Here's An Idea!!

[JimmyV]

This thread is getting ridiculous! ...Why would you possible (sic) want to figure out the dollars on the gift card as opposed to figuring out the 1 a day for table service, snack, and counter service? You get one of each per day...that is NOT hard at all to follow!! If you don't like dessert and would rather get an appetizer and don't like steak yeah the gift card would work for you, but not for me!

With all due respect, this isn't ridiculous at all. The whole point is that with the new 2012 pricing, it is time for everyone to take a new, hard look at the plan. If you still think it works for you, fine. But take a second (or third look). That is all. And no amount of preaching is going to convince me that "convenience" is a singularly valid reason to buy the plan. I can sell you a pass to your local multi-plex for $200 per person per year and promise you that you will never have to pay to see a movie ever again. But if you habitually see 7 movies per year at $10 per movie, then it doesn't matter how convenient the pre-payment option is, it is still bad economics. And if you try to "get your money's worth" by seeing 20+ movies per year, 13 of which you wouldn't have bothered to see, then you are forcing a round peg into a square hole. The dining plan (now) really is analogous. Maybe it wasn't in 1995. Or 2005. Or 2010. But in 2012, you really have to look a bit harder and more thoughfully than simply saying: "I've always done it this way and will continue to do so." That is exactly what the accountants at WDW are counting on. And if looking at your receipt under a gift card plan, (which would tell you your remaining balance) is too complex a concept for you, then there really is nothing much to debate. Every gift card in the world works that way. But I suppose when someone gives you or your kids a gift card as a present, you throw it away because it is way to difficult a system to bother with.

 

[kaytieeldr]

With all due respect, this isn't ridiculous at all. The whole point is that with the new 2012 pricing, it is time for everyone to take a new, hard look at the plan.

Once the 2012 menu price increases come out, the Dining Plans likely won't be the horrendous value you and havoc315 predict.

The dining plan (now) really is analogous. Maybe it wasn't in 1995. Or 2005. Or 2010.

Since nothing even resembling this Dining Plan existed in 1995, that comparison wouldn't be valid.

 

[bntrdntht]

I love the DDP... just thought I would say that....

 

[havoc315]

Because the typical visitor can't book a Dining Plan except as part of a package.
. As for it not being 'like any other normal ethical business practice', well, go into any Travel Agency - Liberty Travel, Vacation Outlet, local agency - and ask for a breakdown of the costs on any package.
That same guest can, however, book just a hotel room; or just tickets; or just a tee time; or, if you have the right phone number, order something you saw in a store onsite via telephone. The few guests who can get a dining plan without a (typical) package actually can - must, in fact - be given the DDP stand-alone pricing.

Walt Disney Travel Company is by no means unique in their refusal to break down package pricing. Whatever company puts a package together doesn't break it down for the resellers. It's a package for a reason. Everything is in one container. In this case, you the consumer can do the math. It's not the responsibility of the travel provider to do it for you.

You are simply factually incorrect. You would be correct if you were basically talking about an all-inclusive package. Just as when I buy a shirt, I don't get a breakdown of the price of the buttons. When I buy a pizza, I don't get a breakdown of the price of the sauce and the cheese.

But when ADDING something to a package, the price is almost always given, and is required to be given in many states. (I assume Florida's consumer protection laws are less strict). Though it is structured differently, Disneyland very specifically lists the price of its dining plan. (It is a voucher system, but like the Disney World system, it can only be purchased with a package. Even though it is purchased with a package, Disneyland provides the broken down pricing!)

The DDP is an ADD ON. It is not part of the basic Disney package.

And you are ignoring the simple reality -- Until 2011 pricing, Disney always did list the price of the dining plan. So you are avoiding the most basic question --- Given that Disney always published the price before, why did they suddenly stop publishing the price?

 

[havoc315]

The thing is, you didn't say "name me a company that hides the price of an optional addon to a package". You said...

And that is what I responded on. All examples listed (barring differences in both Wireless and Cable providers) do just that.

The Disney packages are clearly priced. In big blue numbers on the screen (or whatever color the CMs and TAs get). You know going in that this package will cost you x amount of money. If you add the dining plan, it will then cost y amount of money. While they may not be outwardly advertising the cost of the dining plan, it's there to figure out. The price has never been truly, fully disclosed, at least since I've been around in mid-2009. I know, I've looked for it. That's how I found the DIS.

Cafeen, you and I get along fine. No footnotes required.

But no, your examples didn't hold water. No more than comparing it to buying a shirt, and not getting a broken down price for the buttons. Because I can't buy a shirt without the buttons.
But I can buy a Disney package without a dining plan.

Now, the plans are not clearly marked. Disneyland clearly marks the price of it's dining plan, go ahead and check out the Disneyland website. I know for a fact that Disney World's failure to list the price, would be a violation of the consumer protection laws of some states. It is inherently dishonest.

I agree that consumer's have a responsibility. But sellers cannot dodge their responsibility of being upfront and truthful in the information they provide.

