Are all Disney resort perks fair?

[lockedoutlogic]

Duplicate

 

[whiporee]

Not to wade into these shark infested waters...

But I think both of these things are bad trends...

Like everything at Disney, it comes down to a factor of crowds. They're consistently busier -- and busier all year round -- now than the park can maintain and allow everyone to have a reasonably good time. So the parties give you the chance to spend more money/hour for the opportunity to have fewer crowds. But like everything Disney, people catch on, and Disney's never been good at saying "no" to customers until the last minute. So even the parties -- which used to be a haven for hose willing to spend to avoid crowds -- are becoming more and more crowded. And as they get more crowded, the perks of the parties become less and less. I don't think the Villains thing was anything more than a reaction to too many people wanting to do the meet and greets, and that's a function of too many people being at the park for the party.

I won't be surprised if the same thing starts to happen to the VIP tours. Maybe not the big one, but the thrill rides one. It's 300 bucks per person (I know, a whole lot) but you can hit all the thrill rides in a day. Maybe they'll come up with an ultimate Meet and Greet tour (hit everyone in all the parks with a guide for $300 or something like it, along with special seating for the parades and Wishes). Some people would pay it, for sure, in order to maximize their fun, and in the scheme of some of these vacation costs, it's not that much more for a perfect day at the parks rather than three mediocre ones.

In the end you can't really blame anyone for any of this. Like someone said upthread, Disney really doesn't want to start denying people entry, whether they stay at the resort or not. And you can't blame people for wanting to get the most possible enjoyment out of their vacation. There are just too many people who want to go. And it's hard to blame any of them, because we're the same way.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Madness is still madness...even if it has the support of "capitalism"

 

[whiporee]

Madness is still madness...even if it has the support of "capitalism"

I don't think it's capitalism -- it's wish fulfillment on a massive scale and marketing. If Disney decided to forgo profit and become an 501c, and reduce all prices by half, all that would happen is that even more people would come to the parks, there would be more crowds and more frustrations about the availability of rides, rooms and ADRs. It doesn't have anything to do with making more money (okay, maybe a little), it has to do with increased and unrelenting demand.

 

[Planogirl]

I don't think it's capitalism -- it's wish fulfillment on a massive scale and marketing. If Disney decided to forgo profit and become an 501c, and reduce all prices by half, all that would happen is that even more people would come to the parks, there would be more crowds and more frustrations about the availability of rides, rooms and ADRs. It doesn't have anything to do with making more money (okay, maybe a little), it has to do with increased and unrelenting demand.

That demand is bizarre and puzzling at the same time. People seem to just ignore the higher and higher cost of all things Disney in their constant quest to do it all. There has to be a limit somewhere.

 

[momof2n2]

That demand is bizarre and puzzling at the same time. People seem to just ignore the higher and higher cost of all things Disney in their constant quest to do it all. There has to be a limit somewhere.

Excellent quote. Completely agree with you, and not saying it is good or bad. It seems that there has always been those super-fans (some here, I'm sure) that thirst to experience all things Disney.
ABD is a great example. Has nothing to do with the mouse...

 

[Ariel Wanna-be]

Excellent quote. Completely agree with you, and not saying it is good or bad. It seems that there has always been those super-fans (some here, I'm sure) that thirst to experience all things Disney.
ABD is a great example. Has nothing to do with the mouse...

I am drawing a blank...what is ABD?

.

 

[Angel Ariel]

adventures by disney

 

[momof2n2]

I am drawing a blank...what is ABD?

.

Adventures by Disney
(I asked the same question about two weeks ago! - see how groovy I am using my new lingo?)

 

[Ariel Wanna-be]

Ah....gotcha.

I actually looked into ABD a couple of months ago for an upcoming trip to Europe...while they get rave reviews, the prices are obscene.

.

 

[Beansidhe]

Are "extras" for onsite guests unfair? The answer is an unequivocal no. Honestly, those who choose to stay onsite at a Disney property do so to immerse themselves in the experience. That is what I do, and I expect to pay more for it. If you think that you are saving money by staying off property then do so, but do not expect something for nothing. You pay for a ticket to enter the park when you stay off property, I do the same when I stay on property. That ticket gets you into the parks, access to the characters, etc. That's all. I get to book my dining reservations at 180 + LS, because I am paying to do so it's part of the reason I choose to stay on property. When I come to WDW I have no intention of exploring the surrounding area, I'm not going to Universal, I am there for Disney that's all. I don't drive when I am there, because I don't want to. I want a carefree, simple vacation in my "happy place". I want to relax, swim in a nice pool, and enjoy all things Disney.

