BREAKING: Walt Disney World Introduces Date-Based Variable Pricing for Genie+ Service

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I've always been under the viewpoint in the last several years (pre-pandemic included) Disney doesn't care who comes to their parks so long as they are people with disposable income to spare. Whether that means more or less crowds was less relevant to the basic point, so long as those who show up have less issues spending money on whatever the situation was more or less copacetic.

It's one of the reasons I've pushed back on the discussion of "when the shoe drops Disney is in real trouble" because that shoe hasn't dropped yet. Those who leave are replaced by those who are new or still coming. That doesn't mean that discussion over revenge travel and the current state of the pandemic isn't relevant because this pandemic is fluid and is not able to be predicted by companies or financial experts alike. This would be something we look at with a hindsight sometime in the future.

 

[arich35]

It's funny, Pete Werner has the exact opposite opinion. Disney wants fewer guests, higher profit per guest. Less staffing, less wear and tear, higher guest satisfaction. That makes a lot more sense to me and nevermind the fact that there's no doubt that higher prices will cause some people not to come. I share in Pete's delusions. And the fact is, they're all guessing just like we are.

But they are too far gone at this point to get fewer guests. In the world of social media we live in more and more people know about Disney World and want to experience it. They can keep raising prices and cutting things, the crowds will still be there

 

[freshmanjs]

But they are too far gone at this point to get fewer guests. In the world of social media we live in more and more people know about Disney World and want to experience it. They can keep raising prices and cutting things, the crowds will still be there

This isn't right. Demand for theme park admission is elastic. If they raised prices to, say $500 per day for admission, there would be fewer guests. If what you said were right, it would trigger a rethinking of the entire body of research on microeconomics and you would likely be a nobel prize winner.

 

[5DisneyNuts]

Yeah, well, maybe they shouldn’t have stopped building new rides for 20 years.

While continuing to build hotels. IMO that's where they got themselves into the trouble we are seeing now from a satisfaction level.

The profits realized by occupancy rates higher than industry standards along with "pre-selling/multi-selling" DVC is very attractive, however has resulted in flooding the parks which haven't increased capacity at the same level.

 

[gorkt]

I think they are catering to several types of guests and prioritizing certain ones over others. The parks are a fixed capacity environment, so to an extent it's a zero sum game of which people they want at the parks at a given day.

There are many, many people who do the once in a lifetime trip to WDW because they are "supposed to" "for the kids". It's become a rite of passage for the American family to take a trip to Disney at least once. Disney doesn't have to attract those guests, they are already baked in. That's a built in profit they can depend on, until a certain amount of goodwill runs out and it no longer becomes THE premier family destination. To some extent, Disney would like to actively "repel" some of these guests. But if they pull that lever too hard, they risk losing the nostalgia allure that gives the brand a generational continuity appeal.

There are also day AP guests, and they don't really have to do much to attract them besides offer seasonal snacks and other novel experiences.

Disney is looking to maximize the experience of higher income earners. More upscale experiences, paid parties, upscale DVC properties or other super upscale accomodations (bungalows) and dessert events and nicer eating experiences. They want people who have more money to spend to have a more positive experience so they return. They want people who don't have the money to spend on those experiences to be less likely to return.

The people I see that are really turned off are people who went yearly or very frequently before, and see a decline in the experience while paying more money for it. I know many friends who are selling DVC or just staying at resorts while avoiding parks. That is exactly what Disney wants because the people that are now in the parks are paying for G+ or other add ons, and less people in the parks makes the experience better for the ones that go.

This whole dynamic also promotes a level of fear in the "once in a lifetime" folks that they better spend the money or they will waste their one trip.

In a way, Disney Parks is a victim of their own success. I don't see an end to this unless there is some truly terrible scandal. Even the whole DeSantis/"Woke Disney" thing isn't deterring people from going.

 

[cakebaker]

But they are too far gone at this point to get fewer guests. In the world of social media we live in more and more people know about Disney World and want to experience it. They can keep raising prices and cutting things, the crowds will still be there

They may want to, but the money has to be there. Regardless of how bad one may want to go to WDW, if you can't pay, you can't go. Incomes for most people are no limitless.

