carefully. But ultimately the choice to spend on the things I do, is done with a smile. If it didn't make for good times or wasn't worth the money, we wouldn't go.

Not really. What I "take issue" with, is the condescension offered by "some" of those folks! As if I (or anyone else) have no right to speak of such things! That we are relegated to the category of "whiners"! Your response is humorous though! I actually thought of writing a statement just like that! Oh the irony! Complaining about the complainers!

Just to clarify..., speaking for myself I can't say enough, how I expect to "pay more" at Disney and frankly, some of the images that come to mind from budget retailers are some of which I would hope to "never" see at Disney! Years ago, Disney was expensive (relatively speaking). But the food, the ambiance, the entire experience was better! The cast members, literally every thing about your vacation, was something way above the rest. It is those things, that are lost with cutting corners.

 

[mickeyluv'r]

As for going "off property", we own a vacation home near the parks. We still stay on site however. In fact, we just stayed at the Polynesian two weeks ago! We got a great deal on the room but we too, will generally not pay the crazy high prices for food and drinks while on property.

A few years ago, I'm sure I defended eating on WDW property as more practical, mostly in terms of time, and mid day eating. I still don't think leaving mid-day to eat hamburgers is worth the $10 a family of four will save.

but....

WDW TS buffets at $60 per person? Early this year, two of us ate pretty well for less than $60 per day total for both of us! We didn't eat offsite every night, but managed several 8/9pm dinners.

I should add, it always pays to run numbers. Just last year, DDP didn't make sense. now though, IF adult guests are going to be eating onsite, then paying $60 for DDP at least gives you the addition of a QS and a snack for that $60.

 

[ArwenMarie]

The one that gets us is the one-day ticket. We've had the opportunity to go to WDW for a day or two at most, but the per day cost is just not in my comfort zone the way a 5+ day ticket is. So, this past Summer when we wanted a day at AK, we skipped it. Next Summer when we'd like to do the same, we will likely skip it as well.

The only one-day ticket we will buy for WDW is for MK. I know there is a small price difference but if MK is $100 for a one-day, the other parks should be $50 IMO.

Even though I travel to Disney more than most people, and I am overly sentimental about returning...the prices have really got to me this year. While I used to be among the biggest supporters of Disney, I no longer recommend it to my friends.

Agree, I'm still in, still going, but I don't recommend it to other people anymore.

It's still flights that are the killer for us.
Currently the cheapest direct flight to MCO we can get is coming in just over $4K for 2 adults, in economy. That's more than the cost of accommodation at CSR for 14 nights with free QSDP, 14 day tickets, memory maker and a $200 gift card. Ridiculous.

Airfare is a killer, I agree! It can be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

 

[mickeyluv'r]

Like others here, I've always seen WDW as a bit of a package deal. Not travel packages per say, but rather the cost of eating on property includes the cost, say of using the monorail and watching fireworks and all the staff it takes to operate both.

However, to me, prices have reached a tipping point.

We used to o to WDW with extended family, full week, multiple rooms, DDP, ADR's every night. I think those days are gone. I didn't completely avoid MK the past two years, but nothing like the trips we used to make.

To us, value for $ spent has gone WAY down in the past few years. I suspect we are not alone in feeling that way.

Meanwhile, we felt the product US delivers has gone up in quality and value. The US parks are cleaner, better maintained, and staff is more consistently polite. (Some WDW CM's are still great!)

 

[JimmyV]

Food at Disney costs more than it's inherent value as food, and a sweatshirt costs more than a sweatshirt a Walmart. This is nothing new.

While you are correct that it is nothing "new", it is not the case that it has been this way since the beginning of time. When WDW opened, prices inside the park were pretty competitive with prices outside the park. At some point in time, (I'd say, around 1976 or so), Disney widened the gap considerably. And the gap continues to grow. And people continue to pay it. And Disney Corp. makes lots of money. And lots of people say that they are fine with the prices. And lots of people say that they can no longer afford to go to WDW. None of this is going to change.

 

[MikeandReneePlus5]

The new $70 Sunday breakfast buffet at Narcoosee's is definitely too expensive....$69!

 

[flicx]

Another thing that gets me that fits into the exploitive category: the lack of linking my discounts to the magic band. I have Tables in Wonderland, AP, DVC, and Chase Visa all linked to my accounts. But if I don't ask for my discount, no dice. There is no reason that is not automatic other than pure avarice.

