Disney said to be testing "resort fees" in surveys

As a general matter, I agree with user fees that are charged for using something. Don't use it and you don't pay the fee. Use twice as much and you pay twice the fee.

But fees that everyone pays (and pays the same) without regard to usage should just be added to the price.

This is all over the WDW fan sites. Starting today, running through Thursday, Disney is testing premium parking at Epcot and Magic Kingdom (the Aladdin lot at MK, according to a different fan site).

It's a $15 upcharge for the premium lots.

What are they saying in the comments? Quelle surprise, Disney is pricing middle income guests out of Disney vacations. Also: Disney vacations are too affordable and the lower class riff-raff in the parks is devaluing the experience (and don't get that person started on the wretched type of guests found on those cheaper 3-day Disney cruises).

Also: premium parking is part of a long-term plan to phase out the trams and replace them with bicycles you'd have to rent to get to the TTC.

In a park that offers large trams with constant service, what would be the advantage of premium parking?

I see no advantage or disadvantage to parking in either the closest or furthest lot of any WDW park. This is especially true at Magic Kingdom, where you can't walk to the park in the first place.

Closer parking in the Epcot lot is stupid because only the far lots, used during a few weekends during Food & Wine, are "far." And MK is even more stupid, because you're getting on the monorail or ferry anyway. I'm sure some suckers will buy them. I drive up to the closer rows in Epcot anyway, and if anyone asks where I'm going, I tell them the electric chargers (which are too expensive).

As for the cruises, I'm sure you get a few "less desirable" people on the 3-night itineraries, but that's still not a cheap outing. I've done a bunch, and have no issue with the passengers.

There are people for whom "spending the most money" equals "getting the best experience." And I wouldn't be surprised to learn there are people down there today who didn't know they couldn't walk to MK and paid for premium parking to get close to the gate.

The person who didn't like all of "those people" on the 3-day cruises went on at length about the topic. Overall, it sounded like the cruise (and park) experience would be improved if this person weren't around.

I think that this continues to be all about steady revenue growth reported to Wall Street. Wall Street has a history of rewarding cash flow and top like revenue growth. WDW has the cash flow, no brainer. SO WDW is challenged with constantly growing revenue incrementally, quarter after quarter.

Resort fees, preferred parking...these are all things that you are going to see over the foreseeable future to keep boosting the top line, and to satisfy shareholders...

Disney is a very unusual situation. Next to no businesses can raise prices and fees at will to increase profits. You could make an argument based on attendance that WDW is under priced at least during certain parts of the year.

I disagree that they raise prices "at will". Disney is a savvy company; they're not going to raise prices without first determining what size increase the market will bear without getting significant pushback from their market.

My idea of premium parking is a spot that makes it easier to exit the lot at the end of the day/event and not neccessarily a spot closer to the entrance.

However, if it makes sense for someone to pay a premium for closer parking before spending a day walking around a theme park it is going to make sense to them to pay the premium to park closer to the monorail station. Whether you pay to park close to the entrance of the park or close to the entrance of a ferry/monorail is irrelevant to the thought process.

I agree that Disney is savvy. And no they do not literally have the ability to raise fees/prices at will. Though their ability to raise prices/fees during certain parts of the year and with certain experiences is something that is pretty much totally foreign to the vast majority of businesses (at least not selling necessities).

"...pretty much totally foreign..."? Not really. Ticketmaster, for example, offers Dynamic Pricing, allowing venues to adjust ticket prices up or down in real time based on demand (or lack thereof).

And hotel chain and airline pricing cam change minute to minute.

What part of "vast majority" is confusing to you? Hint: it doesn't mean all.

With higher fees, they are probably just trying to keep this out of Disney:

Thank you for that helpful insight, GoBucks89.

I was simply trying to point out that "...pretty much totally foreign..." seemed a bit dramatic, and providing a couple of examples.

My reference to "pretty much totally foreign" was in the context of the "vast majority of businesses." So even looking objectively at "vast majority" the existence of a couple of contrary examples doesn't disprove my point. And as vast majority is more subjective than objective, such examples do less to disprove.

Where do you think Disney falls on the spectrum of being able to increase its prices without negative impact on profits (and as noted in the threads talking about dynamic pricing possibly increasing profits) and no ability to increase price at all without negative impacts on profits? And how does that compare to where other businesses fall on that spectrum (either overall or in the entertainment industry)?

GoBucks89 said:

... the existence of a couple of contrary examples doesn't disprove my point.

My apologies. I assumed you would have inferred from my "...providing a couple of examples..." that I had other examples but chose to present only a couple. I try to be cognizant of my proclivity for going on at too much length.

Where do you think Disney falls on the spectrum of being able to increase its prices without negative impact on profits ...

In line with many well-managed companies across many, many industries that are able to increase - or decrease, as necessary -- prices without adversely affecting profits.

...and no ability to increase price at all without negative impacts on profits?

I'm not sure what you mean by "no ability". Any competently managed company should be able to increase prices without adversely affecting profits.

Maybe we are talking about different things. Particularly looking at your last statement which as a matter of basic supply and demand isn't true.

Why would a competently managed company not be considering basic supply and demand?

Yeah, we are talking about different things.