New survey .. proposal .. Tiered Ticket Prices

[OrangeCountyCommuter]

So what sunflare is saying is "free dining" on a massive scale. I can see it now. The new price of a "Value" is $500 a night but it includes FREE food and FREE tickets and people are suddenly throwing money at Disney...

And it might work. People seem to lose all common sense when Disney adds the word FREE to a promotion LOL!

 

[ArwenMarie]

Here's a thought, and it's probably way off base, but whatever...

So we've got these tiers that seem to discourage longer, on season stays. But everyone knows Disney is doing everything they can to capture guests on site.

So, maybe, it's a stay on site, get a bigger ticket discount proposal - it may be a gold level day, but you're paying silver prices if you're onsite, and bronze prices because you adied the dining plan. All of those add ons cost way more than the proposed ticket price hikes, but give perceived "value." They can control how many guests are in parks...they only have so many rooms, resulting in less crowded parks. You can even go as far as adapting that for APs - block out more days, but if you stay on site, it acts as a blockout ticket (which they have completely gotten rid of at DL as a crowd control measure.)

Like I said...probably way over thinking things. But if I can do that math... their marketing people can too.

I totally agree with this. If they go to this tiering stuff, I could totally see a scenario where buying a package always comes out lower than buying the pieces a la carte, even for onsite room-only stays. Packages lock people in way earlier than even onsite room-only reservations. It would be like those Stay Play and Dine promotions...all of the time.

 

[hopemax]

It "feels" to me like Disney is testing the waters on the idea of "allowing" shorter stays and less time in the parks, rather than encouraging the all-Disney vacations they've been incentivizing, to see if they can get more money out of fewer guests. It fits with what they've been doing in recent years, reducing the perks for AP holders and other frequent guests in favor of first-time/occasional guests who spend more per day on their trips. Maybe they'd rather a guest spend part of his trip at Universal than be in a Disney park clogging up ride lines after his souvenir shopping and character meals are out of the way - better that he should hit each park (and all the unique gift shops therein) once and get out of the way to make room for someone who hasn't yet done their exit-through-the-gift-shop splurging, who is willing to book premium packages for a good view of the fireworks, etc. Most of what we're used to seeing Disney marketing do has been about pure numbers - getting more heads in beds and more guests through the gate - but it seems their strategy may gradually be shifting to selecting the right "kind" of parks guests that are the most profitable use of increasingly strained park/ride capacity.

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.

 

[Dizlvr]

I originally said that the price increase on my tickets wasn't enough to keep me away, but if prices are raised to the level of the other link then no way would we be going back to WDW. What the parks have to offer isn't even close to what it would cost to enter them.

 

[Tarheel girl 1975]

I agree with some parts of the TP article... but I also find some parts of it suspicious.

First, we know there are multiple pricing charts because they've been featured in this thread. So how come Len is only citing the one that has the highest jump in prices? He hasn't even mentioned the existence of the other pricing chart, the one that shows a relative minor jump in prices. Curious...

Second, in the article, he wrote:

After presenting the price calendar and table, Disney asked whether you would have:

• Visited on the same dates with the same ticket
• Changed the dates you visited or the number of days you bought
• Bought an annual pass

Why did he leave off the last question Disney asked in the survey? Which was:

Would not have visited the Walt Disney World theme park at all.

Third, with this comment:

However, there are a bunch of exceptions where Disney rates a day much higher than actual crowds. This is one way for Disney to raise prices – by saying a day is more crowded that it really is.

For example, there are 21 days in the past year that Disney has labeled “Gold” where the crowd level was 6 or below for the resort or the Magic Kingdom (July 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 19, 20, 26, and 27, 2014 are examples). And there are 39 days that Disney has labeled “Silver” where the crowd level was 4 or lower for the entire resort or the Magic Kingdom (Examples: November 1, 7, 8, 15, 16, 22, 30, 2014).

He's essentially accusing Disney of "moving the goal post". The issue I have with this commentary, is he's relying on his own TP crowd calendar to prove his point. However, his conclusion can be quickly refuted if you use the dates he cited and compare them to the easyWDW crowd calendar.

