Am I the only one that cringes at ticket prices?

[poeticdiabetic]

Here is the price comparison between Disney and Universal for tickets. What does everyone think Universal prices should be?

Disney and Universal are both around $80 for a 1 day no hopper pass.

Disney 1 day hopper --131
Universal 1 day hopper -- 109

Disney 2 day hopper --208
Universal 2 day hopper -- 135

Disney 3 day hopper --271
Universal 3 day hopper --140

Disney 4 day hopper --277
Universal 4 day hopper --145

Disney 7 day hopper --286
Universal 7 day hopper --170

Disney Annual Pass 489 Renewal Rate 449
Universal Annual Pass 219 Renewal Rate 149

SeaWorld --- $68.95 online, $78.95 at the gate
Busch Gardens in Tampa --- $74.95
Busch Gardens in Williamsburg ---$61.95

This is a nice comparison, but it's not a complete comparison. The reason why I say that is because WDW and US/IOA is so different. Therefore, the value propositions are different.

WDW is a totally different fantasy world that consists of 4 theme parks and DD. The experience at WDW is much more than rides. It's a kind of escapism that you can't find anywhere else. What takes away from WDW's value proposition would be terrible customer service, uncleaniness or inconsistency. But price is low on the equation of value for WDW because WDW's marketing messaging places a ticket prices at a premium.

But US/IOA's value proposition isn't the same. The value for US/IOA is that the thrill rides are better than WDW. The atmosphere is fun and lively, but it's more cosmopolitan and grown-up. And the parks themselves are smaller and more compact. Plus, there are only 2 parks instead of 4. And there are less rides.

What that means is that you can go and have more fun at US/IOA for less time than you would at WDW. And you can do so for less than half of what you would pay at WDW, so you get more bang for your buck. US/IOA's value comes from comparing their prices against WDW. That's the deal.

What damages US/IOA's value proposition are increased lines, break-downs of thrill rides and increased pricing. Pricing is huge to their value statement. Even though they're cheaper than WDW, that still doesn't justify the incredible jump in pricing. I would have kept the prices at half the price of WDW or less because US/IOA get a great deal of business from those WDW patrons who can't afford the price of a WDW vacation. But if they increase prices to WDW levels, then they might price themselves out of the market for those families, also. It's still a recession right now.

 

[poeticdiabetic]

This is a nice comparison, but it's not a complete comparison. The reason why I say that is because WDW and US/IOA is so different. Therefore, the value propositions are different.

WDW is a totally different fantasy world that consists of 4 theme parks and DD. The experience at WDW is much more than rides. It's a kind of escapism that you can't find anywhere else. What takes away from WDW's value proposition would be terrible customer service, uncleaniness or inconsistency. But price is low on the equation of value for WDW because WDW's marketing messaging places a ticket prices at a premium.

But US/IOA's value proposition isn't the same. The value for US/IOA is that the thrill rides are better than WDW. The atmosphere is fun and lively, but it's more cosmopolitan and grown-up. And the parks themselves are smaller and more compact. Plus, there are only 2 parks instead of 4. And there are less rides.

What that means is that you can go and have more fun at US/IOA for less time than you would at WDW. And you can do so for less than half of what you would pay at WDW, so you get more bang for your buck. US/IOA's value comes from comparing their prices against WDW. That's the deal.

What damages US/IOA's value proposition are increased lines, break-downs of thrill rides and increased pricing. Pricing is huge to their value statement. Even though they're cheaper than WDW, that still doesn't justify the incredible jump in pricing. I would have kept the prices at half the price of WDW or less because US/IOA get a great deal of business from those WDW patrons who can't afford the price of a WDW vacation. But if they increase prices to WDW levels, then they might price themselves out of the market for those families, also. It's still a recession right now.

And to complete my thought, keeping those prices that low would still have US/IOA increasing their ticket prices, but not by as much as they have right now. Ticket prices should be raised incrementally to the rate of increase justified by market conditions and demand. Right now, I don't see how.

