Another question regarding hotels and such that will probably turn into a debate

[KNWVIKING]

***". Wildnerness Lodge is in a MUCH better location than Animal Kingdom Lodge, but WL rooms are substantially cheaper than Animal Kingdom Lodge."***

I've been under the impression that AKL rooms are the most discounted rooms out there because people haven't been willing to pay the rack rate. Maybe I'm misinformed. I wish "rack rate" never existed because it can be very misleading. I think Disney was trying to cash in on the newness & uniqueness of AKL but it backfired of them.

 

[SnackyStacky]

VIKING - yeah, when you can snag a discount, they're usually the best, but as far as rack rates go, WL is the cheapest of the deluxes.

 

[KNWVIKING]

Actually I've stopped looking at any resort prices- discounts or rack. DVC is a beeuuuuteeefull thing.

 

[kaphil]

I'd have to say they're over priced when you consider how much money a family is already spending on tickets, food and souveniers. As my kids get older they enjoy Reno and Las Vegas alot and they have really beautiful rooms for a whole lot less than Disney. I however will keep dragging them to Disney for my own enjoyment, we just go on less trips there now.

 

[DancingBear]

And I'd say the Vegas rooms are over-priced considering how much the guests are losing at the tables.

 

[raidermatt]

This was said way back on the first page by the Head, and several times by others since... Overpriced, Underpriced, too expensive, not too expensive... That's all personal opinion. If you think it is, it is. If its not, its not. Nobody is right, and nobody is wrong.

The notion that more parks means more infrastructure costs, and therefore requires higher room rates is ridiculous... The parks are revenue generators and more than pay for their own infrastructure. (Though when you build "lessor" park, you run the risk of that park not being able to generate enough net profit to cover infrastructure, but Disney would never do such a thing, right?)

However, if more parks make the rooms more desirable to the public, then certainly higher room rates can be supported. That's basic supply and demand, and it is what it is, there is no right or wrong.

The only real debate is whether Disney should price their resorts based solely on what the market will bear, or whether they should over or under price their rooms as part of a larger overall strategy.

 

[OhMari]

We just took our daughter to Marquette MI for college. It takes us 4 1/2 hours to get there. This year we decided to stay a few days and bike and hike.

We could not touch a room for under $115. I'm not to particular, but some of these places were such dumps. This I call over priced gouging. Me and my husband looked at each other and said, man we paid $115 at PORS this past Easter, and this is no PORS. I know they up the prices that weekend in Marquette MI, cause everyone drives very long distances, it takes lower MI students over 8 hours to get to NMU.



We took our daughter out for pizza, went for a bike ride, watched the sun set at 9:00, they are on Eastern Standard Time and drove home.

 

[jann1033]

Originally posted by OhMari
We just took our daughter to Marquette MI for college. It takes us 4 1/2 hours to get there. This year we decided to stay a few days and bike and hike.

We could not touch a room for under $115. I'm not to particular, but some of these places were such dumps. This I call over priced gouging. Me and my husband looked at each other and said, man we paid $115 at PORS this past Easter, and this is no PORS. I know they up the prices that weekend in Marquette MI, cause everyone drives very long distances, it takes lower MI students over 8 hours to get to NMU.



We took our daughter out for pizza, went for a bike ride, watched the sun set at 9:00, they are on Eastern Standard Time and drove home.

did you try priceline.?..it might not work for disney but i have gotten great rooms for well below 1/2 of what they are worth(not necessarily rack rate) just came back from a truly luxurious hotel giant room central location for 1/3 of the rack rate.

not to get involved with an argument, have never stayed at a deluxe disney but was recently looking at the AKL photos some one took here and was Shocked by the tiny rooms and not much else great from what I saw, made me sure I'd never pay for it. you are paying to stay in the park itself and can make that decision but it sure doesn't cost disney any where close to what they charge...other places have learned they make more by charging less for rooms, ect. ( Las Vegas springs readily to mind) so you spend more money on over priced junk that makes them the most money. course disney charges top of the line for everything and we pay it like idiots!(lol)

 

[SnackyStacky]

Matt, I suppose that's more at what the heart of what I was asking. I thought the conversation would gear toward that.

In almost everybody's response, there's some mention of discount codes.

I think there's a happy medium between a price that would completely sell out the resort, and a price that you have to book and pray for a discount, cancelling the reservation if one isn't offered.

