New Four Seasons Timeshare on Disney Property and Value Oriented West Side [Archive] - Page 2 - The DIS Discussion Forums

CanadianGuy

03-22-2007, 08:40 PM

Sorry, think I was the first one to mention "Comfort Inn," and I did just mean it as an example of a "value conscious" brand name motel. Maybe it will be a HoJo instead, but the point is the same, it will be on Disney-owned land but it will not be a unique "Disney" resort.

Similarly, we may get a Chillis or Applebees instead of a Fridays, but they are using Disney-owned land to build a a west side clone of Crossroads/Palm Parkway, not another version of Downtown Disney as was first rumored.

I don't mean to be difficult.. but I can find nothing in any of the press materials or anywhere else to indicate WHO will be the owner and WHO will be the operator of the Western Development guest accommodations.

It is not at all clear to this reader of these materials that it won't be Disney nor that it will be. To me this remains a big question mark.

Am I missing something you all are seeing?

And frankly, with a 10 year development cycle for the Western Dev... I would guess it's all highly subject to change at this point. No?

I certainly hope it's not a Crossroads Complex... That place is a ghost town. Having been there three weeks ago.. there were empty storefronts for lease etc. I would doubt that Disney would want to repeat that .. nor that companies would request to be in a duplicate ghost town just a few miles away. Crossroads as it stands today is a failure the way I see it.

De-annexing land to turn over to Four Seasons so Four Seasons can do their own thing, most likely giving Dinse a small slice of the profits, a distribution fee is you will.

We know they are de-annexing the land under the fractional and single family homes for the Four Seasons project. That seems clear for obvious taxation and voting rights reasons. What we don't know is if the resort land itself will be de-annexed? And if it will .. is that the hotel/resort only or the golf course areas too? The materials available to Joe Public at this point in time do not make any of that clear. So .. to assume they are doing so for the entire project is just that an assumption.

Disney doesn't take 'small slice' generally speaking. They would be in the drivers seat on this deal and I would be beyond surprised if this deal wasn't very advantageous for them financially. That doesn't necessarily mean its the right thing to do mind you... I'm just saying that I think your expectations of Disney's negotiating skills might be a tad lower than the reality.

Originally Posted by DisneyKidds
Is Disney capable of delivering a true high end resort? Are they any less capable of that now than they were of bringing forth the Contemporary and Polynesian? If Disney was willing to put forth the effort and make the investment I suspect they could make a high end resort work.

Disney did put forth the effort. The Grand Floridian was supposed to be a Five Star resort. As of this date, it has not received such a rating from any recognized travel industry benchmark. Travelocity and Expedia rate it as such but firmly established ol'skool travel ratings systems have not. Disney failed to achieve the 5 star rating. And it would appear they have given up trying.

Knox

YoHo

03-23-2007, 12:22 AM

And one of the core reasons it fails to meet that 5 star rating is because it's not closed to outside people. Disney's policy since day one has been that every guest has the rights to be on the grounds of the resorts. The resturants with the exception of V&A's have lax dress codes and the spa is open to those from other resorts.

That doesn't fit in with the Disney way.

raidermatt

03-23-2007, 03:58 AM

Am I missing something you all are seeing?

VALUE-ORIENTED DESTINATION - MIXED-USE TOURISM DISTRICT

...

The project combines third-party branded lodging, retail and dining in a pedestrian-friendly environment and will be another example of Disney's commitment to unique placemaking. Located outside Disney's gateway around the interchange where Western Way meets the Western Beltway, early development plans include 4,000 - 5,000 low- to mid-rise, value-priced lodging units and 300,000 - 500,000 square feet of commercial space. Designed around a retail village, the development will become a convenient shopping and service center for Cast Members, nearby residents and Central Florida visitors.

It's says value-oriented, third-party branded lodging, and value-priced lodging.

I think that's what's conjuring up images of Comfort Inn and Applebee's.

Third-party is pretty clear, but I guess value oriented and priced is somewhat subjective. But if not the likes of Comfort Inn, Best Western, etc, what do you think it could reasonably mean?

Disney did put forth the effort. The Grand Floridian was supposed to be a Five Star resort. As of this date, it has not received such a rating from any recognized travel industry benchmark. Travelocity and Expedia rate it as such but firmly established ol'skool travel ratings systems have not. Disney failed to achieve the 5 star rating. And it would appear they have given up trying.

I completely agree, but that doesn't mean they should give up and bring in a 3rd party to do it, selling off at least part of the land in the process.

Really though, AV is right that they need to focus less on "new markets" and more on what made them successful in the first place. That said, I'm sure they could do both, as long as the horse is before the cart.

DancingBear

03-23-2007, 06:23 AM

Disney doesn't take 'small slice' generally speaking. They would be in the drivers seat on this deal and I would be beyond surprised if this deal wasn't very advantageous for them financially. That doesn't necessarily mean its the right thing to do mind you... I'm just saying that I think your expectations of Disney's negotiating skills might be a tad lower than the reality.It's not a matter of negotiating skills, it's a matter of Disney's role and objectives. The model appears to have become one of getting licensing fees, distribution fees and similar "small slices" with less capital outlay and related risks, as with Disney Stores and the Paris operations.

DancingBear

03-23-2007, 06:26 AM

And one of the core reasons it fails to meet that 5 star rating is because it's not closed to outside people.I keep seeing this on this thread, but is this the full story? What I hear from guests at the GF here on the DIS and such is that the resort simply doesn't offer the range and quality of amenities, and the quality of service itself, that other 5 star facilities have.

MassJester

03-23-2007, 06:50 AM

I keep seeing this on this thread, but is this the full story? What I hear from guests at the GF here on the DIS and such is that the resort simply doesn't offer the range and quality of amenities, and the quality of service itself, that other 5 star facilities have.

I think this is exactly right, and speaks to my earlier point.

The service experience at the GF is not much different from that at the other "deluxe" or even lower tier resorts. The "box" is different, and the size is different, but there isn't much more to it. What's more, I don't see how it makes sense that it should/could be.

DancingBear

03-23-2007, 07:13 AM

What's more, I don't see how it makes sense that it should/could be.But then how can/should the Four Seasons be a 5 star? What will they do differently than Disney could have done on the same real estate?

Jason71

03-23-2007, 07:41 AM

I certainly hope it's not a Crossroads Complex... That place is a ghost town. Having been there three weeks ago.. there were empty storefronts for lease etc. I would doubt that Disney would want to repeat that .. nor that companies would request to be in a duplicate ghost town just a few miles away. Crossroads as it stands today is a failure the way I see it.

For the record, I totally agree with you. In addition to the empty storefronts (I can think of four off the top of my head), Goodings somehow manages to be both the dirtiest and most overpriced supermarket I've ever set foot in. I think failure is a fair term.

That's why I can't see using part of Walt's buffer around the theme parks to build more of the same.

Whatever the meaning of "value-oriented...third-party branded lodging, retail and dining" (and that actually sounds more like McDonalds than even Applebees), it's definitely not the next Adventurer's Club or Once Upon a Toy. Rather than build something with a "wow" factor, Disney is content to be a landlord to the next inevitable central Florida strip mall.

