WDW Select clientele .... ?

[Gina-Gina-Bo-Bina]

That is all true. And Sea World products are very nice..but..I have no interest in 14 days at Sea World or Aquatica or Busch..I'd like to do a day at DC..once...I like Sea World quite a lot and go to the one close to me in San Diego. But I do not consider their offerings equal. If they were considered equal to Disney in draw, they would charge Disney prices as a sound business decision. Apples to Oranges in experiences IMO. I guess Universal is the closest comparison, but still, Disney is a bargain to me for what they offer..which is Disney. I'd be happy (except the stockholder side of me) if more people found other places more appealing and stayed away from Disney in favor of other vacations, then the crowds would be less. Like I said earlier, I'm going an AI in Mexico at a top resort with all food and drinks included, a beautiful beach, the ocean, entertainment etc., for $3,700 for a week. And I will be bored by day 3. I can spend a week at Disney and not be bored. And..for a super bargain..I go to DLR very cheaply as I have an AP and DVC, eat light and need no souvenirs.

I won't argue a subjective "value" (which your quoted post here is based on), as that's totally different for each family. Your post that I replied to was based on what you pay vs. what you get....and my SeaWorld example above was simply pointing out that by the numbers, Disney isn't the greatest value that many think it is (in comparison with other Orlando parks). You can get a much better bang for you buck, if you want to, at the Disney competitors.

The subjective "value" is a totally different matter. We've done the whole onsite, immersive Disney trip and thought it was great.....until we sampled the other parks. Now that we've had a taste of what else is out there, my DH and DS have no interest in returning....zero. Zip. They wouldn't trade the elegance and amenities of our timeshare for the cramped quarters and large icons of a Disney value (since both cost us the same out of pocket). We crave the freedom and spontaneity of SW and Universal, where we don't need to be slaves to pre-booked ADR's and Fastpasses. We love the new attractions that SW and Universal are adding, something every year.....Diagon Alley, Ihu's Breakaway Falls, Antarctica, etc. .... and we find way more value in those new experience vs. the same-old, same-old of the Disney parks. So in our experience, not only is Disney more expensive, but its much, much more restrictive and lacks the addition of new attractions that keep us yearning to go back. (Not to say that I can't see the subjective value for others. I can. Particularly for those with little girls.)

Of course, as I said....that subjective value differs for everyone, as our replies clearly show .

 

[eliza61]

That is all true. And Sea World products are very nice..but..I have no interest in 14 days at Sea World or Aquatica or Busch..I'd like to do a day at DC..once...I like Sea World quite a lot and go to the one close to me in San Diego. But I do not consider their offerings equal. If they were considered equal to Disney in draw, they would charge Disney prices as a sound business decision. Apples to Oranges in experiences IMO. I guess Universal is the closest comparison, but still, Disney is a bargain to me for what they offer..which is Disney. I'd be happy (except the stockholder side of me) if more people found other places more appealing and stayed away from Disney in favor of other vacations, then the crowds would be less. Like I said earlier, I'm going an AI in Mexico at a top resort with all food and drinks included, a beautiful beach, the ocean, entertainment etc., for $3,700 for a week. And I will be bored by day 3. I can spend a week at Disney and not be bored. And..for a super bargain..I go to DLR very cheaply as I have an AP and DVC, eat light and need no souvenirs.

I think that, that statement is the major point. YOU have no interest so no matter what the price point is, you will always find Disney to be the better value.

It's very hard (IMO) for folks here, myself included to give an objective view because of the fact that we are so emotionally attached to Disney.

My husband was not. while he liked Disney and always had good vacations, he thought it was a gigantic waste of money. We purchased our dvc mainly because of me and many times we went without him.

Now even though I do still have great vacations, for the price point I am seeing less and less value in them. That's based on the things I like. Especially since I've been doing a lot of European travel, I just find Disney offerings based on the things I like (hotels, restuarants) mediocre. So for me while I love Disney, what you pay for a deluxe room is waaaay behind what you can get else where but I fully admit that for me hotels are really important. for a lot of Disney travelers a hotel is simply some place where you sleep and shower.

I fully accept the fact that I am paying for the name brand and the on site but never would I say it was cheap.

Now I don't know if Disney is blowing the charts off of visitors. I mean I quickly googled and got answers any where between 30 million and 100 million. pretty much the same number as I got when I googled Las Vegas. It's number 8 on Travel and leisures worlds most visited Tourist attractions.

 

[crisi]

I think that, that statement is the major point. YOU have no interest so no matter what the price point is, you will always find Disney to be the better value.

It's very hard (IMO) for folks here, myself included to give an objective view because of the fact that we are so emotionally attached to Disney.

And that can create an echo chamber where we start to think that EVERYONE will get the same value out of Disney, or EVERYONE will enjoy it. Or we need to go twice a year, or we need to make sure to take a Christmas trip when our kids are young to see the decorations, or we need to make sure our daughters to BBB, or we NEED to own DVC, etc. And hey, its such a bargain, how can you not go?

It also helps foster a perception of Disney as something other than a business, whose goal is to "maximize shareholder value." But the truth is that if Disney can maximize their profits by leaving budget travelers in the dust - they would. However, they maximize profits by appealing to a broad range of incomes - to those that can't afford a trip through movies and product merchandizing at WalMart - to those that can afford to travel to Africa with ABD.

 

[nunzia]

I won't argue a subjective "value" (which your quoted post here is based on), as that's totally different for each family. Your post that I replied to was based on what you pay vs. what you get....and my SeaWorld example above was simply pointing out that by the numbers, Disney isn't the greatest value that many think it is (in comparison with other Orlando parks). You can get a much better bang for you buck, if you want to, at the Disney competitors.

