Here's An Idea!!

[Cafeen]

Honestly, I don't follow what you're saying, at all. lol. Totally lost me. While it's true that you have to add the dining plan for the whole stay, the price per day is still the most meaningful price. They give the hotel price for each night (try booking a room only reservation, and it tells you the price being charged for each night).

Let's use some numbers to illustrate. Much easier for me than trying to put it into words.

Let's say you have a 7night, 8 day trip. DDP for this trip would run you ~$53*7 or $371. So this is what the difference would show on your trip via only the online reservation thingy and a calculator.

So, let's eat, each item is a per day total, they are random and only used for this illustration.

| 17 | 39 | 65 | 50 | 45 | 72 | 60 | 36 | (that's 8 days, 7 nights)

So, going day by day, we'll combine the first and last, since they were half days. So that's a flat $53.

We're short on day 2, high on day 3, short on day 4, short on day 5, high on day 6, high on day 7, even on day 1+8. What does this tell you overall? Does this suggest to you if you'll save money overall without doing any further math? From an averages standpoint, it's tough to tell, since we're short 3 nights, high 3 nights, and break even the 7th.

17+39+65+50+45+72+60+36 = $384
Compare this to $371 and we see we're saving $13 (yeah, it's not much, I tossed random numbers in there).

However, since it's addition, there's more than one way to get here.
(17 + 36) - 53 = 0
39 - 53 = -14
65 - 53 = 12
50 - 53 = -3
45 - 53 = -8
72 - 53 = 19
60 - 53 = 7

-14+12+(-3)+(-8)+19+7 = 13

So it works, it's just a bit more roundabout. The trick is, it doesn't matter if an individual day is over or under, what matters is that the final total is over or under. This is why the daily breakdown is unimportant in estimating if the dining plan is a good choice. It also allows for far greater freedom, as you're not worried if each meal makes the daily total, but rather then whole trip makes the entire trip's total.

Funny you should mention ticket prices -- Disney certainly announces the prices, as they did publicly, recently. If buying tickets alone, the website lists the total price, AND the per day price. If being added to a package, it neatly lists the plus/minus effect of any change to the selected ticket. (You don't have to wait to see a new total).
If this can be done with ticket prices, there is no reason you can't apply the exact same technology to the dining plan. Whether listed per day or total... Instead of adding the DDP, and then seeing the price effect. (And then having to re-do it again, if you want to compare the other dining plans), There is no reason it can't simply calculate, "Add the QSDP for $200. Add the DDP for $300. Add the DxDP for $400" (Hypothetical numbers of course).

I wasn't citing certain reasons, only possibilities. I don't trust the Disney web developers any more than I can throw them (and, since I'm a computer nerd, I couldn't throw them very far). I don't trust that they did it the "right" way the first time. Yes, they programmed this feature for tickets. That doesn't mean it can accept dining plan information, and that doesn't mean that they wouldn't have to rewrite core functionality of that page to insert this in.

See, now you're getting into my territory . I know well the development cycle of web applications. I know all too well how the system in general works. I also know a thing or two about developing itself.

Depending on the technology that the site is written in, it could be very well that the function that drives the ticket display cannot drive a DDP display. Due to the different inputs (# of people, ages, length of stay) you couldn't just toss it in there, change the daily price, and you're good to go. It would have to be a very different function.

That's not to say it would be difficult to do, but it could very well affect core functionality of the site, something they weren't willing to risk. Since I don't know in particular how the Disney site is setup, I can't guess, but when adding something new, there's always a chance of catastrophically breaking something old. Even if the two features seem wholly unrelated!

Of course, developers also work by feature requirements. These state in clear business rules what the feature is supposed to do, and what it is not supposed to do (in some cases). If the DDP calculation was not in the requirements, it's not getting into the application. Depending on the company, adding something that's not in the requirements takes time, as they have to weigh it against other projects, features, and insure that they aren't going to break existing functionality as much as possible. (And then all the testing, sending it back and forth, beta testing, and then finally releasing that's done after all that).

It's a little more than just typing the equation out in Excel.

Partially, I'll ask you to trust my memory. But the part about the package comparison website is easily verifiable.... Disney is still using the same URL as past years... Go use the waybackmachine ... and you can see that they used to actually provide side by side pricing comparisons, and they no longer do so.