 

[damo]

This is a nice comparison, but it's not a complete comparison. The reason why I say that is because WDW and US/IOA is so different. Therefore, the value propositions are different.

WDW is a totally different fantasy world that consists of 4 theme parks and DD. The experience at WDW is much more than rides. It's a kind of escapism that you can't find anywhere else. What takes away from WDW's value proposition would be terrible customer service, uncleaniness or inconsistency. But price is low on the equation of value for WDW because WDW's marketing messaging places a ticket prices at a premium.

But US/IOA's value proposition isn't the same. The value for US/IOA is that the thrill rides are better than WDW. The atmosphere is fun and lively, but it's more cosmopolitan and grown-up. And the parks themselves are smaller and more compact. Plus, there are only 2 parks instead of 4. And there are less rides.

What that means is that you can go and have more fun at US/IOA for less time than you would at WDW. And you can do so for less than half of what you would pay at WDW, so you get more bang for your buck. US/IOA's value comes from comparing their prices against WDW. That's the deal.

What damages US/IOA's value proposition are increased lines, break-downs of thrill rides and increased pricing. Pricing is huge to their value statement. Even though they're cheaper than WDW, that still doesn't justify the incredible jump in pricing. I would have kept the prices at half the price of WDW or less because US/IOA get a great deal of business from those WDW patrons who can't afford the price of a WDW vacation. But if they increase prices to WDW levels, then they might price themselves out of the market for those families, also. It's still a recession right now.

The hopper prices are about half. One day are close to the same and two day hoppers are less. If you use your logic about 4 parks vs 2 parks, then that should be about right. I think they are very fairly priced.

Value is much harder to define. What is value to a young family may not be value to a family of teens. My kids could probably do all the rides they like at all 4 Disney parks in 1 day without lines. They could probably do the same at Universal. That, in our eyes, makes them about equal in value but the Disney pricing is much higher. So to us, Disney is very over-priced.

 

[keishashadow]

I dont really think anyone would be complaining if it hadn't been for the fact that Uni/Ioa had previously had prices so cheap. As Damo posted with the ticket prices when you compare apples to apples Universal ticket prices are still a great deal. Am I tickled about the rate increase? No I am not. but still think the value is there compared to other parks and at Universal. Here I really feel like I truly get to experience the movies I love in a way not possible anywhere else. I love Disney too but in no way would I pay their prices to go unless it was for at least 3 days or just a hard ticket event where more value lies. To me the value in WDW just isnt there, but thats just a matter of personal opinion. And I understand everyones frustration because now doing both WDW and Universal in the same trip has gotten more expensive. Universal and WWOHP has now put people in the position of deciding which place they want to spend their vacation.

...or to enjoy both, they cut back somewhere in the trip (possibly just 1 day @ U offsite, less TS meals, cheaper accommodations, rental car for only a day, whatever). Nearly everybody has a travel budget they have to work with, these boards are so helpful w/peer advice how to make dream of split trips come true.

Ok...riddle me this....

Harry Potter is a new attraction,we all know that. So heres my question(s) / comments etc.

I am torn on the price increase. It seems like bad business,raising prices because there is a new attraction.Is the reasoning behind this to pay it off & turn a profit within a years time? or......is/was the higher ups at Universal Studios figuring that this would be such a huge attraction that if they continued the $99 tickets that there may be a park overcrowding problem? & knowing that if by raising the prices,they recoup the money that would have been lost by those of you (almost me ) that said no way,I'll wait for the ticket prices to drop after the new wears off of Harry Potter?

I understand the concept of business is business & they are in business to make money.I dont,however, understand the concept of "sticking it" to customers in a similar fashion of price gouging gas during a disaster.They knew that visitors would flock to Orlando like old women to Graceland & that money would be made hand over fist if the ticket prices remained the same as they had been for a couple of years.

To me its like the higher ups at Universal Studios saying "screw you" ,the economy sucks & were going to squeeze a few hundred dollars more out of you anyway,money that most people would spend on souvenirs.

