Will Universal Match WDW? (Price Increase)

[Purseval]

You are all forgetting to factor in inflation. The $82 or so WDW charges for admission today would have $14.95 worth of buying power in 1971 dollars. I just did a price comparison of how the 2 compare in the Theme Parks forum. It's a bit complicated to do an apples to apples comparison but the $14.95 now would have been $10.25 in 1971 but in 1971 there was only 1 park while today there are 4 plus all the other addons.

 

[Jaxx1980]

disney has been so lazy with new attractions! for that reason I think they have a cheek raising there ticket prices.
At least Uni has HP and Rockit etc.
Seaworld has Manta and i hear Busch may have a new coaster next year.
i will buy tickets for disney as there is a handful of things that i want to see.
do I think WDW is worth the money they charge? No..

 

[Jonny_Duck]

When we were kids we used to go to Disney once a year for a weekend...I can see that going down nowadays with the outrageous charges today.

I still think many will flock to Disney but imo the trips will be fewer and far between.

I would never pay a single day price atm for either Disney or Universal for what they currently charge.

 

[Rash]

I understand, but you're comparing medical need with entertainment. Not exactly apples/apples.

I don't think it matters. People will pay for what they percieve to be important, be it health care or vacation. (We're not talking necessary medical care - routine eye exams are preventative and as such can be (and often are, unfortunately) delayed or skipped altogether, just like a vacation.

Good point on the resorts - probably not the best example. Again, I'm sure there are many more areas of growth being overlooked.

I don't think it's as simple as a threshold being reached that turns people away. If prices are raised incrementally and gradually, most people expect and understand it and adjust. If disney had kept the price the same for 10 years and then doubled it, Then yes it would cause a dropoff in attendance.

Look at gas prices. Remember when they were $1 a gallon? I do. It's almost tripled. Has that really changed people's habits? Not really. Because it went up gradually over years. But when it shot up to $4 over a short period of time, that's when everyone got vocal.

It's not the price that is the threshold, it's the rate of increase.

 

[Rip]

I don't think it matters. People will pay for what they percieve to be important, be it health care or vacation. (We're not talking necessary medical care - routine eye exams are preventative and as such can be (and often are, unfortunately) delayed or skipped altogether, just like a vacation.

Good point, though I still don't believe they are directly comparable.

Good point on the resorts - probably not the best example. Again, I'm sure there are many more areas of growth being overlooked.

There probably are - but there are also areas of cutbacks that we haven't discussed as well.

I don't think it's as simple as a threshold being reached that turns people away. If prices are raised incrementally and gradually, most people expect and understand it and adjust. If disney had kept the price the same for 10 years and then doubled it, Then yes it would cause a dropoff in attendance.

Most definitely true, but I still believe that there is a point, no matter how gradually realized, where there will be a public reaction.

Look at gas prices. Remember when they were $1 a gallon? I do. It's almost tripled. Has that really changed people's habits? Not really. Because it went up gradually over years. But when it shot up to $4 over a short period of time, that's when everyone got vocal.

It's not the price that is the threshold, it's the rate of increase.

Yeah, but I HAVE to drive to work, I don't HAVE to go to Disney (or any other theme park, I'm not intentionally singling out the mouse).

 

[Rip]

You are all forgetting to factor in inflation. The $82 or so WDW charges for admission today would have $14.95 worth of buying power in 1971 dollars. I just did a price comparison of how the 2 compare in the Theme Parks forum. It's a bit complicated to do an apples to apples comparison but the $14.95 now would have been $10.25 in 1971 but in 1971 there was only 1 park while today there are 4 plus all the other addons.

Actually I'm not forgetting that, but I think it's a bit more complicated than just looking at inflation. Think of it this way, what would a computer cost if its 1980 price were strictly adjusted for inflation?

Would you buy one at that price in 2010 dollars?

 

[Jonny_Duck]

Good point, though I still don't believe they are directly comparable.



There probably are - but there are also areas of cutbacks that we haven't discussed as well.



Most definitely true, but I still believe that there is a point, no matter how gradually realized, where there will be a public reaction.



Yeah, but I HAVE to drive to work, I don't HAVE to go to Disney (or any other theme park, I'm not intentionally singling out the mouse).

Yup I agree with all you said. I don't think the gradual has a whole lot to do with it.

It is still perception of value and what ppl can afford that will decide if families choose to go to Disney. If Disney keeps going up but other vacation areas go down or gradual less then I think others will search for something else to do.

Disney will always have that loyal fan-base that will visit the park but I do think in the next few yrs they will see a decline in those who visit.

Universal decided to do a BIG jump in ticket prices and I don't think they are seeing much of a decline yet. But once the flavor of the month scent runs out on HP then I believe they could see a backlash and some big declines as well. Tbh as much as I love Universal their tickets should NOT be equal to Disneys.

 

[MurphyJoe]

It's a bit complicated to do an apples to apples comparison but the $14.95 now would have been $10.25 in 1971 but in 1971 there was only 1 park while today there are 4 plus all the other addons.