Imagine you had to go grocery shopping this way --- The supermarket did not list the prices of any items. You had to go out to the checkout line, where you were told the grand total. The cashier was prohibited from telling you the itemization. The only way to find out the price of the bag of chips, is now to remove the chips from your cart, and get a new grand total. Then do the same thing with the soda, then with the cookies, then with the milk.
Such a pricing scheme would make it much harder for the consumer to appreciate the individual prices.
In fact, if such a system existed.... Let's assume you were in the habit of paying $100 per week in groceries. Then 1 week you go, and it's $103. You probably wouldn't start sorting through the full cart of groceries to figure out why it costs $3 more. You would just pay it, since the grand total is still pretty close to what you were used to.
But now imagine that the whole reason for the price increase --- Is that the $1 pack of gum, had its price increased to $4.
Had you gotten the itemized price for the gum -- had you seen the price went from $1 to $4..... You would have been a more educated consumer, and you would have been more likely to skip the pack of gum.

Disney World has always been a bit effusive about the price of the dining plan, but until this year, they did provide basic pricing on their website. (Most recently, they did advertise "add the DDP for under $42"-- with similar statements for the DxDP and QSDP).

So the obvious question remains, why did they stop listing the price?

 

[wide awake]

Why do people get so wrought up about the dining plan? If you don't want it, don't buy it. I love the dining plan because if I paid out of pocket, or used a gift card, I would constantly be checking the right side of the menu, because that is the way I'm wired. I wouldn't order exactly what I wanted, which I do while on DDP...subject to calorie constraints. If you don't like to eat, if you really like cheap food, pay OOP. I promise I will not start threads telling you how wrong you are. Nor will I blame every incidence of poor quality or service on you choosing to pay OOP..."if only people wouldn't buy cheapo entrees there would be more high end items for those of us on the DDP".

 

[kaytieeldr]

So the obvious question remains, why did they stop listing the price?

You will have to ask them, as in management. Marketing, Finance, whatever. Hey! Maybe they stopped because most guests can't buy dining plan without a Magic Your Way package!!

But since the consumer can get pricing with and without park tickets, with and without a dining plan, with and without La Nouba, before ANY decision or purchase is made, I don't see any major issue. If you take your questions into any travel agency, unless somebody there happened to do the math you're refusing to do, they're not going to have a breakdown for you either.

I still don't understand the problem:
"Buy a package with room and tickets, pay $1,000".
"Buy a package with room, tickets, dining plan, pay $1,600".*

You've spent more time complaining about the change than it would have taken you to do a dummy booking online to figure out the pricing yourself, or to search for the 2012 DDP thread somebody mentioned above.

*sample pricing only

 

[havoc315]

You will have to ask them, as in management. Marketing, Finance, whatever. Hey! Maybe they stopped because most guests can't buy dining plan without a Magic Your Way package!!

You can't buy a Disneyland dining plan without a package, yet Disneyland lists the pricing.
In 2010, you couldn't buy a dining plan without a package, but they listed the price.
In 2009, you couldn't buy a dining plan without a package, but they listed the price.

It's not about whether a person can undertake efforts to determine the price or not. The question is whether Disney making intentional efforts to get people to purchase the plan, without appreciating the price.

If I told you I could give you an all-inclusive vacation, with airfare, hotel, food, and a commemorative luggage tag, for $999 --- You might say, that sounds like a great price, and book it.

But if you knew that, you could get the airfare, hotel, and food for $199...... And the luggage tag was $800 -- You would probably skip the luggage tag.

Disney is hoping you won't notice the over-pricing of the dining plan, by lumping it in with everything else.

Such pricing is unethical in my personal opinion --- And objectively, such pricing is illegal is some states.

 

[Cafeen]

Cafeen, you and I get along fine. No footnotes required.

But no, your examples didn't hold water. No more than comparing it to buying a shirt, and not getting a broken down price for the buttons. Because I can't buy a shirt without the buttons.
But I can buy a Disney package without a dining plan.

Now, the plans are not clearly marked. Disneyland clearly marks the price of it's dining plan, go ahead and check out the Disneyland website. I know for a fact that Disney World's failure to list the price, would be a violation of the consumer protection laws of some states. It is inherently dishonest.

I agree that consumer's have a responsibility. But sellers cannot dodge their responsibility of being upfront and truthful in the information they provide.

Imagine you had to go grocery shopping this way --- The supermarket did not list the prices of any items. You had to go out to the checkout line, where you were told the grand total. The cashier was prohibited from telling you the itemization. The only way to find out the price of the bag of chips, is now to remove the chips from your cart, and get a new grand total. Then do the same thing with the soda, then with the cookies, then with the milk.
Such a pricing scheme would make it much harder for the consumer to appreciate the individual prices.
In fact, if such a system existed.... Let's assume you were in the habit of paying $100 per week in groceries. Then 1 week you go, and it's $103. You probably wouldn't start sorting through the full cart of groceries to figure out why it costs $3 more. You would just pay it, since the grand total is still pretty close to what you were used to.
But now imagine that the whole reason for the price increase --- Is that the $1 pack of gum, had its price increased to $4.
Had you gotten the itemized price for the gum -- had you seen the price went from $1 to $4..... You would have been a more educated consumer, and you would have been more likely to skip the pack of gum.

Disney World has always been a bit effusive about the price of the dining plan, but until this year, they did provide basic pricing on their website. (Most recently, they did advertise "add the DDP for under $42"-- with similar statements for the DxDP and QSDP).

