Need to vent about how expensive WDW is now

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I'm here on the DIS because I love Disney--which sentiment you disparaged on the other thread--not to argue. So I will not argue with you.

You can still love Disney and be able to discuss Disney too. They are not a perfect company, no company is. And it's 100% okay to discuss its faults, well it should be. I do not like to use the term Disney Apologist but that is a favored term on this Board.

 

[intamin]

This thread is in such contrast to another current thread where more than one person is advocating that the only way to make G+ work well is to keep raising the price until a limited number of people can afford it. Because, per this thinking, too many people can afford it now.

Of course, if Disney wanted to limit the number of G+s it sells, it could just do that, but apparently charging $100 or $200 for it would appease the people who can easily afford that cost. After all, one of their arguments goes, that's what Uni charges, so WDW should too.

I'm not kidding or exaggerating, btw. There are actually people on this board who are saying that raising the price of G+ is basically a necessity. Perhaps these are the same people who were pushing for a paid FP+ system a couple of years ago.

Sometimes I wonder if people who want WDW to cost even more are Disney employees, paid by Disney to say these things in public forums, or have such a high income that money is actually no object.

At some point, if the cost of a WDW vacation becomes out of reach for too many people, it will end up closing, because, frankly, rich people aren't all that interested in going to a theme park.

I mean I'm kind of in the same group here. The fact of the matter is when you have this half measure fast pass experience where so many people can buy it, it doesn't significantly improve the guest experience. It instead becomes a you must buy this in order for the experience to become enjoyable compared to Universal where yeah it's significantly more expensive but it improves not only the guest experience for people who paid more, but it improves the experience for people who didn't buy it because they're not being skipped over by hundreds of people and it makes the system more fair. For the record, I've never paid for Genie + or an individual lightning lane in my life. I have the luxury of being able to go frequently and fortunately am not pressed for time when I'm in the parks as I enjoy just people watching and being in the bubble but for the average person who isn't there often and only goes every 5-10 years, every hour is valuable.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Not sure where you come to this conclusion, but I know I disagree with the opinion. Tough to validate either way, but I know the younger generation that I'm close to in my 'orbit' does not have a fading love for Disney. And all I need to restore the magic in my trip is to stand watching the fireworks at Cinderella's castle, hearing many of the 'newer generation' songs (many of which I don't always know!!) - and hearing the 5-12 year-olds happily singing loudly to the Disney music........ Again, that doesn't prove my point or validate yours - just that I don't see any fading around me.....

My childhood was filled with movies from the Disney Renaissance but those movies are all being remade mostly CGI. Those soundtracks of the years past had hit after hit after hit after hit contained within just one movie. And these days the soundtracks are mostly one to two really big songs. It's been a few years since they came out but I know the younger kids around me loved Cars. Toy Story is largely appealing to those I think that grew up on them with a mixture of younger. Pixar largely isn't my cup of tea but I loved Inside Out but it would be more that upper range of ages you mentioned in your above comment that I think would resonate with. All of my Disney (and even a few that aren't into Disney) loved Coco but Encanto fell flat overall compared to it even if some parts were enjoyable.

But there seems to be observationally less that pulls their attention? Maybe it's just that in this day and age where you have such high tech around you movies and franchises aren't quite as exciting as it was to us in the past popping in a VHS tape, getting sing-along cassette tapes and more. We also had the Disney Store with that huge area of plushies and that was something I could visit at my local mall. I couldn't make it to WDW much as a kid but I could get a slice of that in the Disney Store.

I don't think either of you are incorrect either in your opinions but I think Disney had more "hits" than misses in the past with that younger group. They have def. shifted their attention for the social media world by making instagram walls and embracing the vloggers to gain traction and by that nature that much younger group isn't their focus. In the past that was just more passed down from the parents to the kids.

 

[mamaofsix]

This thread is in such contrast to another current thread where more than one person is advocating that the only way to make G+ work well is to keep raising the price until a limited number of people can afford it. Because, per this thinking, too many people can afford it now.

Of course, if Disney wanted to limit the number of G+s it sells, it could just do that, but apparently charging $100 or $200 for it would appease the people who can easily afford that cost. After all, one of their arguments goes, that's what Uni charges, so WDW should too.