This is one of the reasons I marked "Disney is Greedy" on my last AP survey.

The funny thing is if Disney is putting greedy as one of the standard responses what does that tell you people are thinking about Disney?

 

[JimmyV]

Jimmy, have you seen the majority of guests roaming through Disney World these days? Do they look like golf or tennis players to you? I would guess most Disney visitors couldn't swing a golf club or tennis racket to save their lives.

I agree with your assessment. But I could write an entire paper on which is the chicken and which is the egg--or if there are entirely other factors at play here, (pun intended). Perhaps WDW used to attract a more athletic fan base because the guests knew that they were going to spend their 3-4 day vacation riding rides for 40% of their waking time, and doing other vacation activities the other 60%. This definitely describes our family. We planned our WDW vacations around the sports as much as we did the park. I'll bet that the average BMI at Aspen or Pebble Beach is markedly different than it is at WDW. People who go to those other places are paying to be active. Otherwise, why plop down all that money to be there?

Here are some photos of the promotional materials from 1971-1974

Look at how much recreation is featured in these promotional materials compared to today. So maybe WDW attracted more sporting people back then. Or maybe Disney de-emphasized sports and recreation because it was underutilized or underperforming (financially). I surely do not know. But my earlier point was simply that a vacation at WDW in the 1970s was, (or had the opportunity of being) more diverse than it is now. It had to be. If your primary focus was the them park and rides, well, you might as well have been a day visitor, because a 3 or 4 day vacation at WDW would have otherwise bored you to tears. I am not making a value judgment as to which is better, then or now. And I am not whining about the "good old days" being gone. I'd trade AK for a few tennis courts every time. I am simply stating a fact that WDW used to be a more diverse vacation destination where people planned their days around myriad activities and not just parks. Diversity today isn't so much "water skiing; golf; tennis; horseback riding; boating; River Country; or the MK?" and instead it is "Space Mountain; Everest; or Rock-n-Roller Coaster". The parks are wonderfully diverse in themeing. But you ride on some form of roller coaster pretty much every day.

 

[mom2rtk]

This is one of the reasons I marked "Disney is Greedy" on my last AP survey.

I'm still astounded that they even offered it as a response. What have things come to that they felt the need to include that?

 

[GaryDis]

Agreed. We have visited many tourist places over the years...and not one of them had great bargains on food or hotels...in fact we just came back from a tour of Utah Natl. Parks.....oh my the hotel prices near those are HIGH.

But even then there were discount choices. When we went, last year, we stayed at a reasonably priced hotel in Kanab, found great food reasonably priced in town, and went to three different National Parks in three days.

 

[mom2rtk]

Agreed. We have visited many tourist places over the years...and not one of them had great bargains on food or hotels...in fact we just came back from a tour of Utah Natl. Parks.....oh my the hotel prices near those are HIGH.(hurray for campgrounds,not Disney one tho)

We've never had trouble finding reasonably priced hotels visiting the national parks in the southwest. Just curious where you stayed and near what parks?

 

[dfb]

WDW prices are too high! A lot things are priced too high! Years ago I remember saying the same thing "prices are too high" But I do agree the value has diminished. Only made 3 trips from the 70's to early 2000s. 2008 & 2009 made 6 trips. Although expensive still we saw enough value to make several trips and purchase DVC. There seemed to be more discounts that gave you more bang for the buck. I've always considered the food OK, not super great but still a good treat. We do try different restaurants but have our handful of favorites. Some of those menus have changed and I'm not sure if the new items are less quality or just not our taste but they are no longer our favorites. 2008 was the first time we tried the dining plan. I think I remember WDW advertising the DDP could save up to 30% on meals.(I don't think they advertise that now) I think I figured for us it was about 20% but good enough. Over the last few years the DDP cost for our meals offer little to no savings and in some cases cost even more. The value and implemtation of MyMagic+(FP+) over the last couple years has caused us to plan fewer trips.

 

[mickeyluv'r]

These threads are nothing new, I agree. they pop up with every price increase.

My responses though have changed. I came to the DIS to find discounts, to be sure. but we always came away from visits feeling like we got our money's worth. And for a time, we came back thining each trip had something new and exciting that made it (usually) slightly better than the last.

Our last few visits have gone the other way. I used to tell friends to go. Now I'm much more cautious. FL is still a great place to vacation!

