So just why is Disney raising ticket prices so early

[kaytieeldr]

While on the one hand the fact that Disney does shut the doors at a certain point is (to me) evidence that the recognize there's an upper limit to how crowded a park can be before customer satisfaction wanes....

Actually I think the upper limit is based on how many guests a park will hold before it becomes a safety issue in an emergency.

 

[kaytieeldr]

Let's put aside your snottiness right now (completely uncalled for as the mistake was already pointed out and acknowledged, but if it makes you feel better...) and deal with the actual statement above.

Where on Earth did I say a joint venture is the same concept of ownership? The point was, as I think was stated very clearly, they are using each other to make money. I'm sure you're marketing/business courses covered the fact that you can do that without "owning" something.

Snotiness? Interesting. I responded right after reading a post; I wasn't aware the mistake had already been corrected. But again, claiming a joint venture between two companies that benefits both is 'like' - the second misstep - one (Disney) owning the other (HGTV/Scripps Networks) - which is the extremely serious mistake you made originally - just plain isn't true.

eta: Since you asked...first you said

HGTV pays for it. HGTV is owned by Disney.

And all I said was

Scripps Networks is going to be VERY interested to learn about that change in ownership!

Regrettable that you find no humor in human error (self-note: check etymology, having just noticed the similarity between those two words after mm-mm years of reading ).

I stand corrected. Just a marketing/joint venture contract. But, relatively the concept is still the same. Disney is making money of HGTV (and vice versa).

Two discrete companies benefiting or profiting from a joint venture is in NO way, relatively or otherwise, 'the same as' one company owning the other.

A little research goes a long way.

 

[KSDisneyDad]

I'd love to know how many people unhappy about the change stay onsite. For us, the ticket price practically IS the price of going to Disney. Having toured the DVC resorts and checked out a unit, I know I'm not staying onsite with my current entourage ever, and staying offsite costs us less than many another trip. We're not big shoppers and even in terms of my pin collecting I mostly buy Disney discount or wait to pick up specific pins off E-bay, so that cost is negligible. Only two of us are really into Disney food and even then it's only a snack here and there and maybe a CS lunch or two a week - which, again, on par with or even less than our spending elsewhere.

But since we're not into world traveling, hate cruises, don't ski, don't do amusement parks, and can travel off season for most potentially pricey vacations we want (beachfront in September is just as warm, much less crowded, and costs considerably less), Disney is an usually pricey vacation, and that price is the tickets (youngest is now old enough it's adult tickets times 7, in our family's case).

So for us, and I would guess for a lot of people, a change in the ticket prices is a real sock in the vacation budget, and a definite reason to consider vacationing elsewhere. If it was just hubby and I, or if we were traveling with just little ones then, yeah, there are a ton of deals Disney offers. Not surprising, since that's the group Disney's aiming at. But you gotta stay onsite to take advantage of most Disney deals, so for someone off site, changes in ticket prices are a big deal.

Personally, I'm much more cheered by pertinent cost-per-hour comparisons, for which I thank everyone who posted.

I don't disagree with most of what you said. If you read my post carefully, I did say "many" families pay less than pre-07. I didn't even go so far as to say "most" because I believe that most Disney visitors do not research Disney thoroughly and end up overpaying for their trip (i.e. they aren't on the DIS!).

To maximize profitability on guests like you who stay off-site, Disney has to charge more for the parks themselves. They would shoot themselves in the foot if they deeply discounted their tickets as it would encourage even more guests to stay-offsite and reduce overall spending per guest. However, if Disney keeps the ticket prices high, but offers discounts on room and food, they attract more guests on-site and often "trap" them with their free ME service, free bus transportation, etc. When guests are on-site without a car, nearly all of the vacation dollars go to Disney and not to Holiday Inn and Golden Corral et al.

And honestly, I really don't think that Disney "cares" as much about families that stay off-site compared to those that stay on-site. I mean that solely from a business standpoint. An off-site family is perhaps only spending $50 to $75 per person per day on Disney itself when you factor in food. A family staying on-site is spending a minimum of $94 and potentially $150++ per person per day factoring in resort and food. Granted, they aren't going to turn anyone down, but it's just that they aren't going to give many discounts or other incentives to someone staying off-site as it's more difficult to significantly increase per person spending if someone is off-site.