DisneyKidds

03-23-2007, 09:04 AM

Since there are no details to the arrangement in the public fora, anything we have to say about its nature is pure speculation. You are suuming the darkest scenario without any cause.
Well, gee, I could have trotted out this same statement (albeit with "brightest scenario") when you started throwing around the whole Joint Venture concept. However, that wouldn't have done much to further the discussion. We both have to assume facts not in evidence, but based on the types of deals and arrangements that Disney has undertaken in the recent past it is much more reasonable to assume that this will be another distribution deal. Let Four Seasons have the land, take the risk, build the resort......while Disney gets a fee for allowing it to exist on the grounds of WDW, possibly having a hand in the marketing as well. There are no examples of Disney truely partnering with a firm in Joint Venture on much of anything, where Disney has a hand in the development and building (read: creation), contributes significant capital, assumes significant risks, and shares accordingly in the profits. Your assumption that that is going to be the case is far less grounded in the reality of Disney's business practices than my scenario. 99% of what we talk about here is speculation, but let's at least try to base it on some anecdotal evidence. I see more of such evidence to support my speculation than yours. If you prefer not to speculate then I suppose it gets very quiet around here, very quickly.
The Contemporary and Polynesian were never luxury resorts. They were themed hotels with a highly desireable location. If Disney has the ability to offer a true luxury resort experience, there is nothing in the record to support it.
But you missed the point. I didn't say the CR and Poly were luxury resorts. The point is that back in the late 60's and early 70's, if one were to say that Disney had the ability to offer a themed hotel in a highly desireable location, there would be nothing in the record to support it. Afterall, The Disneyland Hotel was not a Disney product. It was designed and built by someone else, with Disney getting a piece of the action. Since Disney didn't have the money to bring the Disneyland Hotel to fruition a deal was cut with Jack Wrather to build and operate the hotel. It wasn't until 1988, after Wrather died, that Disney was able to acquire ownership. So I suppose one could say that in the past Disney did farm out hotel developement to someone else. But that was the very first hotel, in a day and age when Disney didn't have the resources available to do it themselves (otherwise they would have). The entire point of the Florida Project was to have a do over, so as to avoid the mistakes made in California. What Disney is now doing doesn't hold true to that intent....and it isn't like Disney doesn't have the money to do it themselves these days. But back to my point, just like Disney had no experience in building themed hotels when WDW was conceived (any hotels, really), today they have a wealth of experience in owning an operating hotels, but are unwilling to take the risk themselves to create a true luxury resort on property. That risk averse posture can be seen so many places throughout Disney today, and while it does mitigate risk, it limits the opportunities for the company to develop things today that will add to the company's legacy and ability to make the same strides over the next 50 years as they have over the last 50.
Disney is not turning over there theme park business. Like 'old Henry' he's farming out some component parts.
There goes Evita again, turning a blind eye ;).
Who leads today?
Sure, after overpaying an inflated price of $7 billion the leading animation unit falls under Disney. A seperate vertical silo within Dinsey that will have nothing to do with Disney Feature Animation. That, as opposed to having invested far less over time to have Disney Feature Animation maintain their position in the first place. You may be satisfied with all of that, but I'm not.
We know they are de-annexing the land under the fractional and single family homes for the Four Seasons project. That seems clear for obvious taxation and voting rights reasons. What we don't know is if the resort land itself will be de-annexed? And if it will .. is that the hotel/resort only or the golf course areas too? The materials available to Joe Public at this point in time do not make any of that clear. So .. to assume they are doing so for the entire project is just that an assumption.
Information available about the project indicates that the single family homes, along with fractional ownership homes, will be located within the golf community. I'm sure it will be similar to other Four Seasons resorts where the single family and fractional ownership homes are located along the golf course, with the Resort Hotel as a centerpiece. I highly doubt that the homes will be located on a seperate tract of land that can easily be seperated from the rest of the resort. I'm sure Four Seasons isn't signing on to do something that falls outside of their existing, successful model. It's hard to imagine they could de-annex one piece without de-annexing the whole. Again, if we don't have assumptions we all have nothing. It's all about making the most logical and well supported assumptions with the information and experience we do have available.

LuvDuke

03-23-2007, 10:32 AM

The core of the problem, however, is the idea that coasting on a brand name is an acceptable strategy. Selling the hotels doesn't change that, it merely concedes to it. And if we are going to concede that, what's the point in caring about Disney?

There are some areas of expertise that should be conceded.

Disney's product is pixie-dust. That's what they sell and, IMO, their problems started when they decided they didn't want to sell pixie-dust. For some inexplicable reason, businesses do that all the time.

Then businesses make the 2nd great mistake in deluding themselves into thinking they can do anything and do it successfully.

That's Disney's problems in a nutshell.

OTOH, food and lodging are not pixie-dust. No amount of theming is going to make bad food and bad service better. So maybe the solution is to have Disney theme the hell out of the hotels, but leave the nuts and bolts to the professionals. Frankly, I have no problem with that. My problem is when I pay deluxe prices for a prettier Best Western.

Another Voice

03-23-2007, 10:35 AM

And it would appear they have given up trying.
That's rather the history of Disney for the last fifteen years, isn't it.

The Grand Floridian failed to make five stars because budget cuts removed several elements that Mobil and AAA require in 5 star hotels - among these were 24 hour room service, beauty palor services and staff-to-guest ratios. Eisner assumed that the magic of Disney would compenstate for his cuts, he was wrong.

People judge hotels by what they are, not because they have a brand name glued to the sign out front. Disney could have made the GF a true first class resort, but they decided not to. Disney decides not to do a lot of things these days.

That's catching up to them.

raidermatt

03-23-2007, 12:24 PM

There are some areas of expertise that should be conceded.

Disney's product is pixie-dust. That's what they sell and, IMO, their problems started when they decided they didn't want to sell pixie-dust. For some inexplicable reason, businesses do that all the time.

Then businesses make the 2nd great mistake in deluding themselves into thinking they can do anything and do it successfully.

That's Disney's problems in a nutshell.

OTOH, food and lodging are not pixie-dust. No amount of theming is going to make bad food and bad service better. So maybe the solution is to have Disney theme the hell out of the hotels, but leave the nuts and bolts to the professionals. Frankly, I have no problem with that. My problem is when I pay deluxe prices for a prettier Best Western.

Are they themeing the Four Seasons resort? There's nothing to indicate they are, and it would certainly be a radical departure for the Four Seasons model. There's even a fairly widely held belief that the Four Seasons market doesn't even want that themeing.

But that aside...

food and lodging are not pixie-dust.
Nothing is pixie-dust. It doesn't exist. Disney sells, or did sell, a show, an experience, entertainment. Food and lodging can very much be a part of that, as the Poly and Contemporary are.

Now, I agree that they have gotten away from that, but moving further away from it is not the answer.

CanadianGuy

03-23-2007, 01:12 PM

Raider:

Thanks for pointing out that line in the press release. I somehow missed that. I think somehow when I read it I read it differently than it was obviously written. So yes.. I missed something! I figured that had to be the case. I missed the word lodging in that first line. (Doh!)

Since reading that more carefully.. I don't like what I'm reading about the W.D.

Jason71 and others in this thread suggested it sounds like another Florida strip mall .. and at first blush I gotta say that it certainly does. You know Jason, when I first saw Crossroads on this past trip.. I was thinking it was outside development because it was opposite the entrance to the DTD hotels. But it is technically Disney property over there right?

Frankly I'm far more concerned with that W.D. than I am at the Four Seasons Development. (FSD for short as I type on)

The FSD is 300 acres or so. It's out of the way. And probably -- I won't ever see it. ;)

Even assuming that most of the remaining land in the Disney 27,000 acre parcel is non-developable for swampy or conservation reasons; I've looked at some aerials with suggestions of several areas that are prime for development and plenty big enough to accommodate up to two additional parks... at least.

I'm not concerned with that small land loss for the FSD. Especially given that HUGE number of those 300 acres are golf course that already exist and are being repurposed for the new project. That's worth noting. Yes it was a historic course designed by a big kahuna of golf.. Tom Fazio. But he ain't dead yet and he can have a hand in it's remodeling.. His firm does that too.

Perhaps I'm a little concerned with the precedent.. but more intrigued by the possibilities than turned off by the precedent at this point.. for this aspect. Themed or not this area will be lush and well landscaped and a top-notch resort. I've been to Four Seasons in Palm Springs and I had no complaints whatsoever. I doubt very much I'd want to repeat that feeling on Disney property but probably somebody must wanna do that.

But as I noted above and previously in this thread -- I'm absolutely no fan of Crossroads and another one of those is a bad idea.

The WD is on the edge of an entrance to the park on a busy thoroughfare .. which may be the first way many future guests 'enter' the Disney property. First impressions are important in my book and if this is another Crossroads.. Yuck.

If it's more like a DTD area.. which has branded restaurants and at least a modicum of theming... That's a better plan.

But with the value / budget wording noted in the press release.. I don't have warm fuzzies.

Knox

DancingBear

03-23-2007, 01:54 PM

You know Jason, when I first saw Crossroads on this past trip.. I was thinking it was outside development because it was opposite the entrance to the DTD hotels. But it is technically Disney property over there right?Used to be.

