Why does disney raise prices during their busiest times???

[Allison]

*
Shaking my head.

Why? It's true.

 

[Don Disney]

Disney is not a charity, it is a publicly traded company. The people that run it have a fiduciary resposibility to their shareholders to be as profitable as possible. This is free market capitalism, i.e. the foundation of our economy. Just as Disney has the right to charge whaterver it wants for tickets, food, etc., we have the right not to buy what they are selling. When they raise prices so high that people stop buying, they will lower the prices. This is the Invisible Hand of regulation.

That is exactly correct.We all have the choice to"pay to play",or not.That's the beauty of it-don't want to play....don't pay.We cancelled our trip this year...first time in 6 years we did'nt go.We wanted to,but just could'nt justify spending the money this time.There is not enough "new"stuff for us,and we also think the "value to price"ratio is getting a bit out of hand...so,as much as we love WDW,they are going to have to try a bit harder to seperate us from our funds!!! They can start by fixing Soarin',and stop raising prices like the oil and gas industry!Unlike the oil and gas industry,they aint got me over no barrel!!! Gotta have gas;LOVE WDW,but don't have to have it;especially if they keep hiking the prices on everything without increasing the value(in my opinion)!

 

[OklahomaTourist]

Please !!!! I really really tire of this excuse. Once you burn enough bridges with long time customers you will do alot of irrepairable damage to the product. I think disney has really lost touch with the "magic" they once had,now they come off as money grabbing and overcharging. Just look at these boards, there was a day when you would be run off to even speak of disney in a negative/greed tone. I see more and more of it every day. They are obviously doing something wrong when their biggest supporters are fast turning on them!

It isn't so much as an excuse as it is a fact of life. Ugly though it may be, supply and demand is real.

What you're talking about in terms of "lost magic" (if I may paraphrase) is less about losing customers as it is finding out what can be "spent" in terms of "Disney-specific value" without an attendant loss in demand or revenue. Disney, as an example, must have a pretty good handle on the idea that folks won't miss the "Main Street Bakery," or they wouldn't be overhauling it into a Starbucks or Starbucks-lite (or whatever it will be). Is that "magic" to you, to me, or to Random Disney Visitor X?

I agree with you completely in that Disney is evolving away from the core "magic" theme that Walt Disney envisioned. I may be wrong, but I don't think for a second he ever imagined a high-roller timeshare entity like the Disney Vacation Club. I don't think he intended to see WDW evolve into one where merchandising and restaurants were such a significant portion of the experience, or how the theming was arranged to steer the highest volume of people possible through the gift and trinket shops.

On the other hand, Walt Disney was a businessman, and he keenly knew that he had a great idea for a business, so I'm not at all suggesting he envisioned an entity that wouldn't make money. Far from it. He bought up land in Florida to avoid the mistakes of Disneyland's landlocked nature. He wanted the option to grow and to make the place a phenomenal family vacation destination, and he succeeded in spades.

Like it or not, Disney is part of an industry that is like any other - one in which products tend toward homogenization. That means, quickly or slowly, the products all kind of start to look the same. Amusement parks are no different. A regional park here in the midwest up in Branson, MO called "Silver Dollar City" used to have all sorts of authentic Ozark trades on display, like paper making, doll making, etc, but on my wife's last visit there, they were all gone. Replaced with rides, gift shops, restaurants, and accompanied by attendant ticket price increase(s).

Sound familiar?

The point is that many of the things that made Disney great will, sadly, evolve away because its decreasingly important to the new customers. The product differentiator for Disney is, in fact, Disney. No one else is Disney. They have to weigh very, very carefully how much of Disney they can trade away and yet still be Disney. On the spectrum of being "Classic, Vintage" Disney on one extreme and "homogenized, generic amusement park" on the other, Disney is still closer to the former rather than the latter. But they're also moving the other direction. And Universal down the street is keeping the pressure on what's contemporary and popular.

Do I think Disney is losing touch? To a degree, yes. Unfortunately, corporate and bureaucratic inertia and latency in response to bad change is a liability few can overcome. It make take a bit more movement toward the "generic park" side of the ledger before the pendulum swings back, and someone says, "Hey, we're Disney. We've got to do this better than anyone else, because we wrote the book on it." And as I said in an earlier post, I think that's precisely why the head of Disney Parks was "transferred" to a different position - a fresh vision and fresh leadership seems to have been needed.

 

[neffernie]

If they were charging too much then nobody would be complaining about the crowds.

 

[brunette8706]

It isn't so much as an excuse as it is a fact of life. Ugly though it may be, supply and demand is real.

What you're talking about in terms of "lost magic" (if I may paraphrase) is less about losing customers as it is finding out what can be "spent" in terms of "Disney-specific value" without an attendant loss in demand or revenue. Disney, as an example, must have a pretty good handle on the idea that folks won't miss the "Main Street Bakery," or they wouldn't be overhauling it into a Starbucks or Starbucks-lite (or whatever it will be). Is that "magic" to you, to me, or to Random Disney Visitor X?