Im done,bash me if you want, you all know its the truth, I just said what most of you were thinking.Please feel free to comment.

Have fun & dont think about the cost.

no bashing...it could be argued that Universal raised tix prices to control 'growth' so that peeps aren't packed in cheek to jowl to see HP yeah, right, wanna buy some swamp land, cheap? it's a basic business model all companies follow. They must provide a service/product and turn a profit or eventually, they will cease to exist.

WDW perfected keeping guests (and their vacation $$$s) onsite for nearly all of their vacation time in Orlando. The MYW tix made it cost effective to stay 7 days. They cut the overall base ticket price by nearly half, knowing they'd have a captive audience as many rely soley on Magical Express.

Unfortunately, the other parks went into downturn as to growth. Ive wondered why U didn't throw in some sort of "free" Magical Express service to compete. Many i speak to indicate it was the deal breaker as to why they continually visit WDW in lieu of Universal.

re WDW tixs, many would be surprised with the annual price increases over the years since the current MYW format was rolled out in '05. Im pretty sure a 1 day WDW tix went up 10% to almost $60. Subsequent price increases of aprox 5% for each year (not factoring in this years' likely 1st Sunday in August bump)

U's 1 day tix was in same range back then yet it's been slashed in price w/multiday offers/promos since to get the disney captives into their parkit's a rat race

Historically (although U has usually already promo'd by now for summer, they're def testing the waters) they offer tix 'deals' and likely will again if the crowds aren't where they project this summer.

 

[poeticdiabetic]

The hopper prices are about half. One day are close to the same and two day hoppers are less. If you use your logic about 4 parks vs 2 parks, then that should be about right. I think they are very fairly priced.

Value is much harder to define. What is value to a young family may not be value to a family of teens. My kids could probably do all the rides they like at all 4 Disney parks in 1 day without lines. They could probably do the same at Universal. That, in our eyes, makes them about equal in value but the Disney pricing is much higher. So to us, Disney is very over-priced.

All value is perceived value, as I've stated before. The perception can be skewed when the value proposition is leveraged by price, and then those prices are raised by an extreme amount from last season. All I'm stating is that the rate is too high due to last season's prices and that it would be reflected by the numbers this year. Case in point: US/IOA numbers are down 44% so far. To recoup the money earned last year, you first have to make up the 44% deficit. And even then, you still didn't break even, given that expenses rose this year.

So what has to happen theoretically is that more at least 20% more people have to turn the turnstiles this year at rack rates just to make up for the lag earlier this year. Then, you have to have more much more than that in order to keep up with expenses. That's a tall order, given that Spring Break has already occurred. US/IOA have to have a strong summer.They must or else you will see a fire sale on tickets. And they would know by 3rd quarter.

Now this is what I would have done: I would have increased prices, but by a lower amount. (25% rate increase). And I would have ran some specials up until June. I would have ran rack rates up until August and then ran specials until Christmas. Therefore, I would have made good money up until June, made premium money during the summer from HP, and then ran discounted specials up until the Holiday Season.

 

[damo]

All value is perceived value, as I've stated before. The perception can be skewed when the value proposition is leveraged by price, and then those prices are raised by an extreme amount from last season. All I'm stating is that the rate is too high due to last season's prices and that it would be reflected by the numbers this year. Case in point: US/IOA numbers are down 44% so far. To recoup the money earned last year, you first have to make up the 44% deficit. And even then, you still didn't break even, given that expenses rose this year.

So what has to happen theoretically is that more at least 20% more people have to turn the turnstiles this year at rack rates just to make up for the lag earlier this year. Then, you have to have more much more than that in order to keep up with expenses. That's a tall order, given that Spring Break has already occurred. US/IOA have to have a strong summer.They must or else you will see a fire sale on tickets. And they would know by 3rd quarter.

