Money Article Concerning WDW

[MagiKitty]

I read the article this morning also. And while the author was griping about the $5000 cost (admittedly inflated by his insistence of staying at a deluxe resort because of the convenience of the monorail), I felt that he was mainly concerned with spending the money to go on vacation to a place they have frequented twice before within recent memory. He wondered about spending the time and money exploring new destinations and experiences, rather that perhaps limiting their family vacations by returning to the same locale repeatedly. He, as a father, wondered if to broaden the horizons of his children and their exposure to the world beyond Disney is something that he and his wife should explore.

I too enjoy vacationing at the world on a budget. And perhaps he and his family choose to spend more on a vacation than I normally would. But I found his article thought-provoking and questioned my own choices when I think about vacationing, which I think was the ultimate goal of the piece.

 

[Planogirl]

I can understand him questioning continually returning to WDW. I've wondered if I shouldn't have exposed DS to more of the world myself. It's been fun but not necessarily the wisest choice.

 

[eliza61]

I think the main point the author was getting at was if, with so many other things out there is Disney worth the return trips.


Even though we are dvc owners I don't mind the years that we skip trips because as the author said, for the same amount of money we spend indisney there are hundreds of other vacation places equally as nice and fun.

And Disney is expensive sure it doesn't have to be 5K expensive but it's definitely not what I would call cheap. 2011 we're going to DLP/Paris for roughly the same amount of money.

 

[santadog]

I couldn't help but think that maybe the fact Fox owns the Wall Street Journal may have had something to do with the tone of the piece.

 

[mrodgers]

It reminded me of people that say that wdw is too expensive, but then they spend the same amount to go to the beach for a week.

WDW is expensive, much more expensive than the beach.

When I was planning our first family vacation for this past summer, I was planning the beach. I ended up looking at WDW for S&G's and it looked like I could do Disney for 4 days for the same price.

So, we went to Disney, but the trip did grow. I didn't factor in the drive (gas money, and a 1 night stay) when first pricing out Disney. I figured I would have about $1500-2000 at the beach (full week) and when all said and done, Disneyworld cost us $3000 (the trip grew to a full week and $1000 difference is not chump change.)

The difference between vacationing at Disneyworld and the beach is, you pay for a room at both places, then you pay for the parks where you don't have to pay for the beach. I don't think you should have to pay so much for park access if you are staying at a Disney resort. That would be the equivalent of paying $1000 for hotel at the beach, then having to pay another $1000 to go on the beach. Sure if you stay off-site, you would have to pay for the parks, but on-site, you are paying to be in Disneyworld's property. It shouldn't be separated.

 

[MomRN]

Our trip for 2 people for 4 nights in November was slightly over $1000. About $300 for the flight (with SW promo code), $300 for the room (All Star Movies, preferred room, 40% off code), and $400 for tickets (undercover tourist). No Dining Plan with my picky little eater... infact we often shared a meal. Brought muffins, fruit, pop tarts for breakfast... food probably cost @$100 for the trip.

Souvenirs cost another $300 or so. Add other incidentals I probably don't remember (magazines for the plane, tips, etc) it probably ran us $1,500. I was pretty proud of that. Our trip last March for 4 of us... rental vehicle, driving down, 6 days, off-site, was slightly over $3,000.

 

[burnurcomputer]

I couldn't help but think that maybe the fact Fox owns the Wall Street Journal may have had something to do with the tone of the piece.

Low blow. I'm a Republican and do not pull parent companies into conversations in which I do not like something. It was a op, not written by the parent company.

Really, he can vacation where he wants too. *I* think going to Vail every year or spending big cash on sporting events reserved tickets is crzy too. But there are people who love it as much as we love the World. We just don't have to take it personally. I know people who spend tons on vacations and go in ways that we don't/can't afford too. And thats okay!!! Different strokes for different folks.

 

[stitchlovestink]

WDW is expensive, much more expensive than the beach.