I'm not kidding or exaggerating, btw. There are actually people on this board who are saying that raising the price of G+ is basically a necessity. Perhaps these are the same people who were pushing for a paid FP+ system a couple of years ago.

Sometimes I wonder if people who want WDW to cost even more are Disney employees, paid by Disney to say these things in public forums, or have such a high income that money is actually no object.

At some point, if the cost of a WDW vacation becomes out of reach for too many people, it will end up closing, because, frankly, rich people aren't all that interested in going to a theme park.

Most of us who see the appeal of a Universal Parks type express pass would never be able to afford it. We're advocating for it because:

1) It's a simpler system
2) The standby lines would move way more quickly for all of us (because so few could afford the skip the line pass).

 

[intamin]

Most of us who see the appeal of a Universal Parks type express pass would never be able to afford it. We're advocating for it because:

1) It's a simpler system
2) The standby lines would move way more quickly for all of us (because so few could afford the skip the line pass).

Agreed. I'd much rather be skipped over by 1 person who paid 200 dollars than 8 who paid 25.

 

[TwoMisfits]

Most of us who see the appeal of a Universal Parks type express pass would never be able to afford it. We're advocating for it because:

1) It's a simpler system
2) The standby lines would move way more quickly for all of us (because so few could afford the skip the line pass).

Nah, b/c then everyone would apply for the DAS pass to skip the lines b/c they could no longer afford G+, and then you'd break that system for those who need it and probably end up with a new DAS system being for DAS holder only (or DAS +1 if a kid under 18) unless the rest of the family buys G+ at exponential prices...

It never ends with people not trying to skip the lines...if they can't afford it, they'll try any way they can afford...

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Nah, b/c then everyone would apply for the DAS pass to skip the lines b/c they could no longer afford G+, and then you'd break that system for those who need it and probably end up with a new DAS system being for DAS holder only (or DAS +1 if a kid under 18) unless the rest of the family buys G+ at exponential prices...

It never ends with people not trying to skip the lines...if they can't afford it, they'll try any way they can afford...

It's not truly relevant to this thread but I know there was a lot of conversation over Universal's new way of verifying their version of DAS which is by documentation via 3rd party. Universal already was stricter than Disney but I know it made many people wonder would Disney in the future go to this. I guess other theme parks out there use the same system that Universal switched to for the documentation. At this time zero indication (IIRC) that Disney would go to Universal's way but I did note that as being a very real concern.

 

[Miffy]

Having been at WDW twice when there was neither FP+ nor G+, my experience was that the standby lines were huge, 60+ minutes for many rides, and the headliners were untouchable unless you wanted to wait 90 minutes in line or take your chances at park close.

Somehow, amazingly, FP and FP+ worked for years.

I'm upset that this thread has turned into another version of the "please raise the price of G+" thread, which already exists elsewhere. On this thread, people were discussing--or so I thought--the expensiveness of WDW.

I'd like to continue to feel free to post my experiences and opinions. I appreciate the DIS and all that I've learned here over the years. Please, fellow DISers, be kind. This is the DIS, not a mean-spirited social media platform where anything goes and personal attacks are par for the course.

In the future, however, I shall post only to occasionally ask a question that I hope won't generate a nasty response or to answer someone's question that has a fact, not an opinion, as an answer. And, of course, only if I actually know the answer to that question.

 

[grapefruitjellybean]

I would pay $200 per day per person to skip the lines and not have to be on my phone all day trying to mastermind G+. I often think how much would I be willing to pay for that kind of convenience.

 

[intamin]

Having been at WDW twice when there was neither FP+ nor G+, my experience was that the standby lines were huge, 60+ minutes for many rides, and the headliners were untouchable unless you wanted to wait 90 minutes in line or take your chances at park close.

Somehow, amazingly, FP and FP+ worked for years.

I'm upset that this thread has turned into another version of the "please raise the price of G+" thread, which already exists elsewhere. On this thread, people were discussing--or so I thought--the expensiveness of WDW.

I'd like to continue to feel free to post my experiences and opinions. I appreciate the DIS and all that I've learned here over the years. Please, fellow DISers, be kind. This is the DIS, not a mean-spirited social media platform where anything goes and personal attacks are par for the course.