Now this is what I would have done: I would have increased prices, but by a lower amount. (25% rate increase). And I would have ran some specials up until June. I would have ran rack rates up until August and then ran specials until Christmas. Therefore, I would have made good money up until June, made premium money during the summer from HP, and then ran discounted specials up until the Holiday Season.

You are taking the 44% down out of context.

Attendance was down 10%, not that different from Disney's attendance decrease of 5%. Revenues were down to 163 million compared to 164 million for Jan-March last year.

The earnings were $19 million compared with $34 million last year due primarily to marketing expenses for The Wizarding World of Harry Potter.

Pricing really didn't have that much of an effect as the numbers were similar to Disney's numbers. People will cut out Universal before they cut out Disney. Also many people would have decided to delay their Universal vacations until the Wizarding World was completed.

We don't know what the Spring Break numbers were like since they aren't in yet.

http://www.hotelnewsresource.com/ar...Financial_Results_for_First_Quarter_____.html

 

[poeticdiabetic]

You are taking the 44% down out of context.

Attendance was down 10%, not that different from Disney's attendance decrease of 5%. Revenues were down to 163 million compared to 164 million for Jan-March last year.

The earnings were $19 million compared with $34 million last year due primarily to marketing expenses for The Wizarding World of Harry Potter.

Pricing really didn't have that much of an effect as the numbers were similar to Disney's numbers. People will cut out Universal before they cut out Disney. Also many people would have decided to delay their Universal vacations until the Wizarding World was completed.

We don't know what the Spring Break numbers were like since they aren't in yet.

http://www.hotelnewsresource.com/ar...Financial_Results_for_First_Quarter_____.html

It's in proper context. US/IOA made $19 Million the first quarter. Last year, they made $34 Million. In both years, we were in a recession. However, consumer spending was up the first quarter this year from last year. That's the 44% drop in revenues.

And I'm actually understating it, because the reports of the 44% drop in revenues are before expenses. That means that more than likely, profit margins will be extremely low.

Now the gamble is that they will recoup this money the next two quarters. All I'm saying is that if the ticket prices were increased at a lower rate, revenues may not have been so low.

http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.aspx?feed=ACBJ&date=20100421&id=11433259

Meanwhile, Disney Parks have shown an increase in revenue of a modest 2% in the second quarter (Disney's 2nd quarter runs from Jan-March. It's comprable to US/IOA's 1st quarter.)

http://www.examiner.com/x-38263-Disney-Travel-Examiner~y2010m5d12-Disney-reports-secondquarter-profits-theme-parks-struggle-with-move-away-from-steep-discounts

What Disney's doing is slowly but surely increasing their prices. But US/IOA made a big jump in the beginning. That may prove to be a problem in the end.

 

[damo]

It's in proper context. US/IOA made $19 Million the first quarter. Last year, they made $34 Million. In both years, we were in a recession. However, consumer spending was up the first quarter this year from last year. That's the 44% drop in revenues.

And I'm actually understating it, because the reports of the 44% drop in revenues are before expenses. That means that more than likely, profit margins will be extremely low.

Earnings were down 44%, not revenue. Earnings are after expenses.
Revenue is $163 million down $1 million from the same time last year. Not a huge difference.

From your sources..."Meanwhile, Universal reported earning $19 million in the first quarter before expenses, a 44 percent drop from $34 million earned in first-quarter 2009."

Since earnings dropped so much but revenue didn't change too drastically, their explanation of marketing and advertising costs for Wizarding World (including the $3 million Super Bowl add) make a lot of sense.

If attendance and revenue had been down 44%, then I would agree that there was a pricing issue. However, attendance was down 10% and revenue was only down 0.6%. That doesn't really reflect a cringing from the general public. In fact, attendance in 2009 had dropped 20% in the first quarter from 2008 and there had been no price change, more than the drop this year with the price change.


http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/os-universal-orlando-earnings-20100420,0,7098736.story

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...s-restaurant-wizarding-world-universal-profit

 

[Metro West]

 

[bubba's mom]

People will cut out Universal before they cut out Disney.

not us.

you crack me up

yep...it's another one of those threads....