So the obvious question remains, why did they stop listing the price?

I'll give you that the comparisons don't compare the the DDP so much, but that wasn't the original question. You stated a much simpler question regarding prices within packages and they are all examples.

Buttons are different. Without them, the shirt wouldn't be functional. Without texting, your cell phone is functional and without HLN your cable TV (or satellite, whatever the case may be) is functional. Computers typically let you alter the package (at least outside of stores) and they have different options for several parts, including HDDs (no, not Hoop Dee Doos!), CPUs, Graphics Cards, RAM, etc (rarely the mobo, so I'll give you that, although I have seen it).

You can buy Cable without a particular channel (well, actually, it's typically without a particular group of channels as outlined in that package). You can buy a phone plan without texting. You can buy a computer without particular parts (maybe not at Best Buy, but that doesn't matter). And yes, you can buy shirts without buttons, they're called T-Shirts (yes, it's a joke).

But you can also buy buttons without a shirt. You can't buy texting without voice (depending on provider), and you can't buy HLN without a package. (Yes, you can buy any single computer component by itself, that's how I made a $3,000 machine for $1,800).

For your grocery store analogy, it would be more akin to having all my items priced but one. I can see the total before, ask them to add that last time and see my total after, and then decide if that item is worth it to me. It's not a very difficult process, even for the average person. If the price before the gum is $143.32, and the price after the gum is $147.31, then the gum was $3.99. Would it be worth it for that gum? No (then again, I haven't chewed gum in years anyway... it gets in the way when I walk ).

This is actually exactly how the dining plan works. Going directly on the website now and booking a pretend trip in Oct 2012 (05Oct - 14Oct). This trip gives me 10 day PH/WPF&M tix. The total is $5,232.68. If I add dining, it's $6,160.40. It says it in orange numbers (I was wrong about the blue, sorry). Do I need to know that it's $53.54 per person per night? Or am I ok with knowing that it's $927.72 added to the whole trip? Is it better to question spending the nightly per person amount, or the entire trip amount (hint: for the math, it's much better to figure it out over the entire trip as it allows for fluctuations where one meal may not be at the mark, but another may go over the mark).

Edited to add...

You will have to ask them, as in management. Marketing, Finance, whatever. Hey! Maybe they stopped because most guests can't buy dining plan without a Magic Your Way package!!

But since the consumer can get pricing with and without park tickets, with and without a dining plan, with and without La Nouba, before ANY decision or purchase is made, I don't see any major issue. If you take your questions into any travel agency, unless somebody there happened to do the math you're refusing to do, they're not going to have a breakdown for you either.

I still don't understand the problem:
"Buy a package with room and tickets, pay $1,000".
"Buy a package with room, tickets, dining plan, pay $1,600".*

You've spent more time complaining about the change than it would have taken you to do a dummy booking online to figure out the pricing yourself, or to search for the 2012 DDP thread somebody mentioned above.

In his defense. He started the 2012 price thread, I simply supplied the more in-depth math and analysis, and we've been going back and forth since then .

I do agree that the overall package prices are clearly shown (unless you can't see orange) and with that, the DDP overall (that is, how much it's going to cost for your traveling party over the length of your stay) can be easily deduced. I don't know the reasons that it is not widely published, but chances are because that information is meaningless to the bulk of the population. They, more likely, don't care about how much per person per night adding it will cost, but how much it'll add to the whole trip. Those that like to look a little deeper, can find out the rest of the information either via math or Google.

Even with my cynical mind, I just don't think that a company with the amount of responsibility that Disney holds (to their CMs and their shareholders) could take that extra step into intentionally hiding information in order to overcharge their customers. Especially a division that relies very heavily on repeat guests. Maybe it's my Mickey-colored glasses though . (The phrase "Mickey-colored glasses" in this context as comparing them to the traditional phrase of "rose-colored glasses" is hereby trademarked, or copyrighted, or whatever thing it can be!) It just seems to be too far of a stretch to step over that legality line.

You can't buy a Disneyland dining plan without a package, yet Disneyland lists the pricing.
In 2010, you couldn't buy a dining plan without a package, but they listed the price.
In 2009, you couldn't buy a dining plan without a package, but they listed the price.

It's not about whether a person can undertake efforts to determine the price or not. The question is whether Disney making intentional efforts to get people to purchase the plan, without appreciating the price.

And this is where personal responsibility fits in. A vacationer should be able to determine, via research, if the plan and cost is right for them and fits their style and budget. Disney is not responsible for making these choices for us. Of course, without a published price, it's more difficult, but the fact remains that the price can be deduced and therefore is not truly hidden. (Again the total price can be deduced easily, not necessarily the day to day price per person).

Disney gives you a quote with the dining plan. Disney gives you a quote without the dining plan. Anyone can do the subtraction to find out the overall difference which then translates into the raw cost of the dining plan over the length of stay. See above for the rest of the stuff that I was about to type here!

If I told you I could give you an all-inclusive vacation, with airfare, hotel, food, and a commemorative luggage tag, for $999 --- You might say, that sounds like a great price, and book it.

But if you knew that, you could get the airfare, hotel, and food for $199...... And the luggage tag was $800 -- You would probably skip the luggage tag.

