car #1 or #2 people???

[raidermatt]

Senor Scoop-

It was in reference to this comment-

..and I'm sorry but for the average person that does not look for these types of offers/deals/codes is a ......

 

[BRERALEX]

i have the time look all over and gladly do it for my family but like my dad who in the past didnt know i could hook him up he just called and booked concierge services without thinking twice.

and he doesnt have huge amoutns of wealth but he's still not a sucker. He saw a price and if thats the price thats the price.

i dont see anything wrong with that. some people have lives unlike me

ive checked into a resort at disney and thought damn is the person in front of me getting this place for the price i am? i dont think hahah sucker. thats just sad.

 

[All Aboard]

Using your logic, if they don't return, you must cut hours because attendance is down again.

You've slammed into my #1 concern, because I think that IS the logic at Disney right now. And, on the converse, I fear that if attendance does rise, that operating hours may not return.

One of the hardest things to sell is increases in variable operating expenses just because business is "up." Everything needs to be revenue justified. If you cannot point directly to how much more rev you are going to get, the costs are not going to fly. ME said it himself when he referenced ongoing cuts as being "taken to the bottom line" when business returns.

 

[EUROPA]

Originally posted by BRERALEX
i have the time look all over and gladly do it for my family but like my dad who in the past didnt know i could hook him up he just called and booked concierge services without thinking twice.

and he doesnt have huge amoutns of wealth but he's still not a sucker. He saw a price and if thats the price thats the price.

i dont see anything wrong with that. some people have lives unlike me

ive checked into a resort at disney and thought damn is the person in front of me getting this place for the price i am? i dont think hahah sucker. thats just sad.

Sorry everybody for draging this out....but...

I don't go around thinking ha I got this room for X amount and that person paid XX amount. The only time the price of something comes into the picture with me is if I'm paying for it. I could personaly care less if you paid 100 while I paid 50. The park I would have problem with if you paid 50 and I paid 100. Then I would think that I've been "suckered". DO you see the difference?

Some people don't like looking for discounts or talking a car salesman down on the price of a car. Thats fine. Some people consider there time more valiuable then that. Everybody has their breaking point, at which something would just be considered not a good deal. According to you ,your father has no probelm with paying rack rate for concierge. I would. If I did I would consider myself a sucker for doing so espically if I knew that it could be had for a sizeable discount.

 

[Walt's Frozen Head]

The issue isn't really whether I think "man, that guy is a sucker for paying rack rate," it's whether the incremental profit they're making off of the guy at that moment is worth the gamble that he might end up thinking _Disney_ is treating him as a sucker.

If your customers decide they can't trust you, you're boned. End of story.

I think Disney has created an environment such that their customers, to a greater and greater extent, are discovering that they can't trust Disney to give the same kind of value the company once did; and that this is causing more and more people to do some mental math, at a time when Disney is taking gambles with their basic equations.

I agree with Greg, that Eisner's comments indicating that the budget cuts are expected to deliver the big results once attendance improves are tacit admission that the bulk of the cuts are strategic long-term cuts, not emergency temporary cuts.

-WFH

 

[mjstaceyuofm]

Now, if you only do the parks and care about nothing but being at the parks, well, this obviously holds less true. But, more and more every time we go, we find ourselves spending less time at the parks and more at the many other options which WDW now provides as opposed to in years past by...

You spend less time in the parks because a) the parks aren't open as long, b) the parks have less to offer than in years past (as evidenced by numerous attraction closures w/ no replacements), c) Disney wants you to spend more time at DTD, or playing mini-golf, or seeing La Nouba, or buying over-priced drinks on PI, etc., etc., etc...

My big problem with this is you pay to get into the parks. When the parks close early, you're forced into doing other things that typically cost you even more money. Disney intentionally structures things this way - that's what upsets me... And frankly, these other venues can be ridiculously overcrowded when Disney flubs its calculations on guests and hours. Case in point - ever been to DTD in February when the MK, AK, FW in Epcot all close by 7:00? It's absolutely ridiculous! You can't move let alone do any constructive shopping (translation: money-dumping into Disney's pockets....) It's a defeatist scenario

 

[BRERALEX]

My big problem with this is you pay to get into the parks. When the parks close early, you're forced into doing other things that typically cost you even more money. Disney intentionally structures things this way - that's what upsets me...

