Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 38 of 38
  1. #31

    •   
      MiceChat Administrator
    • Working Late
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    BC, Canada
    Posts
    9,076
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Micechat Update: DAC, No X-mas Parties for awhile,

    Quote Originally Posted by UncleWally'sNiece View Post
    I'm definitely with you on that. My honey and I spend an average $100 per visit. We usually go 10 times a year. That adds up. I'd love to see the numbers on how that compares to a tourist family of two visiting the park once a year.
    Hotel stays aside, the real trick for Disney is to get an AP holder to stop coming 10 times, and replace them with two or three 4 day visits from tourists who will be buying the meal plans, and leaving with lots of one-off souvenirs. The reason for doing the comparison that way is because then both will be in the park "the same amount of time". It is much harder for Disney to do that, but there is no doubt that a park full of tourists day after day will make more money than a park full of AP's.

    If we do include the hotel, if I was to book a 5 day trip to Disneyland right now through them, it would be $360 per day without food, souvenirs or flights for two people. My trip would usually have $250 for souvenirs for myself and $15+ per meal for food each. Now that adds up. Not only that, but if we compare that to an AP holder who goes to the park for fullish days, I still have only been in the park half as long as them assuming that your 10 days was somehow the average. More money in for less cost to the park.

  2. #32

    • Banned User
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,497

    Re: Micechat Update: DAC, No X-mas Parties for awhile,

    "the real trick for Disney is to get an AP holder to stop coming 10 times, and replace them with two or three 4 day visits from tourists who will be buying the meal plans, and leaving with lots of one-off souvenirs."

    If Disney would have found the trick, it would have already done it. I'll tell you why it hasn't been done. The margins don't change. A dollar revenue from a local is no different from a dollar revenue from a tourist if the profit is the same, even if the tourist spends 3 dollars more per visit. So should a Disney leave money on the table? A local who buys an AP has already outspent the tourist without setting foot in the park.

    Besides, they are two separate markets. They work independently. If Disney gets a bad year from tourists, to whom will they appeal to come to the rescue? Tourism is subject to conditions outside of Disney's control like geopolitical and economic. Locals are much easier and immediate. Two tracks, two revenue streams.

    Anyways, this debate is comical because the benefit to a less crowded Disney park is to the advantage of Disneyland park veterans that are mostly locals. Maybe they own AP too.

  3. #33

    • Rock Star Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    13,674

    Re: Micechat Update: DAC, No X-mas Parties for awhile,

    Quote Originally Posted by Trevor View Post
    Hotel stays aside, the real trick for Disney is to get an AP holder to stop coming 10 times, and replace them with two or three 4 day visits from tourists who will be buying the meal plans, and leaving with lots of one-off souvenirs. The reason for doing the comparison that way is because then both will be in the park "the same amount of time". It is much harder for Disney to do that, but there is no doubt that a park full of tourists day after day will make more money than a park full of AP's.
    I know just the solution.
    "Here You Leave the World of California Today and Enter the World of, um, er, California Today."

  4. #34

    • Rock Star Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    13,674

    Re: Micechat Update: DAC, No X-mas Parties for awhile,

    Quote Originally Posted by StevenW View Post
    When one person spends money for 2 and you count it as "per guest" spending, it implies the guests are stingy. I guess I understand why the stingy argument gets out-of-hand. It is a ridiculous situation.

    Disney is lucky to get any customers in this situation.

    What's so stingy about one guest of a couple who buys an AP that costs about $300 each, and then spends $300 over a year and parking. That's a lot more than if they bother to go for one day on day pass.

    Smart customers may very well buy the parking pass, but not everyone wants to pay for these things upfront because they might not know their schedule in the months ahead. You can't presume it.
    First off: "stingy" is smart spending at the micro level. Smart is always better than the alternative in a person, to me.
    However, in a macro sense from the company's POV, "stingy" is bad. The company is attracting more "stingy" customers with the AP than the free-spending types. These customers know a good deal when they see it, so you'll never EVER see me blaming the customer for accepting a good deal in their eyes. I blame the company for offering it.

    OK, so one person pays for two. You see that. Do you also see the one person not paying anything? So I did something called "averaging."

    You keep missing the point that many potential customers (there are 20 million in a six-county area) don't find the park worth attending once a year at $100 each, because it is too crowded. The 1 million frequently repeating customers don't balance the bottom line.

    If we have to distort the metrics to deceive our opponents, let's do it right:
    Per guest per YEAR spending (your metric) is higher with an AP Program. But there are fewer unique guests with an AP Program.
    Per guest per VISIT spending is lower with an AP Program. AP price has to be allocated for each visit, combined with the AP'er's lower per visit spending (ON AVERAGE!)