He explained a lot of this on the last WDW Today Podcast. But according to the survey, Disney isn't looking at just raising prices on the 2 weeks of the year the parks are usually filled to capacity. That might make sense. They are including all of July, the end of June and the beginning of August. That whole time doesn't have level 10 crowd levels. Don't rates for deluxe hotels usually decrease after July 20th? Easy WDW has most of Juy at a 7 with weekdays at an 8. Easy WDW has the first half of June predicted as 8's and 9's but those were silver days on the survey. He was also basing his commentary on the observed (not presicted) wait times for last year. Also, there are only 2 or 3 full weekend that are bronze. If you are using the information provided in WDWmagic's version of the survey, that would make a week long trip with a bronze ticket almost impossible.

You're both right. EasyWDW does not provide observed crowd level data like TP does, so there's no direct comparison. However, my point was... that I, and others, find TP crowd levels (whether observed or predicted) unreliable. But that's another discussion entirely.

Many others however, have found their wait times to be fairly reliable. Lots of people find the predicted wait times in the lines app more accurated than Dosn'ey's posted wait times.

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

Maybe their strategy isn't working. Maybe they aren't getting people to extend their trips. I thought I heard recently that a US visitor will stay an average of 4-5 days and an international visitor will stay an average of 7 days.

That makes sense, but why not update the original articles?

Maybe the reason that Len chose that chart was because no one else had published it yet and he wanted to show the worst-case scenario side of it since everyone else was publishing the best-case scenario. I even wonder if Disney sent the charts to different media outlets and blogs to follow the different reactions as part of the data gathering process. How do we know that Disney didn't send that particular chart to TP. When someone asks Len how to contact Disney about the price increase, he tells them to go ahead and post on the blog because Disney follows it-which made me wonder about how Disney uses social media to follow trends.

Personally, I appreciate hearing different perspectives and opinions. I feel like it helps me broaden my own. It's probably why I like the Dis so much!

I hadn't seen that chart before he posted it and found it interesting. It may also have been the first one that he saw.

I'm listening to Testa's podcast on this from yesterday, and there he does specifically say that there are other surveys that had lower prices.

That doesn't sound like aaomeone trying to hide anything or mislead anyone.

I found that whole podcast really very interesting.

 

[Tarheel girl 1975]

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.

WDW Today had a podcast with Samm Gennaway and they discussed Disney vs Univeral. I remember Samm said that people tend to spend more money at the beginning of their vacation and that Disney prefers that tourists visit Disney before Universal.

 

[agame2323]

WDW Today had a podcast with Samm Gennaway and they discussed Disney vs Univeral. I remember Samm said that people tend to spend more money at the beginning of their vacation and that Disney prefers that tourists visit Disney before Universal.

We always visit US before Dis. But for the first time ever, we'll be making a trip to Orlando JUST for US. In my family, US is starting to win the race

 

[WillAustin]

What I mean by that is that I price my hotel, price the experiences I want to do, and then, when I have that already scary number in front of me, my brain goes, "Oh yeah, and we have to buy tickets, of course." And suddenly, I've added $600 to my vacation, and I start thinking, "Wow, for $600, there are a lot of other things I could do."

Yes. For us (a family of 5), 10 day tickets or APs significantly add to the cost. Sometimes it's more than the airfare for all of us.

 

[wisblue]

I'm listening to Testa's podcast on this from yesterday, and there he does specifically say that there are other surveys that had lower prices.

That doesn't sound like aaomeone trying to hide anything or mislead anyone.

If he knew that there were other surveys with significantly lower sample prices out there, the responsible thing would have been to address that in the article. For example, he could have compared the prices in the chart he used to refer to the big "money grab" with the one that was published on WDW Magic that showed significantly lower prices for multi day tickets, including the retention of the $10 per day increase after 4 days.

In my opinion, it is one of two things:

1. He didn't know about the other price structure until someone pointed it out to him after he published the article, but he doesn't want to admit it.

2. The article was unprofessional because it intentionally misrepresented what Disney is floating out there in its surveys.

I don't think either of these possibilities reflects well on Mr. Testa, who I generally think presents very good information.