 

[Mimas]

Is it really price gouging if someone else is willing to pay for it? This isn't gasoline or food items, it's recreation. I'm sure the people at WDW have some sort of business model in place and do all sorts of background research before setting rates for a certain time period. At least I hope they do. If they find that the same people that pay $300/night now will still stay if the rates are bumped to $350/night, then they will raise those rates. And why shouldn't they? It would be stupid not to from a dollars and cents perspective. I'm sure Disney considers themselves to have a certain aura or reputaion about them where they think of thenselves as the BMW or Lexus of resorts (the deluxe ones, anyway. Maybe the moderates can be Pontiac and the value can be Kia). No one accuses BMW or Lexus of gouging becuase they're luxury cars. Anyway, before I ramble on too much more, the point is if enough people are willing to pay, it's not price gouging to the seller.

 

[MelissathePooh]

"However, one shouldn't forget that that staying at a WDW in 1982 was a very special thing. There were only 2 resorts and the Golf Villas and it was damned near impossible to get a reservation unless it was for years in advance. That exclusivity was a part of that $105. Now remember, that $105 was for the lagoon view. I believe the garden view rooms were $75 or $85. "

In 1982 there was the Contemporary, The Polynesian, Fort Wilderness, The Disney Inn and The Treehouse Villas along with the Disney Village (Downtown Disney) hotels.

"VIKING - I understand that location plays a part in other properties, but take a look at my post again and re-read the rest of that paragraph. Wildnerness Lodge is in a MUCH better location than Animal Kingdom Lodge, but WL rooms are substantially cheaper than Animal Kingdom Lodge. Likewise, I would say that Port Orleans (both FQ and the former DXL) are in a much better location than Caribbean Beach, but Caribbean Beach is more expensive. I think it's got a lot more to do with amenities and size at Disney than location. I'm not at all saying I'm right! Just my very humble opinion."

Wilderness Lodge - although a better location, does not have live animals outside the balconies. While rack rates may be different, discounted rates for the two resorts are typically the same rate.

Where did you see that Caribbean Beach was more expensive than DxL and PO? All the moderates are priced (at least have always been) price the same? The only difference is for a waterview or king bed. Discounts may differ at the various moderates as one may have more bookings and not offer a discount that the others have, but this is pretty uncommon. I'm not saying your wrong - please don't take this that way - just curious where you got this information.

 

[SnackyStacky]

I would consider the live animals an amenity, which makes my argument still stand, that location may not play as much of a part in the pricing scheme as might be believed.

My bad. Last time I looked at CBR, it was slightly more expensive for the same view as the rest of the moderates. But I believe that I was looking when the French Quarter was open, which may have changed the prices.

 

[DisneyKidds]

If they find that the same people that pay $300/night now will still stay if the rates are bumped to $350/night, then they will raise those rates. And why shouldn't they? It would be stupid not to from a dollars and cents perspective.

In a purely capitalist environment I'd generally agree with you. Whatever the market will bear is what you charge. That's what most businesses do.

While at times in his life Walt's patriotism made him stand up for the capitalist system and the production of profit, I don't believe he ever let those ideals be the primary driving force behind his actions. Walt has his own ideas.............and created a new and different business model. While we can debate how extensive the "value" truely was, I don't believe thet Baron is mistaken when he points out that the original business model that WDW operated under was one where you received greater value than you could get at any other resort. Pricing most likely played a part in that. I'm sure that they could have charged more for their resorts back in 1971. So why shouldn't they have...........and why didn't they?

I belive that you are right that dollars and cents are what may have driven the decisions. Those concerned with shorter term, what the markrt will deliver this quarter, dollars and cents will let the market determine their pricing. Those with an uncanny eye to long term dollars and cents may find a way to establish pricing that makes those who come want to come back again.........and again..........and again. If the market today will bear that $350, will the same hold true tomorrow, and will the person that paid the $350 feel they received such a great value that they won't care? Maybe a lot of folks will pay that $350 today, but if those same people aren't lining up to pay it tomorrow you have lost an opportunity for a long term relationship...........and the success that goes with it.

Balancing market vs. value pricing is a tricky thing. I think they did a better job with that balancing act in the past.............and would be better served trying to brush up on that act a little more today................and that comes from someone who doesn't think the resorts are that overpriced to begin with.

 

[jwsqrdplus2]

To begin with, let me say that I have not read all of the responses to this debate.

Now...having just returned from a trip in the CR (which we got through SOG) that we really enjoyed, I have to say WDW are overpriced! I could not believe that the rack rate for our room was $239/night in value season (we paid $95/night). I understand location, but I can get a the same size room with a full up mini fridge and pool for less than $100/night just about anywhere in the country. Including Orlando (if I am willing to stay off-site, which I am). I have stayed in a 3-br condo with full kitchen, pool, etc for $90/night less than 2 mile from WDW. Big picture...unless WDW's prices become more realistic, we will stay off-site (still cheaper when you consider parking) in the future. The only exception would be SOG availability/discounts at other WDW resots. I will get better deals elsewhere and will express my feelings by staying off-site.