I did. It only let me go back to 2011 (I did it after I wrote that too, but that's beside the point ). There is no query string or subfolder (which is likely a masked query string) for the other years. It simply stays at that linked page and only allows 2011 and 2012.

To be fair, I've seen bugs cause things like this as well. (Hey, I do QA, I blame the devs ALL the time!).

The reason I remember it so well--

I booked a Disney vacation last year, shortly after package pricing was released. It was before I discovered all the information on this website. I *know* the website said that the DDP was under $42 per person. I didn't take out a calculator to see if that's what I was actually charged down to the penny. I truly and honestly believed that I had actually paid $42 per adult for a 2011 package.
I then discovered this message board... I discovered that the dining plan price was actually $47. For my party, it ended up being a price difference of over $100. I had come communications with Disney.... First they maintained that I was charged the right amount, but that it was a package, so there really was no per night charge, etc, etc. Then, after consulting with their legal department, marketing department, and website department...They apologized... gave me a refund... and basically said that they just hadn't gotten around to updating the price on their website *yet.* And that same day... instead of updating the price on their website, they simply deleted it instead.
And since that day, no pricing information has been offered.

Sounds like you did get your answer. It makes perfect sense and I'd be led to believe that you weren't the only one to notice. Instead of having to update a static page (or pages) every time it changed, they felt it better to remove it overall.

Not sure why you kept asking for the answer, looks like you had it all along.

I'm sure it does involve market research! But the point of all market research.. It's not so they can avoid people getting confused. The point of market research is to increase sales. Thus, I am fairly confident.. they they have found, if they prominently display the current price-- They will be sell less, than by burying the price.

If the DDP was a GREAT bargain.... 2 table service meals per day for only $29.99 (for example), do you have any doubt that Disney would be shouting out the pricing information?

Again, simply more possibilities. The presence of too many numbers on screen can easily confuse those with less than stellar math skills. I know, I hear about it whenever I post! (jk). That's all that possibility was based on, nothing more.

I'd say it's a pretty similar responsibility --- The responsibility to read the fine print, versus the responsibility to pull out a calculator and computer the package with and without dining plan, and break down the cost yourself.

If you're doing to spend $20,000 on a car.. you should read the fine print. But how many people read every single fine print line in the sales contract? How many people then read every line of fine print in the owner's manual before completing the purchase?

Yes and no. Both reading the fine print and doing research are parts of being a responsible consumer, that's absolutely true. I see this more of a "know what you're getting going in" than a "ooh, what's that little line say about it being invalid on the 2nd Tuesday of the month?"

Back to the camera example. There was no fine print there, nor even anything that can be analogous to it. Maybe the "your experience may vary", from the reviews, but that can be said for everything. It's more about figuring out what's best for your situation (which camera should I get?) and taking as much advantage as you can (within the legal and moral rules of course) of it (where can I find the best kit, price, shipping?). The DDP works much the same way. Which plan should I get? How can I best utilize the plan that fits me?

I don't think we have any major disagreement. I am not condemning Disney to burn in the afterlife. I am not suggesting that the CEO should be locked away for the rest of his natural life.

I am simply saying they *should* state the pricing in a straight forward way, and make it easier for people to assess whether the dining plan is worthwhile for them. I'm not saying that Disney has to provide the spreadsheet you have created, but simply list the price.

And that, I totally agree with . As well as the idea that as long as this discussion keeps going and keeps people thinking about making the DDP work (or letting it not work) for them, alls the better.

(If we keep this up, we're going to break the database with extremely long, text-laden posts )

 

[kaytieeldr]

Funny you should mention ticket prices -- Disney certainly announces the prices, as they did publicly, recently. If buying tickets alone,

Because, again, the general public CAN buy tickets alone. We CAN purchase hotel nights alone. We CANNOT purchase a dining plan without also getting a Magic Your Way Package.

They did publish the price for 4 out of those 5 years, until now. In fact, I think 2012 is the first year, where the only way to get the price was to reverse engineer it.

Do you mean five or six out of the seven years (counting, now, next year)? And what's wrong with reverse engineering? It's how The Unofficial Guide advises determining whether a package - any package - is a better deal than the individual components.

 

[JimmyV]

Let's use some numbers to illustrate. Much easier for me than trying to put it into words.