The FSD is 300 acres or so....I'm not concerned with that small land loss for the FSD. Especially given that HUGE number of those 300 acres are golf course that already exist and are being repurposed for the new project..Actually the story says it's 900 acres.

raidermatt

03-23-2007, 01:58 PM

Whatever the meaning of "value-oriented...third-party branded lodging, retail and dining" (and that actually sounds more like McDonalds than even Applebees), it's definitely not the next Adventurer's Club or Once Upon a Toy. Rather than build something with a "wow" factor, Disney is content to be a landlord to the next inevitable central Florida strip mall.

I'm reasonably sure they will present it in a "nice" manner. The concept sketches did not look themed though. But there were only a couple of them. The overriding point though is still that either way, its closer in concept to a strip mall than it is to DTD.

Interesting point about the McDonalds. The DTD development is not a "value" development, yet it does have a McDonalds.

raidermatt

03-23-2007, 02:06 PM

CanadianGuy

03-23-2007, 02:14 PM

Yah apparently if you think of the short of Bay Lake in clock terms.. this resort will be around 1 to 2 o clock position. Visible.. but probably not super prominent.

CanadianGuy

03-23-2007, 02:19 PM

Used to be.

Actually the story says it's 900 acres.

Yah.. I picked up the 300 acres reading later in this thread.. So I'm not sure where I got that exactly.

But my point still applies on a larger scale.. The vast majority of the 900 acres is still golf course.

That said.. 900 acres is a much larger chunk of land than was discussed earlier in the thread. Still tho.. I'm more worried about WD than the FSD.

Like it or lump it.. I know that FSD will probably at least be done right.

WD -- not so much.

Knox

ConcKahuna

03-23-2007, 02:35 PM

Well in all fairness the shopping area will be set back along Western Way. It will be behind CSR, and will probably help draw more traffic towards BB. If it draws more traffic away from Downtown Disney and towards 429 and that end of property for people comming to WDW, that will be a great thing too (traffic near DTD is horrid).

With the single-family homes going in at the same time, I see it as probably more of a Celebration clone than anything else.

MassJester

03-23-2007, 08:27 PM

But then how can/should the Four Seasons be a 5 star? What will they do differently than Disney could have done on the same real estate?

They will apply their tried and true service delivery model which is directed toward a luxury experience.

There is a reason why Disney's offerings are similar across the parks when you control for the design of the "box"--they are all supported by the same service delivery model. They systems, processes, and people that provide the customer service in one location are the same as the others. Therefore the experience becomes very similar. How could it not?

Why can't Disney do it? I don't know that they couldn't, but I'm reasonably comfortable that they couldn't do it efficiently, and therefore competitively.

I'd rather they focus on what's inside the parks then trying to create new models that do not speak to their core service comeptencies.

MassJester

03-23-2007, 08:31 PM

Disney sells, or did sell, a show, an experience, entertainment. Food and lodging can very much be a part of that, as the Poly and Contemporary are.

Now, I agree that they have gotten away from that, but moving further away from it is not the answer.

Why not?

MassJester

03-23-2007, 08:44 PM

We both have to assume facts not in evidence, but based on the types of deals and arrangements that Disney has undertaken in the recent past it is much more reasonable to assume that this will be another distribution deal. Let Four Seasons have the land, take the risk, build the resort......while Disney gets a fee for allowing it to exist on the grounds of WDW, possibly having a hand in the marketing as well. There are no examples of Disney truely partnering with a firm in Joint Venture on much of anything, where Disney has a hand in the development and building (read: creation), contributes significant capital, assumes significant risks, and shares accordingly in the profits. Your assumption that that is going to be the case is far less grounded in the reality of Disney's business practices than my scenario.

I never suggested they would be involved in the design, creation or building--I can't imagine what they could bring to that. They've exhibited no facility for luxury development, and so their expertise is a bit light in that area. Let the experts do it, and therefore insure the highest quality offering.

But you missed the point. I didn't say the CR and Poly were luxury resorts. The point is that back in the late 60's and early 70's, if one were to say that Disney had the ability to offer a themed hotel in a highly desireable location, there would be nothing in the record to support it. Afterall, The Disneyland Hotel was not a Disney product. It was designed and built by someone else, with Disney getting a piece of the action. Since Disney didn't have the money to bring the Disneyland Hotel to fruition a deal was cut with Jack Wrather to build and operate the hotel. It wasn't until 1988, after Wrather died, that Disney was able to acquire ownership. So I suppose one could say that in the past Disney did farm out hotel developement to someone else. But that was the very first hotel, in a day and age when Disney didn't have the resources available to do it themselves (otherwise they would have).

That's just not accurate. Walt was opposed to getting into the hotel business--it had nothing to do with capability or financing. In fact, Walt wanted no part of the hotel business in FL.

Yes, they offered the Poly and Contemporary--but did they do it well? They were expensive, theme was hit or miss (the garden wings of the Poly hardly smacked of "Disney Magic"), and customer service has been bland. What they really offered that no one else could was proximity and character breakfasts.

This may be why Walt wasn't much interested in the business.

The entire point of the Florida Project was to have a do over, so as to avoid the mistakes made in California. What Disney is now doing doesn't hold true to that intent....and it isn't like Disney doesn't have the money to do it themselves these days. But back to my point, just like Disney had no experience in building themed hotels when WDW was conceived (any hotels, really), today they have a wealth of experience in owning an operating hotels, but are unwilling to take the risk themselves to create a true luxury resort on property. That risk averse posture can be seen so many places throughout Disney today, and while it does mitigate risk, it limits the opportunities for the company to develop things today that will add to the company's legacy and ability to make the same strides over the next 50 years as they have over the last 50.

We see the same situation and interpret it very differently. I'm not sure how to close the gap.

Sure, after overpaying an inflated price of $7 billion the leading animation unit falls under Disney. A seperate vertical silo within Dinsey that will have nothing to do with Disney Feature Animation. That, as opposed to having invested far less over time to have Disney Feature Animation maintain their position in the first place. You may be satisfied with all of that, but I'm not.

I would have rathered they accomplish it more effectively and efficiently. What magic the organization structure (separate silo--and this is bad because...) and whether or not it's named "Disney Animation" are paper issues to me. Disney owns the block--that works for me.

Another Voice

03-23-2007, 09:28 PM

Let the experts do it, and therefore insure the highest quality offering.
Well - you say hotels aren't special, let someone else do it.
Food isn't "magical", let someone else do it.
Retail isn't special, let someone else do it.
Certainly there are more and cheaper experts out there on rides, so let someone else do it.

Which basically leaves Disney as nothing but a company that licenses out "Mickey Mouse".

There are people that look for quality, for something different. That's what Disney offered in many forms. Sure, the food wasn't Cordon Blu quality, but it's sometimes fun to eat in a castle. Disney used to sell imagination - something you don't seem to value at all.

I don't care about "luxury". Fancy ash hotels with marble floors and grovelling servants are nothing special. If that's what you're looking for there are lots of other places left where some guy spit polish your shoes.

I know people like you one day bulldoze over all that was great - you've already done a pretty good job. There's very little left of what made WDW great - the quircks, the charms, the irrationality, the joy, the fun. I know it will soon be given over to the bottom line, the bland and the efficent.

I just want to enjoy the last candle in the growing darkness for as long as it lasts.

MassJester

03-23-2007, 09:40 PM

Well - you say hotels aren't special, let someone else do it.
Food isn't "magical", let someone else do it.
Retail isn't special, let someone else do it.
Certainly there are more and cheaper experts out there on rides, so let someone else do it.

Which basically leaves Disney as nothing but a company that licenses out "Mickey Mouse".

There are people that look for quality, for something different. That's what Disney offered in many forms. Sure, the food wasn't Cordon Blu quality, but it's sometimes fun to eat in a castle. Disney used to sell imagination - something you don't seem to value at all.

I don't care about "luxury". Fancy ash hotels with marble floors and grovelling servants are nothing special. If that's what you're looking for there are lots of other places left where some guy spit polish your shoes.

I know people like you one day bulldoze over all that was great - you've already done a pretty good job. There's very little left of what made WDW great - the quircks, the charms, the irrationality, the joy, the fun. I know it will soon be given over to the bottom line, the bland and the efficent.

I just want to enjoy the last candle in the growing darkness for as long as it lasts.

Perhaps just the teensiest bit melodramatic?

Was this meant to be the ending post?