I agree with you completely in that Disney is evolving away from the core "magic" theme that Walt Disney envisioned. I may be wrong, but I don't think for a second he ever imagined a high-roller timeshare entity like the Disney Vacation Club. I don't think he intended to see WDW evolve into one where merchandising and restaurants were such a significant portion of the experience, or how the theming was arranged to steer the highest volume of people possible through the gift and trinket shops.

On the other hand, Walt Disney was a businessman, and he keenly knew that he had a great idea for a business, so I'm not at all suggesting he envisioned an entity that wouldn't make money. Far from it. He bought up land in Florida to avoid the mistakes of Disneyland's landlocked nature. He wanted the option to grow and to make the place a phenomenal family vacation destination, and he succeeded in spades.

Like it or not, Disney is part of an industry that is like any other - one in which products tend toward homogenization. That means, quickly or slowly, the products all kind of start to look the same. Amusement parks are no different. A regional park here in the midwest up in Branson, MO called "Silver Dollar City" used to have all sorts of authentic Ozark trades on display, like paper making, doll making, etc, but on my wife's last visit there, they were all gone. Replaced with rides, gift shops, restaurants, and accompanied by attendant ticket price increase(s).

Sound familiar?

The point is that many of the things that made Disney great will, sadly, evolve away because its decreasingly important to the new customers. The product differentiator for Disney is, in fact, Disney. No one else is Disney. They have to weigh very, very carefully how much of Disney they can trade away and yet still be Disney. On the spectrum of being "Classic, Vintage" Disney on one extreme and "homogenized, generic amusement park" on the other, Disney is still closer to the former rather than the latter. But they're also moving the other direction. And Universal down the street is keeping the pressure on what's contemporary and popular.

Do I think Disney is losing touch? To a degree, yes. Unfortunately, corporate and bureaucratic inertia and latency in response to bad change is a liability few can overcome. It make take a bit more movement toward the "generic park" side of the ledger before the pendulum swings back, and someone says, "Hey, we're Disney. We've got to do this better than anyone else, because we wrote the book on it." And as I said in an earlier post, I think that's precisely why the head of Disney Parks was "transferred" to a different position - a fresh vision and fresh leadership seems to have been needed.

**

 

[brunette8706]

That is exactly correct.We all have the choice to"pay to play",or not.That's the beauty of it-don't want to play....don't pay.We cancelled our trip this year...first time in 6 years we did'nt go.We wanted to,but just could'nt justify spending the money this time.There is not enough "new"stuff for us,and we also think the "value to price"ratio is getting a bit out of hand...so,as much as we love WDW,they are going to have to try a bit harder to seperate us from our funds!!! They can start by fixing Soarin',and stop raising prices like the oil and gas industry!Unlike the oil and gas industry,they aint got me over no barrel!!! Gotta have gas;LOVE WDW,but don't have to have it;especially if they keep hiking the prices on everything without increasing the value(in my opinion)!

 

[safroim]

If they were charging too much then nobody would be complaining about the crowds.

This. A million times over. Not to kick a dead horse but, DISNEY IS A BUSINESS! They want to make money. They're doing just that and good for them. Disney is going to do what is necessary to turn a buck. If you have any complaints about that, then STOP GOING!!!! As long as people keep paying what they're charging (and we've been doing just that, happily) then they'll keep raising prices.

 

[WMorganS]

All this whining about a $4 surcharge and Disney losing its touch... what a crock.

At "certain times of year" WDW needs more people (skilled and unskilled), working longer hours (sometimes crazy hours), getting more done with less down time. in some cases there are seasonal dishes, iIn some cases there are specialty characters, in other cases there are extra live shows, in some cases there is more expensive live talent. There's frequently more decorations, more park hours, more power consumed, more shows, more maintenance issues... the list goes on and on.

WDW maintains the highest quality regardless of how busy it is, in fact the quality seems to go up during peak season. That's awesome IMO, and I for one, would rather pay an extra $4 on the most crowded days, than find that they are short staffed, have a broken oven, and nothing special going on.

 

[Bob NC]

All this whining about a $4 surcharge and Disney losing its touch... what a crock.

At "certain times of year" WDW needs more people (skilled and unskilled), working longer hours (sometimes crazy hours), getting more done with less down time. in some cases there are seasonal dishes, iIn some cases there are specialty characters, in other cases there are extra live shows, in some cases there is more expensive live talent. There's frequently more decorations, more park hours, more power consumed, more shows, more maintenance issues... the list goes on and on.

WDW maintains the highest quality regardless of how busy it is, in fact the quality seems to go up during peak season. That's awesome IMO, and I for one, would rather pay an extra $4 on the most crowded days, than find that they are short staffed, have a broken oven, and nothing special going on.

Nobody is "whining." It's a simple discussion about peoples opinions on certain Disney pricing practices.

As a matter of fact, I might term this particular statement as a "crock":

WDW maintains the highest quality regardless of how busy it is, in fact the quality seems to go up during peak season.

 

[brunette8706]

Nobody is "whining." It's a simple discussion about peoples opinions on certain Disney pricing practices.

As a matter of fact, I might term this particular statement as a "crock":

*
I agree with you Bob NC!