Announcement

Collapse
1 of 2 < >

MiceChat Rules

A list of MiceChat's rules can be found at the top of the Disneyland forum.
2 of 2 < >

Ad Blockers

Please do not use ad blocking software when visiting MiceChat. It costs money to keep MiceChat online, and ad revenue offsets this. Thank you.
See more
See less

Is Disneyland too expensive?

Collapse

Ad Widget

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    I actually wouldn't mind in the ticket prices were raised more, to eliminate a certain kind of guest (cough... disrespectful teenagers!!!), even though raising prices sucks for everyone else. :|
    Member of the Disney Class of 2005
    Disneyland CM for 4 years.
    May 6, 2005 - present.

    Comment


    • #47
      Those teenagers are probably annual passholders. By your logic...

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by sediment
        Enough people go to justify the ticket price. Too bad if not everyone can afford to go at that price. It's not a charity, and a certain element is reduced or eliminated at this high price.
        Again with the snotty comment about it not being a charity. Listen, I KNOW it's not a charity. I never said it was. But Disneyland was somehow able to keep ticket prices at a reasonable level and very affordable for its first 25 years, and was somehow able to accrue tremendous profits. There's nothing wrong with saying that pricing is out of control and should be made more affordable and reasonable.

        Originally posted by sediment
        The price doesn't need to be this high, though. AP holders reduce the ticket revenue intake, so the deficit has to be made up somewhere.
        Well, that right there indicates that making the Annual Passes public (which only began in 1984 - gee, I wonder who made that decision?), is the main reason that standard admission pricing has skyrocketed in the last 20 years.

        So the solution is to raise the prices of the Annual Passes, and lower the individual admission prices. That's much fairer.

        A Premium Annual Pass should cost $3650.00 (365 x $10). Use roughly the same formula for figuring the costs of the other APs. This way individual one-day park tickets and Park Hoppers can be made much more reasonably (say around $25 - $30). And just watch as the other parks scramble to match that kind of pricing.

        Who benefits? EVERYBODY. But in particular, WE, the customers, benefit.
        Last edited by SilentBob66; 04-25-2005, 10:24 AM.
        My fondest memory of Walt Disney was the day Disneyland opened....I was standing next to him - I was 12 years old - he was looking at the gate where people were coming through, he had his hands behind his back, he had a grin from ear to ear, but you could see the lump in his throat and the tear coming down his cheek because his dream had been realized. -- Mouseketeer Sharon Baird, "Mouseke-Memories", Walt Disney Treasures: The Mickey Mouse Club

        Comment


        • #49
          I agree that APs are WAY too inexpensive. But Disney is really pushing to sell them this year, so I guess they want people to have them!

          I mean, I can go to the park every day except Saturdays and some select holidays and Sundays. And it only cost $260 with parking. huh.
          Member of the Disney Class of 2005
          Disneyland CM for 4 years.
          May 6, 2005 - present.

          Comment


          • #50
            Thankfully, due to our AP's, we haven't paid for a one-day admission for over 12 years. As with everything else out there, prices just keep climbing. But as someone said earlier, as long as people keep buying tickets to get in, the price will keep going up. There is no incentive to keep the price the same or lower it. Sure they have the different types of discounts, but we all know that is for the slower times and used as a teaser to get new folks into the system so they come back and pay full fare. We are stock-holders, so we also have a financial interest in the company, but any company that tries to keep prices down when expenses are going through the roof won't be around to make the payroll. Then a lot more folks would lose out in a more serious way.

            All I know is that when we go to our annual county fair, we "blow" about $220 bucks for the day. Ride wristbands, entrance, (talk about) overpriced food!, gadgets from the commercial booths, etc... And the rides are pretty much junk, but the kids get a kick out of them. Disney, or any other theme park becomes a bargain relatively speaking.

            They would have to raise the price of the AP's considerably to make us not buy them. Even if we skipped one of our three to four trips per year, it would still be a bargain compared to single or multiple-day tickets.