Disney is hoping you won't notice the over-pricing of the dining plan, by lumping it in with everything else.

Such pricing is unethical in my personal opinion --- And objectively, such pricing is illegal is some states.

If they offered you the fact that the package was $199 without the tag, and then $999 with the tag. Would you feel the same? That's how DDP works. If the tag is not an optional add-on, then you're using an invalid analogy as you already proclaimed with my examples earlier .

 

[angelmav]

Once the 2012 menu price increases come out, the Dining Plans likely won't be the horrendous value you and havoc315 predict.QUOTE]

Not true, as has already been shown, many items dont see a change in price and those that do tend to be slight 2-4% range where the plan has been going up much more than that. 2012 IT IS a worse deal by alot. The fact they are hiding the price and claiming unachievable savings is where the discussion lies, not so much about 2011 or before.

 

[kaytieeldr]

If I told you I could give you an all-inclusive vacation, with airfare, hotel, food, and a commemorative luggage tag, for $999 --- You might say, that sounds like a great price, and book it.

But if you knew that, you could get the airfare, hotel, and food for $199...... And the luggage tag was $800 -- You would probably skip the luggage tag.

You're not comparing apples and apples. To make your comparison valid it would have to be, "I can arrange you a trip including hotel room and attraction admissions for $1,000 or I can arrange one that includes hotel, admissions, and food for $1,600 - but I can't break down the individual components for you. You'll have to calculate those yourself."

As for why? Well, you don't like any of the possibilities given here. You don't even allow that DLR's voucher system differs from WDW's dining plans, or that it's entirely likely next year's food prices will increase.

So I give up. Ask The Disney Company.

 

[havoc315]

You're not comparing apples and apples. To make your comparison valid it would have to be, "I can arrange you a trip including hotel room and attraction admissions for $1,000 or I can arrange one that includes hotel, admissions, and food for $1,600 - but I can't break down the individual components for you. You'll have to calculate those yourself."

As for why? Well, you don't like any of the possibilities given here. You don't even allow that DLR's voucher system differs from WDW's dining plans, or that it's entirely likely next year's food prices will increase.

So I give up. Ask The Disney Company.

In your example, you are assuming that the seller volunteers the price difference, which isn't the case here.
It's more like, "I can sell you hotel, admission, and a food plan for $1,600.... is that okay with you?"
With again, the seller hoping you never bother to ask enough questions and pull out the calculator to do the price breakdown. With the seller hoping that you never realize you can get hotel, admission and the same food... for much less than $1,600.

As to why they STOPPED listing the price -- You haven't given any explanations. Yes, the DLR system is different -- but just like the DW system, it needs to be purchased with a package.
And the DW system is basically unchanged from 2008-2010, but from 2008-2010, they listed the price. So again, why did they stop listing the price??

The answer is obvious. Just for some reason, you want to be very defensive of Disney and don't want to admit the answer -- They stopped listing the price, because they really don't want people to think about the price. They know, that there are many people who will book the dining plan, out of habit or ignorance. And that many of those people wouldn't book it, if they knew the price. It's that simple.

 

[havoc315]

I'll give you that the comparisons don't compare the the DDP so much, but that wasn't the original question. You stated a much simpler question regarding prices within packages and they are all examples.

Buttons are different. Without them, the shirt wouldn't be functional. Without texting, your cell phone is functional and without HLN your cable TV (or satellite, whatever the case may be) is functional. Computers typically let you alter the package (at least outside of stores) and they have different options for several parts, including HDDs (no, not Hoop Dee Doos!), CPUs, Graphics Cards, RAM, etc (rarely the mobo, so I'll give you that, although I have seen it).

You can buy Cable without a particular channel (well, actually, it's typically without a particular group of channels as outlined in that package). You can buy a phone plan without texting. You can buy a computer without particular parts (maybe not at Best Buy, but that doesn't matter). And yes, you can buy shirts without buttons, they're called T-Shirts (yes, it's a joke).

But you can also buy buttons without a shirt. You can't buy texting without voice (depending on provider), and you can't buy HLN without a package. (Yes, you can buy any single computer component by itself, that's how I made a $3,000 machine for $1,800).

For your grocery store analogy, it would be more akin to having all my items priced but one. I can see the total before, ask them to add that last time and see my total after, and then decide if that item is worth it to me. It's not a very difficult process, even for the average person. If the price before the gum is $143.32, and the price after the gum is $147.31, then the gum was $3.99. Would it be worth it for that gum? No (then again, I haven't chewed gum in years anyway... it gets in the way when I walk ).

This is actually exactly how the dining plan works. Going directly on the website now and booking a pretend trip in Oct 2012 (05Oct - 14Oct). This trip gives me 10 day PH/WPF&M tix. The total is $5,232.68. If I add dining, it's $6,160.40. It says it in orange numbers (I was wrong about the blue, sorry). Do I need to know that it's $53.54 per person per night? Or am I ok with knowing that it's $927.72 added to the whole trip? Is it better to question spending the nightly per person amount, or the entire trip amount (hint: for the math, it's much better to figure it out over the entire trip as it allows for fluctuations where one meal may not be at the mark, but another may go over the mark).

Typically, when given options to upgrade the purchase of a computer, all those upgrade options are indeed individually priced. (If ordering a custom built computer).