CanadianGuy

03-23-2007, 09:47 PM

Food isn't "magical", let someone else do it.
Retail isn't special, let someone else do it.

Many "Disney" restaurants aren't really Disney restaurants at all.. many of them never ever have been. They are restaurants contracted by specialist suppliers. This has been a standing arrangement for years. Few know this or recognize it.

Some of the Epcot restaurants are great examples of this. If you work at Le Cellier in Epcot (or anywhere in the Canada pavillion); you don't work for Disney. You work for the company that has contracted to supply the retail and restaurant services to Disney standards.. for that pavilllion. It's been that way for YEARS. Long before Iger. Maybe even from opening if I recall correctly.

Certainly there are more and cheaper experts out there on rides, so let someone else do it.

As for the rides part.. Disney has been quietly buying rollercoasters on the "black market" for a while now. Rockin Roller Coaster is an off the shelf design from Europe.. just placed inside a building and themed to Disney standards. Disney won't admit that.. but it is. You can ride the same track layout .. outside.. at a park in Europe. The cars aren't themed .. there's no soundsystem for each rider .. no music back story.. etc. That storytelling and theming is the Disney touch.

The mechanicals and underlying gear for Expedition Everest come from yet another roller coaster company. Again - storytelling and theming done by Disney.

Despite knowing those two coasters aren't completely unique... I feel safe in saying there are no two other coasters in the world quite like them. (outside of Disney properties)

Dumbo, Aladdins Royal Carpets.. the core mechanicals were bought from an amusement ride company that supplies the same company that does your state fair.. and the product was themed to Disney standards.

Space Mountain? Disney didn't build it from scratch. They took core competencies from outside suppliers and melded them with their storytelling and theming abilities.

Soarin is a very unique ride .. even the concept for this attraction was completely designed by Disney. Awesome. The core mechanicals for this were very custom. But still supplied by outside sources to Disney specfications. Is it better than RnR or EE. I don't particularly think it's better or worse personally. It's another good Disney attraction. Altho I still find the queue area theming and storyline needs BIGTIME bolstering.

Incorporating the best of other suppliers into your product mix AND knowing what you can do yourself is smart business.

Well - you say hotels aren't special, let someone else do it.

Disney does what it does with their hotel line-up pretty well. To leave the extreme high-end and extreme low-end to others isn't giving up. It's recognizing your core competencies and limits. Same as not building a coaster from scratch .. except on a bigger scale.

The Four Seasons concept if attempted by Disney would require a COMPLETELY different service superstructure for the underlying requirements of the resort from everything else they have. For example, to meet 5 star standards, they would need a unique call center staff of five star resort specialists separate from their existing reservations staff. That staff would have to meet 5 star standards for answering calls, handling requests, time on hold.. everything that comes along with 5 star properties.

For one resort.

Four Seasons already has those people trained and meeting those standards ; AND already in place at various call centers around the country etc...

For Disney to build the five star resort.. would mean service duplication and inefficency. Four Seasons specializes in five star stand alone resort properties. That's what they do. They have the infrastructure, systems, suppliers, procedures, and policies, training programs .. the works.. already done and in the can to create this resort at the five star level on day one of opening..

Same goes probably for the budget suppliers on the Western Development on the 1.5 or 2 star level.

Disney couldn't build Rock N Roller Coaster on their own without TREMENDOUS expense. So they buy the track, mechanicals, computerized control systems and other underlying GEAR from a specialist supplier and customize it to their needs. Their core competency is how that attraction looks and feels and the storyline around it. I think they did alright on this one. But they didn't do it all from scratch.

Disney contracts with suppliers for everything. Those turkey legs? Disney didn't raise the turkeys. They bought the product from a supplier and cook it. In some cases, they dont' even cook them. A supplier does that too; to Disney specifications. That stuffed Mickey doll -- Made in China to Disney specifications by a supplier... It's been this way forever.

I'm not saying they should outsource everything. But outsourcing the extremes of the resort spectrum (below "Value" Level accommodations and above their "Deluxe" level)... or certain products, services and experiences at WDW isn't the end of "The World". It's been going on for years.. many years. Many people just weren't aware.

I fail to see other than the land de-annexation... how this deal differs significantly from the Starwood deal for the Swan and Dolphin; or the outright sale of Shades of Green... which was once a Disney owned resort... or the deals for the Downtown Disney hotels for that matter. The one way I see this is different than most of those properties.. is that this property really doesn't compete with Disney owned properties.

These projects are - I'm convinced - part of a larger plan that we are not yet privy to seeing the whole picture. Yes.. that's assuming facts not in evidence.. But only time will tell if that's true or not.

As with everything that any large organization does.. the devil will be in the details and implementation for these new plans. I can see how the Western Development and the Four Seasons Development COULD both turn out well and both be smart deals for Disney.

And yes.... I can see where they BOTH could go horribly wrong... although I doubt very much that the Four Seasons product will suffer that fate.

Epcot turned out ok with it's underlying suppliers. EE and RnR are ok in my book. DCA didn't turn out so well.. Disneyland Paris -- not so great initially.. but getting better. Disney Tokyo -- on the other hand seems to be doing fine.

I'm waiting to see how these new developments turn out... I don't think all is lost.

Knox

DisneyKidds

03-24-2007, 12:24 AM

Similarly situated companies (like Disney & FS) enter into joint ventures quite regularly that are mutually beneficial and do not consititute surrender to a competitor.
You are the one that interjected the idea of a joint venture into the discussion, but this..........
Let the experts do it, and therefore insure the highest quality offering.
.......does not represent something done in joint venture. Joint venture by it's very definition is something undertaken together. More specifically....'A joint venture (often abbreviated JV) is an entity formed between two or more parties to undertake economic activity together. The parties agree to create a new entity by both contributing equity, and they then share in the revenues, expenses, and control of the enterprise.' Disney will be doing none of these things, as you seem to agree. So it plain and simply is not a joint venture. So don't make it out to be more than it is.....Disney punting to someone else, the experts, to provide the highest quality offering. Make arguments as to why that is okay, but dont try and pass it off as a joint venture.
That's just not accurate. Walt was opposed to getting into the hotel business--it had nothing to do with capability or financing. In fact, Walt wanted no part of the hotel business in FL.
Wow, those are quite the statements. I'm going to have to ask you to source your information. While your experience with, and view of, WDW only dates back the last 15 years, I assume you have a greater frame of reference on Walt Disney, Disneyland and WDW through reading and other reference material. I'd like to know in what materials you find support for your statements above. My reading and past research tells me that it was Walt that turned to Wrather to initiate the Disneyland Hotel. The fact that Disney didn't have deep pockets back when they spent over $17 million to build Disneyland was a factor in that. As for WDW and what Walt was or wasn't opposed to, or did or didn't want to get involved with, perhaps you can tell me what it is you have read about Walt's Master Plan for the Florida Project. Perhaps you can elaborate on what was represented on Walt's Seventh Preliminary Master Plot Plan. Maybe you can explain your take on Walt's concept paintings depicting the Asian Hotel, Contemporary Resort, Venetian Resort and Polynesian Resort. I believe books such as The Disneyland Hotel: The Early Years, Walt Disney: An American Original, and Since The World Began provide plenty of evidence that contradicts your beliefs about Walt Disney and resort hotels. If only Baron were around to talk about the CR and Poly in the early years, the relative pricing and extreme value, the unique overall experience. In all the reading and discsussion on WDW I've seen I haven't heard many take the position you have, so I'm interested in the basis for your opinions. I'm always willing to learn, so help me out if I've gotten it wrong.
We see the same situation and interpret it very differently. I'm not sure how to close the gap.
Maybe we can't close the gap. The frame of reference thing may be too much of a barrier. My frame of reference on Walt Disney dates back to the 1920's, my frame of reference on Disneyland the early 50's, and my frame of reference on WDW the mid 60's. But apparently I've missed something along the way, so I'm willing to keep at it for a little longer if you can elucidate me.

YoHo

03-24-2007, 01:41 AM

I never suggested they would be involved in the design, creation or building--I can't imagine what they could bring to that. They've exhibited no facility for luxury development, and so their expertise is a bit light in that area. Let the experts do it, and therefore insure the highest quality offering.