 

[5DisneyNuts]

It will be interesting if Disney's version of an upscale experience will be enough to attract high income guests who are willing/able to throw money at a problem on a repeat basis.

For us, the idea of getting a VIP tour at $5900 + tip for 7 hours is not worth it. Paying additional for G+ (even if it increased my budget by over $1000) has been worth it so far in a limited scope. If that cost continues to increase while the value decreases, I'll have to rethink it. This trip will probably be the deciding one.

The biggest factor for me however is the stress it adds to a trip. Getting up at 7am every day, fighting over what my family can ride throughout the day is becoming a deal breaker. Yes, I know I can walk around and soak up the sights and we do, but the family likes to get on rides too and I prefer being able to put the phone away.

 

[xdan0920]

It's funny, Pete Werner has the exact opposite opinion. Disney wants fewer guests, higher profit per guest. Less staffing, less wear and tear, higher guest satisfaction. That makes a lot more sense to me and nevermind the fact that there's no doubt that higher prices will cause some people not to come. I share in Pete's delusions. And the fact is, they're all guessing just like we are.

I mean, fair enough.

The evidence is against you. But take Disney’s word for it if you want.

As an analogy I’m saying, the sun will come up tomorrow. And you’re saying, but maybe it won’t. We are both just guessing.

While technically true, all the evidence is with Me, so….

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

It will be interesting if Disney's version of an upscale experience will be enough to attract high income guests who are willing/able to throw money at a problem on a repeat basis.

I think we already have been seeing that for several years (even before the pandemic). There's no doubt that things have changed during the pandemic and the park reservations and genie+ adding a wrinkle to it but people are still dropping so much money to go.

I don't think upscale is what they are going for anyhow. Disney is a theme park at the heart of it, you can't really make a theme park upscale.

I usually come back to the example of the MK tents, $650, for a glorified tent in MK and people were paying it, not as much as Disney wanted so they dropped the price in half and then eventually discontinued it shortly after but Disney knows there are people out there willing to part ways with their money for different types of experiences. Luxury, elegance and upscale however are not associations one should have with Disney (parks is what I'm speaking about, but even Grand Floridian is pushing it these days for what counts). I know people say Disney is a luxury vacation it's a theme park, it's just something that many people associate as expensive and attainable only to xyz.

 

[DavidNYC]

So many people claiming to know what Disney wants….
I’m pretty sure profits is the highest on their list.

Yeah - this talk about not wanting too many to buy it is ridiculous. Of course they want as much profit as possible. If too many people buy it to the point it runs out of inventory quickly - they won’t care at all if people continue to buy. The market and product will find its equilibrium on its own - Disney cares about nothing other than profit - quality of product doesn’t matter as long as people keep buying.

 

[DisneyFive]

I think they are catering to several types of guests and prioritizing certain ones over others. The parks are a fixed capacity environment, so to an extent it's a zero sum game of which people they want at the parks at a given day.

There are many, many people who do the once in a lifetime trip to WDW because they are "supposed to" "for the kids". It's become a rite of passage for the American family to take a trip to Disney at least once. Disney doesn't have to attract those guests, they are already baked in. That's a built in profit they can depend on, until a certain amount of goodwill runs out and it no longer becomes THE premier family destination. To some extent, Disney would like to actively "repel" some of these guests. But if they pull that lever too hard, they risk losing the nostalgia allure that gives the brand a generational continuity appeal.

There are also day AP guests, and they don't really have to do much to attract them besides offer seasonal snacks and other novel experiences.

Disney is looking to maximize the experience of higher income earners. More upscale experiences, paid parties, upscale DVC properties or other super upscale accomodations (bungalows) and dessert events and nicer eating experiences. They want people who have more money to spend to have a more positive experience so they return. They want people who don't have the money to spend on those experiences to be less likely to return.

The people I see that are really turned off are people who went yearly or very frequently before, and see a decline in the experience while paying more money for it. I know many friends who are selling DVC or just staying at resorts while avoiding parks. That is exactly what Disney wants because the people that are now in the parks are paying for G+ or other add ons, and less people in the parks makes the experience better for the ones that go.