Let's say you have a 7night, 8 day trip. DDP for this trip would run you ~$53*7 or $371. So this is what the difference would show on your trip via only the online reservation thingy and a calculator.

So, let's eat, each item is a per day total, they are random and only used for this illustration.

| 17 | 39 | 65 | 50 | 45 | 72 | 60 | 36 | (that's 8 days, 7 nights)

So, going day by day, we'll combine the first and last, since they were half days. So that's a flat $53.

We're short on day 2, high on day 3, short on day 4, short on day 5, high on day 6, high on day 7, even on day 1+8. What does this tell you overall? Does this suggest to you if you'll save money overall without doing any further math? From an averages standpoint, it's tough to tell, since we're short 3 nights, high 3 nights, and break even the 7th.

17+39+65+50+45+72+60+36 = $384
Compare this to $371 and we see we're saving $13 (yeah, it's not much, I tossed random numbers in there).

However, since it's addition, there's more than one way to get here.
(17 + 36) - 53 = 0
39 - 53 = -14
65 - 53 = 12
50 - 53 = -3
45 - 53 = -8
72 - 53 = 19
60 - 53 = 7

-14+12+(-3)+(-8)+19+7 = 13

I understand your point. I am just not certain that it works in the real world. You are assuming a regular DDP and not DxDP. I am not sure that you can be as far over your $53 total the number of times that you are given the credits that you have to use. Looks like there would have to be several 2 credit meals meaning that some of what you bought would have to have been OOP. I know that you made up random numbers, and I know that my impression is just off the top of my head, but I am not sure that you can have a CS and a single credit TS add up to $72. And if the $72 involved a double credit TS, then I am not sure that you can get up to $65 and then $60 on other days. Maybe. Not sure. Looks a bit to me like the guy with his foot in an ice bucket and his head in the oven who says that "on average, I should be comfortable."

 

[Cafeen]

I understand your point. I am just not certain that it works in the real world. You are assuming a regular DDP and not DxDP. I am not sure that you can be as far over your $53 total the number of times that you are given the credits that you have to use. Looks like there would have to be several 2 credit meals meaning that some of what you bought would have to have been OOP. I know that you made up random numbers, and I know that my impression is just off the top of my head, but I am not sure that you can have a CS and a single credit TS add up to $72. And if the $72 involved a double credit TS, then I am not sure that you can get up to $65 and then $60 on other days. Maybe. Not sure. Looks a bit to me like the guy with his foot in an ice bucket and his head in the oven who says that "on average, I should be comfortable."

The illustration wasn't about saving anything at all, it was about the fact that the daily pricing of the DDP didn't matter when estimating a full length of stay trip. Not meant even to be probable numbers. Just punched the numpad for that one. I did tweak a little to get the "3 low, 3 high, 1 even" setup, but that's it.

You could replace 72 with 27 and the point would still stand.

 

[havoc315]

Let's use some numbers to illustrate. Much easier for me than trying to put it into words.

Let's say you have a 7night, 8 day trip. DDP for this trip would run you ~$53*7 or $371. So this is what the difference would show on your trip via only the online reservation thingy and a calculator.

So, let's eat, each item is a per day total, they are random and only used for this illustration.

| 17 | 39 | 65 | 50 | 45 | 72 | 60 | 36 | (that's 8 days, 7 nights)

So, going day by day, we'll combine the first and last, since they were half days. So that's a flat $53.

We're short on day 2, high on day 3, short on day 4, short on day 5, high on day 6, high on day 7, even on day 1+8. What does this tell you overall? Does this suggest to you if you'll save money overall without doing any further math? From an averages standpoint, it's tough to tell, since we're short 3 nights, high 3 nights, and break even the 7th.

17+39+65+50+45+72+60+36 = $384
Compare this to $371 and we see we're saving $13 (yeah, it's not much, I tossed random numbers in there).

However, since it's addition, there's more than one way to get here.
(17 + 36) - 53 = 0
39 - 53 = -14
65 - 53 = 12
50 - 53 = -3
45 - 53 = -8
72 - 53 = 19
60 - 53 = 7

-14+12+(-3)+(-8)+19+7 = 13

So it works, it's just a bit more roundabout. The trick is, it doesn't matter if an individual day is over or under, what matters is that the final total is over or under. This is why the daily breakdown is unimportant in estimating if the dining plan is a good choice. It also allows for far greater freedom, as you're not worried if each meal makes the daily total, but rather then whole trip makes the entire trip's total.