I also agree that on a per-hour basis, Disney is a "bargain" compared to most other forms of entertainment. I've tried to say that in past posts, but just not as succinctly.

 

[KSDisneyDad]

I think the APs are a tremendous value when you consider what you get for the money...especially when you live here.

Now I wish Disney would come up with a two park AP (you get to choose the parks) and include parking. That would be fantastic. I never go to AK or DHS so I spend my time at Epcot and MK. I think those would be in line with Universal's two park Preferred AP which is $219.99 for FL residents. Universal did not raise AP or Florida resident rates with this latest ticket increase.

I agree that they are a tremendous value. Just wish we could take advantage of them. I do think it's odd that those who get the least expensive tickets available still complain about the price rather than be thankful it's offered.

It's similar to those who can go during free dining complaining that they cut back on the free dining program. It's still "free" compared to the majority of guests who paid for it.

Sigh, we can debate it all we like, the reasons behind the price increases. I find it interesting myself and not a futile exercise. For some people here, increased prices mean less of a chance going back to Disney. So it makes sense to think about the thought behind the increase. Disney's quarterly earnings looked positive to me at least, they were up ten percent over last year. http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...hip-disney-world-attendance-walt-disney-parks

Precisely the point. Disney offered these discounts to bring people in during an economic recession. People came because they were able to save money by going which probably wouldn't have been the case without the discount. One can assume then that the so called affordable Disney vacation was only made so due to the special offers. Well, if you remove those offers, raise the prices and make cut backs, doesn't it stand to reason that less people will find it affordable anymore?

I guess the bottom line for me is that Disney is not an affordable vacation, even with the discounts. And when the powers that be (Bob Iger and Jay Rasulo) state the days of the discount are going bye bye, I think these prices will continue to rise. If the normal prices aren't what the public are used to, then people will balk at the increases and be leary of paying it. Vacation is a luxury IMO and one of the first things to get cut out of a family's budget during times of hardship (or recession obviously).

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you can't discuss it or debate it. I did say "post away". It's just that I believe that it's not going to change Disney's mind. That's why I said it's futile. The only way to change Disney's mind is for a huge percent of their guests to stop booking on-site and stay off-site or for more guests to vacation elsewhere to where they are forced to reduce prices to attract more guests.

It still may be worthwhile to discuss it to understand it and see different persepctives, but it's just not going to change the fact that the prices are higher.

And with respect to removing discounts causing it to be less affordable to more people. Yes, that is a very unfortunate side effect of raising prices and every family has to decide if (1) is it in our budget and (2) even if it's in our budget, is it a good vacation value? As long as there are people willing to pay current prices, there is no need to continue to offer deep discounts or as many deep discounts or find other means to do targeted savings to select groups of guests (pin codes, resident codes, etc.). This will mean that some families who answered Yes to both questions above can no longer go when they could during the past couple of years. Or it will mean shorter vacations, vacations further apart, staying off-site, etc. Disney is going to cater to those who are willing to spend what they are asking today and not to those who want things they used to be.

 

[flicx]

Why is it acceptable for virtually every other company in the world except Disney and the airlines to raise prices????
Sure, people complain when prices go up - but expenses go up. Publicly traded companies have to answer to stockholders. And really, ultimately, a Disney trip is a luxury, not a necessity. It's not a rite of passage. If you (any 'you') want and can afford to go, great. If you don't or can't, aspire to something else. I worked with a man whose ten year plan was to take his family to Walt Disney World. At the end of the ten years they took the money specifically saved for that trip and went on that trip.

Lets examine this statement.Airline prices aren't even in the same ball park as disney price raises.I have been going for 30 yrs and flying most of the time when I go.Heck I can come close to getting the same price for airfare to disney that I got in 85.Tickets to disney have gone from17 bucks to 85 bucks in that span,and they don't have the same features on them.Hardly a fair comparison!No one is begrudging disney its raises if they were in line with the rest of the world.Alas however they are not,that was shown how many posts ago!Again ,everyone knows that a disney trip is a luxury and they need to make a profit. However as a long time patron I feel the need to voice my concerns before its to late.I say to those who think that disney can't outprice themselves please look at General Motors and the other big corporations who recently did that exact thing!

