New survey .. proposal .. Tiered Ticket Prices

[wisblue]

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.

I guess we could quibble about whether including an example of a possible pricing structure for illustrative purposes in a survey represents an actual "proposal" to implement that pricing structure.

But, if it is a "proposal", then Disney is also proposing a price structure that would implement tiered pricing with a much less significant impact on what a guest would pay.

Because it may have gotten lost in the shuffle, here is a link to the item on the wdwmagic site that started this discussion in the first place:

http://www.wdwmagic.com/other/magic...ng-prices-based-on-season-survey-says-yes.htm

Because nobody else seems to want to do it, maybe we should give this sample the same level of analysis that has been given to the other one. In this schedule, for multi day tickets (note: all of these prices are before taxes):

1. The Bronze tier would be exactly the same as current prices, except that adding a 1-3 day hopper would be $50 instead of the current $64.

2. The Silver tier would be the same as the Bronze tier, plus $17 for a 2 day ticket and $20 for a longer ticket.

3. The Gold tier would be $20 more than the Silver tier.

To use a common example, a 7 day hopper ticket that would cost $399 today, would still cost $399 during the Bronze season, $419 during the silver season, and $439 during the Gold season. In other words, a guest subject to the Gold prices would be seeing an increase of 10% over today's prices. I think we would all agree that a 10% increase is a far cry from the 83% increase for a 7 day ticket that appears in the other sample price chart.

We all have to decide for ourselves what we think these surveys mean for the future. I know that some people on this thread are using them to predict that price increases of hundreds of dollars are coming in the near future. I am choosing to look at the whole picture ( at least that part of it that I know about) to take more of a wait and see approach.

Maybe some type of tiered pricing is coming and maybe it isn't. Personally, I think that it is better than a 50-50 chance that some form of this will be put in place because it is so common for other forms of entertainment, including theme parks. If it is put in place, the bottom line impact on the average guest could be minimal (as compared to normal and expected price increases) or could be as dramatic as reflected in the chart that has captured the lion's share of attention. My expectation is that it will be a lot closer to the former than the latter. Time will tell.

 

[Angel Ariel]

I can't believe there's now debate over whether this constitutes a proposal or not.

Proposal:
something (such as a plan or suggestion) that is presented to a person or group of people to consider

: the act of presenting a plan, suggestion, etc., to a person or group of people

Source: Merriam-Webster

Disney presented a suggestion to a group of people for consideration (in this case via a survey). That is the very definition of a proposal.

 

[amylevan]

I'm sorry, but I do not buy the idea that people who are 3/4 day trips spend more than the 7-10 day crowd. And I cannot imagine that Disney would want to encourage shorter stays:

1. First, you're assuming that by forcing people into 3/4 day stays there are people who were unable to come before that are taking up the other 7-10 day stays. Except, only during Christmas/Easter is WDW "sold out". So theoretically, you would want those people to come stay those 7-10 days AND those people who can come for 3/4 days.

2. I've said it earlier on the thread, but why would Disney ever want their parks to be less crowded? Unless the parks are filled to capacity they are leaving money on the table.

3. We typically spend 7-8 days in the parks. We have the same habits every day: counter service lunch, table service dinner, snack sometime during the afternoon. By forcing us to shorten our trip, they are losing our food money for those days we aren't there. Yes, our souvenir money is a set budget no matter how many days we are there, but the more days we are in the parks, the more chance that I'll see something that makes me reconsider our budget and possibly buy something extra.

 

[Mickey&Mouse]

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.

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.

The other one that comes to mind is the New Fantasyland expansion which was to originally include more princess cottages with meet-and-greets , as well as a Pixie Hollow area. However, that plan was modified largely due to public complaints over it being too focused on princesses.

 

[cakebaker]

I can't believe there's now debate over whether this constitutes a proposal or not.

WE aren't. Talk about semantics, this is it and it's beside the point. So others can continue to discuss definitions if they choose. I don't care to.

 

[Barnabe]

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.

Our family would only visit MK and maybe Epcot. I really think that's happening now. Guests my be spending some time at the other parks, but MK is the primary focus. On our last trip, the other parks were lightly attended, but MK seemed crowded.

 

[Barnabe]

WE aren't. Talk about semantics, this is it and it's beside the point. So others can continue to discuss definitions if they choose. I don't care to.

Who's WE?

 

[cakebaker]

Who's WE?

The royal we.

 

[WillAustin]

I can't believe there's now debate over whether this constitutes a proposal or not.

It's the obfuscation that I talked about before. Smokescreen to minimize complaints. If the thread can be directed into an argument over semantics it will usually end up being moved or closed, rather than being a healthy discussion of something that could negatively affect guests.

 

[Angel Ariel]

It's the obfuscation that I talked about before. Smokescreen to minimize complaints. If the thread can be directed into an argument over semantics it will usually end up being moved or closed, rather than being a healthy discussion of something that could negatively affect guests.

I apologize for contributing to the semantics discussion. I would hate for the good discussion happening here to get moved or closed. On that note, I'm off to enjoy the morning with my daughter

 

[BugsDaddy]

I guess we could quibble about whether including an example of a possible pricing structure in a survey represents a "proposal" to implement that pricing structure.

But, if it is a "proposal", then Disney is also proposing a price structure that would implement tiered pricing with a much less significant impact on what a guest would pay.