As opposed to that very complex mathematical breakdown...... I think it's much easier for people to consider..... "Overall.... getting 2 meals a day for $53... is that a good deal or not"

The average and "typical" day will mean far more to most people, then doing a daily breakdown, going through every menu.

I did. It only let me go back to 2011 (I did it after I wrote that too, but that's beside the point ). There is no query string or subfolder (which is likely a masked query string) for the other years. It simply stays at that linked page and only allows 2011 and 2012.

The way back machine showed me the page from 2009.

Sounds like you did get your answer. It makes perfect sense and I'd be led to believe that you weren't the only one to notice. Instead of having to update a static page (or pages) every time it changed, they felt it better to remove it overall.

Based on the timing, I do actually think I was the first to notice. Putting that aside.... That doesn't provide the answer. It answers why they removed incorrect information. It doesn't answer why they stopped providing correct information.

You mentioned marketing research....
We won't ever find the answer to this ourselves...

But I'm willing to bet that, between these 2 choices:

A-- Get a dining plan including 1 QS and 1 TS meal for $42!
B-- Get a dining plan including 1 QS and 1 TS for $53!

I'm willing to bet, that choice "A" would get a much much more positive response. I'm also willing to bet that thousands of people now add the DP, without ever calculating the actual cost.

 

[JimmyV]

17+39+65+50+45+72+60+36 = $384
Compare this to $371 and we see we're saving $13 (yeah, it's not much, I tossed random numbers in there)...

The trick is, it doesn't matter if an individual day is over or under, what matters is that the final total is over or under. This is why the daily breakdown is unimportant in estimating if the dining plan is a good choice.

The illustration wasn't about saving anything at all, it was about the fact that the daily pricing of the DDP didn't matter when estimating a full length of stay trip.

I'm not sure how the math can avoid being about savings. It can't merely be about convenience, because nothing is more convenient than ordering anything you want at any time from any restaurant, unshackled from any restrictions. On that point, there really can be no debate. No one would choose a Dining Plan for its simplicity if there were no perceived built in savings. In other words, if Disney didn't change a single thing about its DDP, but bumped the price up to $100 per day, the fact that one never has to look at menu prices would cease to be a sufficient reason to buy the plan. Everyone would jump to the realization that it is simplly not a good deal. Every one of the posters in this and every other thread who says that they love the DDP because they don't have to "think", "worry", "budget", or "calculate" would quickly move over to the "I ain't buying it" camp. Not because the convenience is gone, but simply because it is an economic loser. So no matter how loudly people protest that their love for the plan lies in its convenience, it really is all about the money. Somewhere between $53 and $100 lies the breaking point for even the most ardent plan supporter.

That said, my point about your math wasn't really about savings either. It was about how looking at the total weekly cost as opposed to the daily costs is a fine idea in principle, as long as the math is realistic. You have assumed that an individual on the DDP can or will eat $72 worth of food on any given day to offset a lighter day. I'm just not convinced that this is possible or practical. And of course it matters if you change the $72 to $27, because ultimately, you are trying to ascertain whether and how your weekly eating compares to OOP. If all your numbers are low numbers, then you won't ever get up to $384 for the week as you did in your example. Somewhere in there there have to be big numbers to offset the smaller ones.

Let's look at a real world example and assume that someone did as you suggest and had a light CS day on day one and now wants to go big for day two. How big can you go? How about 2 TS meals, one for lunch at the Crystal Palace and one for dinner at Kona. In addition, a $5 snack is purchased. That's about as big as you can go. Total for the day? $25+$41 (If you order the most expensive things)+$5=$71. Looking at the "big picture" instead of daily, you would have to eat $106 worth of food in the two combined days to reach equilibrium with the plan. Since you ate $71 on day 2, your "light" day would have to be $35 or higher to reach equilibrium. So any day "lighter" than $35 is a money loser.

