Objection: Conclusion does not follow from the premise.
"This program increases Disney's profit" and "most members save money by joining this program" can both be true.
At times. And often limited to just some people.
Where both sides benefit: because of a discount, you’re willing to give Disney a bit more business than you otherwise would have.
But you’re happy with the value you’re getting with that extra spending.
Basically — some perceived discount encourages me to splurge, but I’m quite happy with the splurge.
But in those cases, you didn’t actually save money — you may be happy, but you didn’t spend less than you otherwise would have.
People who were going to buy 24 OTUP no matter what, people who would automatically buy a 30 day memory maker anyway… They will “save.”
But for all these types of programs, they are designed to get more people to spend more money.
So it’s always a minority of people who actually “saved.” For most people, it’s getting extra at a supposed discount.
Assume arguendo that every person who buys this gets more than $99 worth of benefit. Disney will still be happy with that if the program induces people to buy passes or OTUP or other things that they might otherwise not have. It's not necessarily the case that the average member has to get less than $99 worth of value from the program for the program to be profitable.
It’s not that they got less than $99 value. It’s that they paid more than the real value they receive.
To get 24 OTUP, you still need to pay $240. If you wouldn’t have normally purchased OTUPs, then you’ve now given Disney $339 more revenue than they otherwise would have had.
If you would have purchased the points even at $480… then yes, you did save.
But the program is designed in the hope that you’re the minority. That most people are now buying points they wouldn’t have purchased before.
So the person who wouldn’t have paid $480 for OTUP? They just forked over an extra $339 to Disney.