            Comment


            • #51
              The ticket prices are bit high...but it's not that that kills me, it's the plane ticket prices! buying eight plane tickets is crazy expensive, but the Disneyland trip in the end is way worth it.

              Comment


              • #52
                There's no doubt that Disneyland is expensive. Is it too expensive? There doesn't seem to be any shortage of people willing to ante up the cost of admission. How does one calculate what is too expensive when there seems to be an unlimited supply of consumers willing to pay? Just because you don't particularly like the price doesn't make it too much. Only when park attendance begins to fall will the corporation know that they're asking too much.

                In Disneyland's earlier days, it was able to charge a lower admission price because you also had to pay for each individual ride. Today, in effect, when you enter the park you are prepaying for every ride. One must take that into account and also adjust for inflation when comparing to previous years.

                Eisner dropped a ton of profit to the bottom line by raising (what were determined to be too low) park admission prices. This made stockholders happy. Making stockholders happy is JOB #1 for any publicly held corporation. Customer satisfaction is a very close #2. Profit allows the corporation to maintain and improve the park. That leads to customer satisfaction. It's a balancing act.

                It would be wonderful if everyone, regardless of resources, could enjoy Disneyland as much as they wanted. It's such a magical family oriented venue. Unfortunately, the laws of economics make that very difficult.
                "Yesterday, a man walked up to me and said, 'Isn't it a shame that Walt Disney couldn't be here to see this?' and I said, "He did see this, that's why it's here."
                -Art Linkletter July 17, 2005-


                When you wish upon a star your dreams come true.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by melmel
                  I agree that APs are WAY too inexpensive. But Disney is really pushing to sell them this year, so I guess they want people to have them!

                  I mean, I can go to the park every day except Saturdays and some select holidays and Sundays. And it only cost $260 with parking. huh.
                  I agree that right now an AP is a no-brainer deal for anyone living in Southern California, or for many Northern California, Nevada, and Arizona residents, but for those of us who don't routinely travel to SoCal, they're impractical.

                  Case in point: me. I'm visiting in mid-May, staying at my sister's in Los Alamitos, and we'll be getting two-day Park Hoppers. Now although she doesn't really have a lot of free time to herself, an AP for her would make more economic sense. For me, though, it's a waste, and unless I'm mistaken, I can't transfer ownership of any AP I bought to, say, my nephew. So, I'm stuck paying over $100 for two days for Disneyland and its red-headed stepchild. That's a lot, and, IMHO, too much. But what choice do I have? None. I'm stuck. As the Rick Dees gang says, "Heyyyy, thaaaat's greeaaaat."

                  If the cost of a two-day Park Hopper was $53, though, I doubt I'd complain, because $26.50 for each park is actually pretty reasonable to me.
                  My fondest memory of Walt Disney was the day Disneyland opened....I was standing next to him - I was 12 years old - he was looking at the gate where people were coming through, he had his hands behind his back, he had a grin from ear to ear, but you could see the lump in his throat and the tear coming down his cheek because his dream had been realized. -- Mouseketeer Sharon Baird, "Mouseke-Memories", Walt Disney Treasures: The Mickey Mouse Club

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by SilentBob66
                    So, I'm stuck paying over $100 for two days for Disneyland and its red-headed stepchild. That's a lot, and, IMHO, too much. But what choice do I have? None. I'm stuck. As the Rick Dees gang says, "Heyyyy, thaaaat's greeaaaat."
                    Actually you do have a choice. Go to Magic Mountain/Knott's/the beach/a museum instead. That will show Disney that you think their prices are too high.

                    But since you are still going to go anyway, obviously they haven't priced them *too* high.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Tom Chaney
                      There's no doubt that Disneyland is expensive. Is it too expensive? There doesn't seem to be any shortage of people willing to ante up the cost of admission. How does one calculate what is too expensive when there seems to be an unlimited supply of consumers willing to pay? Just because you don't particularly like the price doesn't make it too much. Only when park attendance begins to fall will the corporation know that they're asking too much.