The point here is that once you have one "light" day, it is really hard to make up the difference, average-wise, and it is pretty hard to have a $72 day. So while looking at your eating on a weekly basis makes perfect sense, you do have to pay attention to real world numbers. Anyone can make up numbers that total $384. But once you have days in the $39 range, it becomes really hard to catch back up because the dining plan restrictions do not allow for an $80 day, and you only have so many TS credits to use.

What's it all mean? That people who claim that having the DDP means never having to look at prices are deluding themselves. Indeed, they probably have to look at prices more so than OOP people. And if they don't, they risk losing money each and every time they buy the plan. If you had a light "CS only" day during the course of your trip, you had better make up for that with a double TS day. And those TS days have to involve expensive entrees or you will lose money. Going to a $35 buffet for one meal and having a Cobb Salad at another meal won't offset a lighter day, money-wise. Once you eat light, you constantly have to be on the lookout for expensive items to ensure the value of your plan.

 

[kaytieeldr]

I know that you made up random numbers, and I know that my impression is just off the top of my head, but I am not sure that you can have a CS and a single credit TS add up to $72.

I just did it, just for fun, using DIS menu prices that are at least two months old. Lunch at the CS at Mexico, dinner at Tutto Italia, snack at Le Creperie - came to $76.89 before tax.

No, you wouldn't eat like that every day - I love 50's Prime Time and Brown Derby's Cobb Salad, so the former would offset an Epcot 'deal' day and of course the latter would be OOP - but the DDP can be a good deal.

 

[JimmyV]

I just did it, just for fun, using DIS menu prices that are at least two months old. Lunch at the CS at Mexico, dinner at Tutto Italia, snack at Le Creperie - came to $76.89 before tax.

Thank you for making my point. It can be done, but you really have to try, and you have to look at the prices. Getting full value out of the plan is not as simple as "just ordering what you want".

No, you wouldn't eat like that every day - I love 50's Prime Time and Brown Derby's Cobb Salad, so the former would offset an Epcot 'deal' day and of course the latter would be OOP - but the DDP can be a good deal.

Aren't these two inconsistent with each other? Once you start adding in OOP items because they are what you prefer, (like appetizers or salads), then I am pretty sure that you are blowing up whatever value the plan had.

 

[kaytieeldr]

Thank you for making my point. It can be done, but you really have to try, and you have to look at the prices. Getting full value out of the plan is not as simple as "just ordering what you want".

I didn't go to any effort. I opened the DIS menu link, selected Epcot, and chose Tutto Italia right off the bat. Looked at the menu, chose (admittedly) the most expensive dinner items I knew would be allowed, including iced tea. The very next restaurant I chose was the Cantina. Easy. For my snack, I was about to head to Sunshine Seasons, but Le Creperie caught my eye. I may have been able to spend a bit more at SS - but, love me some crépes . So it really was easy, and a reasonable park touring day.

Aren't these two inconsistent with each other? Once you start adding in OOP items because they are what you prefer, (like appetizers or salads), then I am pretty sure that you are blowing up whatever value the plan had.

Not to me. Cobb Salad one day gives me two TS another day. That's how I use the DDP. Okay, really how I use it is Lunch with an Imagineer, which includes the salad but isn't covered by any Dining Plan. I don't need to use any credits that day - I'm too full from lunch. But that comes out of my 'tour budget'. The food is a bonus; I kill two birds with one stone.

That's me. Everybody's different.

 

[JimmyV]

I didn't go to any effort. I opened the DIS menu link, selected Epcot, and chose Tutto Italia right off the bat. Looked at the menu, chose (admittedly) the most expensive dinner items I knew would be allowed, including iced tea.

Effort, no. Menu surfing, yes. Which shows that if one does not look at prices and takes a devil-may-care attitude toward dining on the plan, one could lose quite a bit of money. Had you odered a $25 dish instead of a $36 dish, and an $8 gelato instead of a $14 dessert, your total would have been $17 less. Per person. Maybe per day. For a family of 4, that adds up.

Cobb Salad one day gives me two TS another day. That's how I use the DDP. Okay, really how I use it is Lunch with an Imagineer, which includes the salad but isn't covered by any Dining Plan. I don't need to use any credits that day - I'm too full from lunch. But that comes out of my 'tour budget'. The food is a bonus; I kill two birds with one stone.