As to the shopping cart example -- Yes, in practice, Disney is only playing this game with 1 item. But in terms of business ethics, and deceptive practices.... the theory is the same, whether it is 1 items or 100 items.

Now, turning to your hands-on example on the Disney website --- Yes, you took the intelligent step, of looking up the price with the plan, and without the plan. I submit that Disney is hoping many people won't take that step!
This is what I find deceptive -- They are adding extra steps, to get a very basic piece of information. You'd have to take even further steps, to figure out the child pricing versus adult pricing, which might also affect your decision.

This isn't about whether it is possible or impossible to figure out the price. Or whether it is super easy or super difficult. It's a much simpler objection: It is a very very basic piece of information, that a consumer has a right to know. And the seller is adding extra steps to get that piece of information.

And going back to the question that is being danced around --- Why did they used to basically put forth this piece of information, but now they hide is under "extra steps?"

The answer is obvious -- They don't want consumers to notice the price. In all likelihood, because they know many consumers would not consider the price to be much of a bargain.

Look at the reaction on this board, of educated Disney-goers. There are some people who believe that the DDP will still be a bargain with 2012 pricing, but also many many people who have proclaimed they will start skipping the DDP.

You also have plenty of people who say... "I've always used the DDP... It always saved me money before, and now I wouldn't go to Disney without it.."
I submit that Disney knows there are tons of people like that out there, who will add the DDP out of habit. And who may never look closely at the price. They will just rely on the fact that they saved money in the past.

The smart consumer will indeed look closely at the pricing. For some, the DDP may still be worthwhile. For others, it will not be.
But there are plenty of other consumers that won't look very carefully.

And it's for those consumers, that Disney has decided to obfuscate the true pricing of the plan.

 

[kaytieeldr]

So again, why did they stop listing the price??

So again, you don't like any of the responses given here. Ask Disney.

I like to consider myself relatively informed. I like to know what my options are. I need a ring. Am I going to buy the first ring that looks like it meets my needs? Not in a million years. I'm going to do at least minimal research - and that's just $26 dollars. Spending thousands on a vacation? You bet I'm going to know my options before I purchase.

My favorite advertising slogan of all time comes from the Syms chain: "An educated consumer is our best customer". They don't teach you; they expect you to come in that way.

 

[havoc315]

So again, you don't like any of the responses given here. Ask Disney.

You haven't given any responses. Your only response has been, "it's part of a package." That's not a reason for suddenly to stop listing the price of the add-on... It was listed up until 2011. It is listed for other add-ons.
All you have done is provide a reason for why, it can be legally argued, that they aren't legally obligated to separately list the price. In terms of why they actually changed their policy and actually stopped listing the price.... You haven't given a single response.

 

[Cafeen]

Typically, when given options to upgrade the purchase of a computer, all those upgrade options are indeed individually priced. (If ordering a custom built computer).

Typically, they're only shown an upgrade cost, which is the price difference between part A and part B. They do not show the full price of part A or part B. If I have a 320GB HDD selected, but opt for the 1TB, it's not going to show me the full cost of the 1TB, but rather the difference between the two. I know how much more the 1TB is, but not how much it costs.

As to the shopping cart example -- Yes, in practice, Disney is only playing this game with 1 item. But in terms of business ethics, and deceptive practices.... the theory is the same, whether it is 1 items or 100 items.

Theory is one thing, reality is another. By only having the one item unpublished, they are offering you the price difference, you just have to work at it a little bit. It's slippery slope to assume that because they do it with 1 they'll do it with more. It's a possibility for sure, and something that all educated consumers should look out for, but as it sits right now, not so much.

Now, turning to your hands-on example on the Disney website --- Yes, you took the intelligent step, of looking up the price with the plan, and without the plan. I submit that Disney is hoping many people won't take that step!
This is what I find deceptive -- They are adding extra steps, to get a very basic piece of information. You'd have to take even further steps, to figure out the child pricing versus adult pricing, which might also affect your decision.

I'd reiterate my opinion on those who refuse to take that extra 30 second step, but I think we all know it well enough by now. Frankly, if they can't be bothered, they deserve it.

The extra steps are simply unnecessary. They are not needed to even estimate whether or not the dining plan is a value to you. I don't need to know that I'm spending 78.99 per night on DxDDP to know that I'm looking at saving roughly $200 on my next trip. It's just extra numbers that have no need to be there and could even cause potential confusion. It's much easier with a single (albeit much larger) number.

This isn't about whether it is possible or impossible to figure out the price. Or whether it is super easy or super difficult. It's a much simpler objection: It is a very very basic piece of information, that a consumer has a right to know. And the seller is adding extra steps to get that piece of information.

And going back to the question that is being danced around --- Why did they used to basically put forth this piece of information, but now they hide is under "extra steps?"

The answer is obvious -- They don't want consumers to notice the price. In all likelihood, because they know many consumers would not consider the price to be much of a bargain.

The answer is only obvious if you assume the worst. The day to day pricing is meaningless. It doesn't matter. This leaves us with the lump sum number, which, while not prettily shown as "This will increase the package price by $x", is still able to be figured in one easy step.