That's just not accurate. Walt was opposed to getting into the hotel business--it had nothing to do with capability or financing. In fact, Walt wanted no part of the hotel business in FL.

Yes, they offered the Poly and Contemporary--but did they do it well? They were expensive, theme was hit or miss (the garden wings of the Poly hardly smacked of "Disney Magic"), and customer service has been bland. What they really offered that no one else could was proximity and character breakfasts.

This may be why Walt wasn't much interested in the business.

We see the same situation and interpret it very differently. I'm not sure how to close the gap.

I would have rathered they accomplish it more effectively and efficiently. What magic the organization structure (separate silo--and this is bad because...) and whether or not it's named "Disney Animation" are paper issues to me. Disney owns the block--that works for me.

As Kidds said above, there is pretty much nothing in this post with respect to Disney History that is true. Nothing.

MassJester

03-24-2007, 05:06 AM

You are the one that interjected the idea of a joint venture into the discussion, but this..........

.......does not represent something done in joint venture. Joint venture by it's very definition is something undertaken together. More specifically....'A joint venture (often abbreviated JV) is an entity formed between two or more parties to undertake economic activity together. The parties agree to create a new entity by both contributing equity, and they then share in the revenues, expenses, and control of the enterprise.' Disney will be doing none of these things, as you seem to agree. So it plain and simply is not a joint venture. So don't make it out to be more than it is.....Disney punting to someone else, the experts, to provide the highest quality offering. Make arguments as to why that is okay, but dont try and pass it off as a joint venture.

A JV that involved Disney offering up location in exchange for another parties execution is perfectly legitimate. No need for both hands to carry the bucket. One can own it, the other can carry it.

Wow, those are quite the statements. I'm going to have to ask you to source your information. While your experience with, and view of, WDW only dates back the last 15 years, I assume you have a greater frame of reference on Walt Disney, Disneyland and WDW through reading and other reference material. I'd like to know in what materials you find support for your statements above. My reading and past research tells me that it was Walt that turned to Wrather to initiate the Disneyland Hotel. The fact that Disney didn't have deep pockets back when they spent over $17 million to build Disneyland was a factor in that. As for WDW and what Walt was or wasn't opposed to, or did or didn't want to get involved with, perhaps you can tell me what it is you have read about Walt's Master Plan for the Florida Project. Perhaps you can elaborate on what was represented on Walt's Seventh Preliminary Master Plot Plan. Maybe you can explain your take on Walt's concept paintings depicting the Asian Hotel, Contemporary Resort, Venetian Resort and Polynesian Resort. I believe books such as The Disneyland Hotel: The Early Years, Walt Disney: An American Original, and Since The World Began provide plenty of evidence that contradicts your beliefs about Walt Disney and resort hotels. If only Baron were around to talk about the CR and Poly in the early years, the relative pricing and extreme value, the unique overall experience. In all the reading and discsussion on WDW I've seen I haven't heard many take the position you have, so I'm interested in the basis for your opinions. I'm always willing to learn, so help me out if I've gotten it wrong.

Disney Wars by James Stewart

Maybe we can't close the gap. The frame of reference thing may be too much of a barrier. My frame of reference on Walt Disney dates back to the 1920's, my frame of reference on Disneyland the early 50's, and my frame of reference on WDW the mid 60's. But apparently I've missed something along the way, so I'm willing to keep at it for a little longer if you can elucidate me.

You're up late for someone in their 90's.

MassJester

03-24-2007, 05:07 AM

As Kidds said above, there is pretty much nothing in this post with respect to Disney History that is true. Nothing.

:lmao:

ConcKahuna

03-24-2007, 06:14 AM

LuvDuke

03-24-2007, 10:40 AM

Nothing is pixie-dust. It doesn't exist. Disney sells, or did sell, a show, an experience, entertainment. Food and lodging can very much be a part of that, as the Poly and Contemporary are.

Tinkerbell doesn't exist and neither does Mickey Mouse, Minnie Mouse, Dumbo, Goofy, Pluto, Donald Duck, or any of the other characters that are the backbone of the Disney "pixie-dust" industry. That was the point.

No one goes to WDW to buy a new pair of shoes or a new suit. They go to WDW to be enchanted. That enchantment comes from "pixie-dust". That is Disney's product. All the slick merchandising in the world will not make up for an experience at WDW that doesn't leave one enchanted and wanting more.

My point is that Disney spread itself too thin at the expense of "pixie-dust". No company can do everything well. Disney should've concentrated at what it does best and leave the rest, like hotel management, to other companies who do that best.

That is the point.

Now, I agree that they have gotten away from that, but moving further away from it is not the answer.

Well trying to be all things to all people isn't going to get Disney any closer to what they once were either.

YoHo

03-24-2007, 11:02 AM

I've read Disney War too. It didn't say any of that.

DisneyKidds

03-24-2007, 01:20 PM

The Disney World Contempo Bay Resort and The Polynesian Village Resort (now known as Disney's Contemporary Resort and Disney's Polynesian Resort) were origionally owned by the US Steel. The first resort owned by Disney anywhere was...Fort Wilderness. Having "outsourced" hotels is not a new concept in Disney.
Just like with MJ, I'm going to have to ask you to source your information. I hope you can do a little better than he did.

The Contemporary Resort and Polynesian Resort were two of the five major resort hotels planned for Walt Disney World's five year Phase One. WED (Walter Elias Disney) Enterprises helped design the resorts along with Welton Becket and Associates, in partnership with US Steel. Disney never has been and never will be a construction company. Specifically, US Steel Realty Development, a subsidairy of US Steel, was the construction contractor. It was WED Enterprises that helped conceive the unitized modular construction technique that was employed. However, the resorts were always part of the plan for WDW, and they were owned and operated by Disney. That is very different from what is happening with the Four Seasons Resort. So I believe you are incorrect when it comes to the CR and the Poly, but I look forward to reviewing your sources.

crazy4wdw

03-24-2007, 01:46 PM

From 1974 when it opened until just a few years ago, Space Mountain was paid for by FedEx.

Actually, Space Mountain was initially sponsored by RCA.

CanadianGuy

03-24-2007, 06:53 PM

Just like with MJ, I'm going to have to ask you to source your information. I hope you can do a little better than he did.

Specifically, US Steel Realty Development, a subsidairy of US Steel, was the construction contractor. It was WED Enterprises that helped conceive the unitized modular construction technique that was employed. However, the resorts were always part of the plan for WDW, and they were owned and operated by Disney. That is very different from what is happening with the Four Seasons Resort. So I believe you are incorrect when it comes to the CR and the Poly, but I look forward to reviewing your sources.
I don't want to speak for another poster.. but I think what's being alluded to.. is when the resorts first opened.. the buildings were still owned by U.S. steel for a brief period of time (some number of months) before Disney 'taking ownership'. Methinks he was attemping to inject some much needed levity. Perhaps.

Either way.. the fact remains there are plenty of other (at least 9 by my count; not counting Shades of Green) hotels on WDW property not owned and operated by Disney... for whom Disney sets standards and from whom.. Disney takes "a slice". (be it big or small) And some of those deals date back 30+ years.

As for MJ's source material.. On page 63 of Disney War (Stewart) .. the author says that during the time of the Tishman-Starwood deal... and during a discussion of a potential alliance with Marriott hotels, E. Cardon (Card) Walker... "... brushed aside their suggestion that Disney might want to build and operate more hotels.

"Disney is not in the hotel business, its in the theme-park business."

"Why is that?", Marriott asked.

Walker seemed surprised by the question, "That's the way we do things," he said.

In that same paragraph Mr. Walker is identified as as knowing the "old Disney culture." Further, given that on page 41, that same Mr. Walker, is referred to as one of "two personal allies" that Walt had installed at the company during his conflicts with Roy O. Disney and on page 45 is referred to as follows:

"As the ultimate arbiter of what Walt would have done, Walker's influence (at Disney) was pervasive"

Given that reading, one might successfully argue he would be as well positioned as anyone to understand Walt's original intentions .. when he made the comments about the hotel business quoted above. It is especially telling to me that the bulk of the Disney owned resort holdings were not built until Mr. Walker retired from the company (1983) and was no longer a consultant to the company (1990).