My reaction to the chart from WDW Magic is pretty much a big yawn because to me it just represents a different way of arriving at fairly typical Disney price increases. My reaction to the other one is quite a bit different than that and would definitely affect how we visit WDW. As a DVC member, I think it is safe to say that increasing AP prices to over $1000 (which would almost be necessary to be compatible with the rest of the one structure) would led to a revolt by DVC owners.

I will never say never, but I will be very surprised and somewhat upset if Disney adopts a price structure that so dramatically increases the cost of tickets for more than 4 park days.

 

[Angel Ariel]

If one has doubts about the author's integrity, then addressing it with the author would seem to be a good thing to do (since there is no lack of ability to do so).

 

[Rhombus]

I've only read the first five pages of this thread; I'll try to finish over the weekend.

I'm surprised that it took Disney so long to consider the idea of dynamic pricing. I figured it would have been in place by about 2012.

I was a member back about 5 years ago, and I suggested that dynamic pricing might be in the future. And I got my head ripped off for daring to even utter the possibility on the boards here.


I think my idea was that Disney might charge more for tickets purchased at the gates or for vacation packages booked during peak periods. Sort of like the Gold, Silver, and Bronze in the original post. The way to get around it would be to purchase tickets separately in advance, either at a Disney store or the website.

I still need to read the rest of the thread. I'm wondering if people who have wholly unused tickets will be charged a premium if they use them during peak periods. That is, if the dynamic pricing idea ever turns into a reality.

 

[mummabear]

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.

Interesting. We normally come for 3 weeks with 10 days in the parks (plus parties and other add ons), with the new pricing (depending on which new pricing) we will possibly to likely decrease our time to 5 days, for us this would also mean I am less likely to use my park time for extras (ADR's, tours, BBB etc) because my time would be more limited I wouldnt have the spare time to use. Thats a lot of money for Disney to throw away from us on the hope the next people in spend more than we would.

 

[ArwenMarie]

If he knew that there were other surveys with significantly lower sample prices out there, the responsible thing would have been to address that in the article. For example, he could have compared the prices in the chart he used to refer to the big "money grab" with the one that was published on WDW Magic that showed significantly lower prices for multi day tickets, including the retention of the $10 per day increase after 4 days.

In my opinion, it is one of two things:

1. He didn't know about the other price structure until someone pointed it out to him after he published the article, but he doesn't want to admit it.

2. The article was unprofessional because it intentionally misrepresented what Disney is floating out there in its surveys.

I don't think either of these possibilities reflects well on Mr. Testa, who I generally think presents very good information.

My reaction to the chart from WDW Magic is pretty much a big yawn because to me it just represents a different way of arriving at fairly typical Disney price increases. My reaction to the other one is quite a bit different than that and would definitely affect how we visit WDW. As a DVC member, I think it is safe to say that increasing AP prices to over $1000 (which would almost be necessary to be compatible with the rest of the one structure) would led to a revolt by DVC owners.

I will never say never, but I will be very surprised and somewhat upset if Disney adopts a price structure that so dramatically increases the cost of tickets for more than 4 park days.

What would a revolt by DVC members would look like? Honestly asking.

As far as I understand (I am not DVC), it is a timeshare and even if they closed the four parks down, not one DVC member would have a case for getting out of their contract.

 

[Angel Ariel]

Read through the comments on @lentesta 's article, saw this in a comment:

Also, is it possible they sent out 2 surveys? I saw a post on another site where the proposed multi-day ticket costs were much closer to the current costs, and I can’t imagine even Disney would consider hiking prices on all days so significantly at the same time they’d introduce the tiers.

Len Testa responded (response was longer, but only quoting what's related to this. The rest of Len's was in response to the commenter's comments on maintenance.)

It’s possible they sent out multiple surveys with different price points. It’s what I would do if I was trying to optimize revenue.

Someone else asked him about why his pricing was different than WDW Magic's, the poster then realized the charts were different and Len Testa responded:

Yeah, I think they’re testing different scenarios in the surveys. This one was kind of crazy. Thanks for reading!

Those were both posted on Wednesday, the day the blog was posted.