AMEN

I think Disney has created an environment such that their customers, to a greater and greater extent, are discovering that they can't trust Disney to give the same kind of value the company once did; and that this is causing more and more people to do some mental math, at a time when Disney is taking gambles with their basic equations.

AMEN

According to you ,your father has no probelm with paying rack rate for concierge. I would. If I did I would consider myself a sucker for doing so espically if I knew that it could be had for a sizeable discount.

well theres the thing he never knew of codes till i told him and thats why i was saying i wouldnt call other people suckers in a gnereal statement that people who pay rack rates are suckers.

i even further said as a joke i have no life like others to go crazy looking for codes changing dates rechanging dates and sometimes changing dates again like i read about on the dis doing

and yeah time its just too essential for some to even save a hundred or two. everyone is different.

and blanket statements like people who pay rack rates are considered suckers is ignorant. like i said before real simple. i dont wanna drag this out either.

actually i dont care either way cause on the 26th ill be in SUPER ROSE COLORED GLASSES MODE sipping my something polynesian drink at the poly concierge.

I think the magic kingdom should be open later. i paid for my annual pass to go to the parks not go to pleasure (ZZZzzzzzzz)Island or the market place or anywhere else.

I understand that with parks closing earlier the value of what i paid at my resort goes up cause i have more time to spend at my resort but the main reason i stay on in the poly is the use of the monorail to get to the park quick and get to bed quick after a long night in the park. In my family young and old frequent Mk the most. but this year i hav to switch gears and spend more nights in the other parks whcih i usually dont do. and to me its frustrating

 

[raidermatt]

Scoop- Shorter hours remove the option of being in the park at that time. There are two reasons that the other options that are listed do not make up for the park option being taken away.

1- Most of the other options require a separate fee. Either a stand-alone or its built in to our AP or Hopper. Cost is a factor when folks decide where to go on vacation.

2- The parks are THE attraction for most people visiting WDW. Yeah, they might play golf, do some shopping, or lounge at the pool. But if there are no parks, most are going somewhere else. So that needs to be considered. The Water Pageant might be a nice add, but does it really offset earlier park closures for most guests? I really don't think so.

So sure, if you count up the different things you can do, sure, there are more today than in the past. But most of those options have a cost, which is not lost on most people, and they don't equal their favorite option, the parks.

That's not to say these other options shouldn't be there, or they shouldn't charge for peewee golf. The pools and other activities are great. They just have to be careful about trying to force people to substitute those things for their main attraction.


As for you second point, ugh.

Yes, I'll grant the point that if a guest takes greater advantage of resort activities, they are getting better value for their resort dollar.

But does that translate into guest satisfaction? Only if the guest realizes they really would prefer these other activities over being in the park. I'm sure a small percentage come to this realization, but for those who would still prefer later park hours, their satisfaction has been decreased.

Look, I'm not saying that mine or anybody else's vacation is ruined by earlier closings. My family will still go, and we will do exactly what you do, take the best option available to us. But we are not as happy about it as we would have been. For us, its not enough to keep us from going, but for those who were more on the fence, it will be.

 

[Bob O]

thedscoop not everybody who visits the theme parks at wdw stays on site and can use the xtra time to be at their themed resort.
Disney has reduced the hours of the parks intentionally in a attempt to force them to spend money on other things be it mini golf/dtd as examples. Disney show's more concern about the off park attractions than they do about the in park attractions which is why they do nothing about 20K but are happy to add mini golf. That is why more is done in building hotels or DTD than in updating and expanding the in park attractions, unless of course they can use a parade as a vehicle to sell snowglobes.
I know alot of people here will stay on site no matter what disney does and that whats the company banks on, that they have built up goodwill so their fans will swallow whatever they are given. I wouldnt stay on site now as i dont fell the value is their for the price paid and im not staying on site at DL for the same reasons.

 

[raidermatt]

Now, if you only do the parks and care about nothing but being at the parks, well, this obviously holds less true.