I personally happen to think he would be in a position to know what Walt's intentions were and I think his opinions would mirror those... at least as much as he *thought* he knew what they were. And IF it was in Walt's intentions to be in the hotel business beyond the ones planned to be theme-park adjacent around Bay Lake and the Seven Seas Lagoon (most of which were never built), they were some slow off the mark building the next hotels that followed the initial Poly, Contemporary and Fort Wilderness resorts.

If you're going to take the LONG view.. Disney being firmly in the hotel business is a fairly recent development. Disney controlled just three (four if you count the former Disney Inn/now SOG) resorts in Florida till the mid to late 80's when they began seriously building out other resorts on-property and running all the day to day operations of those new resorts themselves. And until the early-to-mid nineties, when new Disney resorts started coming on strong, the number of third party hotels on-property outnumbered the Disney-owned resorts! Significantly.

Thus, from a historical perspective, you *could* argue this deal is a return to Disney's roots. ;)

But whatever. In all seriousness, Walt's intentions or lack thereof for hotels.. whether he wanted to be in the business or not originally, the company now IS. Walt's intentions would have been based on business plans from 45 or more years ago and would be majorly out of date at this point. Walt's hotel intentions just don't matter in todays business cliimate because too much has changed. They DO have Disney owned hotels AND they DO have 3rd party hotels on-property today. They are there. Its a fact.

Either way, the man has been dead coming up on 41 years and he won't be coming back anytime soon to run the company and set things "right"... whatever your definition of "right" is. It is very easy to love someone who is dead. They make so few mistakes.

Those who have run the company over the years and previously built third party hotels on property set the stage for this deal. Not Eisner, definitely not Iger and since he was dead before the Florida development got built .. most definitely not Walt directly.

Who exactly did that? Well, as I noted, it wasn't Eisner. Eisner didn't want the Swan & Dolphin deal to go thru. He thought Disney could build and run the resorts themselves. Actually it was conceived and approved by someone much closer to Walt. That was a deal that was approved by Eisner's predecessor, Frank Miller, Walt Disney's son-in-law. Frank maybe wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed, but Walt was very fond of him and they were close. And since Frank was at the time married to Walt's daughter and Lillian was still alive... It seems fair to say THAT 3rd party hotel deal had the Disney family approval.

And Walt's close ally, Mr. Walker was there (in fact he was Chairman I believe) for the conception and approval of the initial Starwood deal before retiring... and he was a top executive during the decision making for the DTD hotels in the 70's. We know from his quote above that, he didn't approve of more Disney owned hotels, so it stands to reason he probably approved of the Starwood deal; or at least he didn't object strenuously enough to stop it cold. With his deep history with the company and as Chairman he could have easily invoked Walt's memory and done so.

And the DTD hotels were also approved by the Disney family (Roy O, Roy E, Lillian and Dianne presumeably). At the time they controlled a huge number of shares equating to roughly 14 to 16 % of the company. They could have stopped the DTD hotels if they felt they were off the mark for Walt's vision.

So why would anyone be shocked when, as I noted above, they add one or three more third party hotels. Last I checked Roy E was still alive and still owned the third largest parcel of individually-held stock with 1%.. I'm sure he's at least looked at this... and given how vocal he's been in the past when someone or something displeased him... I think it is also fair to say this deal has his tacit approval.

Given all that information, I fail to see that a logical extension of adding yet one more 3rd party hotel.. (and potentially one or two more down at the Western Development) is the end of everything for which the Disney name and Disney family has stood over the years... especially given the Disney family history of having approved 3rd party hotel providers at both Disneyland and Disney World .. and doubly-especially (ha ha) given that both of the proposed developments, in theory, won't compete directly (on a rate basis) with other already existing offerings from Disney.

These properties will compete with resorts, motels and hotels off-property that currently do quite well and from whom Disney doesn't currently see a dime in hotel revenue. The Four Seasons in particular will compete rather effectively with.. and be a regal snub to.. the non-Disney but awfully close to Disney, Bonnet Creek development which will see a new Hilton, Waldorf Astoria and the existing Fairfield time share when all is said and done.

Knox

- Side Note - I think it IS worth distinguishing between the limited number of resorts that were initially planned to be proximate to the Magic Kingdom and the larger current reality of the entire development being home to resorts and time-shares all over the property. "Being in the hotel business" has different meanings based on scale. Personally, I believe that Walt never envisioned being the major hotelier the company is today .. controlling 25,000+ hotel rooms. I think his vision was more limited to the theme-park adjacent properties and possibly something similar near or inside the Epcot development he originally envisioned (vs. the one that was built).

MassJester

03-24-2007, 07:41 PM

Thanks for looking it up for me--I've got an amazing amount of work before my Houston trip.

MassJester

03-24-2007, 07:45 PM

I've read Disney War too. It didn't say any of that.

Perhaps a second read is in order.

YoHo

03-24-2007, 11:04 PM

E. Cardon (Card) Walker...

Ah , I understand the problem.

That's a complete misreading of that section of the book and Walker.

E. Cardon (Card) Walker was a good friend of Walt's, but he simply never understood what make the Disney company work. He constantly hamstrung Ron Miller, he insulted Roy (who may or may not have deserved it).

He simply never understood the Florida project. Looking through everything he did, from vetoing any increase in the parking price to fighting against Touchstone. He did not ever understand anything. The point of that section of the book was to show how bad Walker was for Disney.

CanadianGuy

03-24-2007, 11:33 PM

Fair enough.. but it also points to the prevailing attitudes within Disney about not building more hotels... and bad for Disney or not.. his opinions were listened to.. clearly.. since no new hotels were built till the late 80's early 90's.

I'm not arguing this guy was a genius -- I sincerely don't think he was. But I think he DID perceive himself (and others believed him) to be the keeper of Walt's flame to a degree. (rightly or wrongly -- who knows)

Walt himself often argued about keeping things affordable. He may have made that same argument about parking costs.

Knox

YoHo

03-24-2007, 11:55 PM

Actually WED saw itself as the keepers of the flame. And he didn't argue for keeping things affordable, he argued for keeping them static. As if the world stopped turning the day Walt died. He was the one that was afraid.

Further, After Contemp, Poly and the Campground were built, Disney built the Golf resort.

Disney had two other resorts on the drawing boards. Two resorts that Walt Disney helped lay out.

And the treehouses that became the institue.

DisneyKidds

03-25-2007, 08:28 AM

An even if, for arguments sake, we accept that Card Walker was reflecting Walt's beliefs and values in saying that "Disney is not in the hotel business", meaning in the context of the current negotiation that they weren't in the business of becoming the next Marriott (which I agree), it's a heck of a stretch, a foolish stretch really, to say that Walt wanted no part of any hotel business. He may not have wanted a Disney hotel on every street corner throughout Florida, but he sure as heck wanted specific Disney themed resorts to be part of the Walt Disney World Resort. And lest we forget, the hotels that Walt himslef included in the Master Plan were intended to be extensions of the Magic Kingdom. The CR an extension of Tomorrowland, the Poly and extension of Adventureland, etc. I actually agree Disney has severly overbuild resorts on property, but that doesn't equate to 'Disney shouldn't have any and Walt wanted none'.
Either way.. the fact remains there are plenty of other (at least 9 by my count; not counting Shades of Green) hotels on WDW property not owned and operated by Disney... for whom Disney sets standards and from whom.. Disney takes "a slice". (be it big or small) And some of those deals date back 30+ years.
Sure, that is a fact.....but you have to view those facts witht he knowledge that Walt always intended for there to be more hotels than the five he planned around the Seven Seas Lagoon. He also never intended to own and operate those hotels, that is true enough. The Seventh Preliminary Master Plot Plan, sketched by Walt himself, always had a section for motels, farther removed from the park. I'm sure he recognized there would be a need and desire for smaller, more affordable lodgings, but that isn't a business he wanted to be in. But he most certainly wanted to be in the business of having highly themed resorts extensions of his theme park as part of his theme park business. Using the Downtown Diseny hotels as a the basis for saying Disney always farmed out their resort hotel operations is an extremely specious argument. And equating what is happening with Four Seasosn (a full service resort smack dab in the middle of prime real estate a relative stone's throw from the MK) to the far removed Downtown Disney hotels (just that, hotels and not full service resorts the likes of the CR and Poly, or Four Seasons) out on the berm is a very tenuous argument.

