New survey .. proposal .. Tiered Ticket Prices

[Angel Ariel]

WDWMagic doesn't have a comments section, but at the end of their articles is a link to discuss the topic/article in their forums. So it's very similar to a comments section.

I know there was a link to the discussion thread (which was 22 pages long when I looked at it). The point I was responding to was that Testa hadn't updated the article itself, and that it can't be expected for readers to get updates in the comments - that it is more appropriate for it to be in the article itself. I was pointing out that Testa did make these acknowledgments, on the same page as his article even if not in the article itself.

If it is unreasonable to expect that updates in the comments are enough, it is equally unreasonable to expect one go to a discussion linked in an entirely different place and have that be considered enough. That was the point I was attempting to make.

 

[trainingupmy4princes]

I'm mulling over the thought that Disney might prefer if at least some visitors stay for a shorter period of time. You could really see that with offsite visitors too when you consider that most of the profit for tickets comes during the first few days in a way. Interesting approach if true.

As for Mr. Testa's article, I enjoyed it. I saw it as him analyzing one proposed pricing scheme and it appeared to be written before he was aware of other proposals. He's a blogger so I don't expect him to backpedal once a piece is done.

But, it doesn't work that way. The shorter our stay the less I spend. When we went our first year we had a 5 day ticket. Since I was trying to maximize seeing as much as possible, we only ate 3 TS and the rest was CS. I also never found the time to shop so bought our souvenirs off site. Now, we get 10 day tickets and because we have time do a TS every day. Sometimes even 2 like a character breakfast and Fantasmic Dinner package. I also will take some time in the evenings to browse some shops. My DD ended up with a Duffy after seeing it in the store her first trip. She wanted the Mickey Teddy so DH was like ok. He's such a softie. Of course, if we hadn't been in the store we wouldn't have a Duffy and now several outfits because each trip she wants to dress him in something new. I'm pretty sure my family isn't the only one like this.

 

[Planogirl]

But, it doesn't work that way. The shorter our stay the less I spend. When we went our first year we had a 5 day ticket. Since I was trying to maximize seeing as much as possible, we only ate 3 TS and the rest was CS. I also never found the time to shop so bought our souvenirs off site. Now, we get 10 day tickets and because we have time do a TS every day. Sometimes even 2 like a character breakfast and Fantasmic Dinner package. I also will take some time in the evenings to browse some shops. My DD ended up with a Duffy after seeing it in the store her first trip. She wanted the Mickey Teddy so DH was like ok. He's such a softie. Of course, if we hadn't been in the store we wouldn't have a Duffy and now several outfits because each trip she wants to dress him in something new. I'm pretty sure my family isn't the only one like this.

It depends on the traveler. We eat TS most days no matter how long our trip is. I agree that that would add up to less meals overall but with demand so high they likely fill up most restaurants anyway.

Hmmm.... This would be one way to deal with higher demand and almost unchanging capacity.

 

[SmithSmith]

I know there was a link to the discussion thread (which was 22 pages long when I looked at it). The point I was responding to was that Testa hadn't updated the article itself, and that it can't be expected for readers to get updates in the comments - that it is more appropriate for it to be in the article itself. I was pointing out that Testa did make these acknowledgments, on the same page as his article even if not in the article itself.

If it is unreasonable to expect that updates in the comments are enough, it is equally unreasonable to expect one go to a discussion linked in an entirely different place and have that be considered enough. That was the point I was attempting to make.

I agree. I think it's completely unreasonable to expect updates in comment sections, discussion forums, or even podcasts. Apparently I misread your posts along the way because that's what I thought you were arguing against this whole time, otherwise, I wouldn't have even brought it up. My bad.

 

[Angel Ariel]

I agree. I think it's completely unreasonable to expect updates in comment sections, discussion forums, or even podcasts. Apparently I misread your posts along the way because that's what I thought you were arguing against this whole time, otherwise, I wouldn't have even brought it up. My bad.

I'm actually fine with how Len handled it. And i'm equally fine with how WDW Magic handled it.