Agree. If you are killing two birds, it makes sense. But if you are simply killing the food bird, then this strategy is questionable. Imagine 2 days of dining on the plan. You use CS for lunch on day one, and buy a modest CS dinner OOP on that same day. On day 2, you use a CS credit for lunch and go to California Grill for dinner with your double TS credit. Total for the two days is $106 for the plan plus your modest OOP dinner. Let's say, $12, making the total $118. The OOP guest who buys the same meals will pay around $15 each for 3 CS meals for a total of $45, leaving her with $73 to dine at the California Grill. Filet plus chocolate cake is $57 before tax. Enough left over for a flat bread starter, almost. Add in a few more family members, and the leftover amount is more than enough for them to split several appetizers.

 

[Cafeen]

As opposed to that very complex mathematical breakdown...... I think it's much easier for people to consider..... "Overall.... getting 2 meals a day for $53... is that a good deal or not"

The average and "typical" day will mean far more to most people, then doing a daily breakdown, going through every menu.

I'll accept this. I was thinking from a different perspective of analyzing the entire trip rather than deciding based per day. It makes sense your way too.

The way back machine showed me the page from 2009.

Strange...

Based on the timing, I do actually think I was the first to notice. Putting that aside.... That doesn't provide the answer. It answers why they removed incorrect information. It doesn't answer why they stopped providing correct information.

You mentioned marketing research....
We won't ever find the answer to this ourselves...

But I'm willing to bet that, between these 2 choices:

A-- Get a dining plan including 1 QS and 1 TS meal for $42!
B-- Get a dining plan including 1 QS and 1 TS for $53!

I'm willing to bet, that choice "A" would get a much much more positive response. I'm also willing to bet that thousands of people now add the DP, without ever calculating the actual cost.

They stopped proving any information, not just "correct" information. I'm guessing, with this extra info from you, that they did it to prevent a repeat. It's better for them to not show anything than to show the wrong info. I'd also venture to guess that the pages aren't easy to update every year. It's likely hard coded and not just data in a table they can adjust in one spot (which would be the proper way to do it ).

The second part, I don't get...
A -- Get a gallon of milk for $2.99
B -- Get a gallon of milk for $4.99

A -- Get a gallon of gas for $2.34
B -- Get a gallon of gas for $3.31

A -- Get a can of soda for $0.75
B -- Get a can of soda for $1.25

Not sure how comparing 2010's DDP price to 2012's price would be a choice? Everything else is equal except the price, so obviously the lower sounds better. Same deal with anything that has gone up in price and remained the same in quality and quantity. (The quality of Disney food is best left to another discussion as that simply adds more variables and weakens my point.. .erm.. I mean makes it more complex! )

I'm not sure how the math can avoid being about savings. It can't merely be about convenience, because nothing is more convenient than ordering anything you want at any time from any restaurant, unshackled from any restrictions.

Because that illustration was about numbers and not about how much potential savings you could get. I could have done the same with numbers unrelated to the dining plan at all and still illustrated the same point. This point was it's easier to determine whole trip savings based on lump sum differences rather than broken down by daily differences.

On that point, there really can be no debate. No one would choose a Dining Plan for its simplicity if there were no perceived built in savings. In other words, if Disney didn't change a single thing about its DDP, but bumped the price up to $100 per day, the fact that one never has to look at menu prices would cease to be a sufficient reason to buy the plan. Everyone would jump to the realization that it is simplly not a good deal. Every one of the posters in this and every other thread who says that they love the DDP because they don't have to "think", "worry", "budget", or "calculate" would quickly move over to the "I ain't buying it" camp. Not because the convenience is gone, but simply because it is an economic loser. So no matter how loudly people protest that their love for the plan lies in its convenience, it really is all about the money. Somewhere between $53 and $100 lies the breaking point for even the most ardent plan supporter.

I can't speak for everyone, but most I've talked to have the expectation to get close to breaking even at the very least. If you break even and have the convenience, then great. Save money? Even better. Lose slightly? That depends on how much you value that convenience.

If I put a value of $50 on this convenience, then if I'm "short" by more than $50, it's not worth it to me, if I'm short less than $50, it's worth it. If I save money, it's even more so. This value is different for everyone and often times nothing actually, empirically listed out, but rather decided upon at the results.