I respect both your attemps to further your arguments, but you need to look closer and stop trying to make square pegs fit round holes.

CanadianGuy

03-25-2007, 10:18 AM

The Seventh Preliminary Master Plot Plan, sketched by Walt himself, always had a section for motels, farther removed from the park. I'm sure he recognized there would be a need and desire for smaller, more affordable lodgings, but that isn't a business he wanted to be in.

So does that mean the Western Development would have been 'ok by Walt?' Or does it mean he would NOT have approved the value resorts? Who can possibly know?

For the record, I never said that the DTD hotels were an example of them "always" farming out hotel operations. I used them as an example of them "sometimes" farming out hotel operations over the years. There are explanations for why Disney did what it did in the 70's.. more explanations for what they did in the 80's. But explanations aside .. they really didn't get 'into the hotel business' in the big way till post 1987.

They controlled three highly themed resorts and a golf resort. (counting Disney Inn). For on-property, on the number of resort properties basis and on a room count basis.. Disney resorts were outnumbered by third party hotels at least 2.5 to one. For some time now, Disney has had plenty enough cash to be able to buy out the deals and bull-doze the DTD hotels... or take over the Swan/Dolphin deal. They *could* do that if they were serious about getting third party resorts off their land. They don't care. It's money they receive without lifting a finger for the most part.

I don't think that's the core point here tho. It's a supporting point. The fact remains the Disney family and later, Disney Corporate (for reasons we all know) have allowed third party resorts at their parks since day one. They continued that in Florida. And they repeated in the 80s. And repeated for EuroDisney to a lesser degree.

Actually.. if you think about it.. with this Four Seasons deal Disney is responding to the Bonnet Creek development. Plain and simple.

That is 'just a stones throw' from some of the parks. It will have four and five star properties and a high end time share and Disney has zero control over that property. They've tried to block it from access to Reedy Creek Improvement District roads.. and failed. Clearly this is a sore point for Disney.

My opinion is that Disney cannot do a five star hotel. History tells us they have tried and they have failed. And like hiim or not, Eisner was fully supporting the Grand Floridian at the highest levels of the company .. so why did it fail to get its designation? I dunno. Maybe you can enlighten me here, I really don't know.

Elsewhere in this thread the subject of exclusive-access was raised. Disney would have a hard time creating a resort and barring other guests from even visiting the grounds of that resort. It would be very un-Disney. Four Seasons knows how to do that and can do that.

You disagree with my thinking. Fair enough. Despite our disagreement, Four Seasons will -- in all likelihood -- not fail.

And my point remains.. I don't see how adding a few more 3rd party hotels.. when there are so many 3rd party hotels on-property and several new ones so close that may as well be considered on-property .. is the end of all the Disney name and family stood for. I'm being accused of stretching an argument. I'll accept that cause I did so intentionally to make a point. But others in this thread have stretched their argument that this deal is the end of the "World" as we know it. I won't accept that.

I understand you may not like it for emotional reasons. Fair enough. But there is plenty of precedent for this deal .. the really big news to me is the privately owned homes.

Speaking of which -- I've heard some of those are actually going over by the Western Development (as Conc alluded to earlier in this thread) .. and the fractionals are going by the timeshare property.

Can anyone shed any light on this?

Knox

ConcKahuna

03-25-2007, 11:10 AM

Here's a great sketch by Walt of the "Florida Project"...

http://www.waltopia.com/images/drawing.jpg

As you can see, he planned for a lot of different stuff. He was also known for saying that he wanted to provide accomidations for "Every taste and budget, from suites to sleeping bags."

YoHo

03-25-2007, 12:21 PM

Nobody should be disagreeing that Walt and Walt Disney Studios was willing to allow others to handle segments of the Hotel and Motel market. That much is clear. The problem is the position that this fact is being used to support.
You say Disney was out roomed 2.5 to one, but pre-eisner Disney had 2 additional Hotels of the size of Poly on the drawing board.

Further, you're essentially saying that the Disney resorts are effectivly equivelent to any random Hotel circle Hotel.

This is simply not true.

The Disney resorts were themed extensions of the Magic Kingdom. They were intended as an integral part of that park. Eisner ruined all that, but fundimentally they were invisioned as a part of that, not a seperate venture.
In the early days before the trees filled in, you really could see the Polynesian from adventureland.

The problem with this conversation is that we're talking on two different levels and jumbling them up.

There's the question of what Disney should be doing vis-a-vis what Walt wanted WDW to be. In that case, it's not that the Four Seasons is involved, it the the location and the DeAnnexation.
The second question is the more immediate question of why Disney isn't doing it themselves.

The second question is not very interesting to me, because truth be told, I'd just as soon Disney stuck to building resorts in the style of the deluxes and let all other market segments be served by someone else. I don't like the Values at all and some of the moderates are OK, but would be better as Deluxes. However, I also don't want to see prime realestate being taken up by these Hotels. The offbrand Hotel area is afterall Isolated.

The First issue is the big concern, because Disney is giving up. And let's not be confused here. There's a difference here between "What the Master plan said and what WDW became. We're talking about a shift in corporate philosophy.

In the 1970s, If Disney had wanted to build a 5 star resort or be involved in a broader Hotel market, They would have attacked the problem and figured out how to do so. A can do attitude, Very much the core of the spirit that the company was created with.

in 2007, Disney is merely searching for how to make money. It's run be someone who distributes, not someone who creates. Nobody should be upset that Disney is outsourcing a level of Hotel service that they have no interest in developing themselves.

You should be upset that Disney is giving up on that land, that Disney is removing 900 acres of hope and dreams and a better tomorrow.

If Disney were doing this to enable them to return to the Spirit of EPCOT, the spirit that made Walt Disney World the incredible place it is, then I would Say SELL AWAY. I wouldn't be too thrilled that FS is partially owned by someone known to fund radical islamic terrorists I guess, but that's neither here nor there.
No, I'd be excvited for what Disney was going to create. I wouldn't be able to wait.

Disney doesn't sell what made them a great American company any more, but you can probably buy a snowglobe of it in the gift shop.

CanadianGuy

03-25-2007, 12:40 PM

Good points all..

Yes they had all kinds of things on the drawing board. And no doubt they still do today.

But they didn't even so much as break ground on any of them before Eisner got there. He built the Grand Floridian.. he was very involved in it.

And a little thinking .. leads me to this...

Roy E. Disney wrote in his letter of resignation from the board..

The creative atmosphere for which the Company has so long been famous and on which it prides itself has, in my opinion, become stagnant. I do not believe it is a place where I, and perhaps others, can realize our creative capacities. Motion pictures and the fund of new ideas they are capable of generating have always been the fountainhead of the Company; but present management continues to make and remake the same kind of motion picture, with less and less criticial and box-office success... The Company is no longer sensitive to its creative heritage. Rather it has substituted short range benefits... for long range creative planning.

Now.. what's interesting about THAT resignation letter, was that it was written in March of 1977. Man that guy sure resigns a lot. :) he was right then for sure. Thirty years ago he was making the same arguments about short-sighted planning and just doing things for financial gain and not long-term value.

If you look at Walt Disney Productions slate of releases and TV movies from 1972 to 1977.. it's a pretty sorry collection for the most part. A few bright spots.. but little to cheer about. I personally don't think that "Brother Bear" is better or worse than "Robin Hood." But I do personally think that Aladdin, Beauty & The Beast and The Little Mermaid are much better than The Rescuers.

Roy could write that same letter today about any number of different divisions in the company and in the eyes of many, he'd be correct to do so.

Clearly this argument over the way Disney does things has been going on in various divisions for decades. I happen to think that the Grand Floridian (designed and built under Eisner) actually continued the tradition of Disney's themed resorts. In fact, I think that a number of things (not everything) that happened under Eisner were pretty good. I realize you may not. Whatever might be thought about Eisner, I simply cannot agree that the last 30 years of Disney has been nothing but mistake after mistake. I suspect Disney is cyclical like most companies.. they have highs and lows. Are we in a low? Dunno. Ironically in 5 10 or 15 years we may look back on this time and perceive it as a high point.

Given the very long history of this very argument.. with the same points being made on both sides for over 30 years, and despite our mutual best efforts, I doubt very much we're going to convince the other of very much or come to agreement about it on this message board.