 

[KSDisneyDad]

DUPLICATE - Sorry

 

[TiffanyA]

Lets examine this statement.Airline prices aren't even in the same ball park as disney price raises.I have been going for 30 yrs and flying most of the time when I go.Heck I can come close to getting the same price for airfare to disney that I got in 85.

Where exactly do you live that you can get even close to the ticket prices for flying that you got in '85? Granted I didn't start flying until around '92, but I still remember when airlines served food! Don't think prices are just one thing, service is another huge thing they've cut down on, along with raising prices.

I used to be able to fly coast to coast for $250 - $300 per person on a full service airline. I am going to Florida now on a discount airline where we will have to pay for food and luggage. The cost is around $500 per person!

 

[kaytieeldr]

Lets examine this statement.Airline prices aren't even in the same ball park as disney price raises.I have been going for 30 yrs and flying most of the time when I go.Heck I can come close to getting the same price for airfare to disney that I got in 85.Tickets to disney have gone from17 bucks to 85 bucks in that span,and they don't have the same features on them.Hardly a fair comparison!

True - but try explaining that to posters on the Transportation and Budget Boards complaining because they have to pay $100 one way now, instead of round trip.

As for the increased cost, well, a lot has gone on at just the Magic Kingdom over the last 26 years http://m.articlesbase.com/training-...action-and-entertainment-history-2898853.html and a bit of growth, change, and refurbishment at Epcot as well.

The $17 ticket was a one day ticket, specially priced for Magic Kingdom Club Members, and allowed entrance only to the Magic Kingdom - not to the major park of one's choice like today's one-day ticket does. The one-day Epcot ticket (also probably the MK price for non-MKC members, but the source site doesn't specify) went from $18 to $19.50 to $21.50 that year - an increase of over 19%. in contrast, this year's single day increase is just over 3%. The 1985 overall dollar increase was higher, too - $3.50 vs. $3.00. And with a 110% inflation rate, that's actually $7.35 in 2011 dollars.

Ticket price source: http://allears.net/tix/tixpix80.htm
Inflation rate source: http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Calculators/Inflation_Rate_Calculator.asp

 

[rt2dz]

Snotiness? Interesting. I responded right after reading a post; I wasn't aware the mistake had already been corrected. But again, claiming a joint venture between two companies that benefits both is 'like' - the second misstep - one (Disney) owning the other (HGTV/Scripps Networks) - which is the extremely serious mistake you made originally - just plain isn't true.

eta: Since you asked...first you said


And all I said was
Regrettable that you find no humor in human error (self-note: check etymology, having just noticed the similarity between those two words after mm-mm years of reading ).

Two discrete companies benefiting or profiting from a joint venture is in NO way, relatively or otherwise, 'the same as' one company owning the other.

A little research goes a long way.

You didn't just point out a mistake, you add the biggest laughing guy there. If you didn't realize it had already been corrected, you wouldn't have quoted the corrections immediately below the comment. The two combine, comes off not as "humor" but complete rudeness. You'll notice I wasn't at all offended the first time it was pointed out--in fact, it was more of a "oh well, I was wrong..." thing.

And, I repeat, I never said it was "like owning". I said the concept was: each is making money off the other. No where is there "like owning." No where is there "the same as owning." Perhaps, for some people, I needed to be clearer the first time since the word "relative" isn't understood, and the topic at hand must have ambiguous.

But, I've generally noticed that people who feel the need to be snide to complete strangers (again, the repeat correction with a smiley followed immediately by the admittance of the mistake, reads very snotty/rude/nasty), is generally only done by people who, well, don't have much less to make them feel good. So if I can help you out in any way on that front, yea me! So, all I have left to say is, have a nice day.

 

[shalom]

I also agree that on a per-hour basis, Disney is a "bargain" compared to most other forms of entertainment. I've tried to say that in past posts, but just not as succinctly.

Yah, and as I said, I appreciated that. It truly does help get it in perspective.

And I make no demands for succinctness. Particularly since I'm rarely capable of it.