When I was planning our first family vacation for this past summer, I was planning the beach. I ended up looking at WDW for S&G's and it looked like I could do Disney for 4 days for the same price.

So, we went to Disney, but the trip did grow. I didn't factor in the drive (gas money, and a 1 night stay) when first pricing out Disney. I figured I would have about $1500-2000 at the beach (full week) and when all said and done, Disneyworld cost us $3000 (the trip grew to a full week and $1000 difference is not chump change.)

The difference between vacationing at Disneyworld and the beach is, you pay for a room at both places, then you pay for the parks where you don't have to pay for the beach. I don't think you should have to pay so much for park access if you are staying at a Disney resort. That would be the equivalent of paying $1000 for hotel at the beach, then having to pay another $1000 to go on the beach. Sure if you stay off-site, you would have to pay for the parks, but on-site, you are paying to be in Disneyworld's property. It shouldn't be separated.

I have to disagree with you on this. It costs us MUCH more for us to go to the beach. The only portion that is cheaper is transportation because we can drive to Ocean City, and I CANNOT drive to WDW. Due to medical reasons, it is just not possible for me to spend that long in a car. So travel expenses (due to the cost of flying) are higher. BUT, it costs us much more for a week at the beach. Hotels in OC are wicked expensive during the summer. And the restaurant prices make WDW seem like a bargain and the food at WDW is generally better. And frankly, it is way too boring to sit on the beach for 8 hours a day for 7 days. We want to do other stuff, lots of other stuff. Mini golf for a family of 4 is $40+ and that takes what maybe an hour to play?! It is much more cost effective and just down right more entertaining to take our family trip to WDW. Our kids would pick WDW over a trip to OCMD any day...

 

[Melrosgirl]

tell the author that my recent 1 day trip to NYC cost about $1400, between transportation costs (train), Broadway show, hotel for one night, taxi fare, tipping every person I saw, and food for 3 people. I felt WDW is a bargain compared to that!

 

[burnurcomputer]

Here the article you have given and you have to read it and you will get the money for that. I think this is the shortest way to earn the money. So don't miss the opportunity like here is given. I have read so many articles and got the money.

Reported.

 

[crisi]

I have to disagree with you on this. It costs us MUCH more for us to go to the beach. The only portion that is cheaper is transportation because we can drive to Ocean City, and I CANNOT drive to WDW. Due to medical reasons, it is just not possible for me to spend that long in a car. So travel expenses (due to the cost of flying) are higher. BUT, it costs us much more for a week at the beach. Hotels in OC are wicked expensive during the summer. And the restaurant prices make WDW seem like a bargain and the food at WDW is generally better. And frankly, it is way too boring to sit on the beach for 8 hours a day for 7 days. We want to do other stuff, lots of other stuff. Mini golf for a family of 4 is $40+ and that takes what maybe an hour to play?! It is much more cost effective and just down right more entertaining to take our family trip to WDW. Our kids would pick WDW over a trip to OCMD any day...

On the other hand, we go to the beach for practically free - its the North Shore of Lake Superior. But it costs us our day of food and gas. We say in a house owned by a friend's family. Restaurants up there are few and far between - the nearest grocery store is sixteen miles - so there isn't a lot of temptation to spend.

For a better "beach" experience (you don't swim in that part of Lake Superior - its cold even in August) - we took the kids to Mexico to all all inclusive last year. Four of us, including airfare, was around $2500.

Our next beach experience will be a lot more expensive - but its Hawaii. Airfare alone is over $4k.

There are beaches all over the world. You've picked an expensive beach.

 

[dvcgirl]

He's writing for the Wall Street Journal. That's a completely reasonable amount to spend on vacation for the majority of his audience.

He isn't writing about the cost. He's writing about the value. Given that his family has already been to Disney more than once - would there be more value in spending that money and time at a different destination. His wife likes Disney, he's thinking that spending that money for his kids to experience the world - not The World again - would be a better bet.