The person to whom I was responding was taking issue with how Len responded, saying that in the comments section wasn't enough. I'm simply saying that if one considers that to not be enough, then WDW Magic's isn't enough either as their original article was never updated with that information either.

If one were to say that WDWMagic handled it just fine because the other chart(s) were posted in a discussion thread that is only linked in the original article, but that Len acknowledging it in the comments section which appears on the same page as the article itself is unacceptable - then that would be a double standard. I would disagree with the double standard - that is what I've been saying.

*Please note that last bit is a generalized statement and not directed at any one in particular*.

 

[Zippa D Doodah]

Still figuratively punching Len Testa in the face, I see.

Folks, it really is OK if something Disney proposes to do browns your onions. You don't have to react by killing the messenger

 

[PirateD]

After originally seeing the chart, and wondering why it would go against everything else they've been doing the last 20 years to increase length of stay, I realized that may be exactly the point. Maybe they do realize that with the price structure where it is, and Universal gaining ground, increasing LOS is a losing proposition. And while groups staying 7 days, spend more than the same group spending 3/4 days. Two groups spending 3/4 days is MORE money than one group staying 7. Hotel room - each day still gets sold, meals - each day still get bought, maybe more souvenirs get bought since there is a limit that one family will spend, and a 3 day and a 4 day tickets based on current pricing is $580, while a 7 day is only $335. Longer LOS plans may be more targeted like the deals the UK travel agents already get.

My first reaction to the price increases was that we would have to stop going. But as I refected more, I found myself thinking that we would just shorten our stay at Disney. My brother's family lives in the area and we are all Disney fans so it's highly unlikely that we would never go back. But it is likely that we wouldn't do a 9-night stay on property with the increases. More than likely we would go 3-4 days and then spend the rest of our time at my brother's house or offsite and visit US, Sea World, and Wet 'n Wild. So if Disney is trying to encourage shorter stays, it's already working!

More than likely we would keep our MK days and go one day to Epcot. I'm not so sure about the other parks. Maybe AK because we do like it there and with the additions of nighttime attractions it might be worth the money, but HS would be out completely. Even with 9 days this trip we are only park hopping for the Osborne Lights and Evening EMH and possibly considering an EMH morning before park hopping to Epcot. It's just not worth a full day admission to us. I know that some people feel the same about Epcot even though we still enjoy it.

Does anyone else see the possibility of attendance increasing at the MK and dropping at the other three parks with a shorter stay strategy? I guess that could be your "guaranteed lower crowds" in those parks but I think MK could be slammed! I just don't see many decreasing their days at MK even though they would be decreasing their stays.

He explained a lot of this on the last WDW Today Podcast...

I found that whole podcast really very interesting.

Thanks for the tip! I will check it out!

But, it doesn't work that way. The shorter our stay the less I spend. When we went our first year we had a 5 day ticket. Since I was trying to maximize seeing as much as possible, we only ate 3 TS and the rest was CS. I also never found the time to shop so bought our souvenirs off site. Now, we get 10 day tickets and because we have time do a TS every day. Sometimes even 2 like a character breakfast and Fantasmic Dinner package. I also will take some time in the evenings to browse some shops. My DD ended up with a Duffy after seeing it in the store her first trip. She wanted the Mickey Teddy so DH was like ok. He's such a softie. Of course, if we hadn't been in the store we wouldn't have a Duffy and now several outfits because each trip she wants to dress him in something new. I'm pretty sure my family isn't the only one like this.

I agree. Right now 100% of our souviner and extra snack money is going to Disney for our December trip because they have locked us in. But if we shortened our trips in the future, than Disney would get a smaller percentage of that money because there's no way we are going to US without buying the chocolate frogs, Butterbeer, wands, and Gryffindor scarves! I think we would be in the mindset of US being our splurge for souvenirs since we haven't been yet.

 

[cakebaker]

Folks, it really is OK if something Disney proposes to do browns your onions. You don't have to react by killing the messenger

Problem is, Disney hasn't proposed anything.

