Are all Disney resort perks fair?

[momof2n2]

1.) ALL "perks" are based on individual perception.
2.) WDW does not have enough on-property rooms to accommodate all the guests.

 

[itchin2go]

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.

In my experience, this is simply not true, if we're comparing apples to apples. The cheapest comparable DVC rental is 3.5 times more expensive than what I'm paying for similar (in fact larger and somewhat nicer) facilities offsite. (Numbers from David's Vacation Rental website). Even staying in a standard room at a value resort will cost more than my 2 BR, 2BA poolview villa offsite.

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.

I think we're talking about tangible (i.e. measurable) benefits like a 30 day jump on FP booking and EMH.

 

[larryz]

It would be hard to quantify how much each person spends though.

Just a wild guess, but the MagicBands have gone a long way to amassing exactly just that data.

 

[larryz]

Great points. Prior to moving to SoCal last year, I refused to stay at onsite Disney hotels at Disneyland because they are too overpriced, without any real benefits, and they lack the Disney Bubble. But I only stay onsite at WDW, and usually at Deluxe resorts. I just prefer being immersed in the WDW experience. You simply can't get that at Disneyland.

Staying at the Grand Californian is close, especially with an inside courtyard view.

 

[larryz]

Honestly, I'm not being nasty. The idea of sitting on a bus with over-stimulated, sweaty, balloon-laden tourists gives me the shivers. Even if I were staying on property I'd have a car. That could NEVER be an incentive to me.

To be fair, it's more than just the bus. We stay at WL for the boats to CR and MK. And we like YC for the option of taking the boat or walking to Epcot and DHS.

 

[larryz]

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"

I was looking at "special deal" pricing at the Contemporary yesterday, and it showed room only of just over a grand for the first week of November... for that, I'd expect a LOT of perks...

 

[larryz]

you know there's not going to be ... flashing boobs and such.

I don't think they'll ever be able to stop inconsiderate photographers in the dark rides.

 

[msb578]

I was looking at "special deal" pricing at the Contemporary yesterday, and it showed room only of just over a grand for the first week of November... for that, I'd expect a LOT of perks...

I'm a big Disney resort guy, and a big "it's supply and demand" guy. But yes, at some point the aforementioned Four Seasons (inside the walls of WDW) starts to look like a better value.

I know, only a "fool" pays rack rate, but still!

 

[Shaden]

I was looking at "special deal" pricing at the Contemporary yesterday, and it showed room only of just over a grand for the first week of November... for that, I'd expect a LOT of perks...

I'd agree, but whats interesting is for many of the different resorts, and VERY different prices, the "Perks" are no different.

I think the on site perks are fair, except for the 30/60 split of FP+. And to be fair we have always and only stayed on site, so we benefit from that "Perk" ... I just think we are all paying the same for the use of the parks and the attractions, so we should all have the same access.

 

[momof2n2]

To be fair, it's more than just the bus. We stay at WL for the boats to CR and MK. And we like YC for the option of taking the boat or walking to Epcot and DHS.

Yes, and I did apologize for my hyperbole up thread it a bit.

 

[momof2n2]

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.

Nice to see new posters here!

When the perks get to a place I see them as perky, I'll try this DVC point idea.

With a party of 10, there will need to be more perks, though.

 

[larryz]

Yes, and I did apologize for my hyperbole up thread it a bit.

No need for apologies -- many resorts, all you get is the bus.

 

[JanieMc]

While there are many lovely places to stay for a WDW vacation, there are also many not so nice along with a lot of junky tourist traps and orange cones that I'd have to look at in between. I want the magic 24/7. Walt discovered his mistake after building DL and thankfully bought a lot of property to preserve that bubble as much as possible. I can snap back to reality after vacation, I don't want to do it on a daily basis.

But to each their own- WDW offers everyone the choice of enjoying all the perks they offer. One simply has to decide if they want to buy it or not.

