Poll on Why we think DCL changed their alcohol Policy

[MinnesotaMouseketeers]

This poll is ridiculous!
When they start putting casinos on DCL ships, is the day I believe it is all about money.

 

[littleblackegg]

Why would anyone think an unpopular decision was about anything but increasing profits?

Because it is easier to blame the lady who wears a scandalously tiny bikini and carries vodka around in her tote. We seem to be wired to assign blame and judgment even when the situation doesn't call for it. If you can blame the entire policy change on people whom you feel are behaving poorly, then you won't assign blame to DCL's board of directors, who of course, make all decisions to protect the company's bottom line.

 

[MinnesotaMouseketeers]

I called it a simple poll, trying to keep it that way. I seriously think it comes down to these two options.

Notice I didn't try to make answers suit my personal choice with things like, "I drink DCL Kool Aid, am a stockholder, and think they did it to because they care about their customers "

Yes, you did make it to suit your personal choice! There is nothing serious about this poll.

 

[mlayton14]

Wow this poll is a total route ! Never saw 90% of people agree on anything but this one is so obvious except to the cheerleaders waving their pompoms. Those 10% would think of excuses no matter what happens, and they aren't even on the payroll !

 

[TheLanes]

Wow this poll is a total route ! Never saw 90% of people agree on anything but this one is so obvious except to the cheerleaders waving their pompoms. Those 10% would think of excuses no matter what happens, and they aren't even on the payroll !

Yet the person above you thinks I rigged the poll. LOL. It was to me, the main two sides of the argument summed up in two choices.

 

[Orukal]

Yet the person above you thinks I rigged the poll. LOL. It was to me, the main two sides of the argument summed up in two choices.

I consider the two sides of the argument behind the change to be 1) Profit and 2) Taking away privileges because they were abused which contributed to liability issues. I don't believe that this was done because they care about their customers (Not to say that they don't, but I just don't believe that this is the driving purpose). That argument might seems stronger if they eliminated all carry on alcohol. They aren't eliminating alcohol, just limiting how much of it you don't have to buy from them.

My family and I will be sailing late October through early November. I had intended on bringing a bottle of Jack on board, but now, as I can't, my wife and I will be bringing two bottles of wine each for her (I don't like wine). If that's the policy, then I'm not going to worry about trying to circumvent it. However, I've already made my point to my wife that I won't be buying any drinks on the boat. I just don't feel like spending the extra money for it. No biggie. I'm fine without it.

I don't like the new policy in light of the fact that is almost entirely negates a previous policy that I have taken advantage of before and had planned on again, but it is their legal right. As one who falls into the post-PIF crowd, it kind of sucks how it effected us.

On the flip side of the coin, my wife and I had a nice time last night pricing other cruise lines and looking over their itineraries. 2 months from now will most likely mark our last Disney Cruise. The prices alone make it hard to pass up.

 

[JimmyV]

I'm not sure why some people think that the poll is "a joke" or rigged, or biased. You can word it any way you want, but in the least jaded and slanted way that I know how, the reasons for the change boil down to two (with subparts):

1. Every ounce-and-a-half of liquor poured from a bottle that was brought on by a guest is an ounce-and-a-half that is not purchased from a bar or restaurant. Every bottle of wine that is brought on and consumed is one less bottle that is purchased from a bar or restaurant. Every can of beer that is brought on and consumed is one less beer that is purchased from a bar or a restaurant. Disney wants to capture these sales, so it prohibits bringing on liquor to capture 100% of that market, and limits the amount of wine and beer that can be brought on to capture a percentage of that market. There really is no way to say this with any less "slant", bias or agenda. It is what it is.

2. The second possible reason is that Disney has found, (or assumes), that people who bring on their own alcohol tend to consume more than people who do not bring on their own, and that liquor drinkers are bigger offenders than wine and/or beer drinkers, and hence, they are prohibiting liquor and limiting beer and wine. They are doing this to curtail the amount of alcohol consumed by passengers because too much consumption results in, (and here come the subparts):
a. A less-than-family-friendly at-mouse-phere;
b. Unsightly intoxicated people who present a danger to themselves and other passengers;
c. Belligerent intoxicated people who are a danger to, and get argumentative with, the crew.

That's it. Those are the only two reasons why this action was taken.

So if you believe with all your heart and all your soul that the reason was #2 (and its subparts), let's take a deeper dive into that. Will this policy actually result in less alcohol being consumed by guests? Consider the following types of drinkers.