No, no, no, no, no, no, etc.....
One doesn't have to care about NOTHING but the parks. One has to only prefer to be at the parks at that time for your premise to not apply.

That's it.

Think about your favorite restaurant. If they remove your favorite dish from the menu, or reduce the portions, does it automatically mean you won't go back? No, but it does mean you are less satisfied. And you are now more likely to go to your formerly 2nd favorite restaurant.

That's what reduced hours does to WDW. Period. In a few cases, somebody might realize they found things they prefer to do rather than be in the parks. But there are going to be more people that would still prefer the later hours.

Taking the macro point of view, guest satisfaction has definitely been reduced (maybe not yours, Scoop, but for the "average" guest). The only question is what does this do from a business pov? Does the cost reduction and revenue generated (mini golf, DD, etc) offset the guests who don't come back?

On day one, it probably more than does. Most guests are not fanatical about checking hours and such like we are. They just remember that they used to stay at MK until Midnight or 8pm, or whatever, and now it closes 2 hours earlier. Its not until they would normally return, 2-3 years later, that the negative impact will be felt.

Well, I believe the cuts in hours began in '98 or '99. Guess what? Its been about 3-4 years for the first guests who experienced those early cuts. As the cuts have progressed, it follows that any impact will increase. And the cuts are continuing to progress...

 

[raidermatt]

As I see it, WDW has become a much "better-rounded" or "complete" or "diverse" resort with these additions rather than just a place with some great parks and resorts.

For the most part, I agree. I am happy to have those other options, and sometimes use them. I just think its a big mistake to lose sight of what is still the primary draw, the parks. Cutting from what unquestionably is the #1 option for the majority of guests is a huge risk, even if you add 2 or 3 other options.

 

[raidermatt]

One of the hardest things to sell is increases in variable operating expenses just because business is "up." Everything needs to be revenue justified. If you cannot point directly to how much more rev you are going to get, the costs are not going to fly. ME said it himself when he referenced ongoing cuts as being "taken to the bottom line" when business returns.

Good point. Management has to have an understanding that if attendance goes up, and hours/expenses do not, it reduces guest satisfaction. Reduced guest satisfaction can have a tremendous long term impact, though the short term impact maybe negligible. Everything may look fine for a quarter, a year, or even 2-3 years. But eventually, it has to catch-up.

And if mgmt didn't understand that when they started the cuts, they aren't likely to understand it when the impact rolls around.

So they respond in the same fashion: Attendance down, hours down. Attendance up? Hours the same. (or even down, according to this October).

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Doctor D-R,

You know, truthfully, I understand your view on this and I don't think I want to bother to continue debating it, because I'm not sure what point there is to continuing.

It appears that you do indeed want to bother to continue the debate. So I will asume that this passage was for me in particular?

 

[d-r]

Well, LandBaron, it was at the same sitting and I couldn't help myself from making a few more replies, but I think I meant it generally and not you particularly - I find the debate tiring because it is almost to the point of politics, religion and college football - no one is going to change anyone else's mind at this point. I did have some more time to think about your point about options, which is an important one - I think I figured out why they seem not be offering e-nights during the off-season. I couldn't figure it out, because it seems like it would pay for itself. It probably does at the MK, but I realized that I wasn't thinking about all of the "options" - when crowds are particularly low, they need people to go to the epcot and mgm which are still open, so the <5K people at e-night are pulling people that could be at those two parks, so the revenue isn't there to maintain the others - I wasn't thinking of all of wdw as a system, just isolating out a park of it. Anyway, thanks for helping me to that insight, though I know that wasn't what you were intending.

Again, I am not at all sure where the breaking point is terms of guest satisfaction for the majority of guests, and if they have passed it or not. I honestly believe that they are doing the best they can with the current variables and that it will turn around.


DR
Anyway, I think I'm done - if you were asking because you are holding out for the last word go for it

DR

 

[BRERALEX]

can the DIS turn up the AC its gotting hot in here and detracting from my magic loloolol j/k MAN IM FUNNY

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Anyway, I think I'm done - if you were asking because you are holding out for the last word go for it

Not at all. Just wasn't quite sure what to do next. And now I am.

I'll just say....

Thanks for the discussion!!!