Wilderness/Shaden:
Thanks for making those very good points. For some groups, the cap is what they can afford and the experience is so worth it for them that they will make sacrifices in order to do it. (Boy, I wish some of those people were MY customers!)
For others, it's what they feel is reasonable. I can afford a Mercedes, but I drive a Kia. I love WDW as much as anybody, even more now that I've got a seven year old that takes me along with him
But I have a hard time paying more than $200 a night at CSR. For me, anything over $325 for a CR Tower MK view is unreasonable, and unfortunately those days are probably long gone and I'll never do it again.
It's that upward price pressure that is not "forcing" but "causing" more and more people to start considering staying offsite. And as that causation works it's way up the ranks from those who do so because they can't afford it to those who do so even though they can, I can't help but believe that it will have a negative impact on WDW.
They have to fill those resorts. It's not an option. Maybe the only way they can do it right now is by offering up to 30% off rack rates that were recently increased by 20%. The bean counters at corporate Disney will be happy, because hey - that's really only a 10% discount. But pricing in itself is both a science and an art, and what Disney is doing has me very, very curious to watch, learn, and observe the outcome.
I kinda/sorta do this for a living, which is why I'm so interested in what each person's "cutoff" point is when they are finally forced to decide whether it's still worth it or not - even if they can afford it.
Wilderness, my signature line is telling in a manner similar to yours - except in reverse. The last four years, I've been "downgrading" myself from CR, to CSR, to BLT - and while BLT isn't a physical downgrade, it's a cost downgrade because I rented points. Basically, each year I've found a way to spend less on lodging while still staying on site.
Does Disney win when more and more people follow that strategy?