In the future, however, I shall post only to occasionally ask a question that I hope won't generate a nasty response or to answer someone's question that has a fact, not an opinion, as an answer. And, of course, only if I actually know the answer to that question.

I went to WDW when there was neither FP+ or G+ as well and it was amazing. The listed line times were always significantly more than the actual line times when we were there personally. This isn't meant to be mean spirited but just to have a discussion on whether or not having a lower threshold to G+ is actually beneficial or detrimental to the average person. Again, for those of us who have never used G+ it's definitely detrimental to have the lower threshold. When everybody has lightning lane, nobody does. I've seen lines for slinky dog where the the lightning lane line was longer than the standby and I feel bad because those people paid money to wait in a 30 minute line. You're entitled to your opinion on here just as we are ours and I'd love it if you had a counterpoint that may reveal something to me that I'm not seeing.

FP and FP+ worked well for years because it was free. It was open for anyone and everyone. Everyone was on the same playing field. When you bring money into it at all, it's no longer a fair system.25 dollars means a lot more to some people than it does to others.

 

[Chili327]

Most of us who see the appeal of a Universal Parks type express pass would never be able to afford it. We're advocating for it because:

1) It's a simpler system
2) The standby lines would move way more quickly for all of us (because so few could afford the skip the line pass).

Agreed. I'd much rather be skipped over by 1 person who paid 200 dollars than 8 who paid 25.

This.

 

[wabbott]

I'll just throw this out there and risk being the target of incoming slings and arrows, which I already get plenty of anyway.

With Genie/LL, the longer the lines, the higher the price, correct? If there are no lines, there is no revenue. Therefore, is it logical to ask if the park operators actually manage the attractions to CREATE longer lines?

This might be done by skimping on maintenance and creating more attraction downtime. Why get in a hurry to fix stuff, if it creates more wait time in other areas and jacks up the price of LL? The park makes money two ways - higher LL prices and lower maintenance labor/personnel costs.

Or, operators can reduce capacity by not being as efficient at loading - for example miss loading every 5th or 6th Doom Buggy at Haunted Mansion. Another tactic would be to delay putting all the Slinky Dog trams online until the line builds up sufficiently to create LL revenue. And so on.

I have no evidence that this is what is happening, just merely looking at the economic incentives and how the real world works.

 

[intamin]

I'll just throw this out there and risk being the target of incoming slings and arrows, which I already get plenty of anyway.

With Genie/LL, the longer the lines, the higher the price, correct? If there are no lines, there is no revenue. Therefore, is it logical to ask if the park operators actually manage the attractions to CREATE longer lines?

This might be done by skimping on maintenance and creating more attraction downtime. Why get in a hurry to fix stuff, if it creates more wait time in other areas and jacks up the price of LL? The park makes money two ways - higher LL prices and lower maintenance labor/personnel costs.

Or, operators can reduce capacity by not being as efficient at loading - for example miss loading every 5th or 6th Doom Buggy at Haunted Mansion. Another tactic would be to delay putting all the Slinky Dog trams online until the line builds up sufficiently to create LL revenue. And so on.

I have no evidence that this is what is happening, just merely looking at the economic incentives and how the real world works.

I mean guest satisfaction is still a thing at the end of the day so having the rides go down all the time and then having everyone complain and ask for a refund isn’t what you want. You want your E-ticket attractions running well so that people can feel like they got a good value from their trip and got to experience the things they wanted. On the other hand I do think that Disney artificially inflates their ride times so people think they’re either getting a good deal on their G+ and for the people who are in the standby think that they’re running efficiently

 

[Jack Kerouac]

I mean guest satisfaction is still a thing at the end of the day so having the rides go down all the time and then having everyone complain and ask for a refund isn’t what you want. You want your E-ticket attractions running well so that people can feel like they got a good value from their trip and got to experience the things they wanted. On the other hand I do think that Disney artificially inflates their ride times so people think they’re either getting a good deal on their G+ and for the people who are in the standby think that they’re running efficiently

I believe Touring Plans has shown Disney to artificially inflate and deflate wait times to control park flow. My youngest and I saw BTMRR was 5 minutes (first MNSSHP this year and it was around the time of the parade). We rode it three times in a half hour. But by the time we got done, the wait had shot up to 30 minutes. The Lines app will show you the Disney posted times, their estimated wait times, and tell you whether to ride now, anytime, or wait. It’s pretty helpful if you are skeptical of Disney’s listed times and not sure about running all the way across the park for a low wait time ride, only to find the other park guests had the same idea.

