Disneyland Resort

[SOCAL110]

Unfortunately, one of the insiders of WDWMagic has said that the chances of it coming here, at least for now, are "not great".

Sad trombone.

 

[TheGentTrent]

I would assume a ride like this where the majority of the action is through sets and animatronics would take up a huge footprint, something DLR currently doesn't have.

 

[Freak]

I would assume a ride like this where the majority of the action is through sets and animatronics would take up a huge footprint, something DLR currently doesn't have.

There’s a pretty big space between SW:GE and Toontown. Have the entrance go where the theater is and go below the berm and you have a solid amount of space. Heck, you can throw the Villians and Gaston’s tavern in there while you’re at it in that theater space.

There’s also Autopia. I can’t inagine that will be around forever knowing how low-capacity it is and how much space it takes up.

 

[TheGentTrent]

Well, this is a first. Thankfully, the performer was OK, but had to be moved to a different float.

 

[Freak]

Am I a terrible person for laughing at this? I mean he didn’t get hurt.

 

[Nick]

People getting their APs revoked for using discount on LE merch and reselling:
There’s a black market of limited-edition Disney park merch — and Disney is cracking down on it - Vox

 

[Red Carpet]

I don't think Disney should revoke APs for activity that happens off property.

 

[NuteGunrayWasFramed]

I don't think Disney should revoke APs for activity that happens off property.

But they're violating TOS and directly using their AP f0r profit. Disney is 100% in the right here.

 

[Orlandofan12]

But they're violating TOS and directly using their AP f0r profit. Disney is 100% in the right here.

Just because it's in the TOS doesn't mean it's right. What anybody does with a product after it's been purchased is not the original seller's business. That product was purchased. It's not leased. And Disney has no right to interfere in a private transaction.

If 20 years down the line one of those items becomes a collector's item is Disney gonna crack the whip?

 

[GadgetGuru]

People getting their APs revoked for using discount on LE merch and reselling:
There’s a black market of limited-edition Disney park merch — and Disney is cracking down on it - Vox

Jim Hill getting quoted by Vox. Never thought I'd see that day.

It seems like Disney only cares if you're doing this in bulk (more than a couple things). Maybe the TOS is too restrictive. But, I personally like the end-result. There's a small percentage of people who are reselling things and creating shortages for everyone else.

 

[NuteGunrayWasFramed]

Just because it's in the TOS doesn't mean it's right. What anybody does with a product after it's been purchased is not the original seller's business. That product was purchased. It's not leased. And Disney has no right to interfere in a private transaction.

If 20 years down the line one of those items becomes a collector's item is Disney gonna crack the whip?

Except it doesn't matter if it's right, wrong, or indifferent...it's whatever Disney wants it to be. An annual pass is strictly a TOS including the grant for park admission and additional benefits in exchange for monetary compensation and abiding by the TOS henceforth agreed upon. If these people are buying things with their annual pass discount, turning around and reselling them to make profit that violates TOS. Point being that you can't agree to TOS and then retroactively reject those terms. Anyways, this is the only way to combat people buying LE souvenirs in bulk without it affecting anyone, other than flippers. That's why your last question doesn't hold up.

They don't care if you bought a LE item from 20 years ago and are reselling it. They care that the flipper walked in yesterday, purchased 30 brand-new popcorn buckets, used their annual pass discount, and then put them on Ebay that afternoon for $20 more than what they paid. Oh and 20 other flippers just did the same thing, so Disney is all out and now they're having to deal with the fallout of not having their advertised merchandise. That's why Disney is ultimately doing this, because it "ruins vacations."

 

[SOCAL110]

Except it doesn't matter if it's right, wrong, or indifferent...it's whatever Disney wants it to be. An annual pass is strictly a TOS including the grant for park admission and additional benefits in exchange for monetary compensation and abiding by the TOS henceforth agreed upon. If these people are buying things with their annual pass discount, turning around and reselling them to make profit that violates TOS. Point being that you can't agree to TOS and then retroactively reject those terms. Anyways, this is the only way to combat people buying LE souvenirs in bulk without it affecting anyone, other than flippers. That's why your last question doesn't hold up.