The information before was not part of the reservation process. The information before was marketing and was not widely available. It was buried and only showed up sometimes. (I never saw the 2009 or 2011 pricing, and only the 2010 under the FD promotion as a "Save up to $x") It was not the official price quote regarding your specific situation and time of travel. At least as far as I could tell, I could be wrong, I'll admit that.

As to plausible theories?

• Holiday Charge - The system can automatically adjust for holidays without causing the consumer any extra figuring. It also does them right whereas the user may assume that if the night is in (or out) of holiday range, he pays that price rather than based on start of trip.
• Perhaps just misunderstanding the above.
• They figure that due to the variables involved, it's just better for the user to see how it affects their personal trip.
• Website functional limitations (reservations subsystem) - Perhaps the function that calculates the dining plan cost is tied to after clicking update and cannot be determined before that point.
• Website functional limitations (content subsystem) - Perhaps the content portion of the website is not setup to handle dynamic content (that is content pulled from a DB) and as such, they don't want to leave old prices up (again). So in order to protect themselves from that, they just don't put the price. This would include the CM portal as well, as it's a different system, but likely built on the same (or similar) technology.
• The fact that the per night, per person rates are meaningless as the number that really matters is the total for your individual situation (yes, I'm aware they don't make this total nice and easy to see either, but that's beside this point).
• They don't want people to know that they're not likely to save nearly as much money as advertised (yes, it's plausible, so it makes the list)
• They forgot to put that part in... for 5 years.

Those were off the top of my head, and while some are certainly more likely than others, they are all plausible. Since we don't know the ins and outs of the systems, nor do we actually know why the pricing is not displayed in big orange numbers, it's all we get to go on.

Look at the reaction on this board, of educated Disney-goers. There are some people who believe that the DDP will still be a bargain with 2012 pricing, but also many many people who have proclaimed they will start skipping the DDP.

You also have plenty of people who say... "I've always used the DDP... It always saved me money before, and now I wouldn't go to Disney without it.."
I submit that Disney knows there are tons of people like that out there, who will add the DDP out of habit. And who may never look closely at the price. They will just rely on the fact that they saved money in the past.

The smart consumer will indeed look closely at the pricing. For some, the DDP may still be worthwhile. For others, it will not be.
But there are plenty of other consumers that won't look very carefully.

And it's for those consumers, that Disney has decided to obfuscate the true pricing of the plan.

Part of that is the price of convenience. Just because I can get a bottle of soda for $1.49 10 miles down the street, doesn't mean that I'll necessarily go 10 miles down the street when the Circle K in front of my house has it for $1.99. This also applies to those who don't like to look at prices.

It is, at it's root, a good system. There isn't much to track, there really isn't any strange restrictions outside of participating restaurants and apps included or not. (It's not like it's an entirely different menu).

These both play a huge part in what people want to get out of their trip and it's not for me to place a dollar value on those. Would I do it? Perhaps, only if the differences was tiny, but I don't make their decisions.

The smart consumer is all I care about. I don't care about those who go out of their way to avoid information, especially with the dollar amounts we're talking. Ok, if they didn't want to go next door to save $0.25 on a gallon of milk, whatever, I probably would do the same. If they're not willing to at least look into what they're spending $2,000-$5,000 on, that's on them. Disney is not a charity, they are a for profit corporation. (I know, we all agree).

As a consumer, you should always look into what you're buying, and to not do so is completely not the fault of the company providing the service or goods. If the company is actively hiding information, that's one thing, I just don't see this as the case here. The information is available, sure, it takes 10 seconds and a calculator (for some of us... me very much included!) to figure out, but it's there. It's not like they just charge your CC without telling you.

 

[havoc315]

The extra steps are simply unnecessary. They are not needed to even estimate whether or not the dining plan is a value to you. I don't need to know that I'm spending 78.99 per night on DxDDP to know that I'm looking at saving roughly $200 on my next trip. It's just extra numbers that have no need to be there and could even cause potential confusion. It's much easier with a single (albeit much larger) number. The answer is only obvious if you assume the worst. The day to day pricing is meaningless.

I totally disagree that the daily number is meaningless. As a regular consumer, I have a much better idea of a fair price, where it is laid out per day and per person, as opposed to a big total. Much easier for me to evaluate a price of "$X per day" -- Then for me to evaluate a "grand total of $X" -- because then I have to go through yet more steps.
Is $200 a fair price for dining, or too expensive? You would need to consider how many people it's for, how many meals.

The information before was not part of the reservation process. The information before was marketing and was not widely available. It was buried and only showed up sometimes. (I never saw the 2009 or 2011 pricing, and only the 2010 under the FD promotion as a "Save up to $x") It was not the official price quote regarding your specific situation and time of travel. At least as far as I could tell, I could be wrong, I'll admit that.

Nope.. it wasn't just free dining advertising. I have a very accurate memory in this regard, because it led to conversations between myself and Disney. They specifically said, "Add the Disney Dining Plan for Under $42 per day"... and "Add the Quick Service Plan for Under $34 per day" (I forget the exact number), and same with DxDP.
It wasn't the exact quote -- they didn't say $41.99. And they didn't list the children's prices. But they were basically giving the adult prices.