Just take a look below at the current wait time for Jungle Cruise. One might think they need G+ based on Disney’s listed time, but it’s not likely an awful wait time.

 

[DCLMP]

This is so true. I used to report to/support CEOs, SVPs and other senior level execs across different companies in years past. As a WDW fan myself, it was always interesting to me that not a single one wanted ANYTHING to do with theme parks - and were very vocal about it.

Not saying none do - obviously this is purely anecdotal. But the ones I worked with took their family on trips to Europe, Asia, luxury cruises, island getaways, etc. They simply weren't interested or willing to deal with crowds, discomfort, heat, inconvenience or any mediocrity.

If WDW's strategy is to cater to upper income families, not sure it'll end well for them. Especially since their #1 business asset - their brand value - has eroded w/younger generations.

There are a few 1% er’s in my family and honestly I think you’d have to pay them to go to WDW. They did the obligatory trip when there kids were young, but they were one and done and moved on to more exotic trips.

I totally agree I’ve always considered WDW a middle to upper middle class destination. At least when it comes to repeat customers.

5 years ago I think it was doable with saving up and budgeting… now not so much. It’s not totally Disneys fault. Yes they raised their prices, but the price of everything has gone up. If you’re in the middle class you probably have very little discretionary income. People that used to feel like they were in the upper class are probably feeling pretty middle class right now. Inflation has a way of doing that.

Like you said their brand has eroded and young people aren’t having kids like they used to.

I even feel like the demographics on this forum skews older. Most people seem to have adult kids or grandkids. Where are all the young families planning trips?

 

[ofcabbagesandkings]

I know a few of the 1% of the 1%. Without exception, if and when they go to WDW, they go for a weekend trip and do two days of VIP tours, at most. They stay at the Four Seasons or the Waldorf, not the GF, because deluxe WDW hotels do not provide the level of service they are used to, not even at club level. They don’t take DCL cruises, not even the Royal Suite, they charter yachts (or go on one owned by a friend). They go once every 3-5 years until their kids hit high school and then never go again until they have grandkids, and they certainly never consider owning DVC. They are immune to price increases but it’s also hard for Disney to capture more of their money outside of price hikes on tickets, food and tours. They buy very little merch. They are not the ones buying Loungefly bags and Spirit Jerseys. Catering to this crowd will not keep the lights on, and I think the powers that be know this. They want the group just below, who can’t do VIP but who will stay onsite at a deluxe for 5 days and spend extra on all the upcharges. I don’t think they really want the people who stay 7-10 days at a value anymore unless those families are first/only timers who will spend nice amounts on food and merch, and who might be coaxed into financing a DVC purchase. As one executive said, they want their “favorable mix.”

 

[gottalovepluto]

If we went back to WDW, we would use Marriott points to stay at the Swan/Dolphin…

You know they’re charging 60-90k points/nt now right? They’ve inflated as much as Disney lol

 

[Minnie1222]

Understandably Disney should never cater to just one group, but that's a weird generalization of the One-Percenter, whoever they are. Just because your friends/relatives follow a certain travel pattern doesn't mean everyone else in that "echelon" would do the same.

 

[john7994]

Come on 1%ers - seriously -

There are over 300 Million humans in just the U.S. alone - I am sitting in Disney Springs now and surrounded by many socio economic demographics and volumes of people from all over the place - just sayin’ -

 

[Chili327]

If you bought it 15 years ago selling it now would be profitable. The price increase over the last couple of decades has been pretty substantial. I wouldn't buy it now thinking I was going to make a profit. A lot has changed over the last couple of years and I wouldn't be surprised if anything bought now ends up being a loss in the future.

Just wanted to say I bought in earlier this year and I will most likely profit when I sell it next year.