Then from yesterday, in response to another question about the different pricing:

Yes – Disney sent out different surveys with different price points.

I don't see any lack of acknowledgement of the other pricing structures here. The responses make it pretty clear, to me at least, that he was informed the multiple price structures after the fact, and acknowledged that openly.

 

[wisblue]

What would a revolt by DVC members would look like? Honestly asking.

As far as I understand (I am not DVC), it is a timeshare and even if they closed the four parks down, not one DVC member would have a case for getting out of their contract.

It's not a matter of being able to get out of the contract legally. But, DVC has an annual member meeting to discuss DVC issues, and I could see a large vocal group of members appearing at that meeting to express their displeasure. I don't think Disney would be too happy to see its current DVC owners reacting that way. They are still in the business of trying to sell to new members and want there to be a market for resales to make purchases more appealing to prospective new members. If anyone researching the possibility of buying into DVC finds the Internet cluttered with current members who are disenchanted, that isn't exactly going to promote new sales.

And, if the price increases are large enough, I wouldn't rule out the possibility of someone suing Disney for misrepresenting the value of DVC ownership. One of their selling points has been that DVC reduces the cost of future Disney vacations. If they negate the value of the accommodations through increases in park tickets that are way out of line with past experience, they could find themselves involved in a lawsuit that they might be able to win in a court of law, but that they would certainly lose in the court of public opinion.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Annual passes expire and need to be repurchased at the current pricing structure.

I explained why it is preferable. Given that it offers about 30x more days, current pricing structure is irrelevant to the fact you get much more bang for your buck. Just like those AP holders get now.

Consequently, I would always prefer it over a regular ticket.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

At DLR the AP's have a boatload of blackout dates, unless you are willing to pay more. I think the entire summer is blacked out for local AP's. So really, Disney could do the same a WDW.

They already do this with Florida Resident Seasonal passes to WDW. Easy enough to expand that concept to non-residents if they desired to do so.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Read through the comments on @lentesta 's article, saw this in a comment:



Len Testa responded (response was longer, but only quoting what's related to this. The rest of Len's was in response to the commenter's comments on maintenance.)


Someone else asked him about why his pricing was different than WDW Magic's, the poster then realized the charts were different and Len Testa responded:


Those were both posted on Wednesday, the day the blog was posted.

Then from yesterday, in response to another question about the different pricing:



I don't see any lack of acknowledgement of the other pricing structures here. The responses make it pretty clear, to me at least, that he was informed the multiple price structures after the fact, and acknowledged that openly.

From a blogging standpoint, acknowledging on a podcast that not everyone listens to is not the same as acknowledging in print.
(ETA: I see that this pertains to comments on his blogpost. The gist is the same because the original article remains unamended. )
This goes for any blogger on any topic.

So for his pricing article, it would not have been difficult to make to clear. His writing, his due diligence. (As it would be for any blogger of any topic.)

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

If one has doubts about the author's integrity, then addressing it with the author would seem to be a good thing to do (since there is no lack of ability to do so).

It would be a good thing to do. But an author should not depend upon their readers to do that. Integrity should be something they should have. If it takes you readership to point out something, then it is a sign that due diligence was not exercised by the author.

As a reader in general, I don't have time to go and point out a flaw in an article when I am researching something unless it is an egregious error. What I will do is rely less on that writer as a valid source and if it happens repeatedly, then that is one less reader they have.

I get bloggers want to scoop a big story. But scooping is useless if it lacks evidence of credibility. Once again, generally speaking.

It is a pattern of behavior demonstrated on these boards. Everyone has their particular poster who seems quite knowledgable on any given topic. But when they are wrong or omit something, we don't hesitate to point that out in the course of discussion. Why would a blogger be any different whether mentioned here or directed to that blogger?

 

[Angel Ariel]

From a blogging standpoint, acknowledging on a podcast that not everyone listens to is not the same as acknowledging in print.

This goes for any blogger on any topic.

So for his pricing article, it would not have been difficult to make to clear. His writing, his due diligence. (As it would be for any blogger of any topic.)

The quotes in my post that you quoted are from the comments section of his article. They are in print. My comments about the podcast earlier were separate from the post you quoted.