Disney pricing the middle class out

[EmilyS90]

We're below middle class for sure, and I'm still in college. We just saved. For me, my fiance, and my 5 year old, we spent about $4k. And we definitely could have done it for cheaper, and likely will next time. Looking at prices, I know we could keep it under 3k and still have a great time. Really it's all about priorities and knowing what you value most in your vacation.

Luckily we're going back in Oct for our honeymoon but my parents are being amazing and funding that for *future DH* and I.

 

[ml sumner]

We're below middle class for sure, and I'm still on college. We just saved. For me, my fiance, and my 5 year old, we spent about $4k. And we definitely could have done it for cheaper, and likely will next time. Looking at prices, I know we could keep it under 3k and still have a great time. Really it's all about priorities and knowing what you value most in your vacation.

Luckily we're going back in Oct for our honeymoon but my parents are being amazing and funding that for *future DH* and I.

Very nice of your parents!

 

[minnie-apple-mouse]

Very nice of your parents!

Agreed, there are a lot of folks in the parks that have had help from someone, fund some or all of their trip.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Actually I'm the one waiting for the counter argument, or at least details of accomplishing what you say.

The counter argument was you said you could clear up why the pricing would not have gone up (pricing out the middle class) if they had increased expansion more than they have...how would that not also price out the middle class?

The other counter argument was in the same response-you said there were not more guests ("crowd complainers are wrong-it's just FP+ highlighting the problem")-followed by there are "10,000 more".

So which is it? No crowd level increase or 10,000?

The premise that investment must be offset by price increases for the wdw complex is false...because they have and continue to make huge profits. Investment could result in a slightly lower profit over the financed period.

Is that what business wants? No.

Can it be done? Absolutely...wdw is a straight cashcow to finance other things and has been since its inception. Maybe I'm tired of paying for Chinese toys? In this case figuratively and literally.

What I said was those that complain that crowds are unbearable are incorrect. Because the parks have never been close to capacity. Capacity is not a function of comfort and enjoyment... Simply space and organic matter.

Iger has allowed the parks to increase attendance with gradual inflation while adding what basically amounts to net zero since he took over.

Is it a better experience? Probably not if we're honest...but the doesn't equal overcrowding... Just risky management longterm.

 

[AquaDame]

Maybe now that things have settled out, and the losses have been tallied, people in the middle class have tightened their life styles to adjust for the new income ranges.... less expensive houses, more reasonable transportation costs, and a savings account for their vacations.... So the middle class has had an adjustment in income ranges, made the reality changes to fit into the new reality of life, and can still have their disney trips..... to hold on to (at least) the "memories".

Spoken from experience.

Hear hear! I was "lucky" that the recession hit before my husband and I were even married - we were still renting a cheaper apartment and got to adjust our lives accordingly. We kept the wedding cheaper than we might have, we bought a smaller house than we might have (seriously - people laughed at 1600 sq feet for two people! 1600 sq feet is massive for two people!) and I still drive my 1997 Impreza proudly. Just rolled over 220K and still going strong! I shudder to think what mistakes we may have made if we were even 5 years skewed from our timeline. In a similar vein to the Greatest Generation we will not forget, ever, the folly we could have easily fallen into. Retirement prep is #1, staying out of debt as much as possible is #2, then #3 is travel. "Stuff" is at the bottom.

From the narrative of the article, that wouldn't make much sense. It would require a smaller segment of the population (its "Wall Street dads") to respond to higher prices with increased visits, and to a great extent such that they compensate for the loss of a larger segment (the middle class) being priced out.

I wonder too how much is that the reality of life and COL is altering what a core family looks like. I know others in this thread have mentioned smaller families and I am not surprised how many of my generation are foregoing children altogether. I have more "disposable" income for it, and we chose to spend a chunk of that on Disney parks since 2008. We aren't wall street, but we also aren't picking up the hefty price tag for kids either. Its far, far, far easier to afford to go to Disney once or even twice a year than cover the cost of children. We pull in 3x my state's median wage and I shudder to think of trying to afford even one child through college if they wanted to go (trying to imagine them affording the same for their own children? It's enough to put me off the idea.) I'm not sure at what point I would have felt confident doing so.

 

[oddman]

While skipping over most of this thread I'm going to chime in on something. We are not a middle class family. Based on family size, we probably are considered below the poverty line. We qualify for food stamps (but do not get them). We are going to WDW in two years. It will be tight. However, we are getting there because we don't waste our money. We don't have cable/satellite TV. We buy used cars and pay in full so we have no payment. We just paid off our mortgage (after 5 years) so we don't have that payment. Our only debt is student loans (wish I didn't have those...).