 

[CloveLeaf]

However, if Disney keeps the ticket prices high, but offers discounts on room and food, they attract more guests on-site and often "trap" them with their free ME service, free bus transportation, etc. When guests are on-site without a car, nearly all of the vacation dollars go to Disney and not to Holiday Inn and Golden Corral et al.

Totally agree with this one. I have never thought from this angle before reading this thread. Now I can see why Disney kept increasing the ticket price. Combined with all kinds of promotions/discounts on room and dining, sometimes, staying on-site seems like a better deal. What makes me unhappy is that they are increasing the cost of lodging and dining at the same time, too

 

[Planogirl]

I can agree that the Magic Kingdom offers at least as much as they used to and likely more. It depends on what time period you're discussing. There's no way that Epcot comes close to offering what it once did though and it's my favorite WDW park in spite of that. It's been dumbed down at an alarming rate and too many things are closed or not as entertaining as they once were.

 

[TLSnell1981]

Who moved your cheese?.

Who sprinkled you with pixie dust?

There are long threads, regarding Disney's downhill slide. They have streamlined and cut quality. Tinker Bell's Closet once had unique merchandise, as well as the Magic Shop. Many shops now have, the same merchandise. Engel-Puppen Doll's are gone, so are Hummels...to name a few. AND, don't get me started about the "Villian" merchandise.

BTW..we visited Universal, last December, and it made Disney "thrill" rides look lame, I've always loved Universal Hollywood, but Orlando has moved up with the inclusion of Harry Potter.

We are DVC members and still enjoy Disney, but we spending less time and money there.

 

[flicx]

Where exactly do you live that you can get even close to the ticket prices for flying that you got in '85? Granted I didn't start flying until around '92, but I still remember when airlines served food! Don't think prices are just one thing, service is another huge thing they've cut down on, along with raising prices.

I used to be able to fly coast to coast for $250 - $300 per person on a full service airline. I am going to Florida now on a discount airline where we will have to pay for food and luggage. The cost is around $500 per person!

I live in PA.I have flown out of Pittsburgh,Dulles,DC,Philly and Johnstown before.The most I have ever paid roundtrip in about 15 to 20 trips is 175.00 round trip (taxes inc.).Now they don't serve food anymore but I never liked airplane food anyhow. I always have only brought a carry on ,so that keeps costs down especially nowadays.With the internet and priceline ,expedia and travelocity etc,you can really nab alot of bargains especially if you are flexible.We got roundtrip airfare this past january from pittsburgh to vegas for 147.00 (taxes inc).In my opinion airfare can still be reasonable if you look hard enough.

 

[jayandstacey]

As for the increased cost, well, a lot has gone on at just the Magic Kingdom over the last 26 years http://m.articlesbase.com/training-...action-and-entertainment-history-2898853.html and a bit of growth, change, and refurbishment at Epcot as well.

The $17 ticket was a one day ticket, specially priced for Magic Kingdom Club Members, and allowed entrance only to the Magic Kingdom - not to the major park of one's choice like today's one-day ticket does. The one-day Epcot ticket (also probably the MK price for non-MKC members, but the source site doesn't specify) went from $18 to $19.50 to $21.50 that year - an increase of over 19%. in contrast, this year's single day increase is just over 3%. The 1985 overall dollar increase was higher, too - $3.50 vs. $3.00. And with a 110% inflation rate, that's actually $7.35 in 2011 dollars.

Ticket price source: http://allears.net/tix/tixpix80.htm
Inflation rate source: http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Calculators/Inflation_Rate_Calculator.asp

So, a couple of things:

1. Yes, MK and Epcot have expanded offerings. But THAT much? Your own inflation caculator says that a $17 ticket then would cost about $36 today if the Disney price increases only matched inflation. They exceeded inflation - by almost 3x. Do MK and Epcot really offer, objectively, 3x what they did in the 80s? I don't think they do. Now - does this mean to me that Disney is ripping us off? No. But I do believe this points to the idea that Disney is raising because they can...not because they have to.

2. I do believe the RATE of increase has slowed - and I'm glad you pointed that out- 3% vs. 19% in years past. To me, this points to Disney approaching the top of their pricing capacity. Again, does this mean Disney is ripping us off? No. It means that either (or both):
- Disney has just about run out of room to increase prices beyond CPI increases- meaning the value proposition has about levelled off,
- Disney has increased and effective pressures from competitors...Universal, the internet, local options to guests flying in, etc.