Wanda the Wine Gal. She and her travelmate like to have a glass of white wine each afternoon on their balcony before dinner and then enjoy a full bottle of red wine with dinner. Perhaps after dinner, they have a Cordial or a Single Malt. They bring on their own wine, but buy the after dinner drinks (if any) on board. The single glass of white wine is poured from bottles that they bring on. A bottle holds 6 glasses, so each bottle lasts them three days. For a 7 day cruise, they bring on two bottles of white. This gets them through 6 days. If they need more, they buy it on board. They have seven nights' worth of dinners and a bottle of red with each dinner. As a result, they bring on 7 bottles of red. Total number of bottles brought on and consumed = 9. (2 x white and 7 x red). Under the new rules, Wanda and her travelmate will bring on one white and three reds at the time of departure. This will hold them over for three full days. During that time, they will be making at least one port stop, at which point they can purchase and bring on board one more white and three more reds. This will hold them over for three more days. During that time, they will be making another port stop at which point they can source and bring on board the 9th and final bottle that they need. So unless Wanda is taking an extended re-positioning cruise where she goes four or more consecutive days without a port stop, she is allowed to bring on the same amount of wine that she has always brought on board. So no, this new policy will not change her drinking habits or her alcohol volume one little bit.

Billy the Beer Guy. He likes a particular brand or style of beer that he knows, or suspects, will not be available on board. He drinks on average 3 to 4 bottles per day. His travelmate drinks perhaps 1 to 2 beers a day. Maybe more on sea days, and less on intensive port days. But on average, we'll call it 5 beers between the two of them. On a 7 day cruise, he will need three cases of beer, so that is what he brings along. Under the new policy, he carries on a six pack, and his travelmate does as well. They now have 12 beers in their cabin. Just as we saw with Wanda, Billy and his travelmate are good to go for several days and can re-stock along the way as long as they have a port stop once every four days. So his alcohol consumption will not be curtailed. If he was a problem before, he will continue to be one.

Jack the Whiskey Guy. Jack brings on a fifth of his favorite Whiskey and his travel companion brings on her favorite Gin. They mix up their drinks with their favorite spirits in the room and carry them around the ship in plastic cups. They are now no longer able to do that, and they are restricted to buying drinks from the ship's stock of brands. As of right now, it is unknown if Jack and his companion will buy as much liquor as they consumed before. Maybe the inconvenience will slow them down. Maybe the price will slow them down. Or maybe they won't be curtailed at all and they will simply leave the ship with a hefty bar bill.

So there it is, folks, in black and white. Let's look at the scorecard.

For guests who used to bring on wine and/or beer: The new policy cannot have been implemented for Reason Number 2 (with subparts). These guests have the ability to replicate the amount of alcohol that they consumed before by bringing on beer and wine and supplementing their supply with on-shore purchases. If Disney is trying to lessen their consumption, they have failed. Was the policy implemented for Reason Number 1? Well, if the wine and beer lovers continue to bring on an initial supply at departure and supplement it with on-shore purchases, then no. Disney will not reap any additional profit from them. But if purchasing wine and/or beer while in port becomes difficult or too inconvenient, then there is a chance that these guests will stick with their initial allotment at departure and buy the remaining bottles/cans as needed while on board. So while there was a complete failure of Reason Number 2 (with subparts), there is the possibility that Reason Number 1 will come to fruition. It all depends on how vigilant these guests are with their shopping while in port.

For guests who used to bring on liquor: It is possible that Reason Number 2 (with subparts) was the purpose. We just don't know. Is it possible that people who are forced to buy drinks will consume less alcohol then people who can bring their own? Yes. It is absolutely possible that this is the case. But there are two problems here. First, since the complete prohibition applies only to liquor and not to beer and wine, then Disney must have made a value judgment that liquor drinkers pose a greater threat to the at-mouse-phere, safety and crew confrontations than do wine or beer drinkers. Is there any truth to support that supposition? Why seek to curtail the consumption of only one type of drinker? Second, consider whether on these Boards there have been more complaints about drunken behavior while on board DCL ships, or at Epcot's Food and Wine event. Now, consider the fact that every drop of alcohol consumed by guests while on Epcot property was sold to the guests by Disney. So does selling alcohol to people result in said people not getting intoxicated? The experiences at Epcot would suggest not. Still, this is a behavior that can be studied, but will take time to reveal its results. It is entirely possible that Disney wants liquor drinkers to cut back, and its new policy will achieve that goal.

But what about Reason Number 1? Will the new policy cause Disney to achieve a higher profit from liquor drinkers? The answer to that one does not need to be studied, and will not require time to reveal its answer. Let's say that a drink costs $6 and the liquor drinker orders on average, 4 per day. That's $24 per day, times 7 days, or $168 (less the overhead of the wholesale cost of the liquor itself). Pretty close to a 10% increase over the per person cost of the cruise. Not bad.