 

[JimmyV]

I'm still astounded that they even offered it as a response. What have things come to that they felt the need to include that?

That is a head scratcher. If someone posted that "Disney is greedy!" over on its own blog board, or FB page, that post would probably be taken down. But given the way that they typically operate you would expect the "worst" option to be: "Disney is pricey, but we still feel the magic!"

 

[MikeandReneePlus5]

I agree with your assessment. But I could write an entire paper on which is the chicken and which is the egg--or if there are entirely other factors at play here, (pun intended). Perhaps WDW used to attract a more athletic fan base because the guests knew that they were going to spend their 3-4 day vacation riding rides for 40% of their waking time, and doing other vacation activities the other 60%. This definitely describes our family. We planned our WDW vacations around the sports as much as we did the park. I'll bet that the average BMI at Aspen or Pebble Beach is markedly different than it is at WDW. People who go to those other places are paying to be active. Otherwise, why plop down all that money to be there?

Here are some photos of the promotional materials from 1971-1974

Look at how much recreation is featured in these promotional materials compared to today. So maybe WDW attracted more sporting people back then. Or maybe Disney de-emphasized sports and recreation because it was underutilized or underperforming (financially). I surely do not know. But my earlier point was simply that a vacation at WDW in the 1970s was, (or had the opportunity of being) more diverse than it is now. It had to be. If your primary focus was the them park and rides, well, you might as well have been a day visitor, because a 3 or 4 day vacation at WDW would have otherwise bored you to tears. I am not making a value judgment as to which is better, then or now. And I am not whining about the "good old days" being gone. I'd trade AK for a few tennis courts every time. I am simply stating a fact that WDW used to be a more diverse vacation destination where people planned their days around myriad activities and not just parks. Diversity today isn't so much "water skiing; golf; tennis; horseback riding; boating; River Country; or the MK?" and instead it is "Space Mountain; Everest; or Rock-n-Roller Coaster". The parks are wonderfully diverse in themeing. But you ride on some form of roller coaster pretty much every day.

So interesting!

I think all the beach and waterfront stuff in this brochure was stopped because the lake is not swimmable. There was a vision to have resort guests set up on the beaches and go swimming...that time is no more. they even envisioned a wave machine that would cause surfable waves to crash on the shores at the Poly. the equipment is still submerged on one of those islands in the lake.

The golf (for sure) and horseback riding (I think) are still there but I agree it isn't how Disney markets the trips anymore.

 

[MrInfinity]

I agree with your assessment. But I could write an entire paper on which is the chicken and which is the egg--or if there are entirely other factors at play here, (pun intended). Perhaps WDW used to attract a more athletic fan base because the guests knew that they were going to spend their 3-4 day vacation riding rides for 40% of their waking time, and doing other vacation activities the other 60%. This definitely describes our family. We planned our WDW vacations around the sports as much as we did the park. I'll bet that the average BMI at Aspen or Pebble Beach is markedly different than it is at WDW. People who go to those other places are paying to be active. Otherwise, why plop down all that money to be there?

Here are some photos of the promotional materials from 1971-1974

Look at how much recreation is featured in these promotional materials compared to today. So maybe WDW attracted more sporting people back then. Or maybe Disney de-emphasized sports and recreation because it was underutilized or underperforming (financially). I surely do not know. But my earlier point was simply that a vacation at WDW in the 1970s was, (or had the opportunity of being) more diverse than it is now. It had to be. If your primary focus was the them park and rides, well, you might as well have been a day visitor, because a 3 or 4 day vacation at WDW would have otherwise bored you to tears. I am not making a value judgment as to which is better, then or now. And I am not whining about the "good old days" being gone. I'd trade AK for a few tennis courts every time. I am simply stating a fact that WDW used to be a more diverse vacation destination where people planned their days around myriad activities and not just parks. Diversity today isn't so much "water skiing; golf; tennis; horseback riding; boating; River Country; or the MK?" and instead it is "Space Mountain; Everest; or Rock-n-Roller Coaster". The parks are wonderfully diverse in themeing. But you ride on some form of roller coaster pretty much every day.

It sounds to me like you're trying to say in a time before modern technological advances, the things they offered were not quite as technological. Amazing.

