Originally Posted By vbdad55 <I'd be interested to see if someone could apply the "Big Mac Index" to amusement parks these days and see where they stack up pricewise in comparison to sports events or big concerts or other stuff in years past (granted, things aren't as cheap as they used to be...but the relative price structure definitely interests me).< Ok- In Chicago - next year the cheapest seats at Wrigley Field will be $40 ( Bleachers)- but that is onlyfor6-8 games- - thereis 'tiered pricing' andfor instance if you wantto sit in thebleachers to see the Cubs play the Cardinals - $80 per seat -- for 3 hours of entertainment. Average Bears ticket - $85 - most well over $100 - and oh yeah - sinceevery single seat is a season's ticket ( with like a 10+ year wait to get thechanceto even buy seasonstickets)- youhaveto go to a broker - average price there $225 - $250 for crappy seats. Blackhawks Hockey - 3rd tier can still be had for $26 - where you can tell those are people skating around $85-$100 -- Bull basketball more expensive -- and again - these prices are for arounda 3 hour experience. And food - how about $8-$10 beers? $6 hot dogs etc. We had friends in town with smallkids who wanted to go to the Chicago Museumof Science& Industry. Well family of 5tickets ( oneday) = $108 add another $30 for IMAX tickets ( and some other exhibits alsohardticket priced,not included with admission) - Wicked in Chicago $80 per.....Mary Poppins- got a group rate - after all city taxes and fees - still over $55 for a balcony seat. I understand that a one day hopper if purchased that way is expensive- how many people buy one day hoppers. With a 10 daypass it works out to bein the $40ish range per day.I'ms sorry but compared to sports and other entertainment is still at the lower end. I buy anannual pass even thought I visit usually one tripper year. Disney still has those types of discounts. Whether I buy 1 Cubs ticket or a seasons pass - the price of the seat is the same. BTW - seasons's pass for 2009 Cubs - for bleacher seats $4860 - one person. Field Box seats = 12105 !! And I understand Red Sox and Yankees tickets even more.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< BTW - seasons's pass for 2009 Cubs - for bleacher seats $4860 - one person. Field Box seats = 12105 !! And I understand Red Sox and Yankees tickets even more. >>> Wow - that makes my $833 AP to TDR seem cheap!
Originally Posted By fkurucz <<BTW - seasons's pass for 2009 Cubs - for bleacher seats $4860 - one person. Field Box seats = 12105 !! And I understand Red Sox and Yankees tickets even more.>> And the rest of MLB teams play in mostly empty stadiums. And their season tix are much cheaper. For instance, Rockies bleacher season tix are only $648.
Originally Posted By CarolinaDisneyDad Would somebody please explain the reasoning behind the 50% merch price reductions? I don't understand why you would cut profit margin so drastically on items with and unlimited shelf life. It's not like any of the stuff was going to go out of date. Are they getting in some good new stuff finally? If not then they are just going to replace what they have sold with the same item and still not have done anything but kill their profit margin. I thought profit margin was the main focus. You know ,less for more? I just don't get it.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***<<All I know for sure is, 10 years ago an adult ticket was around 40 bucks. And as of late last year a ticket for a baby cost 150% more than that.>> Was it really that low?*** Actually, now that I think of it, I derived that from dividing up the cost of a four day park hopper. It was in 1997, and I remember that quite clearly because I was impressed by the fact that my Florida resident seasonal pass cost $160, which at the time was exactly the same price as a four day park hopper. So no, you're right. The one day ticket was probably higher (how much higher, I dunno). But anyway that's far from $105 for a one day babies ticket anyway.
Originally Posted By barboy Every time I see this topic heading(Spin, spin, spinning ...) I think 'Tommy Roe' and 'Dead or Alive'.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< It was in 1997, and I remember that quite clearly because I was impressed by the fact that my Florida resident seasonal pass cost $160, which at the time was exactly the same price as a four day park hopper. >>> For reference, an adult 4-day Park Hopper is currently $269.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< <<BTW - seasons's pass for 2009 Cubs - for bleacher seats $4860 - one person. Field Box seats = 12105 !! And I understand Red Sox and Yankees tickets even more.>> And the rest of MLB teams play in mostly empty stadiums. And their season tix are much cheaper. For instance, Rockies bleacher season tix are only $648. >>> Does MLB have revenue sharing with admission tickets, such that the less popular clubs get subsidized by the more popular ones?
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Would somebody please explain the reasoning behind the 50% merch price reductions? I don't understand why you would cut profit margin so drastically on items with and unlimited shelf life. It's not like any of the stuff was going to go out of date. Are they getting in some good new stuff finally? If not then they are just going to replace what they have sold with the same item and still not have done anything but kill their profit margin. I thought profit margin was the main focus. You know ,less for more? I just don't get it. >>> Whether they sell a T-Shirt for $20 or $30, it's mostly profit. So it's a matter of setting the ideal price to maximize total profit, and this depends on price elasticity. I wonder if the price elasticity for December might be substantially different than it is in other months? Perhaps people are less willing to spend on merchandise in December because they know they have Christmas shopping coming up (or perhaps just completed)? Short of something like that (or them having new merchandise and wanting to get rid of current stocks), I agree with you: it seems odd to have a sale on items with unlimited shelf life.
Originally Posted By fkurucz <<Does MLB have revenue sharing with admission tickets, such that the less popular clubs get subsidized by the more popular ones?>> My understanding is that they do not. The Rockies have such a hard time filling seats that they often sell pretty decent seats at the local Kroger's store for $9. Attendance did pick up last season, after the Rocks made it to the World Series the year before, but they returned to their abysmal form once again. I expect the bargains will be back next season.