So is the real reason for the change Reason Number 1 with the possible side-effect being Reason Number 2 (with subparts), or is the reason for the change Reason Number 2 (with subparts) with the possible side-effect being Reason Number 1? There it is, in as much of an unslanted, unbiased way that I know how to present it.

 

[MUN]

Seriously, those are the only options?

If you and others don't like the poll, don't take it. Better yet, create your own poll if you like.

 

[PrincessShmoo]

If you and others don't like the poll, don't take it. Better yet, create your own poll if you like.

I didn't.

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

Seriously, those are the only options?

I agree Shmoo, with just the two choices as set up, the results received was what would be expected.. The choices did not provide fair range of views..

IMHO, What is the most chosen choice is not importat, but a overview of the possible reasons.

AKK

 

[over50visits]

with just the two choices as set up, the results received was what would be expected.. The choices did not provide fair range of views..

IMHO, What is the most chosen choice is not importat, but a overview of the possible reasons.

AKK

I disagree. When I think about it, this is basically a poll that allows us to express what we pretty well know, Disney (and other lines) do things either to comply with laws or to increase profit. So how you word the alternative doesn't matter too much, because it is basically "not to increase profit." Although the results aren't really surprising, it does provide the genesis of a good continuing discussion of various motivations we do consider. And the poll does validate what we expected.

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

I disagree.

There are various other reasons one of the biggest is why would DCL change a very popular perk that has worked for years, unless the guests were abusing it?. They continue to have great booking and even if they weren't, you don't cheapen the product to drawn in passengers, you make it better. How about a choice of if there were problem with some guests getting drunk with their own alcohol?....or adualt with giving their kids alcohol even if they weren't 21?,and that is just two.

With just those 2 points, its not even a real poll.

I stand by my points....as have others.


AKK

 

[JimmyV]

So how you word the alternative doesn't matter too much, because it is basically "not to increase profit."

There are various other reasons

To mollify both points of view, a poll could be taken where there are only two choices and they are:

• To increase profit
• Any other reason(s), not related to profit, that you can think of.

The second option allows the user to essentially vote against the first, for any reason whatsoever. And even if this were done, I don't think that the poll results would change. But as Tonka points out above, the fact that this board has a 90% view on what is going on cannot prove that this is what is going on. It can, however, establish how DCL's actions are being received and what the public perception is. And as the saying goes, sometimes perception becomes reality.

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

To mollify both points of view, a poll could be taken where there are only two choices and they are:

• To increase profit
• Any other reason(s), not related to profit, that you can think of.

The second option allows the user to essentially vote against the first, for any reason whatsoever. And even if this were done, I don't think that the poll results would change. But as Tonka points out above, the fact that this board has a 90% view on what is going on cannot prove that this is what is going on. It can, however, establish how DCL's actions are being received and what the public perception is. And as the saying goes, sometimes perception becomes reality.

in black.............THIS!..I totally agree with you here Jimmy.

AKK

 

[over50visits]

To mollify both points of view, a poll could be taken where there are only two choices and they are:

• To increase profit
• Any other reason(s), not related to profit, that you can think of.

The second option allows the user to essentially vote against the first, for any reason whatsoever. And even if this were done, I don't think that the poll results would change. But as Tonka points out above, the fact that this board has a 90% view on what is going on cannot prove that this is what is going on. It can, however, establish how DCL's actions are being received and what the public perception is. And as the saying goes, sometimes perception becomes reality.

Yep - that kind of sums up the poll, but takes care of ALL points of view with the "any other" choice. Kind of:
(1) To increase profit
(2) None of the above

 

[The Sasquatch]

its very simple

Disney is a public company whose sole purpose is increasing profits year over year for its shareholders, period.

Most everyone here agrees that DCL has just about hit its limit with pricing and because of the way DCL does not charge for everything on the boat, there is very little opportunity to increase profits on the ship so here we have a new opportunity. You dont need polls, this is what every company in the world does.

I would go even farther to say the policy has residual benefits such as keeping the Disney/Family atmosphere on the ships just as it does in its parks. If anything, even having the ability to bring any alcohol on board is a bonus. I mean you cant walk into WDW with a 6 pack and people are just fine. This isnt a NASCAR race and frankly I agree with it. I spend alot of money to have a Disney experience and would like to keep it that way.

Just for the record, I drink and only like liquor so I get nothing and I am fine with it. I didnt bring bottles with me before and when I want a drink, I will purchase one.

 

[funfam]

Spend a Friday or Saturday night in Epcot during the Food and Wine Festival and then tell me more about this Disney/family atmosphere they keep in the parks. Attend a mixology or tequila tasting onboard and watch the people stumble out into that Disney/family atmosphere. Disney could care less of you get completely wasted.