 

[poeticdiabetic]

Earnings were down 44%, not revenue. Earnings are after expenses.
Revenue is $163 million down $1 million from the same time last year. Not a huge difference.

From your sources..."Meanwhile, Universal reported earning $19 million in the first quarter before expenses, a 44 percent drop from $34 million earned in first-quarter 2009."

Since earnings dropped so much but revenue didn't change too drastically, their explanation of marketing and advertising costs for Wizarding World (including the $3 million Super Bowl add) make a lot of sense.

Definition of earning...http://www.getmoneyenergy.com/2010/04/difference-between-revenues-and-earnings/

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/os-universal-orlando-earnings-20100420,0,7098736.story

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...s-restaurant-wizarding-world-universal-profit

Keep reading. "not including expenses." The Super Bowl ad and other other marketing and advertising costs are called "expenses." So earnings that doesn't includes expenses are tabulated as Revenue (primarily.) Oh, and attendance can go down only 10% and lose 44% of revenue. Theme parks can make money from you even if they give you tickets for free. But if people refuse to attend, they can't upsell.

 

[damo]

Keep reading. "not including expenses." The Super Bowl ad and other other marketing and advertising costs are called "expenses." So earnings that doesn't includes expenses are tabulated as Revenue (primarily.) Oh, and attendance can go down only 10% and lose 44% of revenue. Theme parks can make money from you even if they give you tickets for free. But if people refuse to attend, they can't upsell.

The expenses that are being referred to when talking about earnings are not operating and marketing expenses but interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization. That is what EBITDA stands for -- Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization and is what is being discussed in the financial reports.

The revenue has been stated to be $163 million, down 1 million from last year. If there was only a revenue of $19 million, that would mean that only about 250,000 people attended and didn't buy anything in the first quarter. Considering that there is usually an attendance of over 11 million each year, that is highly unlikely. The revenue drop was less than 1% from this time last quarter not 44%.

The attendance drop this year was less than the attendance drop last year, so pricing really didn't have that much of an impact.

Hopefully the amount of money that Universal spent on advertising that offset their earnings this year will get recouped with big boosts in attendance in the 3rd and 4th quarters and next year.

 

[TaylorsDad]

...or to enjoy both, they cut back somewhere in the trip (possibly just 1 day @ U offsite, less TS meals, cheaper accommodations, rental car for only a day, whatever). Nearly everybody has a travel budget they have to work with, these boards are so helpful w/peer advice how to make dream of split trips come true.



no bashing...it could be argued that Universal raised tix prices to control 'growth' so that peeps aren't packed in cheek to jowl to see HP yeah, right, wanna buy some swamp land, cheap? it's a basic business model all companies follow. They must provide a service/product and turn a profit or eventually, they will cease to exist.

WDW perfected keeping guests (and their vacation $$$s) onsite for nearly all of their vacation time in Orlando. The MYW tix made it cost effective to stay 7 days. They cut the overall base ticket price by nearly half, knowing they'd have a captive audience as many rely soley on Magical Express.

Unfortunately, the other parks went into downturn as to growth. Ive wondered why U didn't throw in some sort of "free" Magical Express service to compete. Many i speak to indicate it was the deal breaker as to why they continually visit WDW in lieu of Universal.

re WDW tixs, many would be surprised with the annual price increases over the years since the current MYW format was rolled out in '05. Im pretty sure a 1 day WDW tix went up 10% to almost $60. Subsequent price increases of aprox 5% for each year (not factoring in this years' likely 1st Sunday in August bump)

U's 1 day tix was in same range back then yet it's been slashed in price w/multiday offers/promos since to get the disney captives into their parkit's a rat race

Historically (although U has usually already promo'd by now for summer, they're def testing the waters) they offer tix 'deals' and likely will again if the crowds aren't where they project this summer.