We don't use credit cards to buy things. We buy our kids clothes from thrift stores and garage sales when we can. (Why pay $20/outfit for something they can ONLY wear for 3-6 months?) Sometimes we get luck and get hand me downs from their cousins that are still in good shape. We don't eat out a lot. Usually we try to pack a lunch when we think we may need to eat while out and about.

Yes...I am fortunate to live in a small town that isn't super expensive and live close enough to work that I can walk in 6 minutes (no fuel cost). My wife stays at home so we have no day care costs. That said, we are "poor" by standards set up by society, but we are making it. Could we buy stuff new? Sure. But why bother if we can find quality items for less? Could we buy a new car and pay $200-300/month? Sure...but why do that? Then we don't have money leftover to save up for things or to take care of emergencies. We budget ourselves so we have money leftover.

Because of this, we can and are saving up for a WDW vacation. We will not stay at the $2000/night bungalows, but really...how many people would do that even if they could? That's a LOT of money. We will stay in AoA or ASMu suites. I think we figured our trip will cost us around $4800 (including flight, hotel, food, tickets, and souvenirs) based on 2015 costs. I'm expecting over $5000, maybe $5200 by time we go. Who knows? But to give some perspective, we just made a trip to visit my parents. With driving, hotels, food, souvenirs, and an unexpected $200 repair bill on the van, we spent nearly $1200 to go back to my house I grew up in. WDW doesn't sound so expensive once I put it in that perspective.

Good for you dude, you watch your monies and allocate them in a way that works for you.

 

[oddman]

The premise that investment must be offset by price increases for the wdw complex is false...because they have and continue to make huge profits. Investment could result in a slightly lower profit over the financed period.

Is that what business wants? No.

Can it be done? Absolutely...wdw is a straight cashcow to finance other things and has been since its inception. Maybe I'm tired of paying for Chinese toys? In this case figuratively and literally.

What I said was those that complain that crowds are unbearable are incorrect. Because the parks have never been close to capacity. Capacity is not a function of comfort and enjoyment... Simply space and organic matter.

Iger has allowed the parks to increase attendance with gradual inflation while adding what basically amounts to net zero since he took over.

Is it a better experience? Probably not if we're honest...but the doesn't equal overcrowding... Just risky management longterm.

I don't know how you figure parks have never been at capacity? They do close them to new entrants when "full" and of course the state and county will have already worked with Disney in determining exactly how many people may be on the grounds at anyone time. There are figures for the whole parks, and areas and buildings, that is just how the law works in the USA. Fire and building code enforcement is real and not even the mouse can mess with it.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

I don't know how you figure parks have never been at capacity? They do close them to new entrants when "full" and of course the state and county will have already worked with Disney in determining exactly how many people may be on the grounds at anyone time. There are figures for the whole parks, and areas and buildings, that is just how the law works in the USA. Fire and building code enforcement is real and not even the mouse can mess with it.

They close them on a stage 1 or 2 roughly 3-5 days a year. Those numbers are based on staffing as well as numbers.

The whole picture paints a different story... One where they built large parks to operate 365 days a year.

From that perspective the aggregate attendance level has
Probably never exceeded 50%.

Do I care if its full on Christmas, New Year's Eve, and the 4th of July?

Heck no...you have to be insane and kinda get just desserts there even considering it.

 

[oddman]

for the posters stating they are lower income and were able to "afford" a trip, let me just point out that being able to pay for something and it being affordable are not the same things at all.

affordable is often defined as meaning inexpensive, and unlikely to impact your financial life. We could say "those shoes are very affordable".

being able to afford the payments on a house , does not make the house affordable.

Being able to pay for a trip to Disney world does not make a trip to Disney affordable.



The middle class in the USA has a very small disposable income, and being able to save and pay for a trip to Disney is very nice but it soaks up a lot more of your disposable in

They close them on a stage 1 or 2 roughly 3-5 days a year. Those numbers are based on staffing as well as numbers.

The whole picture paints a different story... One where they built large parks to operate 365 days a year.

From that perspective the aggregate attendance level has
Probably never exceeded 50%.

Do I care if its full on Christmas, New Year's Eve, and the 4th of July?