That said, my point about your math wasn't really about savings either. It was about how looking at the total weekly cost as opposed to the daily costs is a fine idea in principle, as long as the math is realistic. You have assumed that an individual on the DDP can or will eat $72 worth of food on any given day to offset a lighter day. I'm just not convinced that this is possible or practical. And of course it matters if you change the $72 to $27, because ultimately, you are trying to ascertain whether and how your weekly eating compares to OOP. If all your numbers are low numbers, then you won't ever get up to $384 for the week as you did in your example. Somewhere in there there have to be big numbers to offset the smaller ones.

It's pure numbers though. 7 numbers added together to compare that total vs the cost is easier to figure out than subtracting the daily value from the daily cost and adding that total up. They both arrive at the same point, just first way is far easier, more efficient, and less prone to errors.

This holds true for everything and hence it's outside the realm of "normal" DDP numbers.

Let's say you have a movie ticket that costs you $10 per month but you have to buy 6 months. It lets you into 1 movie and offers you 1 drink and 1 food item per movie.

Our movie totals are
| 14 | 16 | 7 | 8 | 12 | 10 |

The same exact logic as described above will apply here as well. It's not about what the numbers actually are, nor even what they represent, but the process that you go through.

Let's look at a real world example and assume that someone did as you suggest and had a light CS day on day one and now wants to go big for day two. How big can you go? How about 2 TS meals, one for lunch at the Crystal Palace and one for dinner at Kona. In addition, a $5 snack is purchased. That's about as big as you can go. Total for the day? $25+$41 (If you order the most expensive things)+$5=$71. Looking at the "big picture" instead of daily, you would have to eat $106 worth of food in the two combined days to reach equilibrium with the plan. Since you ate $71 on day 2, your "light" day would have to be $35 or higher to reach equilibrium. So any day "lighter" than $35 is a money loser.

The point here is that once you have one "light" day, it is really hard to make up the difference, average-wise, and it is pretty hard to have a $72 day. So while looking at your eating on a weekly basis makes perfect sense, you do have to pay attention to real world numbers. Anyone can make up numbers that total $384. But once you have days in the $39 range, it becomes really hard to catch back up because the dining plan restrictions do not allow for an $80 day, and you only have so many TS credits to use.

What's it all mean? That people who claim that having the DDP means never having to look at prices are deluding themselves. Indeed, they probably have to look at prices more so than OOP people. And if they don't, they risk losing money each and every time they buy the plan. If you had a light "CS only" day during the course of your trip, you had better make up for that with a double TS day. And those TS days have to involve expensive entrees or you will lose money. Going to a $35 buffet for one meal and having a Cobb Salad at another meal won't offset a lighter day, money-wise. Once you eat light, you constantly have to be on the lookout for expensive items to ensure the value of your plan.

One light day does not kill the plan unless all your other days are close to breaking even (or the light day is absurdly low). You also are trying to balance two days together to reach equilibrium. That's not how it works unless you're on a 2 night trip. DDP works much better for long trips where a number of smaller gains can outweigh a single larger loss. It also works better for groups for much the same reason, a single user's gain can help cover another user's loss. It moderates both the peaks and valleys, and that moderation point turns into average savings (or loss, depending on where it falls.

You can use math to show this the same, over the average 5 night trip with a group of 2 adults and 2 children (which is Disney's most common marketing target). Obviously different group makeups make things different, and being solo makes it much more erratic. The more people and/or the more nights, the smoother the graph gets.

It's true, DDP does not mean never having to look at prices. It means never having to look at prices, at meal time. When planning your itinerary, you can easily skew the locations that would both be where you want to go as well as be on the higher end of the spectrum, allowing you to skew the potential savings no matter what you choose at dinner time.

However, that's also not how most people use that phrase. It's used mostly by people who would desire to order big, but decide not to based on the price of the item (or a family member that might order big normally, and freak them out with the price of the item). It's not used nearly as much by those who typically order from the low-side of the menu anyway, as they're not as worried about the total bill since they're normally more moderate anyway. It's more colloquialism than anything.