Just 1 day @U offsite? No way. The way I would cut expenses to do both would be maybe 3 days at Disney instead of 5 which would save at least $300 in hotel expenses there and thats at a value. Less disney TS meals say only one a day for 3 of us instead of 2. Again a little over $300 saved over $200 additional more if you count the reduction in days at Disney, cut out some photopass purchases as we take many photos on our own anyways-about another $200 saved. Gee, I should having been doing this long ago and staying longer at Universal. Thanks, you made me realize I have been spending more money than necessary at WDW. Guess everyone will just have to focus on devoting their funds on what is most important to them.

 

[poeticdiabetic]

The expenses that are being referred to when talking about earnings are not operating and marketing expenses but interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization. That is what EBITDA stands for -- Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization and is what is being discussed in the financial reports.

The revenue has been stated to be $163 million, down 1 million from last year. If there was only a revenue of $19 million, that would mean that only about 250,000 people attended and didn't buy anything in the first quarter. Considering that there is usually an attendance of over 11 million each year, that is highly unlikely. The revenue drop was less than 1% from this time last quarter not 44%.

The attendance drop this year was less than the attendance drop last year, so pricing really didn't have that much of an impact.

Hopefully the amount of money that Universal spent on advertising that offset their earnings this year will get recouped with big boosts in attendance in the 3rd and 4th quarters and next year.

I'm familiar w/ EBITDA. Unfortunately, my life has been governed by EBITDA until very recently.

But the media piece stated expenses, not EBITDA. If it states "before expenses", that means "before all the other stuff that will offset revenues in order to determine profit margins." Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization are merely some of the expenses.

But I would say this: US/IOA needs a very strong 2nd and 3rd quarter. Going back to what I've said previously, it's a huge gamble! I think that there will be big discounts the 3rd and 4th quarters- going into next year.

 

[keishashadow]

Just 1 day @U offsite? No way. The way I would cut expenses to do both would be maybe 3 days at Disney instead of 5 which would save at least $300 in hotel expenses there and thats at a value. Less disney TS meals say only one a day for 3 of us instead of 2. Again a little over $300 saved over $200 additional more if you count the reduction in days at Disney, cut out some photopass purchases as we take many photos on our own anyways-about another $200 saved. Gee, I should having been doing this long ago and staying longer at Universal. Thanks, you made me realize I have been spending more money than necessary at WDW. Guess everyone will just have to focus on devoting their funds on what is most important to them.

todd - pass the popcorn, i'll bring peanuts

 

[damo]

I'm familiar w/ EBITDA. Unfortunately, my life has been governed by EBITDA until very recently.

But the media piece stated expenses, not EBITDA. If it states "before expenses", that means "before all the other stuff that will offset revenues in order to determine profit margins." Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization are merely some of the expenses.

But I would say this: US/IOA needs a very strong 2nd and 3rd quarter. Going back to what I've said previously, it's a huge gamble! I think that there will be big discounts the 3rd and 4th quarters- going into next year.

http://www.hotelnewsresource.com/ar...Financial_Results_for_First_Quarter_____.html

 

[Claire-Bear]

I'm not going to get all technical here to bear with me!! just talking from the point of a UK visitor

I always find Uni very reasonable, especially our recent deal of £90 ($270 for both) for 14 days of entry (even though we'll only be using 3 days and maybe an evening). Disney I do find expensive. I do love Disney parks and the characters, but am not the type to spend quite a few days there on one trip (until we have children anyway ). So if we wanted to spend two days at Disney, a day at each park, it would cost us $410 for both of us (the deals for UK visitors for 5 days minimum start at over $300 each). Whilst I appreciate Disney has more parks, I would only be visiting two.

So whilst I appreciate that Disney has four parks, there is a big diff in price for those of us who only really want to spend a couple of days at Disney. Uni is also just a few mins walk between parks, whilst Disney takes more effort to travel between parks when you want to hop.

But Disney is Disney and Universal is Universal. Universal has been my favourite by a margin for the last 10 years (I like the more thrilling rides), but Disney is always special to me from being a child and for wanting to take our children there one day. And nothing beats hugging the Disney characters