The subjective "value" is a totally different matter. We've done the whole onsite, immersive Disney trip and thought it was great.....until we sampled the other parks. Now that we've had a taste of what else is out there, my DH and DS have no interest in returning....zero. Zip. They wouldn't trade the elegance and amenities of our timeshare for the cramped quarters and large icons of a Disney value (since both cost us the same out of pocket). We crave the freedom and spontaneity of SW and Universal, where we don't need to be slaves to pre-booked ADR's and Fastpasses. We love the new attractions that SW and Universal are adding, something every year.....Diagon Alley, Ihu's Breakaway Falls, Antarctica, etc. .... and we find way more value in those new experience vs. the same-old, same-old of the Disney parks. So in our experience, not only is Disney more expensive, but its much, much more restrictive and lacks the addition of new attractions that keep us yearning to go back. (Not to say that I can't see the subjective value for others. I can. Particularly for those with little girls.)

Of course, as I said....that subjective value differs for everyone, as our replies clearly show .

I agree..but people were saying they were priced out and Disney only wanted certain types of visitors..and I was just pointing out that..in my opinion..my opinion only..that Disney is a bargain for what you get. I think Universal is giving Disney a run for their money and competition is good. I stay at DVC on site so don't have any cramped quarters to worry about. This thread isn't about competing parks..if folks prefer other parks good for them. Personally I don't care much for WDW..I'm a DLR fan. I don't do ADRs, and at DLR only a Fastpass or 2. As for that if you want to enjoy Harry Potter stuff at Universal, it seems they pretty much push you into onsite for acess to those.
And all that is fine.
Yes..what you pay..what you get..and for those that want Disney..they have a monopoly on that. I've done Universal once..I've done Sea World several times and they are fine. But I can do DLR over and over. It is not about the rides for me, it is about the atmosphere.

 

[nunzia]

And that can create an echo chamber where we start to think that EVERYONE will get the same value out of Disney, or EVERYONE will enjoy it. Or we need to go twice a year, or we need to make sure to take a Christmas trip when our kids are young to see the decorations, or we need to make sure our daughters to BBB, or we NEED to own DVC, etc. And hey, its such a bargain, how can you not go?

It also helps foster a perception of Disney as something other than a business, whose goal is to "maximize shareholder value." But the truth is that if Disney can maximize their profits by leaving budget travelers in the dust - they would. However, they maximize profits by appealing to a broad range of incomes - to those that can't afford a trip through movies and product merchandizing at WalMart - to those that can afford to travel to Africa with ABD.

Exactly...because they can. And they build a base by providing a massive market of kid friendly offerings which drive people to watch their shows, buy their stuff, see their movies, visit their parks. And then since they have the reputation of generations and people know what to expect, they branch folks out to tour groups, timeshares, crusie ships, Hawaii. A perfect storm. I do not agree they would leave budget travelers in the dust. Those budget travelers will one day be the deep pocket travelers who took their kids on a dime and now take their grandkids to the villas and BBB. I know of what I speak. Disney's business is nostalgia, and they have to keep creating it as generations come up.
There are plenty of perfectly lovely vacations to take that I enjoy that have nothing to do with Disney..and yes, I agree that Disney's high cost rooms are not really deluxe somewhere else, but you are paying for location. Just as you are when you get nailed with high price standard room in New York City or DC or Vegas (sure you can stay at Excalibur but they still manage to fill Bellagio).

Everytime I'm at our crappy dusty local fair with the rides that look like they will fly apart at any minute and we are paying for tickets for each ride that add up alarming quickly and I'm still being charged way too much for water I say I will never whine about Disney prices again. And going to a show where we were searched (Michael Jackson Cirque) and my DH was questioned about a cough drop being candy and water was outrageous to buy but you pretty much had to and tickets were over $100 for not even 2 hours and seats were still crappy..Disney looks more like a value.
The point is..if folks want to do DISNEY they can do it on a budget and if they are wise about their in park plan can still get a good VALUE for what they want, which is Disney.

 

[Marionnette]

I agree..but people were saying they were priced out and Disney only wanted certain types of visitors..and I was just pointing out that..in my opinion..my opinion only..that Disney is a bargain for what you get.

Being "priced out of Disney" and Disney wanting "only certain types of visitors" are two totally different discussions.

Those who feel that they have been "priced out of Disney" can no longer justify the cost for what they receive in return. And in a sense, I agree with them on many points. To spend nearly $100 per person for admission to the MK and then only get to experience 4 or 5 attractions (my experience during spring break) is an outrageous sum for a family to spend.

When you remove the "pixie dust" from the equation and compare apples to apples, I can get a better bang for my buck by going to Hershey Park, where I will pay $60 per person for a day and I'll get to do more than 5 attractions. If you compare the accommodations at any Value Resort to other hotels charging $178/night (weekend rate for a standard Value Resort room during the summer), Disney comes up the loser.

I'm making plans for next spring and I'm looking at a cruise. A 10-night Eastern Mediterranean cruise, complete with gratuities and wine with all meals, will run me less than 10 nights in a Deluxe Resort with 10-day hoppers and the deluxe dining plan (which doesn't include wine nor gratuities). Not quite apples-to-apples, but given the costs, I'll be on a jet going to Istanbul next spring, not to Orlando. In my opinion, and in my opinion only, that cruise is a better value for my money.

And as far as Disney targeting a "certain type of visitor", I guess that I'm not part of that demographic. We have a comfortable income, but we're also very discerning when it comes to how we spend it. We're still going to visit Disney but chances are very good that we won't be spending the bulk of our vacation money there.