This is how I read it. And honestly, I can relate. We took a big family trip to WDW this past May. DH and I don't have children, but we've been to Disney several times in the 15 years we've known each other. We started traveling....seeing the rest of the world (mainly Europe) in 2004.

We spent a fortune on a 9 day trip. Granted, we stayed in a nice resort and ate in good restaurants every night.....and we spent a lot on our nieces and nephews. But man, money *flies* out of your wallet at WDW. We spent money then we would have in the same time taking a trip to Europe.

I know a lot of DVCers and have friends who do the "every year thing" at Disney and do really have a deep love for the place. DH and I even had a real love for the place....but this last time I didn't feel it.

I can see going back for a long weekend, maybe for F&W fest, but other than that....I don't see it happening.

 

[5stljayhawks]

I couldn't help but think that maybe the fact Fox owns the Wall Street Journal may have had something to do with the tone of the piece.

From your statement it appears you are inferring a political slant? Really? Maybe it was the lack of detailed financial analysis, moving you to make the statement?

Although I disagree with the approach of the article about the expense of Disney, I was totally unaware that the notion of expensive and or planning an alternative trip has become infused with a political association.

If there was a slant, don't you think the article would have taken a little different tone? Maybe about one of the greatest capitalistic companies in the world, with a brand able to be exported across the world (Japan, Hong Kong, Paris, China) in addition to breaking color and cultural barriers.

From a financial standpoint, during one of the worst economic points in US history, Disney spends $4,000,000,000 on Marvel. You know, that had to make somebody rich, with a 29% premium for the stock. But I am pretty sure all the marvel stock was owned by rich guys who earn over $1M a year and that nobody who earns less than $250,000 had any marvel stock in a 401K, teachers or union pension fund.

BTW DIS stock - up 13.67% YTD & yielding a dividend of 1.09%.

 

[eyeheartgoofy]

I really didn't think the point of the article was to whine about Disney prices. It's just a guy who, like the majority of the population, thinks Disney is more of a "once in a childhood" kind of destination. If you read, he referenced a family who went annually for 8 years - and did it inexpensively by staying offsite and driving - but one of the parents was questioning the decision not to take the kids anywhere else on vacation.

 

[Ava]

He isn't writing about the cost. He's writing about the value. Given that his family has already been to Disney more than once - would there be more value in spending that money and time at a different destination. His wife likes Disney, he's thinking that spending that money for his kids to experience the world - not The World again - would be a better bet.

I also agree with this. The cost of his vacation is not the point of the article, he even admits that he knows he's spending more by insisting on a monorail resort. He's questioning whether it's worth spending any amount of money to visit a place they've already visited multiple times before.

And I somewhat agree with him. I'm not an every-year-to-WDW person, and have no desire to be. I love WDW but there are too many other places I want to see and only so much time/money available for vacations. I went 4 times as a kid and have been 3 more times as an adult, with my last trip being 5 years ago. We're going again next year to take DD for her first time, and then we'll see after that. We'll probably end up taking our kids once every few years, to experience it with them at different ages. But for me personally, every year is too much.

 

[Ericandjenng]

I read this article and just rolled my eyes. I used to read his column frequently on Sundays. He makes major issues out of seemingly unimportant things. For example, he writes for WSJ from home but complained about things with his wife's job including moving near her hometown. This article just seemed to be more of his same stuff--making an issue of nothing. He admits he's the one that had to stay in the Monorail hotel because he didn't like waiting on the bus...does that mean he will only be going to MK? Does he know everything else that's available? Or that you can't get anywhere else without the buses or boats or changing monorails....? He also said his kids have been asking to go back. Why does he even feel the need to compare a Disney vacation to everywhere else in the world you can go? The comparison argument he presents is not even valid--it's the old adage of "comparing apples to oranges".