I totally agree. Definitely, there are great offsite choices, and I understand why people make them, but you really have to know what you're doing, and know your way around. Everyone claims to be "1/4 mile from Disney," and everyone posts photos of when their hotel was pristine. I've done both, but I choose onsite for simplicity, and theming, and... simplicity. The stuff I don't have to worry about, like what time we have to get up to get to the shuttle, get to the parking lot, etc etc. Just that. Knowing that I'll get the "Disney service" no matter what we do. We also book through travel agents and get up to 40% off a deluxe. My choice is to travel at the low times and pay less. We don't have to battle the usual crowds, and our stay is considerably cheaper. So we go at the least popular times. There are sooo many factors. What I don't really get is *some* (not all-and NOT meaning OP, who asked a good question) offsite people who take issue with the perks that I get for the effort I make in traveling when my family gets the best rates. They do what suits their families best; why can't I without having to explain or debate? There is no way to have it all ways, and everything appears to be laid clear to me. It is the way it is. It's my suspicion that some of the people who've actively argued with me about "throwing my money away" staying onsite and choosing "frivolous theming" (which I adore) actively choose to stay offsite to "spite the Disney business model." "They're already getting a king's ransom in ticket sales--why should I give them more just to listen to Mickey wake me up in the morning? Humbug." Seriously. There's a lot more to it than that, but many of us like what all those little Disney touches add up to, which is delightful. And, I dare say--just as cheap when you know where to look. Never mind that, the off-siters will argue that it's unfair I get more perks. It's a personality type, imho.

 

[Planogirl]

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.

I've looked into renting DVC points but I've never found a good deal. I know that they sometimes happen but they seem to disappear when I get ready to book. Plus some of the DVC accommodations don't appeal much to me. For me I not only need enough perks but I want the resort to be the right fit.

By the way, I was set to welcome you too but you've been here for two years and have just now posted? I could never be that quiet.

 

[itchin2go]

I totally agree. Definitely, there are great offsite choices, and I understand why people make them, but you really have to know what you're doing, and know your way around. Everyone claims to be "1/4 mile from Disney," and everyone posts photos of when their hotel was pristine. I've done both, but I choose onsite for simplicity, and theming, and... simplicity. The stuff I don't have to worry about, like what time we have to get up to get to the shuttle, get to the parking lot, etc etc. Just that. Knowing that I'll get the "Disney service" no matter what we do. We also book through travel agents and get up to 40% off a deluxe. My choice is to travel at the low times and pay less. We don't have to battle the usual crowds, and our stay is considerably cheaper. So we go at the least popular times. There are sooo many factors. What I don't really get is *some* (not all-and NOT meaning OP, who asked a good question) offsite people who take issue with the perks that I get for the effort I make in traveling when my family gets the best rates. They do what suits their families best; why can't I without having to explain or debate? There is no way to have it all ways, and everything appears to be laid clear to me. It is the way it is. It's my suspicion that some of the people who've actively argued with me about "throwing my money away" staying onsite and choosing "frivolous theming" (which I adore) actively choose to stay offsite to "spite the Disney business model." "They're already getting a king's ransom in ticket sales--why should I give them more just to listen to Mickey wake me up in the morning? Humbug." Seriously. There's a lot more to it than that, but many of us like what all those little Disney touches add up to, which is delightful. And, I dare say--just as cheap when you know where to look. Never mind that, the off-siters will argue that it's unfair I get more perks. It's a personality type, imho.

For me, at least, you don't have to explain your choices. I think everyone should stay exactly where they want to stay.

I like Disney theming as well; we had really good onsite experiences. However, we had the opportunity to stay offsite for free one year. I worried it would be a nightmare. It wasn't. Once we stayed offsite and liked it, I had trouble justifying the cost of onsite. I could spend $2800 per week for the cheapest DVC 2 BR villa (renting points) or I can pay less than $800 offsite for a larger pool view 2 BR villa ... very close to Disney. I don't do it to "spite Disney" nor does that even make sense to me. We go to the parks nearly every day we're there. We eat on property and I am a close personal friend of many Disney gift shops.

We used to go during value season (January), but we can't anymore because my daughter is getting older and missing a week of school takes a toll on her grades. So anyway, there are lots of reasons people make the decisions they do. Regardless, it would still be more expensive to stay onsite, in comparable quarters.