This could change in the future and Disney could regain its pricing power again - It is possible, for instance, that a Disney character will come along and generate more demand. But part of Disney's challenge, like Warren Buffett's portfolio, is that it would take a MONSTEROUS addition to make a real dent in the overall Disney value proposition.

 

[jayandstacey]

And I forgot...

3. The fact that a person can use a one day ticket to choose between four different parks seems, to me, to make no difference at all. I can still only get one park for my $$$. And while different, I don't think the other parks offer really "more" than MK on a one-to-one comparison basis.

So you might say "but the option has value"...to which I would say...If Disney tomorrow made separate tickets for each of the four parks - do you think the individual tickets would be less expensive than the current tickets, all else being equal? I don't think they would, at least not for MK.

Now, it is a HUGE value that the multi-day tickets allow for choice. Lets me be flexible about when or where I go later in my trip. But when comparing a one-day ticket of 1985 to a one-day ticket of today, I don't believe the choice of 4 parks has additional econmic value thus making the ticket worth extra $$$,

 

[kaytieeldr]

You didn't just point out a mistake, you add the biggest laughing guy there. If you didn't realize it had already been corrected, you wouldn't have quoted the corrections immediately below the comment

Regrettable you think that way. I happen to like the 'rotfl2' guy. Again, I started replying to your post immediately after reading it. I rarely, if ever, allow other posters' responses to influence what I think or say. I don't believe in the mob mentality.

And, I repeat, I never said it was "like owning". I said the concept was: each is making money off the other. No where is there "like owning." No where is there "the same as owning." Perhaps, for some people, I needed to be clearer the first time since the word "relative" isn't understood, and the topic at hand must have ambiguous.

Again, you first said:

HGTV pays for it. HGTV is owned by Disney.

And then:

Just a marketing/joint venture contract. But, relatively the concept is still the same. Disney is making money of HGTV (and vice versa).

So I ask you - in what ownership situation does the owned company make money off the owning company?

 

[jayandstacey]

So I ask you - in what ownership situation does the owned company make money off the owning company?

When the owned company has its own P/L responsibility and sells its product back to the owning company for a profitable price.

So HGTV might sell Disney airtime at profitable prices. Or a manufacturing subsidiary might sell product back to the parent company at a profit.

You might say "yes, but it all rolls back into the parent company" - and this is true. Yet the parent company chose to keep the subsidiary as a separate entity, give it P/L responsibility AND not allow the parent company to take advantage of the ownership situation in transactions between the two.

Such a situation might have many meanings, among them:
- The parent company wishes to evaluate the subsidiary performance in a manner that doesn't include sales concessions to the parent.
- The parent company wishes to preserve value in the subsidiary, potentially for the eventual sale of the entity.
- There might be anti-trust or other regulatory fears behind the decision.
- The subsidiary is in a more favorable tax location, or can help the parent company take advantage of currency exchange benefits - thus better to park money with the subsidiary.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but it in my experience, it is a fairly common occurance for the subsidiary to make some money, in some situations, off the owning company.

 

[Aliceacc]

I haven't read much of this thread; forgive me if I repeat. And I realize that in all these pages, the topic has probably veered away from the original question.

Why did ticket prices go up eary??

I think it has to do with the opening of AoA resort.

They wanted to start accepting reservations, so they opened up 2012 early. But, in order to do that, they wanted the new ticket pricing structure in place.

 

[jayandstacey]

I haven't read much of this thread; forgive me if I repeat. And I realize that in all these pages, the topic has probably veered away from the original question.

Why did ticket prices go up eary??

I think it has to do with the opening of AoA resort.

They wanted to start accepting reservations, so they opened up 2012 early. But, in order to do that, they wanted the new ticket pricing structure in place.

Yeah, I could see that. AoA opens Sept-ish, right? And I think the ticket prices typically go up in Sept. Doing that *might* have looked like a bait-and-switch (or at least bait-and-raise) deal for those visiting AoA for the first time, epscially if Disney hopes to get first-time guests at AoA. Better to de-couple the two events.