My DS has been to WDW 7 times already and he's only 6. But he also been on 2 cruises including one Alaskan and to California to visit relatives. We chose to wait on cruises until he was old enough to enjoy them to so that we didn't spend our vacation just entertaining him because he was bored on a ship that we were confining him to. We're back to not cruising for awhile because of our newest addition. We'll go back in a few years when she's old enough to enjoy it too. She's already had her first trip to the World and at least she was able to participate in some things even though she was only 4 1/2 months old at the time. Alot of other vacations she would have just had to sit in her stroller and be drug around. Same goes for DS, there are just some things that will not interest him for another few years.

 

[klacey1]

Low blow. I'm a Republican and do not pull parent companies into conversations in which I do not like something. It was a op, not written by the parent company.

Really, he can vacation where he wants too. *I* think going to Vail every year or spending big cash on sporting events reserved tickets is crzy too. But there are people who love it as much as we love the World. We just don't have to take it personally. I know people who spend tons on vacations and go in ways that we don't/can't afford too. And thats okay!!! Different strokes for different folks.

I don't think they meant it to be a low blow. The way I read it-- they weren't hinting at Fox's political stance, they were hinting that since Disney owns ABC and ABC and Fox are big rivals, maybe a Fox-owned newspaper would be interested in taking a shot at ABC's company.

 

[crisi]

And I somewhat agree with him. I'm not an every-year-to-WDW person, and have no desire to be. I love WDW but there are too many other places I want to see and only so much time/money available for vacations. I went 4 times as a kid and have been 3 more times as an adult, with my last trip being 5 years ago. We're going again next year to take DD for her first time, and then we'll see after that. We'll probably end up taking our kids once every few years, to experience it with them at different ages. But for me personally, every year is too much.

My DS has been to WDW 7 times already and he's only 6. But he also been on 2 cruises including one Alaskan and to California to visit relatives. We chose to wait on cruises until he was old enough to enjoy them to so that we didn't spend our vacation just entertaining him because he was bored on a ship that we were confining him to. We're back to not cruising for awhile because of our newest addition. We'll go back in a few years when she's old enough to enjoy it too. She's already had her first trip to the World and at least she was able to participate in some things even though she was only 4 1/2 months old at the time. Alot of other vacations she would have just had to sit in her stroller and be drug around. Same goes for DS, there are just some things that will not interest him for another few years.

When kids are little, WDW is an easy trip with them - its easy to do it over and over again, because you know everyone is likely to have a good time - and I'm not sure they are going to get much out of Paris at four. But as kids get older, I've also thought WDW limiting. Its still an easy trip, but its "been there done that." Its really stopped providing new opportunities for my kids.

 

[bridget]

We have been to WDW so many times with my children, because it is an easy Southwest flight, and they are great with people with dietary needs (multiple food allergies)! I'd say we've been 9 times in 6.5 years.

However, we've also gone at least one other place each year that is not Disney.... Chicago, New York, Atlanta, New Orleans, San Diego, Denver (multiple times), Smokey Mountains. Plus in that time we've gone on 4 cruises (Eastern Caribb, Western Carrib and two Bahama cruises).

 

[crisi]

We have been to WDW so many times with my children, because it is an easy Southwest flight, and they are great with people with dietary needs (multiple food allergies)! I'd say we've been 9 times in 6.5 years.

However, we've also gone at least one other place each year that is not Disney.... Chicago, New York, Atlanta, San Diego, Denver (multiple times), Smokey Mountains. Plus in that time we've gone on 4 cruises (Eastern Caribb, Western Carrib and two Bahama cruises).

We (you and I and others here) are lucky - our budgets - both time and money - let us both enjoy Disney AND take other trips. Most people don't get to take that many vacations - even if they are "cheaper" vacations. And if you get one vacation to take, is it the same vacation all the time? For a lot of people it is (Disney, skiing, camping). That's OK if that's what floats your boat, but its worth asking "would there be more value to my family in different trips?"