 

[havoc315]

The second part, I don't get...
A -- Get a gallon of milk for $2.99
B -- Get a gallon of milk for $4.99

A -- Get a gallon of gas for $2.34
B -- Get a gallon of gas for $3.31

A -- Get a can of soda for $0.75
B -- Get a can of soda for $1.25

Not sure how comparing 2010's DDP price to 2012's price would be a choice? Everything else is equal except the price, so obviously the lower sounds better. Same deal with anything that has gone up in price and remained the same in quality and quantity. (The quality of Disney food is best left to another discussion as that simply adds more variables and weakens my point.. .erm.. I mean makes it more complex! )

My comparison question was confusing, my apologies. What I meant to demonstrate, is that the price has probably hit a point where is "sounds" expensive, regardless of comparison.

Let's say you have 100 people... All of whom want an airline ticket to Disney, but only at a good price. The airline announces tickets for $89. Great deal -- all 100 buy the tickets.
If instead they announce the round trip tickets are $99-- still an obvious great deal, all 100 people still buy the tickets.
If instead the airline announces $109 -- most people still see it as a good deal, 80 people still buy tickets
If instead the airline announces $159 -- doesn't sound like a good deal, only 10 people buy.

I won't speculate to real numbers, suffice it to say --- I think when the price was high 30's and low 40's, the ddp sounded great to most people. At $53, I think it has crossed a line where it turns off a lot of customers. And I think that's why they stopped listing the price.

 

[Tricia1972]

Yes, you're 100% correct!!














(Hopefully this settles the debate among the three-four posters who are left defending their viewpoints on this thread, and it either opens up to a discussion among the majority again or just dies a natural death.)

 

[Cafeen]

My comparison question was confusing, my apologies. What I meant to demonstrate, is that the price has probably hit a point where is "sounds" expensive, regardless of comparison.

Let's say you have 100 people... All of whom want an airline ticket to Disney, but only at a good price. The airline announces tickets for $89. Great deal -- all 100 buy the tickets.
If instead they announce the round trip tickets are $99-- still an obvious great deal, all 100 people still buy the tickets.
If instead the airline announces $109 -- most people still see it as a good deal, 80 people still buy tickets
If instead the airline announces $159 -- doesn't sound like a good deal, only 10 people buy.

I won't speculate to real numbers, suffice it to say --- I think when the price was high 30's and low 40's, the ddp sounded great to most people. At $53, I think it has crossed a line where it turns off a lot of customers. And I think that's why they stopped listing the price.

And for this, I totally agree. While I don't think they're at that point just yet (well, maybe DDP is getting there, another 3-4 for me would probably do it), but it's certainly inching that way. Same deal with resorts and tickets as well.

Soon enough, Disney's going to have to change their tactics as raising prices every year or so isn't going to work. I think that's something everyone can agree on .

 

[kaytieeldr]

Yes, you're 100% correct!!














(Hopefully this settles the debate among the three-four posters who are left defending their viewpoints on this thread, and it either opens up to a discussion among the majority again or just dies a natural death.)

As IF!

 

[Plaid Sheep]

GACK!!!!
After reading these posts I don't know if I am going on vacation or launching the Space Shuttle.

It's to the point where Disney is starting to take the fun out of... Disney. The magic of just letting the day take you... the little things that make a vacation special....

Needing a Masters in Math to compute the DDP... planning what you will want to eat months in advance and hoping you get and ressie where you want to go...... and DON'T get me started on FP's...I don't get it.

Working for the Mouse in the 90's... it seems like times were simpler then, granted we had our own horror shows... but it wasn't this ...complex.

If it was just my husband and myself, then we'd wing it.. but it won't be....
but I think I will go with the OOP route and just budget money on the high end.

Actually... I just had a thought in the way of that show Extreme Couponing.... Extreme DDP....

 

[Princess Steph]

We went in 1998 and purchased the dining option. We paid $50 a night in cash, but got $65 to spend on food and drinks. I do not remember if snacks counted, but alcohol and specialty drinks did. We never used all that money. We ate as we usually did and by the end of the trip, I was ordering all the drinks with the souvenir glasses because they cost more, just to use up our money.
Back then I kept looking at prices and was sure not to order the most expensive item, so we could save money for later in the trip.

In 2003, we got 3 table service credits and that was just too much food. But we did get all the signature restaurants as one credit and tickets to La Nouba were 2 credits. Quite the deal.

In 2006, it was more like the current plan, but we got an appetizer also which I liked much better than dessert. Tip and tax was included.
I like the current plan, since I order what I want and I don't worry about the price. I do like they way the plan worked in 2006 much better.