Perks are designed as bait to get people to stay onsite, and I consider myself hooked. If an offsite property means you don't get the perks at Disney you might get some perks from wherever you choose to stay that Disney doesn't offer. It is really that simple. If you don't like the fact that you don't get the perk, then stay on property. There are many options that make it just as affordable to stay on property as staying off property. For example, next year my sister and I will be taking a family trip to WDW in December. After researching options, we found that renting DVC points will give us all the advantages and "perks" of staying on property with the added luxuries that are important to us at a more reasonable price point. A price point that will allow us to take nine people instead of the original five that we had intended to take.

 

[whiporee]

That demand is bizarre and puzzling at the same time. People seem to just ignore the higher and higher cost of all things Disney in their constant quest to do it all. There has to be a limit somewhere.

I think it's because that with Disney, you're assured a vacation that will be at least decent. There are better vacations you can have, but others can go bad. The thing about Disney is you know there's a level of competence you can count on, you know it's going to be okay for your kids to be around, you know there's not going to be drunken college kids tearing up the pool and flashing boobs and such.

And when you compare them to other "family" places where there's a cocoon, Disney's not that much more expensive. Have you ever looked at how much Beaches is? Every year we go to a dude ranch and it's as much as our Disney trip. People are willing to pay a premium for the cocoon, even if they aren't staying onsite.

 

[kaytieeldr]

I haven't read the other responses completely but I'll give you my thoughts anyway. I do agree with you.

First of all some people say that Disney gets more money from people who stay onsite. That isn't necessarily true. Those who stay in budget resorts might actually spend less than those who stay offsite and eat at signatures and buy a lot of souvenirs. It would be hard to quantify how much each person spends though.
But this assumes eveyone who stays in Value resorts is on alimited budget, and everyone who stays in a Deluxe resort has unlimited spending money. You know that's not accurate from years of posts.

Also, I believe that once you buy a pass you should have equal access to the parks as anyone else even if it means paying for it. I've believed since FP+ started and changed the whole fastpass system to one that favors those who stay onsite.
Spending more of one's total vacation money at/on Walt Disney World products and services is a reasonable trade-off for more overall venue amenities.

Finally, yes Universal gives free Express to those who stay in their deluxe resorts but at least I can buy them there and thus level the playing field. I can't do that at WDW.

According to Touring Plans, WDW has over 30,600 rooms. Universal has 4,200. Aside from the logistics, clearly The Disney Company feels everybody is equal inside the parks.

If you were paying $765 a night you'd be one of two things - a multimillionaire or crazy.
Grand Floridian is MUCH more expensive than the other deluxes, and $765 is close to their top rate. It makes zero sense to pay that for "free dining"

Or just have a high discretionary vacation budget.
In response to another post I can't find right now, and these calculations were done in my head, a 35% discount off this room would be $267.65.
The regular dining plan costs $60.04 per adult. Two adults and two teens is a $240.20 value. Add in another teen and you're up over $300 per night.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

That demand is bizarre and puzzling at the same time. People seem to just ignore the higher and higher cost of all things Disney in their constant quest to do it all. There has to be a limit somewhere.

Indeed...in "good times"... Which we've been told we're living in in the US - but nobody seems to believe beyond the mouthpieces at the top...

Disney has become the leisure equivalent of "too big to fail"

I'm fascinated for how the wdw market reacts to the pricing structure when this bubble breaks...because its inevitable. If it really even survives at all.

When people are "happy"...there's no stopping Disney.
But that isn't always the case...hasn't been and won't be.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

I think it's because that with Disney, you're assured a vacation that will be at least decent. There are better vacations you can have, but others can go bad. The thing about Disney is you know there's a level of competence you can count on, you know it's going to be okay for your kids to be around, you know there's not going to be drunken college kids tearing up the pool and flashing boobs and such.

And when you compare them to other "family" places where there's a cocoon, Disney's not that much more expensive. Have you ever looked at how much Beaches is? Every year we go to a dude ranch and it's as much as our Disney trip. People are willing to pay a premium for the cocoon, even if they aren't staying onsite.

Excellent...that is the key to the puzzle.

The name and the rep is what drives their business...definitely in Florida at least...

What I - and many ask - is that are they really gambling down the road by the current trend that seems to indicate that they feel ONLY THE IP matters.

Hence the lack of capital investment additions included in the costs for all consumers... And pathetic moves like the frozen overlay in EPCOT and new overflow capacity in aging rides like midway mania and soarin - as opposed to new investment to strengthen the parks and even out the crowds.