    Meanwhile there are daily costs to running a Resort, which we never get into, because no one knows any details. Suffice to say that there will be fixed daily costs and variable (on number guests) costs. And probably some other costs.
    "Here You Leave the World of California Today and Enter the World of, um, er, California Today."

  5. #35

    • Rock Star Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    13,674

    Re: Micechat Update: DAC, No X-mas Parties for awhile,

    Quote Originally Posted by StevenW View Post
    "the real trick for Disney is to get an AP holder to stop coming 10 times, and replace them with two or three 4 day visits from tourists who will be buying the meal plans, and leaving with lots of one-off souvenirs."

    If Disney would have found the trick, it would have already done it. I'll tell you why it hasn't been done. The margins don't change. A dollar revenue from a local is no different from a dollar revenue from a tourist if the profit is the same, even if the tourist spends 3 dollars more per visit. So should a Disney leave money on the table? A local who buys an AP has already outspent the tourist without setting foot in the park.

    Besides, they are two separate markets. They work independently. If Disney gets a bad year from tourists, to whom will they appeal to come to the rescue? Tourism is subject to conditions outside of Disney's control like geopolitical and economic. Locals are much easier and immediate. Two tracks, two revenue streams.

    Anyways, this debate is comical because the benefit to a less crowded Disney park is to the advantage of Disneyland park veterans that are mostly locals. Maybe they own AP too.
    Without the AP Program, the locals would pay to enter a less busy park, in what would be known as an "off-season." They would probably pay less in this off-season, as the company would discount entrance during these times.
    Granted this is a highly revolutionary business strategy, years ahead of its time, if by "years ahead" I mean the first 40 years of the company's existence.

    Two separate markets, but for the exact same product at the exact same time. I think the "two separate market" idea would work great if there weren't PAP's and DAP's clogging up the busy tourist days. So, those are the first to go.
    "Here You Leave the World of California Today and Enter the World of, um, er, California Today."

  6. #36

    • a wind to shake the stars
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    935

    Re: Micechat Update: DAC, No X-mas Parties for awhile,

    Quote Originally Posted by StevenW View Post
    Anyways, this debate is comical because the benefit to a less crowded Disney park is to the advantage of Disneyland park veterans that are mostly locals. Maybe they own AP too.
    Yeah, leaving aside the comical nature of pretending to know things about Disney's finances that Disney doesn't, these debates always sound like a bunch of veterans upset that other people are using the parks without truly deserving it, whatever that means.

    I mean, look at terms like "clogging up." These are people who paid hundreds of dollars for a pass that lets them into Disneyland, and heaven forbid they actually use it! How dare these ungrateful locals clog up the parks, when the parks really should be filled with... other people... for some reason...

  7. #37

    • Banned User
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,497

    Re: Micechat Update: DAC, No X-mas Parties for awhile,

    "You keep missing the point that many potential customers (there are 20 million in a six-county area) don't find the park worth attending once a year at $100 each, because it is too crowded. The 1 million frequently repeating customers don't balance the bottom line."

    If this is the point, you really don't have one. Did you read the latest financial report? Disney DID balance the bottom line and made $2 Billion in profits.

    It is not logical to argue people are not coming to the park when it is too crowded.

    The per guest spending and park maintenance costs were always exercises that we debaters get into, but I'm using it to refute your argument, not prove it. They were always internal data that is of use to Disney. I am unconcerned. Somehow you think it matters. Based on the released financial figures, you can't keep pursuing it since it doesn't reach your goal. Disney is doing quite well. There is no proof that it will do better with a less busy park.

    "They would probably pay less in this off-season, as the company would discount entrance during these times."

    What is the goal? Less busy park and lower park costs. You won't get more guest spending and more revenue. You might get more "per guest" spending at the cost of less revenue.

    Is going back 2 decades the goal?

  8. #38

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    469

    Re: Micechat Update: DAC, No X-mas Parties for awhile,

    I guess I have looked at myself as one of those budgeted APers. Especially since the price of the AP has gone up I probably have spent less in the park. Then I started thinking that since I had an AP have have eaten at more of the nicer restaurants like Blue Bayou, Carthay Circle, and Steakhouse 55. Napa Rose is still on my list. Most of these restaurants are probably overlooked by tourists not wanting to spend the large amount and/or wanting something quick and going on about their day.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Similar Threads

  1. Goodbye Micechat (for awhile)
    By CA_Man_In_HI in forum MiceChat Main Lounge
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 11-04-2006, 12:07 AM
  2. I'm outtie for awhile
    By PirateMunkee in forum MiceChat Main Lounge
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 04-04-2005, 07:24 AM
  3. I will be gone for awhile
    By Lost Boy in forum MiceChat Main Lounge
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 03-29-2005, 08:12 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •