New survey .. proposal .. Tiered Ticket Prices

[cigar95]

Then why are they increasing the 10 day tickets by the largest percent?

No reason to assume they are.

 

[cakebaker]

I'm with Josh on this one . Check his twitter feed for his "opinion" . lol

 

[Angel Ariel]

I'm not sure why the TP article didn't include the information that the chart they used was just one and that there were others that had been used. Nor do I understand why they didn't disclose that they used the worst case scenario available- but those 2 things make me question their article and honestly, pretty much discount it. I don't like sensationalism and not being open in the article bothers me a great deal.

IF it is true that Mr Testa intentionally left out information, then I would agree that it casts doubt on his article.

There could be as simple of an answer as, at the time he wrote it it was the only chart he knee about. Even here on this thread, there were posts this morning having to explain that there was more than 1 chart. I'm not saying that's what happened, because I don't know. But I'd go to the source and ask before assuming there was ill intent.

 

[ArwenMarie]

I think he said sample prices. There were many versions of this survey, not sure how he could post them all.

In any case, I think the main points of his article (three things to like and dislike) still stand, no matter which version of the numbers you are looking at. The blog post was written from the perspective of "IF" this happens and as an opinion piece.

 

[shepd]

I'm fine with the idea of discounted pricing based on how crowded the place is. That is (somewhat, mostly it is in regards to season's pass purchase time, but there are other discounts that can apply based on the expected crowds, typically massive discounts on mother's and father's days) how they do things where I am. The one thing that I don't get is the massive discounts for Florida residents that still exist. I'm guessing there must be a tax break for them, because here there's $0 discount for locals when it comes to theme parks or other attractions, and outside Florida and California I don't see it in the US (though inside Florida it isn't just Disney doing it). Just try getting a deal because you're from Ontario at Canada's Wonderland, despite it being the most popular park in the country.

The price is what the price is. I'll return someday, but I have a limited income. If the price is too high, I may end up with just 1 or 2 days to spend in the park, and only every few years. That might end up working in Disney's favour anyways, since those of us on limited incomes can't really dosh out for expensive restaurants or souveniers in the park, anyways.

 

[Hopelessly_Devoted]

I got this survey right after I booked. Rotten idea.

 

[ArwenMarie]

I'm fine with the idea of discounted pricing based on how crowded the place is. That is (somewhat, mostly it is in regards to season's pass purchase time, but there are other discounts that can apply based on the expected crowds, typically massive discounts on mother's and father's days) how they do things where I am. The one thing that I don't get is the massive discounts for Florida residents that still exist. I'm guessing there must be a tax break for them, because here there's $0 discount for locals when it comes to theme parks or other attractions, and outside Florida and California I don't see it in the US (though inside Florida it isn't just Disney doing it). Just try getting a deal because you're from Ontario at Canada's Wonderland, despite it being the most popular park in the country.

The price is what the price is. I'll return someday, but I have a limited income. If the price is too high, I may end up with just 1 or 2 days to spend in the park, and only every few years. That might end up working in Disney's favour anyways, since those of us on limited incomes can't really dosh out for expensive restaurants or souveniers in the park, anyways.

My theory is that WDW gives generous discounts to Floridians for political reasons. Ensures goodwill etc.

 

[SmithSmith]

I think he said sample prices. There were many versions of this survey, not sure how he could post them all.

In any case, I think the main points of his article (three things to like and dislike) still stand, no matter which version of the numbers you are looking at. The blog post was written from the perspective of "IF" this happens and as an opinion piece.

No, the article would be completely different if he examined (or included) the other pricing chart. The chart he cited has one MAJOR factor the other doesn't have, which is:

When purchasing tickets, a guest will choose a one day ticket each day.

You do not find this wording on the other chart. The other chart is essentially a $0-$40 increase on today's prices. So his 3 dislikes are redundant under the other pricing scheme:

1. It complicates an already complicated ticket-buying process
Len jokes by writing: The name “Two Bronze, Four Silver, One Gold Adult Water Park Fun and More Hopper” doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue.

That's not how the other chart would sell tickets considering:

• Multi-day tickets crossing two or more seasons must be purchased at the highest season’s price

2. It’s a huge increase in ticket prices
He adds: Yeah, you’re reading that right: the proposed scheme is a 10 to 90% increase in admission costs for most tickets. If your first thought after reading that is not “You’ve got to be &^%#-ing kidding me,” congratulations – you’re a better person than I.

That's not how the other chart would price out days since it's just a $0-$40 bump on all ticket categories. So not a "huge increase" like Len states.

3. It doesn’t take in to account special events or the current state of the Hollywood Studios
Len argues: Disney’s Hollywood Studios isn’t worth $100 in admission. There – I said it. There are too many closed, cut-back, or outdated attractions to even pretend it’s in the same class as the other Disney or Universal parks.

Again, not how the other chart would price out days. Under the other structure there will not be $100 a day admission to the parks, so this point is also moot.

 

[WillAustin]

The other chart is essentially a $10-$20 increase on today's prices.

Which is still essentially ridiculous.

 

[SmithSmith]

Which is still essentially ridiculous.

Sorry, that was supposed to read $0-$40 increase.

 

[cakebaker]

IF it is true that Mr Testa intentionally left out information, then I would agree that it casts doubt on his article.

There could be as simple of an answer as, at the time he wrote it it was the only chart he knee about. Even here on this thread, there were posts this morning having to explain that there was more than 1 chart. I'm not saying that's what happened, because I don't know. But I'd go to the source and ask before assuming there was ill intent.

I don't care why it wasn't included. Not my job to figure out why he did or did not do what he did. If he wrote the piece not knowing there were more samples - he should do a follow up.

Regardless, his piece does not accurately depict the situation and is woefully misrepresentative of the current situation.

And if he was aware of other samples and intentionally chose the most outrageous one- it's much more than that. But- that's his responsibility to explain, not mine.

I simply give his opinion little weight because of it regardless.

 

[WillAustin]

Sorry, that was supposed to read $0-$20 increase.

You're welcome to believe that going to a tiered ticket system won't cost guests any more, but you'd most certainly be incorrect. The people that will be most impacted will be those that can't pick an off-peak time for their vacations, not those that can most afford a higher price.

 

[SmithSmith]

You're welcome to believe that going to a tiered ticket system won't cost guests any more, but you'd most certainly be incorrect. The people that will be most impacted will be those that can't pick an off-peak time for their vacations, not those that can most afford a higher price.

Please go back and read my first post in this thread. I am not for this tiered system, please don't assume I am.

 

[Angel Ariel]

Regardless, his piece does not accurately depict the situation and is woefully misrepresentative of the current situation.

What current situation? All of this is still hypothetical. He examined one possibility. Not examining the others in the same post doesn't make him a liar.

As I said in my last post - IF this information was intentionally left out, the I agree it casts doubt. I just disagree with assuming that it was done intentionally for the sake of sensationalism or to intentionally mislead people.

 

[WillAustin]

I just disagree with assuming that it was done intentionally for the sake of sensationalism or to intentionally mislead people.

I think that's mostly reserved for the data showing how well FP+ works for everyone.

 

[OrangeCountyCommuter]

And that's why I don't worry that those kind of prices are on the horizon. I'm confident they aren't going to get any kind of response that leads them to believe they can do it.

People said similar things when FP+ was all speculation. I am confident major price hikes are on the horizon.

There are too many versions of the survey for there not to be something in the works The one Len used may be the worst case but I expect you're going to see a huge increase no matter what. Disney has an amazing ability to ignore survey results and spin whatever they want out of it. Trust me this will be something we asked for. LOL


I I am in hysterics however over the fact that people are shooting the messenger. Folks the author of that article did not make up that chart, Disney sent it to people.

If you want to blame someone for that bad press see Disney

 

[Planogirl]

I wonder if they might send out the worst case scenario so that the other charts don't seem so bad? I won't call that misleading anyone but it might be them saying that we could do "this".

 

[cigar95]

Disney has an amazing ability to ignore survey results and spin whatever they want out of it.

A Fortune 100 company isn't going to ignore survey data. There will indeed likely be a disconnect between their *public statements* and their internal decision making, but if Disney is taking a series of surveys such as this one, you can be sure that the information is going to be used internally to help someone make decisions. Of course those decisions are intended for the company's benefit, which includes, in part, attempting to minimize the negative reaction from the public. (Or, in a moment of cynicism, for the benefit of those making the decision.)
Take an oversimplified example. If a survey question ever comes out and asks "should we raise prices", you can be sure that it isn't because they're trying to decide whether or not they should raise prices. Of course the public response will be overwhelmingly "no", so the question would be a waste of time. But if they offer three different surveys that ask the question in three different (and less obvious) ways, they can use the results of those surveys and the differences between the different versions to garner information about where customers are more sensitive to price point changes, especially when combined with variations of their features. This has been my point from the beginning - survey questions are often used to get information about something other than the explicit question presented.

If you think back to when Disney was restructuring its ticket offerings every two or three years, changing the names and updating how they were used, that's what was going on - these were all tweaks designed to generate more revenue, and by changing the structure of the offerings it made the revenue increases less obvious. It seems that since 2005, they've hit on a structure that works, as it's been largely the same up until the recent end to the non-expiring option. (The *prices* have gone up each year, but the offerings themselves and the terms have not changed much.)

If there's a valid criticism of Len here, it's that he's knowingly only presenting part of the story. (And he's made it clear that he *is* aware of the other versions of the survey.) In doing so, he presents just one possible concept and (*implicitly*) makes it sound like this is the version that we can expect to see rolled out in some form. So when he presents it to the eternally-clueless Matt Hochberg, he gets the predictable knee-jerk reaction.

 

[ArwenMarie]

I really don't think Len implied that this will be rolled out? He uses words like "sample" "survey" "considering" "proposal" He uses "proposal" thorough the entire blog post actually. I see the point that he chose the worst one to analyze. The only thing he should have done is wrote a sentence that this was one of many price charts. Other than that it's an opinion piece.

 

[WillAustin]

I wonder if they might send out the worst case scenario so that the other charts don't seem so bad? I won't call that misleading anyone but it might be them saying that we could do "this".

I agree. If you leak a potential 50% price increase, an actual 15% increase seems much more reasonable.

See, the sky only fell halfway.