 

[KNWVIKING]

**"Now...having just returned from a trip in the CR (which we got through SOG) that we really enjoyed, I have to say WDW are overpriced! I could not believe that the rack rate for our room was $239/night in value season (we paid $95/night). I understand location, but I can get a the same size room with a full up mini fridge and pool for less than $100/night just about anywhere in the country."**

I sorta had to scratch my head when I read your post. First you state CR is over priced at 239 rack, but you follow up by saying you only paid 95: What difference does it make then what rack is.Who pays rack. Second, you say you understand location, but then say you can stay anywhere in the country for 100. Well, in this case location is WDW so a big room for 100 bucks in Kansas isn't a great price.Location is why they can charge what they charge.

If all I wanted was aroom and a pool near Disney, then I could stay on I-drive or Irlo Bronson for 30 bucks a nite.

 

[Planogirl]

This has been an interesting thread and the overwhelming agreement seems to be that location is the primary feature that a traveler is paying for at Disneyworld. The only question is whether that location is worth whatever Disney happens to be charging at that time. This is simply a subjective decision.

There are wonderful resorts close to WDW that often have specials. I recently discovered a good deal at the Peabody and I don't particularly mind driving. If I were going to Orlando at this time, the Peabody would have likely been my choice. But I do enjoy staying onsite IF the resort is worth the price to me. It may not be if it's too high and that number will be different for each one of us.

If I read jwsqrdplus2's comments correctly, she was just saying that the rack rate of the Contemporary is not worth the cost to her but the resort was definitely worth the special price that she received. I have paid rack rate, once at the Polynesian and once at the Allstars. I would pay rack rate for the Polynesian if I had the money. I would not pay rack rate for the Allstars because I did not care much for them. Again, just a subjective opinion and not worth much.

 

[aalan]

maybe. but so is a mercedes, designer clothes, and high end stereo gear.

the appeal to staying ongrounds is being in the "magic" 24 hours a day. some folks love this, some would rather eat their own frozen pizza in their off-site kitchenette.

back in the 70's, my family always stayed off-site in kissimmee: my parents just couldnt afford to stay on-site. and it was difficult to get a reservation in those days, even if you could afford it. we always had a great time, and some of those memories i cherish indeed. (hey, i can remember being at mk at 1:30 a.m.!)

later on after i got married and moved to the west palm beach area, my wife and i did the same thing: stayed offsite at the econo lodge or motel 8. hey, we still had fun.

but one year i suprised my wife with a visit at cbr. and that changed everything. for us, if we are going to go, we like to stay on grounds. the moderates are nice, although i wish they had things like refrigerators, irons, and coffee makers, some of the BASICS that other hotels provide.

we recently spent 3 days at akl, and enjoyed it very much. yeah, its pricey. and while the "magic" does indeed continue to get chipped away at, i still think its worth it. when you stay on grounds, the rest of the world melts away, and thats what i love about our trips to disney.

 

[crusader]

I think they did a better job with that balancing act in the past.............and would be better served trying to brush up on that act a little more today.

I'm assuming you are referring to close to 30 years ago when they still had the ability to maneuver demand within a market niche and had less on-site accomodations to control. In the 80's, the moderates were new and exciting to many who never had the ability to afford an on-site stay without a camper. Add-in the various vacation package pricing strategies including the airline affiliations and magic kingdom cards and you had the customer sold.

I don't really believe it is simply a matter of management doing a better job in the past. It is more along the lines of the company utilizing its' monopoly to virtually dominate the accomodations market by providing a more affordable alternative to the off-site competition.

You have that ability at a point in time which carries forward.

Universal is experiencing a similar situation within their surroundings. But this will ultimately max out at a certain level - which really should be expected rather than considered a tactical failure.

 

[DancingBear]

Originally posted by MelissathePooh
[BIn 1982 there was the Contemporary, The Polynesian, Fort Wilderness, The Disney Inn and The Treehouse Villas along with the Disney Village (Downtown Disney) hotels.[/B]

Yeah, and I remember the Disney theming that the Disney Inn and the Treehouse Villas had that made them so special.

 

[Aisling]

Although I wish the room prices were lower, I don't think they're overpriced. I live in NYC, and yes, hotels here can be a lot less than the $450 a night Disney charges for deluxe. But with the Disney resorts you get all the extras, the theming, the activities, the grounds. However beautiful the parkside Waldorf Astoria is or the midtown Sheraton, they don't have all the extras that the Disney resorts have. There are people who go to the Disney resorts and not even go to the parks, not even leave the resort grounds, because the resorts are an experience in themselves. I don't know of anyone who checks into the Pierre and has so much to do there that they never leave the premises. That's the difference, to me.