Originally Posted By dshyates Over the past 10 years admission media for all types of entertainment venues increased because in the days of easy money and easy credit with low interest rates the market could bare it. Putting a trip, a game, or a night at the theater on the VISA, AmEx, MC wasn't a big deal with 6% rates. At 30% I think you will see a lot more folks reconsidering. I do think we have turned the corner on consumer confidence, and the 90% still employed will start spending money again. Given that, I think we will start to see the manufaturing side of things start to recover in 6-9 months. It will take that long to burn through current stocks of durable goods.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 ^^I am not as optimistic as you are. But I hope you are right. Maybe I'll help the economy by buying that Disney monorail tee at 40% off at the outlet store tomorrow ... (if my $300 on $1400 worth of stuff at Macy's earlier this week didn't help enough!)
Originally Posted By bobbelee9 Beware of Macy's quality. A few things I bought there (only because I liked Filene's) became unstitched. The elastic in my husband's shorts gave out on the first washing, and he's not THAT fat.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Welcome to the new world. Nothing is of quality any more. Virtually everything people buy today lasts for a short period and ends up as landfill, killing the world a little more. Cheap items or expensive, it matters not as labour has been offshored, and LEAN SIX SIGMA keeps cutting production costs to provide a "bargain" to shoppers whether at Walmart or Macy's while increasing margin to suppliers. I bought a few $700 and $1000 suits at Rochdale in San Francisco in the hopes of quality. They looked great on me, but they only lasted 6 months tops. Most of the Tee Shirts we have bought in the last 5 years at DL, WDW, or DLP have faded or seams had gone (yet Sarah still wears my opening day EuroDisney shirt from 1992, and my t shirts from my 2000 honeymoon at WDW are only a little faded). This is why I get angry as a consumer, environmentalist, and a human being. All so Mr living for each paycheck lives with a false sense of realisation that while they can buy a shirt or toy for nearly the same price as 20 years ago, it is lucky to last 2 months, let alone 2 years, while the toys and clothes of 20 years ago are still worn or played with. I weep for the museum curators of the future, what will they have left to curate? As we enjoyed an exhibition of shoes at my mom's local museum a few weeks ago, we spied articles of footwear from the romans, still wearable, as well as of the middle ages, Renaissance, 18th century silk shoes that looked 10 years old. Yet my son's shoes of 3 months have fallen apart. More landfill to kill the earth a little more. What will we have for the museums of the future? Little I suspect. Upon us is a new economic age. Once where I hope the world has a chance to examine itself introspectively, and make positive choices to believe in quality again. In the long term, quality costs the consumer less. This is why BMW, Mercedes, Apple and Dyson are still desired. But I was pleased that at High and Mighty in Birmingham I was able to buy an $800 cashmere overcoat for $300, $140 Ralph Laurens for $66, and a new suit for $120. Do I expect them to last? I hope so, but I am a cynic of our age. And this my friends is why the walmarting of WDW and indeed the rest of Disney (did I tell you about my daughter's tinkerbell playset - should be $100, got on sale for $37 - broke within 2 hours of unwrapping it - with normal play)upsets me so. One of the key reasons I became obsessed with Disney was the attention to detail, quality with little expense spared, and an escape from reality. All of the key things I once loved about Disney has eroded. And like the couple who grew old and weary, and try to decide whether to stay together because of who they once were with the hopes that the past is not completely gone, or go their own separate ways. With this situation I am a cross roads. Welcome to modernity.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Here you go, not a bad explanation: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Sigma" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Sigma</a> But what it really means is it is used as a methodology to show what can be cut. Problem is, we have been doing it for so many years, that rather than looking how we can do things differently, we still look are where the fat can be cut (when there is very little fat left). It is a great idea in theory. But I prefer the old Walt days, where he paid his artists a bonus for each gag in Snow White to plus it. Apple and Pixar are two American firms who still operate on a quality mantra (and I am glad Disney still seem to let Pixar do their thing, a large proportion of the rest of the firm seem to have forgotten their roots). There is an irony in modern american culture. Children are taught to salute the flag, and citizens must learn the mantra of what makes America what she is. And yet in American industry (and British, German etc. etc.) companies forget their roots.
Originally Posted By Mr X I find it a little intriguing that you include Apple in the "quality" mantra. Particularly since you seem to be specifically complaining about long lasting, durability issues, Apple is far from that considering many of their products have the durability of your average can of coke! (if you are arguing funky, hip and cool..I'm with you all that way!)
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Really, I thought Apple were supposed to be very long lasting products?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Does MLB have revenue sharing with admission tickets, such that the less popular clubs get subsidized by the more popular ones?" Yes, they do. Teams like the Rockies, as mentioned earlier, simply do not want to spend the money they get to remain profitable. Even though it's almost three years old, this article discusses the issue fairly well. <a href="http://www.forbes.com/2006/04/17/06mlb_baseball-team-valuations-cx_mo_0420sports.html" target="_blank">http://www.forbes.com/2006/04/...rts.html</a> Plus, googling baseball revenue sharing will yield all sorts of info. Teams like the Royals, Rockies, Pirates, etc., COULD spend the money on players. They choose not to, and consequently are not very good most years. This in large part explains their dissatisfied and shrinking fan bases.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "..do think we have turned the corner on consumer confidence, and the 90% still employed will start spending money again." There's a thread in WE that touches on this. The credit card companies would have to cooperate, and so far they absolutely are not.