Furthermore, Disney World has a vacation comparison page on their website. Where you can do side by side comparisons of the packages.

http://disneyworld.disney.go.com/vacation-packages/compare/

They used to list side by side price comparisons. You will see that for the current year and 2012, the side by side price comparisons have been removed. Yet another example, of them trying to obfuscate the price of the dining plan.

As to plausible theories?

• Holiday Charge - The system can automatically adjust for holidays without causing the consumer any extra figuring. It also does them right whereas the user may assume that if the night is in (or out) of holiday range, he pays that price rather than based on start of trip.
• Perhaps just misunderstanding the above.
• They figure that due to the variables involved, it's just better for the user to see how it affects their personal trip.
• Website functional limitations (reservations subsystem) - Perhaps the function that calculates the dining plan cost is tied to after clicking update and cannot be determined before that point.
• Website functional limitations (content subsystem) - Perhaps the content portion of the website is not setup to handle dynamic content (that is content pulled from a DB) and as such, they don't want to leave old prices up (again). So in order to protect themselves from that, they just don't put the price. This would include the CM portal as well, as it's a different system, but likely built on the same (or similar) technology.
• The fact that the per night, per person rates are meaningless as the number that really matters is the total for your individual situation (yes, I'm aware they don't make this total nice and easy to see either, but that's beside this point).

• 
  
  The website can price different hotel rooms in different seasons. And it can list the price of each hotel for each night. It can correct the actual charge for holiday pricing of dining plans. It can itemize ticket add-ons like park hoppers. So it is entirely implausible, that website functionality stops them from listing, "The price of the dining plan is $X during value season, and $X+2 during peak season."
  
  

  [*]They don't want people to know that they're not likely to save nearly as much money as advertised (yes, it's plausible, so it makes the list)
  [*]They forgot to put that part in... for 5 years.

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. Though not always prominently displayed before, they did officially release pricing information until now.

But yes -- They don't want people to appreciate the true price. That is really the only plausible explanation.

As a consumer, you should always look into what you're buying, and to not do so is completely not the fault of the company providing the service or goods. If the company is actively hiding information, that's one thing, I just don't see this as the case here. The information is available, sure, it takes 10 seconds and a calculator (for some of us... me very much included!) to figure out, but it's there. It's not like they just charge your CC without telling you.

I'm not denying that the consumer has responsibility. But consumer responsibility, is not a license for the seller to engage in a questionable business practice.

You routinely have legal cases involving the "fine print." The seller's excuse is... "well.. if the buyer had read the fine print... then they would have known about the extra charge, etc, etc"

As a matter of law, and as a matter of ethics, such arguments do not always stand up.
(fine print arguments are generally considered contracts of adhesion. The enforceability of the fine print, really comes down to the reasonableness of the fine print conditions. If they are deemed unreasonable, they are not likely to be enforced.)

Now, obviously, this discussion isn't about fine print. But it's a similar rationale. A seller ethically, and legally, should not be burying the significant terms of the contract.

 

[Cafeen]

I totally disagree that the daily number is meaningless. As a regular consumer, I have a much better idea of a fair price, where it is laid out per day and per person, as opposed to a big total. Much easier for me to evaluate a price of "$X per day" -- Then for me to evaluate a "grand total of $X" -- because then I have to go through yet more steps.
Is $200 a fair price for dining, or too expensive? You would need to consider how many people it's for, how many meals.

The user already knows those numbers though. Would I know if it were fair for you? No, not at all. Nor would I pretend to.

Would I know if were fair for me? $200 for ~4 nights? At a vacation destination? I'd probably have quite a bit more of an idea, yes. And, I'm sure you do too already (even if you have to multiply your average by the number of days).

The reason for it being less meaningful in the long run is that it's only available for your length of stay. This is the full duration of a single resort reservation. (DVC "segmenting" is essentially the same exact deal as cash "split stays" within the same resort). Since you can't buy it per day, the fact it costs x amount of money per day doesn't matter. It's like buying a 10 day park ticket and saying it is costing you $x per day. Nice to know, not important in the long run.

Nope.. it wasn't just free dining advertising. I have a very accurate memory in this regard, because it led to conversations between myself and Disney. They specifically said, "Add the Disney Dining Plan for Under $42 per day"... and "Add the Quick Service Plan for Under $34 per day" (I forget the exact number), and same with DxDP.
It wasn't the exact quote -- they didn't say $41.99. And they didn't list the children's prices. But they were basically giving the adult prices.

Furthermore, Disney World has a vacation comparison page on their website. Where you can do side by side comparisons of the packages.

http://disneyworld.disney.go.com/vacation-packages/compare/

They used to list side by side price comparisons. You will see that for the current year and 2012, the side by side price comparisons have been removed. Yet another example, of them trying to obfuscate the price of the dining plan.

I'll concede this point, simply because I have no memory either way. I know I never found the prices pre 2010 adverts (that were only found by me for part of the year). But lack of seeing it does not mean it wasn't there.

The website can price different hotel rooms in different seasons. And it can list the price of each hotel for each night. It can correct the actual charge for holiday pricing of dining plans. It can itemize ticket add-ons like park hoppers. So it is entirely implausible, that website functionality stops them from listing, "The price of the dining plan is $X during value season, and $X+2 during peak season."

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. Though not always prominently displayed before, they did officially release pricing information until now.

But yes -- They don't want people to appreciate the true price. That is really the only plausible explanation.