 

[Mikie]

My first reaction to the price increases was that we would have to stop going. But as I refected more, I found myself thinking that we would just shorten our stay at Disney. My brother's family lives in the area and we are all Disney fans so it's highly unlikely that we would never go back. But it is likely that we wouldn't do a 9-night stay on property with the increases. More than likely we would go 3-4 days and then spend the rest of our time at my brother's house or offsite and visit US, Sea World, and Wet 'n Wild. So if Disney is trying to encourage shorter stays, it's already working!

More than likely we would keep our MK days and go one day to Epcot. I'm not so sure about the other parks. Maybe AK because we do like it there and with the additions of nighttime attractions it might be worth the money, but HS would be out completely. Even with 9 days this trip we are only park hopping for the Osborne Lights and Evening EMH and possibly considering an EMH morning before park hopping to Epcot. It's just not worth a full day admission to us. I know that some people feel the same about Epcot even though we still enjoy it.

Does anyone else see the possibility of attendance increasing at the MK and dropping at the other three parks with a shorter stay strategy? I guess that could be your "guaranteed lower crowds" in those parks but I think MK could be slammed! I just don't see many decreasing their days at MK even though they would be decreasing their stays.

I believe if the proposed increases eliminated the super-low incremental cost of additional days, it would certainly reduce length of stay. I can see why Disney thinks two 3/4 day stays would be more lucrative than one 7 day stay and would therefore consider a major paradigm shift in the steep discounts for longer tickets.

However, Right now, it's not a question of "$100ish for one Disney day, $100ish for one Uni day, which has greater value.?" For many visitors who are primarily going to Disney, it's $10 for one more Disney day vs $100 ish for Uni. Disney gets my extra couple bucks on tickets and all my hotel, food and souvenir money. If the price hike comes largely in the form of severely reduced benefits in longer tickets, MK will definitely be overburdened as the price of getting into Epcot, DHS or AK becomes a ridiculously high average of $90+ per day, compared to a current average daily ticket price as low as about $35 and people are forced to realize those gates aren't worth such a price.

A real shakeup in the way ticket prices are calculated may make more people take a closer look at cost vs value and exactly what they're getting, where a simple % price hike would have been swept under the rug. It's a level of scrutiny I don't think Disney can withstand at such a high proposed/potential hike.

 

[mummabear]

Does anyone else see the possibility of attendance increasing at the MK and dropping at the other three parks with a shorter stay strategy

I agree with you (and a previous poster) that it will only create a bigger problem with MK. We have a 10 day ticket and will be spending 5 of them at MK, we also have 2 party days and are considering another 2 and still will keep or 5 MK days.
If we were forced but price to go down to 5 days we would spend 3 of them at MK, maybe more likely to buy hoppers and go to MK in the evenings too.

 

[mummabear]

I believe if the proposed increases eliminated the super-low incremental cost of additional days, it would certainly reduce length of stay. I can see why Disney thinks two 3/4 day stays would be more lucrative than one 7 day stay and would therefore consider a major paradigm shift in the steep discounts for longer tickets.

However, Right now, it's not a question of "$100ish for one Disney day, $100ish for one Uni day, which has greater value.?" For many visitors who are primarily going to Disney, it's $10 for one more Disney day vs $100 ish for Uni. Disney gets my extra couple bucks on tickets and all my hotel, food and souvenir money. If the price hike comes largely in the form of severely reduced benefits in longer tickets, MK will definitely be overburdened as the price of getting into Epcot, DHS or AK becomes a ridiculously high average of $90+ per day, compared to a current average daily ticket price as low as about $35 and people are forced to realize those gates aren't worth such a price.

A real shakeup in the way ticket prices are calculated may make more people take a closer look at cost vs value and exactly what they're getting, where a simple % price hike would have been swept under the rug. It's a level of scrutiny I don't think Disney can withstand at such a high proposed/potential hike.