As galling as it is to you that people insinuate that you're throwing money away, it's similarly as galling to me that people think I must be staying in a dump, driving a long distance to the parks each day, not spending any money at the parks or resorts, getting poor service, or parking light years away from the parks, taking smelly trams and burning up in a 400 degree car, and forced to endure the indignity of DRIVING to the parks (not that you said any of those things, but others did ...). It's just not like that.

 

[mommycrawford]

I stay onsite and can not utilize Magical Express because I travel by train....Disney saves money, but I do not get any reimbursement. I choose to stay onsite, and choose to take a train: Disney is not responsible for this, so to expect any compensation would be silly, (though I'd love it!) I do not think that is unfair: unfortunate maybe. It is a "perk" of staying on property, but not one that makes me choose to Disney hotels (nor do magic hours anymore.)

Hotels offer certain services: pools, gyms, shuttles, restaurants, etc.. If I do not take advantage of these perks, that is on me....I think it is what we value when we are booking that makes the difference, and I don't think "fair" comes into it much, as vacations are luxuries, and we all have limits to what we can have available to us.

Have a great vacation!

 

[cakebaker]

burning up in a 400 degree car

In all fairness, my comment about the 400 degree car was in response to being told that me using Disney busses meant I was packed in a bus with hot sweaty tourists, screaming kids and balloons. 400 degrees is hyperbole no doubt, as is the sweaty bus description.

I think if everyone would just be happy with their choices without knocking other people's choices we'd be a lot better off. The problem I see is some people want the benefits of staying off site, but they want the benefits of being on site as well.

I won't begrudge you your kitchen and 3 bedrooms if you won't begrudge me my 60 day window. Not directed at any one person- just in general.

 

[momof2n2]

I don't begrudge anyone anything. If people are happy to get what they get for whatever it is they are paying, far be it from me to suggest it's not enough for them.

And I don't decide where to stay to "spite" anyone. We make our choices to bless ourselves. I've found a way to have all that I want for the prices I'm willing to pay.

 

[cakebaker]

I've found a way to have all that I want for the prices I'm willing to pay.

I'm not there yet- but I want DVC at the poly so I have a ways to go!

 

[Beansidhe]

By the way, I was set to welcome you too but you've been here for two years and have just now posted? I could never be that quiet.

Thank you for the welcome. I tend to be very quiet, but this thread was one that really caught my eye. My sister is the same way and is a member as well. She's the more chatty one with a humongous 40 posts (j/k).

I think that what people forget is when it comes to Disney there is a wide array of available options at different price points. Next year will be the first time we use DVC. I won't lie it is expensive, but this will be our mother's first trip to WDW (or any Disney property) and we want it to be the trip of a lifetime, so we're willing to pay to make it happen.

For us, staying at AKL, and having a savannah view room where my mom can see the animals was critically important. My mother uses a wheel chair, and I have health issues that can limit what I am able to do, this means I need a place that I can be comfortable should I have a flare while I'm there. When my sister and I priced the trip we found that using DVC at AKL with deluxe dining checked off several important boxes for us. The first box was the savannah view, the second was the option to have bedrooms separated from the main area, and the third was a dining plan that was paid for up front to avoid some issues with our mother getting upset over the cost of the food. Also, we found that when compared to the Poly, our original choice, we saved enough money that we could add four people to our trip and not cause us to suffer a financial catastrophe. For us the most important thing is giving our mother the ultimate Disney/AK experience. Yes, we could spend a lot less money and still have an amazing time, we've done it several times. This planned trip is our vacation version of the Holy Grail, not only is this our mother's first trip, it will also be her great-grandson's first trip, and we want to enjoy it.

I think that when it comes to planning your Disney vacation you have to do what works best for you. If that means staying offsite, go for it. If staying onsite with the ability to book FPs and ADRs earlier, having free parking, and access to Disney Transportation is what you need then do that. What is most important is that you do what works best for you and enjoy your time joining the cult of Disney.