 

[ArwenMarie]

Like everything at Disney, it comes down to a factor of crowds. They're consistently busier -- and busier all year round -- now than the park can maintain and allow everyone to have a reasonably good time. So the parties give you the chance to spend more money/hour for the opportunity to have fewer crowds. But like everything Disney, people catch on, and Disney's never been good at saying "no" to customers until the last minute. So even the parties -- which used to be a haven for hose willing to spend to avoid crowds -- are becoming more and more crowded. And as they get more crowded, the perks of the parties become less and less. I don't think the Villains thing was anything more than a reaction to too many people wanting to do the meet and greets, and that's a function of too many people being at the park for the party.

I won't be surprised if the same thing starts to happen to the VIP tours. Maybe not the big one, but the thrill rides one. It's 300 bucks per person (I know, a whole lot) but you can hit all the thrill rides in a day. Maybe they'll come up with an ultimate Meet and Greet tour (hit everyone in all the parks with a guide for $300 or something like it, along with special seating for the parades and Wishes). Some people would pay it, for sure, in order to maximize their fun, and in the scheme of some of these vacation costs, it's not that much more for a perfect day at the parks rather than three mediocre ones.

In the end you can't really blame anyone for any of this. Like someone said upthread, Disney really doesn't want to start denying people entry, whether they stay at the resort or not. And you can't blame people for wanting to get the most possible enjoyment out of their vacation. There are just too many people who want to go. And it's hard to blame any of them, because we're the same way.

The parties are getting more crowded because of demand, but shouldn't Disney cut off attendance at some point so the value of the party stops decreasing? At the same time they keep raising prices. I might be reading your comment wrong, but I don't think this is because Disney is so kind they don't want to say no to anyone.

Ditto for the parks when they are too crowded.

 

[DVCcurious]

The thing about Disney is you know there's a level of competence you can count on

And this is why my family goes back year after year. We tried a few different things. A few years ago we went to the Jersey Shore and came home with Bed Bugs. It turns out the entire Jersey Shore is infested with them.

We've always had fun at WDW. We've decided to take the "fun" we know rather than gamble for "more fun' somewhere else.

you know there's not going to be drunken college kids tearing up the pool and flashing boobs and such.

YEAH! Right on! I HATE when that happens!



Anyone know where I can find some college kids flashing boobs?

 

[ArwenMarie]

And this is why my family goes back year after year. We tried a few different things. A few years ago we went to the Jersey Shore and came home with Bed Bugs. It turns out the entire Jersey Shore is infested with them.

We've always had fun at WDW. We've decided to take the "fun" we know rather than gamble for "more fun' somewhere else.

Same here. WDW is reliably fun for my family right now, at the stage/ages of my kids.

We tried a Shore week (LBI) a few years ago...just did not work for us. And then we ended up at Fantasy Island every night blowing gobs of money. We're just not beach people. Finding meals was tough too, not many restaurants, they are all pretty crowded at dinner, and I sure wasn't going to cook on vacation LOL

WDW is easy.

 

[Dreamscome2ru]

Intangible benefits and the value of quality is it not something that everyone understands. Those who do are willing to pay for it. Some understand it but are not willing to pay for. Everybody can make their own choice as to what is worth the exchange of their own money.

If you don't understand the intangible benefits and value of the quality of an on-site stay, or don't think it's worth the money, just leave at that. No need to resort to sour grapes. It's just something you're not willing to pay for it. That's your choice.

 

[kiford]

I know this post sounded smug...but I am just trying to point out the many benefits of staying offsite. I realize it is not for everyone, but it has truly been a great blessing for me and my family. Give it a try! You'll NEVER go back.

Those poor suckers are getting seriously jobbed when it comes to perks in my opinion...

Did you not just contradict yourself? You say that you realize that staying offsite is not for everyone but that if you give it a try you'll never go back to staying at WDW? This is a personal value judgement. Some of the things that you say are not of any value as perks onsite are of value to me; many of the things that you state as perks to staying offsite are not of value to me.

There's no need to to belittle people who have a different opinion and who have different values than you. I choose to spend my money in ways that enhance my personal experience and pleasure, whether it's at WDW or in Rome. How I spend that may be very different than you or others but that doesn't make me a sucker because I pay more for something that you don't think is valuable. If I choose to pay for a 5-star hotel in Rome when a less expensive option will still give me a room to sleep in but do not choose to pay for a concierge room on a cruise because I won't use the services is all based on my own value system, not yours. If you are happy to stay offsite because you perceive it to be of greater value to you, that's great. You should be happy that you are able to find that and don't have to stay somewhere that you don't feel that you are getting value, but don't tell me that I'm a sucker for valuing something differently than you when I have the financial means to pay for it and feel that it is of value to me.