                      In Disneyland's earlier days, it was able to charge a lower admission price because you also had to pay for each individual ride. Today, in effect, when you enter the park you are prepaying for every ride. One must take that into account and also adjust for inflation when comparing to previous years.

                      Eisner dropped a ton of profit to the bottom line by raising (what were determined to be too low) park admission prices. This made stockholders happy. Making stockholders happy is JOB #1 for any publicly held corporation. Customer satisfaction is a very close #2. Profit allows the corporation to maintain and improve the park. That leads to customer satisfaction. It's a balancing act.

                      It would be wonderful if everyone, regardless of resources, could enjoy Disneyland as much as they wanted. It's such a magical family oriented venue. Unfortunately, the laws of economics make that very difficult.
                      But see, Tom, people didn't have these conversations 30 or 40 years ago. Why? Because Disneyland was affordable to everyone.

                      Just because people WILL fork over whatever you're charging (if you're the only one that has what you got), doesn't mean your price is fair. Disney essentially holds a monopoly. Not on amusement parks, not even on theme parks, but on Disney theme parks. Sounds a tad loopy, I know, but they're the only ones who provide what they provide. Just because they CAN charge exhorbitant admission prices, though, doesn't mean they should. Walt could have charged $10 a head from Opening Day onward, and people would have paid it, but he didn't do that. Disneyland not only could but DID raise ticket prices above $5 a head within the first ten years, but they then LOWERED prices by 1966 - why? (Remember, this was a period in which they were expanding, with New Orleans Square and the new Tomorrowland just around the corner.) It has to do with wanting to make it affordable to all families, not just the upper middle class.

                      I think the problem is two-fold: 1. the adoption of the all-inclusive park passport as the only admission option, scuttling the standard admission and per-attraction individual payment options (and ticket books) and 2. the easy availability of Annual Passes, which are inordinately low in price.

                      Personally, I'm all about options - give me plenty of options and let me work it to my own budget and time schedule. If I go in with a standard admission (with or without ticket books) and I decide a particular attraction's line is too long, I might skip it and go on to something else (or I'll shop, or get something to eat). If I want to go the Passport route, I'll do that. If I want to get an AP, I'll pay through the nose but (using my previous formula), I'll still be ahead of the game ($10 per visit is a huge bargain).

                      I've already spoken on the issue of taking the company private again (Disney should do a stock buyback so they're not eternally beholden to public shareholders, who don't care about anything but their own wallets), and I still maintain it would be a smart move, giving Disney much more freedom in forging ahead.
                      My fondest memory of Walt Disney was the day Disneyland opened....I was standing next to him - I was 12 years old - he was looking at the gate where people were coming through, he had his hands behind his back, he had a grin from ear to ear, but you could see the lump in his throat and the tear coming down his cheek because his dream had been realized. -- Mouseketeer Sharon Baird, "Mouseke-Memories", Walt Disney Treasures: The Mickey Mouse Club

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Tom Chaney
                        There's no doubt that Disneyland is expensive. Is it too expensive? There doesn't seem to be any shortage of people willing to ante up the cost of admission. How does one calculate what is too expensive when there seems to be an unlimited supply of consumers willing to pay? Just because you don't particularly like the price doesn't make it too much. Only when park attendance begins to fall will the corporation know that they're asking too much.

                        In Disneyland's earlier days, it was able to charge a lower admission price because you also had to pay for each individual ride. Today, in effect, when you enter the park you are prepaying for every ride. One must take that into account and also adjust for inflation when comparing to previous years.

                        Eisner dropped a ton of profit to the bottom line by raising (what were determined to be too low) park admission prices. This made stockholders happy. Making stockholders happy is JOB #1 for any publicly held corporation. Customer satisfaction is a very close #2. Profit allows the corporation to maintain and improve the park. That leads to customer satisfaction. It's a balancing act.