Heck no...you have to be insane and kinda get just desserts there even considering it.

a few years back we went to universal on Christmas morning, there was almost nobody there for the first half of the day and it was like being group of VIPS, my kids had the Suess characters playing with them for what seemed like forever.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

for the posters stating they are lower income and were able to "afford" a trip, let me just point out that being able to pay for something and it being affordable are not the same things at all.

affordable is often defined as meaning inexpensive, and unlikely to impact your financial life. We could say "those shoes are very affordable".

being able to afford the payments on a house , does not make the house affordable.

Being able to pay for a trip to Disney world does not make a trip to Disney affordable.



The middle class in the USA has a very small disposable income, and being able to save and pay for a trip to Disney is very nice but it soaks up a lot more of your disposable in


a few years back we went to universal on Christmas morning, there was almost nobody there for the first half of the day and it was like being group of VIPS, my kids had the Suess characters playing with them for what seemed like forever.

I agree with you completely here...

Good story about universal...and the reason is simple - it doesn't have a IP/pop/visceral reaction that the "company" promotes...

And that is the end all to this entire discussion...

They have bled their IP with limited investment in wdw... And people climb over each other to get there for the warm and fuzzies as much if not more than for what they offer as
Entertainment at this point.

Me too...and that is why they are "pricing the middle class" out and getting away with it.

If the next generations get over princesses and toy story and Star Wars a little bit...Disney will have longterm problems when the consumer starts looking for more substance.

This regime has placed the minimum...maybe below the minimum...emphasis on substance in the swamp.

But they're just concerned about the size of their parachutes.

 

[minnie-apple-mouse]

So what is the most desired solution? (I pick #4 by the way, followed by #5)

1) The current pricing would be acceptable if they had continued the aggressive expansion going.

2) The pricing should be cut/lower (from where it is) about 50% (10%/25%/75%?) with the current expansion they have been on.

3) The pricing should be cut/lower (from where it is) about 50% (10%/25%/75%?) and aggressive expansion should have been and continues on.

4) The pricing should be even higher and aggressive expansion should have continued on.

5) The pricing should be higher even with the current expansion they have been on.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

I pick some type of choice closest to 2 and 4

They would never lower price - nor would I want them too...but a slowing of price increase is appropriate with their lack of dedication to adding things on a REASONABLE timeframe.

Whatever they're building in camp Minnie Mickey - which of course was an original cop out/downgrade - is not going to be worth 6-7 years from announcement to opening - even if its good. It's all but a mathematical certainty.

I don't mind increased prices as a reflection of increased costs or overhead...if its still done with a dedication to enhancing the experience...which is very "Disney"

But the constant time, energy, focus on repackaging at premium is getting tacky...no coothe.

Examples?

How many different "premium safaris" do we have now to go through Kilimanjaro? I get it - elephants are expensive - no mas!!!

The villians soirée...up charging the upcharging for something that can be measured - literally - in seconds.

The "ultimate thrillseekers tour"...a $40 lunch and 8 rides on things included in admission for what is it? $370?

And my favorite...premium desert parties...cupcakes and a coors light in a patch of concrete/AstroTurf isolated with masking tape and low trained emps with ligjtsabers at $69 a head to see two EXTREMELY old fireworks show and one temporary one in the summer based on a rapidly fading movie.

 

[EmilyS90]

for the posters stating they are lower income and were able to "afford" a trip, let me just point out that being able to pay for something and it being affordable are not the same things at all.

affordable is often defined as meaning inexpensive, and unlikely to impact your financial life. We could say "those shoes are very affordable".

being able to afford the payments on a house , does not make the house affordable.

Being able to pay for a trip to Disney world does not make a trip to Disney affordable.



The middle class in the USA has a very small disposable income, and being able to save and pay for a trip to Disney is very nice but it soaks up a lot more of your disposable in

Honestly, I've met very few people who consider ANY vacation affordable to the point that they didn't need to save up for it?? So okay, maybe it's not "affordable". But it's a luxury, like most vacations, and those generally aren't in a regularly affordable price range.

 

[minnie-apple-mouse]

They would never lower price - nor would I want them too...

Agreed, buy my wording was off sorry. I meant the price would "either" be "cut" or "lower", meaning it hadn't ever gone up as much.

And what price would you set things at?

That was the goal of the choices.

I doubt even a 25% lower price at the gate would suddenly make it all affordable, even at the hotels.

But there is a number that would indeed allow/entice many more folks to visit.

But the mix can be too much IMO. I think it is too busy already down there and prices should be higher (#5), I would just prefer #4 as then there would be more room for everyone and more attractions.