I still don't buy the argument that Disney can charge more per day due to having multiple theme parks. Unless you're a multi-dimensional being, you can only enjoy one park at a time, and even if you park hop, you're still only in one park at any particular moment.

At the current rate of ticket price increases, Disney World tickets almost look like a viable investment instrument.

 

[Purseval]

I still don't buy the argument that Disney can charge more per day due to having multiple theme parks. Unless you're a multi-dimensional being, you can only enjoy one park at a time, and even if you park hop, you're still only in one park at any particular moment.

But they have to spread the cost of building/operating/maintaining those 4 parks into the ticket price. So you may spend the day in MK but you're still paying to feed the animals at AK. Or, if you prefer Universal, the big rise in price for tickets is mostly to pay for WWOHP, even if you never set foot in IOA.

 

[Rash]

Yeah, but I HAVE to drive to work, I don't HAVE to go to Disney (or any other theme park, I'm not intentionally singling out the mouse).

Many people do not have to drive - they can bus, bike, walk, etc. In your case, if a car is necessary, you could carpool. How many people actually do that? Not many, because even though it's more expensive not to, they value their morning commute enough to justify the cost. Similarly, many people value thier vacation time enough to justify the cost, despite the gradual price increases.

 

[poeticdiabetic]

I believe that US/IOA will increase their single ticket prices, but will start to have more discounted tickets in particular instances. I think that they can do so safely.

Disney said during the first quarter that they intended to increase ticket prices as the economy improves. Their gates are doing well. They're just trying to get more people into their hotels.

 

[Rip]

Many people do not have to drive - they can bus, bike, walk, etc. In your case, if a car is necessary, you could carpool. How many people actually do that? Not many, because even though it's more expensive not to, they value their morning commute enough to justify the cost. Similarly, many people value thier vacation time enough to justify the cost, despite the gradual price increases.

Most people have to drive, and fewer and fewer of us have the option of carpooling. I'm sorry, but I don't think the comparison is valid.

 

[poeticdiabetic]

Here's my thinking on the whole ticket increase warranted deal:

If you think that WDW isn't a good deal, don't go. If you think that US/IOA isn't a good deal, don't go.

See I personally didn't think that US/IOA was a good deal back in June. So we were in Orlando but didn't attend. And we haven't been to WDW in 2 years because it was too high for us.

But I'm going on a Disney cruise next month because it's a good deal for us. And I'm going to spend a few days at US/IOA while in Florida next month because I'm getting a good deal on tickets. But I'm not going to WDW again until I go to Free Dining next year.

But all value is PERCEIVED value. People will go faithfully to WDW, spend that money and is very happy. Those same people will complain that US/IOA isn't $99 per week. And then there are some who will go to US/IOA and love it and the prices while looking at what WDW has to offer and doesn't see it as a good deal at all. That's because all value is PERCEIVED value. And that perception is individualistic.

For instance, I wouldn't go to WDW if I don't eat, sleep, stay, and do all things Disney. It doesn't make sense for our family, and we don't think we will even like to go to WDW and then leave to go eat and sleep off-site. To us, WDW is the total experience, not just to ride rides.

However, if we're going to stay off-site for whatever reason, then the last place that we want to go is WDW. We would go to US/IOA in a heartbeat. The rides, to us, are better and more exciting at US/IOA than at WDW.

Conversely, we wouldn't go to US/IOA and stay on-site. To us, it doesn't make sense to us. FOTL isn't that big of an incentive for us to warrant staying on-site.

 

[bubba's mom]

But all value is PERCEIVED value.

Conversely, we wouldn't go to US/IOA and stay on-site. To us, it doesn't make sense to us. FOTL isn't that big of an incentive for us to warrant staying on-site.

See....and our family wouldn't go to UO and NOT stay onsite. We don't even have a car and do the total eat, sleep, stay n play there. FOTL is worth it to us.

Different strokes for different folks..... Glad I live in a country I can make those decisions.

 

[Rash]

Most people have to drive, and fewer and fewer of us have the option of carpooling. I'm sorry, but I don't think the comparison is valid.

I'm not saying that it's easy to arrange a carpool, or any other alternative to driving - just that most people don't bother to even try because they like their drive time as is and are willing to pay for it (by not sharing gas costs by carpooling).

I guess we can agree to disagree.

 

[poeticdiabetic]

See....and our family wouldn't go to UO and NOT stay onsite. We don't even have a car and do the total eat, sleep, stay n play there. FOTL is worth it to us.

Different strokes for different folks..... Glad I live in a country I can make those decisions.

Correct. It makes total sense for your family. Whatever makes your family happy is what you should do.

 

[TaylorsDad]

WDW announced it is raising ticket prices on Thursday. Not that big of a surprise, they do it every year now. But Universal had a big price increase prior to the opening of WWOHP. Do you think they will try to sneak in another one to match WDW?

Wow, good call! Now if we could only harness that power for good.
p.s. feel free to pm me with winning lotto numbers for the next drawing.

 

[NashvilleTrio]

I'm surprised no one else has posted in this thread, but according to the Orlando Sentinel UO ticket prices are going up tomorrow. $5 for multi-day tickets, blah, blah, blah.