Because it may have gotten lost in the shuffle, here is a link to the item on the wdwmagic site that started this discussion in the first place:

http://www.wdwmagic.com/other/magic...ng-prices-based-on-season-survey-says-yes.htm

Because nobody else seems to want to do it, maybe we should give this sample the same level of analysis that has been given to the other one. In this schedule, for multi day tickets (note: all of these prices are before taxes):

1. The Bronze tier would be exactly the same as current prices, except that adding a 1-3 day hopper would be $50 instead of the current $64.

2. The Silver tier would be the same as the Bronze tier, plus $17 for a 2 day ticket and $20 for a longer ticket.

3. The Gold tier would be $20 more than the Silver tier.

To use a common example, a 7 day hopper ticket that would cost $399 today, would still cost $399 during the Bronze season, $419 during the silver season, and $439 during the Gold season. In other words, a guest subject to the Gold prices would be seeing an increase of 10% over today's prices. I think we would all agree that a 10% increase is a far cry from the 83% increase for a 7 day ticket that appears in the other sample price chart.

We all have to decide for ourselves what we think these surveys mean for the future. I know that some people on this thread are using them to predict that price increases of hundreds of dollars are coming in the near future. I am choosing to look at the whole picture ( at least that part of it that I know about) to take more of a wait and see approach.

Maybe some type of tiered pricing is coming and maybe it isn't. Personally, I think that it is better than a 50-50 chance that some form of this will be put in place because it is so common for other forms of entertainment, including theme parks. If it is put in place, the bottom line impact on the average guest could be minimal (as compared to normal and expected price increases) or could be as dramatic as reflected in the chart that has captured the lion's share of attention. My expectation is that it will be a lot closer to the former than the latter. Time will tell.

I don't think any reasonable person would expect that Disney will raise ticket prices 83%. I would guess it will be MUCH closer to the 10% number. I would be willing to bet on it.

All that being said, there are some people who prefer to look at the Doomsday scenerio when it comes to Disney. They won't even consider anything else. When FP+ was implemented, it was also supposed to be the death nail for Disney according to some people. The actual result, record attendance and profits.

No one has a crystal ball. It was a survey question. If someone wants to define it as a "proposal" or a "suggestion", it doesn't really matter. At the end of the day, it was a question on a survey and no one has any insight into what Disney is going to actually do. Even those who consider themselves, "in the know".

 

[BugsDaddy]

It's the obfuscation that I talked about before. Smokescreen to minimize complaints. If the thread can be directed into an argument over semantics it will usually end up being moved or closed, rather than being a healthy discussion of something that could negatively affect guests.

Do you really think there is some sort of conspiracy by posters on this message board in combination with all of the moderators, the owners of this site and Disney to censor comments?

 

[Barnabe]

IMO Disney will continue raising prices until they start seeing attendance dipping. Everyone speculated that when admission topped $100, attendance would drop. If I were Disney, I would be thinking that we underestimated the value of our product and now it's time to see how much we can charge. I don't think a 10% increase would be enough to effect attendance, so I think they'll go higher.

 

[cakebaker]

I see no one trying to further the semantics discussion except those complaining about it being furthered, which is a bit curious.

 

[Zippa D Doodah]

Problem is, Disney hasn't proposed anything.

I can't believe there's now debate over whether this constitutes a proposal or not.



Source: Merriam-Webster

Disney presented a suggestion to a group of people for consideration (in this case via a survey). That is the very definition of a proposal.

Thank you, Areil. Beat me to the response.

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

I don't know what Disney's intent is, but I do think the effect would be to drive more people to MK and away from the "lesser" parks. I use "lesser" to point out the extreme difference in number of attractions between MK and the other parks. I am supposing that attractions are a primary consideration for most guests. Any how, under the "proposed" pricing paradigm the relative lack of value of Epcot, AK, and DHS are exposed. Limited to a shorter number of park days, most guests are naturally going to gravitate toward the park that has a lot more attractions.
We all have our varying park preferences, but generally speaking a WDW vacation for many guests is centered around visiting MK. The other three parks are secondary to the vision and mission of the vacation. That reality would only be exaggerated under the "propsoed" pricing paradigm which slashes multi-day discounts.

 

[BugsDaddy]

I see no one trying to further the semantics discussion except those complaining about it being furthered, which is a bit curious.

I think they are all double agents secretly working for Disney.

 

[Zippa D Doodah]

IMO Disney will continue raising prices until they start seeing attendance dipping. Everyone speculated that when admission topped $100, attendance would drop. If I were Disney, I would be thinking that we underestimated the value of our product and now it's time to see how much we can charge. I don't think a 10% increase would be enough to effect attendance, so I think they'll go higher.

I think Disney might be better served by introducing a 40-50% price increase across the board rather than going with the confusing new model.

 

[WillAustin]

Do you really think there is some sort of conspiracy by posters on this message board in combination with all of the moderators, the owners of this site and Disney to censor comments?

Not something that widespread, no.

 

[Barnabe]

Problem is, Disney hasn't proposed anything.

Weren't you the one who started this discussion by saying that Disney's survey was not a proposal?

I see no one trying to further the semantics discussion except those complaining about it being furthered, which is a bit curious.

 

[mesaboy2]

I don't know, I seem to remember a poster ridiculously claiming that "nefarious things" were afoot by some who are less than pleased with the direction FP has taken, with the evil intent of making people feel bad about their Disney vacation.