                        It would be wonderful if everyone, regardless of resources, could enjoy Disneyland as much as they wanted. It's such a magical family oriented venue. Unfortunately, the laws of economics make that very difficult.
                        EXACTLY :bow:

                        It is shocking how many Disneyphiles do not understand this. To most, Disneyland is looked at as a kind of public service that is to cater to everyone...WRONG ! Walt was just as interested in earning a buck or two as the next guy.

                        As much as I think that they are starting to get into that "Pushing-it" zone, I agree with the above posts. Disney corp should keep pushing the price up until the crowds stop coming, it's simple business. That does not mean to shoot it up to $100/day so that ALL of the crowd stops coming.

                        HOWEVER, I think there is a bigger problem that is all too evident now. When you charge this kind of money, and the people pay it, you better deliver. This was once a no-brainer for Disney, they delivered a quality product that made people quickly forget whatever money they had to pay to get in. It was simply magic. Now, with the Pressler/Harris/Eisner era, we have been seeing the erosion of the foundation. Sloppy show, reduced staffing, cardboard rides, closed rides, and faded sets are all combining to lesson the product. People still paid to get in based on memories from the past, but those memories are getting pushed out and replaced by the park of today. People may determine that they do not need to go back, especially with how much it costs. This was STUPID. Short-term gains instead of long-term planning....

                        Hopefully, this tide is turning. I really hope so, not only do I love the parks and everything Disney, I am a shareholder

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by SilentBob66
                          But see, Tom, people didn't have these conversations 30 or 40 years ago. Why? Because Disneyland was affordable to everyone.
                          I don't think the problem is so much how Disney is managing its business, as it is changes in the world.

                          Think of all of the things we have now that did not exist 30 or 40 years ago. Cell phones. DVD players. iPods. Families need at least two cars now since mom "has" to work. Massive RV units that cost as much as a house. Advances in medical science. All of the wonderful technological creations of the last 30-40 years have resulted in us having less discretionary income, and, some would argue, less free time. And advertising for all of these new toys (as well as the classic items like beer and cars) has made everything more expensive.

                          End result, the "average" family has less time and money to spend on Disneyland, so them getting there is something more of a challenge.
                          "She's taking everything. She's taking the house, she's taking the kid, she's taking the dog. IT'S NOT EVEN HER DOG. IT'S MY DOG! SHE'S TAKING . . . MY DOG!"
                          - Ron Livingston, "Band of Brothers"

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Well, there's a lot of economic and free-market philosophy tied up in these discussions. Leaving maximization of profits and stockholder dividends aside, several considerations present themselves. Disneyland has a finite acreage. Max capacity is, what, 70,000 happy souls? As crass and unfair as it sounds, higher prices prevent overcrowding. (Well, you could charge $20 admission and just turn the extra patrons away but that invites a public relations nightmare and sort of defeats the purpose of making the park available to everyone while missing out on all the profits generated by $53 admissions.) Frankly, I do believe that if someone is willing to pay my price, then the price is fair. Both parties voluntarily agreed to the contract. Palatability and fairness are two different animals.

                            Admission to Disneyland in 1971 was $3.50. That included NO rides. A Big 10 book (admission and 10 attractions...mostly A,B,C,) was $4.95. Cheap! Adjusted for inflation, however, the Big 10 book today would cost $23.55. Perhaps the "fair" price today should be $23.55. Disney executives have decided that it was actually underpriced at the old level and the actual value of admission should be more like $53.00.

                            Agreed, the elimination of individual pricing for the rides in favor of the all-inclusive mode necessarily made admission prices higher. The case could be made for a lower priced "admission-only" ticket for those who want to experience the park but not go on any attractions. This is only a guess, but I'm guessing that most guests do go on several attractions. In effect, they are opting for the Big 10 ticket book. (BTW...Disneyland also offered a Deluxe 15 book for $5.95... about $29 in today's money.)