Oh, I agree that some of them aren't very likely, but they are plausible.

I've worked with web developers for over 10 years now, pointing out what they did wrong. I've gotten quite accustomed to them doing things some crazy way just to put the feature out in time. This includes stuff like hardcoding values into the application and writing functions and other objects that cannot be expanded to include other features. Heck, I've done it myself for my own personal and work-related smaller projects, just to get it finished and move on. It happens, more than you'd think.

It's entirely possible that the programming object that takes the party size and spits out the ticket costs per option and per day of ticket for the entire party cannot accept any input other than the ticket ones. The function that occurs when you click update, is likely an entirely different beast and could very well not be able to actually spit out the number for the dining plan (e.g. OnClick it recalculates with the DDP selected, it does not simply add the price of the DDP to the total, whether this is true or not, I don't know, but it's a distinct possibility.)

The other possibility you may have stumbled upon yourself. You claim that they posted up to 2010, and that for the first part of 2011 they had the same prices. That's my best guess as to why these events coincide.

There could be other reasons we simply don't know. There could be market research that tells them that people were less apt to get confused without all the numbers staring them in the fact. There could be polls and testing done on if the lump sum number was more favorable than showing all the daily numbers. There could be lots of plausible reasons why either the difference or the cost breakdown is not shown.

Heck, it could even be for tax reasons. If they sold it as a true addon instead of a different type of package, they may be forced to charge sales tax on top of it. If it's just part of the package, they may not have to do it that way.

However, jumping to one conclusion without any supporting evidence (lack of it being there only evidence to it not being there, not as to why, e.g. there is no motive to be discerned from it's absence) is the realm of the uneducated, which I know you're very far from.

I'm not denying that the consumer has responsibility. But consumer responsibility, is not a license for the seller to engage in a questionable business practice.

You routinely have legal cases involving the "fine print." The seller's excuse is... "well.. if the buyer had read the fine print... then they would have known about the extra charge, etc, etc"

As a matter of law, and as a matter of ethics, such arguments do not always stand up.
(fine print arguments are generally considered contracts of adhesion. The enforceability of the fine print, really comes down to the reasonableness of the fine print conditions. If they are deemed unreasonable, they are not likely to be enforced.)

Now, obviously, this discussion isn't about fine print. But it's a similar rationale. A seller ethically, and legally, should not be burying the significant terms of the contract.

Now, I know you're using it as an illustration, but this type of responsibility is entirely different.

This is the responsibility to know what it is your buying. If you're going to spend an extra $1200 on the dining plan, then you really should do the research. Heck, I spent $750 on a camera and I spent months (actually, over a year) checking reviews, specs, prices, more reviews, ratings, common issues, all that before I bought it.

On DDP (well, technically I do DxDDP since it fits me better), I spend a few hours over the span of a few weeks and work out that it works for me. I look at where I want to eat, how I want to eat, and how often I want to eat and make sure that it fits (not that my pants will after ). If I weren't coming out ahead enough, it'd be different and I'd have to weigh the value of convenience vs the value I'm getting out of it. It's our job as consumers to keep the companies in check as well.

Now, again, I know I'd prefer to see them post the prices, so I'm not against that at all. I just don't think it's quite at the level you describe.

 

[havoc315]

The user already knows those numbers though. Would I know if it were fair for you? No, not at all. Nor would I pretend to.

Would I know if were fair for me? $200 for ~4 nights? At a vacation destination? I'd probably have quite a bit more of an idea, yes. And, I'm sure you do too already (even if you have to multiply your average by the number of days).

The reason for it being less meaningful in the long run is that it's only available for your length of stay. This is the full duration of a single resort reservation. (DVC "segmenting" is essentially the same exact deal as cash "split stays" within the same resort). Since you can't buy it per day, the fact it costs x amount of money per day doesn't matter. It's like buying a 10 day park ticket and saying it is costing you $x per day. Nice to know, not important in the long run.

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).

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'll concede this point, simply because I have no memory either way. I know I never found the prices pre 2010 adverts (that were only found by me for part of the year). But lack of seeing it does not mean it wasn't there.

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.

The other possibility you may have stumbled upon yourself. You claim that they posted up to 2010, and that for the first part of 2011 they had the same prices. That's my best guess as to why these events coincide.

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.

There could be other reasons we simply don't know. There could be market research that tells them that people were less apt to get confused without all the numbers staring them in the fact.

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?

Now, I know you're using it as an illustration, but this type of responsibility is entirely different.

This is the responsibility to know what it is your buying. If you're going to spend an extra $1200 on the dining plan, then you really should do the research. Heck, I spent $750 on a camera and I spent months (actually, over a year) checking reviews, specs, prices, more reviews, ratings, common issues, all that before I bought it.

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?

Now, again, I know I'd prefer to see them post the prices, so I'm not against that at all. I just don't think it's quite at the level you describe.

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.

 

[kaytieeldr]

All you have done is provide a reason for why,

You keep asking why WDW doesn't advertise the cost of the Dining Plans individually. I keep answering why they might not. You don't like my answers and keep asking why they don't. I give up -- except possibly because there are multiple plans.

Other than that, I give up. You ask why, I say why, you ask why. Where does it end? ASK THEM.