But the constant time, energy, focus on repackaging at premium is getting tacky...no coothe.

Examples?

How many different "premium safaris" do we have now to go through Kilimanjaro? I get it - elephants are expensive - no mas!!!

The villians soirée...up charging the upcharging for something that can be measured - literally - in seconds.

The "ultimate thrillseekers tour"...a $40 lunch and 8 rides on things included in admission for what is it? $370?

And my favorite...premium desert parties...cupcakes and a coors light in a patch of concrete/AstroTurf isolated with masking tape and low trained emps with ligjtsabers at $69 a head to see two EXTREMELY old fireworks show and one temporary one in the summer based on a rapidly fading movie.

To be honest-these don't bother me in the least.

They are absolute choices anyone can make or not make, afford or not afford.

UNI express pass was $149 EA for one park when we went at XMAS and did not include the HP Headliners (or admission, or lunch), and only once on the others-many of which we don't care for anyway.

I think they are aimed at veterans looking for some kind of crowd escape or change of pace. Behind the scenes tours, parties etc. The price is the only thing to make them exclusive. If they were all no extra charge-the complaints of never being able to reserve them would be all over the board (think too few FP+).

 

[AquaDame]

Do I care if its full on Christmas, New Year's Eve, and the 4th of July?

Heck no...you have to be insane and kinda get just desserts there even considering it.

We're doing both 4th of July AND NYE at DLR this year. I fully anticipate it being insanely packed, but we want to see the special fireworks. Once. Then we'll go back to our usual January and September/October trips in the offseason.

 

[Dean Marino]

OK - just me.... why do I feel that we are Greece, talking to the European Union? Until someone finds something in the INTREST of WDW? Wellllll - I think were doing something not appropriate for a family website....

 

[CTDisneyfan816]

Value rooms start at $85? Not today they are normally 100+. They also offer very little and places like the all stars are comparable to a holiday inn in rooms. You could stay at the swan and dolphin for less than $200 a night with great pools restaurants and an excellent location. Obviously middle class families can still afford it but can they really or is it most on credit. It's just an interesting topic that is all.

They are in the off peak season.

 

[rteetz]

They are in the off peak season.

There aren't many off peak season days at Disney anymore unfortunately.

 

[dlavender]

We love Disney. As our family has expanded from just us to now a house full of three kids, we have had to reevaluate our vacation decisions. We used to go to Disney at least 3 times a year. Then it went to twice, once, and then this year is the first year we will not be going. We always stay at the cheapest value resort, which usually is the All Star Sports. Four years ago, we paid $72 a night with all the discounts we could get. Three years ago we paid $85, then $89 two years ago, then $95 last year. We would stay 5 nights each visit, so it was about a $100 increase. Disney has pushed us to look elsewhere. Ticket prices increased a little over that time as well. The overall difference in budget from 1 trip four years ago to the trip last year was about $200. When looking at vacation options this year, we discussed either doing Disney for a few less days to keep our budget the same, go elsewhere, or look at off site options. Given travel/fixed cost expenses don't really diminish whether you go for 3 days or 5, we decided for a mountain vacation instead to enjoy the outdoors. We spent $100 night on a cabin, swam, made smores, had a great time. We spent half of what we were going to spend going to Disney. However, these two experiences are vastly different, so you can't really compare costs, except for to say they were both vacations. We did find some off site options for around $80 per night, but there was something sad about having to move off site for us. This long winded post is just to point out that while the costs at Disney haven't astronomically changed, they have moved a little outside of our middle class budget in the sense that we no longer can visit like we used to. We still love Disney, but it will now be an every other year destination, instead of the annual or biannual destination that it used to be.

 

[LadyDiznee123]

I apologize in advance.... this thread is so long that I'm certain someone has already made note of this.

Regarding the "Middle Class" vacationing at Disney. As I (along with my working and middle class peers) have always said... you don't just "up and go to Disney." Yes, some very well-off people may do so , but most people have never had it like that from the get-go. Most of the middle class have always saved for our WDW vacations, from at least six months ahead of time and ideally for a year before our arrival date. C'mon... Disney has never been that kind of a trip for many of us. People have been going since the 70's and right up until now and they save to go even with the rise in ticket prices. We all just factor it into our saving efforts and at the end of the day most of us are happy or we wouldn't keep returning. Moreover, with the Magical Express Bus and my free dining plan and my value resort - I personally am actually saving money now. It's becoming no more or less affordable than it has always been... at east since the 90's when I started going.