Look at those pictures and you'll see those concepts are still there today:
* Hiking Trails -- there if you want them. But for a forest like pictured, I can do that 5 min from home. I'll take Maharajah over that.
* Meet Mickey -- still there
* Boating -- still there
* Canoeing & Water sports -- still there
* Beach -- still there
* Golf -- still there
* Castle -- still there
* Trolley -- still there
* Poly & Contemporary -- still there
* Jamboree -- still there
* Horseback riding -- Not interested, but if I was into that I could do it 5 min from home.
* Jungle Cruise -- still there.

All these things are still there.

So what's you're point? How was so much more recreation featured? That's what was available back then because it was a new park. I was there -- could have been the kid on the beach at RC. It wasn't more diverse. They don't advertise people standing in the woods today because that would be silly. People can hike at home.

Are you trying to say the 1970's drew a more athletic crowd? Look at the pics. The kids and parents look like normal kids and parents of the 70's. Typical middle class American 70's families taking vacations. If anything people are far more health conscious today. Look at food intake... smoking... no comparison to the 70's.

You'd rather have Tennis Courts than the Animal Kingdom? Wow that's huge. I am pretty amazed that you like the AK that little. We have Tennis courts at our local park and they're free. I love Tennis. But I would not go to Disney World to play, I'd go walk to the park after work. I also find it interesting that first you advocate more outdoor activities... but then, you advocate how you'd ditch the AK for a Tennis Court. You'd give up the one park that is the MOST like the activities you're saying you like... walking... hiking... nature... animals... something besides roller coasters... your post there is self-defeating. You should love the AK more than the other parks if you were that into nature.

I don't think of WDW as Space Mountain, Everest, RnR, etc. I think of it as a vacation. I think of it as the condo we stayed at, riding the monorail, watching the topiaries go by, the time w my family, the slides at River Country, our time at SeaWorld (before it had roller coasters) and Wet'n'Wild, the nightly Water Pageant, waiting in lines for the first time with my brother on our own, and so on. Maybe you only think of it as the sum of its rides but to lots of people it's more than that.

 

[GreatLakes]

I agree with your assessment. But I could write an entire paper on which is the chicken and which is the egg--or if there are entirely other factors at play here, (pun intended). Perhaps WDW used to attract a more athletic fan base because the guests knew that they were going to spend their 3-4 day vacation riding rides for 40% of their waking time, and doing other vacation activities the other 60%. This definitely describes our family. We planned our WDW vacations around the sports as much as we did the park. I'll bet that the average BMI at Aspen or Pebble Beach is markedly different than it is at WDW. People who go to those other places are paying to be active. Otherwise, why plop down all that money to be there?

Here are some photos of the promotional materials from 1971-1974

Look at how much recreation is featured in these promotional materials compared to today. So maybe WDW attracted more sporting people back then. Or maybe Disney de-emphasized sports and recreation because it was underutilized or underperforming (financially). I surely do not know. But my earlier point was simply that a vacation at WDW in the 1970s was, (or had the opportunity of being) more diverse than it is now. It had to be. If your primary focus was the them park and rides, well, you might as well have been a day visitor, because a 3 or 4 day vacation at WDW would have otherwise bored you to tears. I am not making a value judgment as to which is better, then or now. And I am not whining about the "good old days" being gone. I'd trade AK for a few tennis courts every time. I am simply stating a fact that WDW used to be a more diverse vacation destination where people planned their days around myriad activities and not just parks. Diversity today isn't so much "water skiing; golf; tennis; horseback riding; boating; River Country; or the MK?" and instead it is "Space Mountain; Everest; or Rock-n-Roller Coaster". The parks are wonderfully diverse in themeing. But you ride on some form of roller coaster pretty much every day.

I would like to see more sports also. Kayaking is something my wife and I would love to do on property but we can get our fix when we are over visiting friends in the Tampa/St. Pete area. We would also love to rent bikes to actually move around property, not just at WL and FtW. We would gladly bike from the resort to the parks if that was an option.

They are really pushing the RunDisney events though so there is a comeback in a at least endurance sports. Want to talk about something priced too high in my opinion, those races are a bit too high. I cut back on them but they sell out very quickly so they obviously are not priced too high in general, just for me to justify doing as many as I once did.

I'm not sure either what the impetus was but I could only assume there wasn't enough profit in offering the activities. I also wonder if the shifted focus to WWoS and luring teams and tournaments down was part of the equation. Are there tennis courts at WWoS? I could see them opening that complex to guests if they are free for a fee.