                            Anyway... for what you would have paid the equivalent of about $24-$29 in 1971 costs you about $53 today. It's an increase, to be sure. I just don't see it as a gouge. For those who may not remember the days of the ticket books, most of the tickets in your little book were A,B & C tickets... meaning you could ride the main street cars and "little" rides like Storybookland. You only got a couple of D & E tickets which got used up fast and more had to be purchased at the ticket booths scattered throughout the park. These were the days when the Pack Mules were an E-ticket! After buying additional tickets, I'll bet we got pretty close to our "inflation-adjusted" $53 even then! (And we always had a drawer-full of books with unused A,B & C tickets at home.)
                            Last edited by Tom Chaney; 04-25-2005, 12:54 PM.
                            "Yesterday, a man walked up to me and said, 'Isn't it a shame that Walt Disney couldn't be here to see this?' and I said, "He did see this, that's why it's here."
                            -Art Linkletter July 17, 2005-


                            When you wish upon a star your dreams come true.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              And by the same token, there are lots of things that I wish I could do, but will never be able to because it is simply out of my economic reach.
                              Then I will find happiness, and recreation in ways that I can.
                              Disney doesn't owe us cheap admittance any more than any other company in the world does. They are providing a product that people will pay for. If they don't provide it, we will spend our hard earned dollars elsewhere. Even I had reached my limit after Thunder Mountain. Hopefully, there are now real measures being taken to restore that precious magic that keeps us paying so much for. I feel they are, and I am so happy.
                              Goin around the world...and back to Disneyland!

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                But see, Tom, people didn't have these conversations 30 or 40 years ago. Why? Because Disneyland was affordable to everyone.
                                Well, for one, there wasn't the internet 30 or 40 years ago, the home of constant complaining.

                                But seriously, let's not delude ourselves. My Mom tells of how after a trip to Disneyland when she was a kid - late 50's/early 60's - a lot of her friends would be jealous because their families couldn't afford it. (Made my Mom VERY appreciative of their relative financial security.) Now, it's not as if my Mom's family was exceptionally large or that they went very often. Two parents, two kids. Every 3-4 years at most, travelling from San Jose. They saved money like crazy to go. Other years their family vacation was camping in the mountains outside the city for two or three days. Sometimes I think our pretty picture of suburban life in 50's and 60's America is terribly skewed: not everyone had a new car in the garage and mom baking apple pie every day. In fact, such was the extreme minority. It's just that our TV viewing and conservative stereotyping of the era causes us to think that.

                                So, I'm stuck paying over $100 for two days for Disneyland and its red-headed stepchild. That's a lot, and, IMHO, too much.
                                Last June, before I moved to Southern California, I went to Disneyland for 3 days with my brother, his wife, and my sister. The trip cost me about $600 total. It was well worth it, IMO. Why? Because it was my first time going in 4 years. Growing up I went to Disneyland with my family on average every 3 years. We spent the time inbetween trips saving for the next one. Would I have liked to go every week? Sure. Every year? You bet. The thing is, it was in no way economically feasible for my family. And this was in the 80's and early 90's coming from the Bay Area or Sacramanto, which meant we drove every time. So, even without plane tickets, even without EVER staying at very nice hotel, we made it work. The last BIG family trip to Disneyland (with my parents and all siblings, spouses, grandkids, and even a few select friends) was in 2000. Great trip, if a bit hectic. The next similar one won't be until 2007. Just not economically feasible. But, oh, I guarantee it'll be worth it. I've started planning to save money for the hotel now so that I can stay there with them all instead of driving to the San Fernando Valley every night.

                                Of course, I now have an AP, so I've been to Disneyland about a half dozen times since August. I wouldn't trade my June trip for anything, even though I've gone twice as many times since for about half the price. It's all relative.

                                Personally, I think your two days at $100 is a steal. That's $300 less than my first two days back in June.
                                My Blu-rays/DVDs
                                "Every view they hold on you's a piano out of tune
                                You're an angel, you're a demon, you're just.... human." - James, Lullaby

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X