 

[ML_LovesDisney]

I just completed a survey based on my visit last October. All was happy, even magical perhaps, until i got to the "meat" of their questions. The possibility of 3 different levels of tickets based on not only day of week but time of year as well ... Gold, Silver & Bronze. Some bizarre algorithm used to determine what the entire cost of tickets would be since they are also considering that even if you buy multi-day tickets you would pay more on the days you visit MK even with a park-hopper option added?? Using the formula provided i would have paid close to $1300.00 EACH for the ten days we visited. If i was to buy tickets from the website right now i would pay that for BOTH!

Anyone else get this survey?? Make anymore sense to you as to how they are coming up with this pricing?? OH ... the GOLD pricing for a MK day is over 130.

Wow, this would be interesting. It seems they are trying to find ways to drive people to the other parks besides MK

 

[WillAustin]

Problem is, Disney hasn't proposed anything.

You keep saying that, but it just semantics. Sending out a survey asking questions certainly falls within the definition of proposing these tiered tickets. I'd go so far as to say, yes, there will be tiered tickets. With the survey, they are measuring how high they can set the prices.

 

[Marionnette]

Wow, this would be interesting. It seems they are trying to find ways to drive people to the other parks besides MK

All they need to do is price the other parks consistent with their entertainment value. You don't raise prices on customers and then take multiple attractions permanently offline without replacing them and then expect that people will flock to those parks.

 

[Marionnette]

You keep saying that, but it just semantics. Sending out a survey asking questions certainly falls within the definition of proposing these tiered tickets. I'd go so far as to say, yes, there will be tiered tickets. With the survey, they are measuring how high they can set the prices.

...and the best way to present it to the customer so that they accept the price increases without a second thought.

 

[cakebaker]

You keep saying that, but it just semantics. Sending out a survey asking questions certainly falls within the definition of proposing these tiered tickets. I'd go so far as to say, yes, there will be tiered tickets. With the survey, they are measuring how high they can set the prices.

As someone else pointed out earlier, companies often ask survey questions that on the surface would seem to have nothing to do with their actual intent.

It's not semantics. No one has a clue as to the real reason they put those surveys out, and no one can reliably make sure statements as to any further intent. Anyone can guess and half of them will be right. 50/50 odds aren't bad and not indicative of any superior insight.

I don't know what their intentions are- I can guess with the best of them, but it seems pointless unless one just wants bragging rights when we finally know for sure. It's an interesting general discussion of what people would think if x, y or z happens- but to assume it "will" happen is just shooting in the dark.

 

[WillAustin]

HS is simply sad in it's current state. Some of the shows have become quite dated and are not drawing crowds away from the few rides this park has. They have a lot of empty buildings as well that they could be doing something with but they just keep shutting more down with nothing new announced.

I'm a bit surprised that Disney hasn't taken some bold steps in every park based on the security of their solid attendance. They certainly have the space and IP for new attractions across the board in Epcot and DHS.

 

[WillAustin]

I don't know what their intentions are- I can guess with the best of them, but it seems pointless unless one just wants bragging rights when we finally know for sure. It's an interesting general discussion of what people would think if x, y or z happens- but to assume it "will" happen is just shooting in the dark.

The discussions aren't pointless, if only for the possibility that online complaints about the potential changes can change or mitigate any plans. It happens all the time. You can say they'll do whatever they want, but public responses, both to the surveys directly and through online buzz on websites, play a large part in how things turn out.

 

[Angel Ariel]

You can say they'll do whatever they want, but public responses, both to the surveys directly and through online buzz on websites, play a large part in how things turn out.

I was just reminded the other day of how Disney can listen to its customers and change things. They were going to take out the Aladdin stage show at DLR and put in a Toy Story musical. It was announced and everything that it was happening, IIRC. The local DLR base got very vocal very quickly. Aladdin is still playing in DCA years later. That was entirely due to the DLR base voicing their opinions before it came to pass.

 

[cakebaker]

The discussions aren't pointless, if only for the possibility that online complaints about the potential changes can change or mitigate any plans. It happens all the time. You can say they'll do whatever they want, but public responses, both to the surveys directly and through online buzz on websites, play a large part in how things turn out.

Discussions are rarely pointless if one finds them interesting. And a heavy backlash from customers can often make a difference in any company. Making sure statements that one knows what will happen are.