This whole dynamic also promotes a level of fear in the "once in a lifetime" folks that they better spend the money or they will waste their one trip.

In a way, Disney Parks is a victim of their own success. I don't see an end to this unless there is some truly terrible scandal. Even the whole DeSantis/"Woke Disney" thing isn't deterring people from going.

Just wanted to comment about one point. I'm not sold on the fact that these "once in a lifetime" guests are truly baked in. I don't think they can take them for granted. At some point they are priced out. What that cost is, varies by family.

Looking at the cost of the same weeklong vacation at WDW now versus what we paid in 2010, it's night and day different in cost. (and I'm adjusting for inflation) I'm doubtful we would have ever made that first trip now, which is what got us hooked.

The weeklong stay for our family of five Sept 2010 was ~$3,400 total staying at POP. That included two connecting rooms, 8 day park tickets, the regular dining plan (we paid to upgrade from QS during the free dining promotion), legacy FP was included, as was Disney's Magical Express. Recreating that exact same trip now costs over $8,400 (and that's quoting the trip like it was back in 2010, with 3 kids under 9 years old).

Dan

 

[cakebaker]

I mean, fair enough.

The evidence is against you. But take Disney’s word for it if you want.

As an analogy I’m saying, the sun will come up tomorrow. And you’re saying, but maybe it won’t. We are both just guessing.

While technically true, all the evidence is with Me, so….

I'm not sure what "evidence" you have that proves you're correct. I think what Pete had to say overall, made a lot of sense. They've already moved to add ons the last few years for those willing to pay for an improved experience. But people who are willing to pay more are going to expect better- they can't double or even triple the price of Genie + and have it function the way it does today and expect those who have the disposable income to pay, will continue to do so. I certainly wouldn't and I rarely meet an add on I don't like. They just have to work well and Genie + doesn't right now. The only question is, how high do they have to price it- and I don't think there's a ceiling really. People who want a better experience will pay for it. Those who don't will still pay to go and complain about how miserable it is. You may be right in that overall crowd levels don't improve- but what do I care if I'm not having to deal with those crowds?

I'm not sure which direction they're going, but I'm fairly sure it's either create a bubble that people can buy into that allows them to escape the crowds or price tickets and Genie at such a high price it naturally weeds people out. Either way, the end result is a better experience for those who are willing to pay for it.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Just wanted to comment about one point. I'm not sold on the fact that these "once in a lifetime" guests are truly baked in. I don't think they can take them for granted. At some point they are priced out. What that cost is, varies by family.

Looking at the cost of the same weeklong vacation at WDW now versus what we paid in 2010, it's night and day different in cost. (and I'm adjusting for inflation) I'm doubtful we would have ever made that first trip now, which is what got us hooked.

The weeklong stay for our family of five Sept 2010 was ~$3,400 total staying at POP. That included two connecting rooms, 8 day park tickets, the regular dining plan (we paid to upgrade from QS during the free dining promotion), legacy FP was included, as was Disney's Magical Express. Recreating that exact same trip now costs over $8,400 (and that's quoting the trip like it was back in 2010, with 3 kids under 9 years old).

Dan

In 2010 the Great Recession effects were still around, discounts were much more generous and more plentiful. If you traveled then you were lucky and came out relatively unscathed. I graduated college in 2010 and could barely find a job due to the state of affairs and I knew quite a few people who went into grad school just to defer their loans because the job market was abysmal.

People have to really think about how their trips from 2001-2010/11 are really not a good measure of Disney. Absolutely no doubt Disney has far outpaced by a galaxy inflation (your 2010 trip would have the same buying power as a bit over $4,600 in today's dollars) but what price you got is co-mingled due to economic factors. We do know as the economy rebounded from 9/11 and then after the Recession pricing adjusted for Disney. It's not in the same league as today in terms of costs rising on such a high scale but same basic principle.

 

[gorkt]

Just wanted to comment about one point. I'm not sold on the fact that these "once in a lifetime" guests are truly baked in. I don't think they can take them for granted. At some point they are priced out. What that cost is, varies by family.