They don't care if you bought a LE item from 20 years ago and are reselling it. They care that the flipper walked in yesterday, purchased 30 brand-new popcorn buckets, used their annual pass discount, and then put them on Ebay that afternoon for $20 more than what they paid. Oh and 20 other flippers just did the same thing, so Disney is all out and now they're having to deal with the fallout of not having their advertised merchandise. That's why Disney is ultimately doing this, because it "ruins vacations."

Wouldn't the simple solution for Disney be to limit the amount of purchases of items per sale?

I just don't see how Disney can crack down on AP resellers trying to make a profit from their merchandise.

 

[k_peek_2000]

Just because it's in the TOS doesn't mean it's right.

Disney can have whatever terms they want. When you sign their wavier and their legal documents you're agree to their terms so they have every right to revoke people who abuse them.

 

[Rideguy70]

I agree that Disney should really just limit the number of items that can be bought with a single AP. The AP should get scanned, and once a certain number is bought (say, 2 per AP), that's all that AP can get. Or at least use their discount on.

 

[NuteGunrayWasFramed]

Wouldn't the simple solution for Disney be to limit the amount of purchases of items per sale?

I just don't see how Disney can crack down on AP resellers trying to make a profit from their merchandise.

While I totally get how you'd think that could be a workable solution, it presents a problem: what if the group that I'm purchasing for is larger than that limit? It just ends up being complicated. When I worked merchandise Disney released the Indiana Jones funko pops. Guys would come in, purchase 10 to 20 and leave. Obviously I asked management why we don't have purchase limits and that's what the company says "What if they truly have ten kids at home that love Indiana Jones?"

 

[Stryker]

Last year, the Lego Disney Castle set ($349.99) was always out of stock at LEGOLAND California. It would go for well above $500 on eBay. Eventually, they placed a limit of 2 per person with no AP discount applicable. After that, you could easily find a few in stock.​

 

[SOCAL110]

While I totally get how you'd think that could be a workable solution, it presents a problem: what if the group that I'm purchasing for is larger than that limit? It just ends up being complicated. When I worked merchandise Disney released the Indiana Jones funko pops. Guys would come in, purchase 10 to 20 and leave. Obviously I asked management why we don't have purchase limits and that's what the company says "What if they truly have ten kids at home that love Indiana Jones?"

I like @Rideguy70 suggestion that Disney should limit the AP DISCOUNT to only 2 per person, but not the ability to buy as many as they want full price.

That would solve the problem as @Stryker alluded to.

 

[UNIrd]

Think of how many policies as of late Disney has had to change because of rampant abuse by guests: the dining reservation credit card guarantee, the guest assistance passes, etc. This is just another one to add to the list.

 

[NuteGunrayWasFramed]

I like @Rideguy70 suggestion that Disney should limit the AP DISCOUNT to only 2 per person, but not the ability to buy as many as they want full price.

That would solve the problem as @Stryker alluded to.

The discount isn't the problem though. Disney isn't mad that people are using their AP discount to profit, they're mad that people are buying up their entire stock and reselling them, period. Once again, the problem persists: What does Disney do in cases where someone is truly buying 10 Popcorn buckets for their family reunion trip? Simply revoking passes, which already violates the TOS is the most logical and fair choice to ALL guests.

 

[SOCAL110]

The discount isn't the problem though. Disney isn't mad that people are using their AP discount to profit, they're mad that people are buying up their entire stock and reselling them, period. Once again, the problem persists: What does Disney do in cases where someone is truly buying 10 Popcorn buckets for their family reunion trip? Simply revoking passes, which already violates the TOS is the most logical and fair choice to ALL guests.

Point taken. But, how would Disney track down who is reselling merchandise for profit?

Sounds like a fool's errand.