Looking at the cost of the same weeklong vacation at WDW now versus what we paid in 2010, it's night and day different in cost. (and I'm adjusting for inflation) I'm doubtful we would have ever made that first trip now, which is what got us hooked.

The weeklong stay for our family of five Sept 2010 was ~$3,400 total staying at POP. That included two connecting rooms, 8 day park tickets, the regular dining plan (we paid to upgrade from QS during the free dining promotion), legacy FP was included, as was Disney's Magical Express. Recreating that exact same trip now costs over $8,400 (and that's quoting the trip like it was back in 2010, with 3 kids under 9 years old).

Dan

I do agree that at a certain point they may lose that "baked in" clientele, and from the increasing negativity on these and other WDW websites, we may be approaching that point. The pandemic has skewed crowds, so it might be awhile before we see what these new policies actually settle out to.

I was more commenting on the fact that Disney Parks has some unique problems that other businesses don't. Like all corporations these days, they have to keep increasing profits, but with a fixed park capacity - although that doesn't have to be the case. They seem really reluctant to add another gate despite having the land for it, but have gone all in on DVC and adding rides to existing parks. It blows my mind that they haven't built a 5th gate yet.

 

[xdan0920]

I'm not sure what "evidence" you have that proves you're correct. I think what Pete had to say overall, made a lot of sense. They've already moved to add ons the last few years for those willing to pay for an improved experience. But people who are willing to pay more are going to expect better- they can't double or even triple the price of Genie + and have it function the way it does today and expect those who have the disposable income to pay, will continue to do so. I certainly wouldn't and I rarely meet an add on I don't like. They just have to work well and Genie + doesn't right now. The only question is, how high do they have to price it- and I don't think there's a ceiling really. People who want a better experience will pay for it. Those who don't will still pay to go and complain about how miserable it is. You may be right in that overall crowd levels don't improve- but what do I care if I'm not having to deal with those crowds?

I'm not sure which direction they're going, but I'm fairly sure it's either create a bubble that people can buy into that allows them to escape the crowds or price tickets and Genie at such a high price it naturally weeds people out. Either way, the end result is a better experience for those who are willing to pay for it.

Ok. Why not do that then? What exactly are they waiting for?

 

[gorkt]

Ok. Why not do that then? What exactly are they waiting for?

I think this is the bridge period between what they used to offer - a limited queue for rides system that everyone could access for no cost - and Universal's system - an expensive nearly unlimited system (super headliners excluded) for only 10-15% of the park attendees. They are boiling the frog by degrees. First we get Genie + at $15, but at that price, many people used it and it didn't reduce waits for more than a few rides a day. But it got people used to paying for something they used to get for free - perhaps a little better for some.

Now they just opened the price structure up and thus begins the data gathering phase. At what price does it deter people from buying it? Is the experience better for those who are still buying it?

The problem is that they set up the expectation in the past that WDW is different and more egalitarian. Now they have to figure out a way to back off from that, and COVID was a good time to begin that reset.

 

[cakebaker]

Ok. Why not do that then? What exactly are they waiting for?

I imagine they want to gradually raise the price on Genie +. As much uproar as there's been over $5, can you imagine if they went to $50 overnight? I would think they want to gauge reaction, watch how sales go and slowly work their way up. I have no clue as to the inside workings of Disney. I just know they run a pretty successful company and they aren't stupid. No company that lasts fails to factor in customer satisfaction.

 

[coronationday]

Genie+ was down again to $15 for today.

 

[xdan0920]

Genie+ was down again to $15 for today.

How does this jive with getting less people to use it?

 

[greeneyedchick]

I do agree that at a certain point they may lose that "baked in" clientele, and from the increasing negativity on these and other WDW websites, we may be approaching that point. The pandemic has skewed crowds, so it might be awhile before we see what these new policies actually settle out to.

I was more commenting on the fact that Disney Parks has some unique problems that other businesses don't. Like all corporations these days, they have to keep increasing profits, but with a fixed park capacity - although that doesn't have to be the case. They seem really reluctant to add another gate despite having the land for it, but have gone all in on DVC and adding rides to existing parks. It blows my mind that they haven't built a 5th gate yet.

It would help if they at least put some of that increased pricing into hiring people to run rides at full capacity.