Knox

YoHo

03-25-2007, 01:19 PM

Oooo, I happen to know that AV's gonna be gone for a month or so which is too bad, because he'd have a field day.
I can't speak with the same Authority, but I'll try to muddle through.

I don't really care what Roy's resignation letter said. Roy's an idiot.
Roy E. Disney was hated by Card Walker and was considered no great shakes by his uncle. He was constantly being shut out. Roy was pretty bitter about that, not surprisingly. He thought he was a great director, he thought he deserved more. What that letter is really saying is that He doesn't think the Disney company is creative, because they wouldn't give him any respect.
It's a self fullfilling lie.
Roy E. Disney didn't start the stock fight because he thought Disney was doomed, he started it because he felt he deserved to be in power.
He didn't like Ron Miller, he hated Card Walker, He was gonna show them by G-d.

The fact of the matter is this.
After Walt died, Walt Disney productions was lost and adrift. If you watch the Animated movies of the time, you see a melancholy in the execution of them. They're just a little less exhuberant compared to what came before.

Ron Miller changed all that. Ron Miller, Walt's son in law was Walt's chosen heir. Ron created Touchstone Pictures, Ron made Splash, the movie that put Walt Disney Productions back on that map. Ron first broached the subject of Video sales. Ron went to Eisner and asked him to come run the studio. The Little Mermaid was first pitched and started story work when Ron was in charge. Ron suggested that parking and other prices be raised to compensate for inflation.

Ron Miller did all these things. Card Walker was a constant impediment to some of these things, But in the early 80s, Card stepped down and Ron was finally able to bring the Walt Disney Studios into it's own.....and in steps cousin Roy with a chip on his shoulder. So now, we'll never know what TDC would have looked like under Walt's chosen successor.

The First thing Eisner and Wells did was go after all the things Ron wanted to do. The continued on the success of Splash. They made The Little Mermaid (despite the fact that Eisner hated the very idea, his idea was Olvier and company) They raised prices, they sold videos (over Roy's strenuous protests).
Everything Ron Miller had wanted to do, they did and got all the credit. The low hanging fruit. The easy stuff.

As for the Grand Floridian....You've got to be kidding me right? The Grand Floridian is nothing like the classic Disney resort.

That location was originally supposed to be the Asian I think, or the Persian. I'm sure somebody remembers better then I do. Anyway, for over 10 years, Disney had plans for that location to be a very specific resort. Eisner wanted a 5 star resort instead so the right kinda of people, the park avenue set, would be able to give him money too. So they took the Hotel Del, and made it boxy. They tried to emulate the kind of place that your typical wealthy east coast 5 star hotel going person would want to stay at. There's nothing magical about that. They replaced a hotel that would spark a sense of adventure and mystery with an oversized replica of what any visitor to California can see. And they didn't even manage to ge tthe 5 star rating.

CanadianGuy

03-25-2007, 01:31 PM

So.. I understand.

The argument seems to be "Disney ain't what it used to be."

And Ron Miller days is the time when everything was so much better? Do I have that right? Ron did some good things but ....

Ron's Little Mermaid and the one that hit theatres.. not even close to being the same. So that's kind of an empty argument in my books.

I didn't even like Oliver & Co. But the film made money... so obviously some people liked it. Nevermind, I don't wanna argue a point based on that movie. It blows.

There is a much bigger chasm here than I thought. I shall stop here before this devolves. We disagree on fundamentals so what's the point in debating details.

Knox

YoHo

03-25-2007, 01:58 PM

It wasn't all butterscotch and Ponies when Ron Miller was in charge, no, but WED had a master plan for WDW and they were working on righting the Movie business.

The idea that the company was in any sort of creative danger is a corporate lie.

Another Voice

03-25-2007, 04:24 PM

I’m dead yet…

For all the Disney history being slung around – there is a stunning lack of understanding any of it.

Card Walker was many things – the true knower what Walt would have done isn’t one of them.

I mean, if Walt hated being in the hotel business, what was his whole Mineral King project about? Walt dying to get in ski rental equipment business?

The reason Disney didn’t want to build the convention hotels (the Marriott project that became the Swan and Dolphin) was that all of the company’s capital had been tied up in EPCOT Center. There was no way they could have produced a (then) Disney-quality resort.

Of course, Disney’s standards have radically fallen today –all that’s needed for “Disney quality” is a place to plug in the credit card swipe machine.

The “business” that Disney wanted to stay out of was conventions. EPCOT Center had made WDW attractive to normal adults and the demand for convention space at WDW was far outstripping the Contemporary’s merger offerings. Disney knew how to cater to families – it knew nothing about the expense account crowd. Given that the company was opening EPCOT Center, the Disney Channel, Tokyo Disneyland and preparing for a chain of retail stores at the time, becoming world class experts in convention management was just a little too much to handle, and a little too much outside the box for Card.

The convention center was to be located next to EPCOT Center because World Showcase would serve as the nighttime “Entertainment” center for all those happy convention goers and their happy company-paid per diem. Groups renting meeting space could also rent out a pavilion after park hours to host parties and receptions.

If you look at the renderings of the original E.P.C.O.T., the large central tower you see was a hotel. Yes – Walt wanted a hotel to anchor his community. All of the original E.P.C.O.T. was designed as a resort town along that were springing up in the Colorado ski areas and along the Florida coasts. I’ve heard one of the planning notes indicated they expected about 20,000 permenant resisdents (manily WDW employees and their families) and 10,000 guests to be in E.P.C.O.T.

The entire point of being in the hotel business for Disney was an extension of the theme parks. As I said (and which everyone ignored) – the theme parks are for a day, the hotels are the same experience for a week. They weren’t interested in offering plain lodging like the Best Westerns, Howard Johnson’s and Holiday Inns offered – nor was Disney ever interested in the mini-palaces to wipe the rears of the rich with expensive towels.

Disney is in entertainment. Let the land at WDW be used for that. Let Four Seasons destroy other swampland. There’s little place for imagination left in this world, it’s a crime for any of it to be destroyed for yet another fatfarm for the rich.

[quote] And like hiim or not, Eisner was fully supporting the Grand Floridian at the highest levels of the company .. so why did it fail to get its designation? I dunno. Maybe you can enlighten me here, I really don't know.[/quote
Simple.

The requirements for a five star resort – from Exxon, Michelin and AAA are well known. The original design for the Grand Floridian called for all of those elements. Eisner never liked the theme parks to any degree (you could actually say he hated them), but understood the role they had in keeping Disney afloat. Eisner supported the GF because he believed it was his best chance to get “the right kind of people”*, i.e., the weathly New York crowd – the come to WDW.

However, problems quickly developed at the resort and the budget skyrockected. Faced with spending the money to do things right or cutting back to keep his bonus growing – many “5-star” elements were cut from the resort. The saloon disappeared. The in-room billing and entertainment system disappeared. The average room size was cut. On and on the axe came down.

Eisner said the Disney “magic” and his wonderful servants, er, cast members would so impress the critics that 5 stars were guaranteed. That and a lot of extra cash on the side to people that needed it (remember, Exxon was a major sponsor at EPCOT Center, AAA makes huge amounts of money off selling WDW and Disneyland vacations).

Well, it turns out that in some company’s standards remained standards. Despite numerous appeals and lots of pleading, the guides stuck to the requirements list. It wasn’t that Disney tired and failed – it was Disney's decision not to meet the known standards.

And that too is the story Modern Disney – demanding people lower their expectations to match whatever Disney chooses to sell.

* - and yes, that is a direct quote. He’d use is again, years later, to describe the goals of California Adventure.

MassJester

03-25-2007, 05:32 PM

I’m dead yet…

Of course, Disney’s standards have radically fallen today –all that’s needed for “Disney quality” is a place to plug in the credit card swipe machine.

Ok, I here that alot, in different iterations. So, when was the company running right, and how was that measured?

Another Voice

03-25-2007, 10:36 PM

So, when was the company running right, and how was that measured?
Simple – did the place have show, or was it just a hotel/ride/restaurant.

In 1971 the Contemporary was the future. The Polynesian was the first themed hotel and it wowed everyone how stayed there (it would take Las Vegas decades to catch up). Fort Wilderness was the west with a steam train and horse drawn carts and .

Remember – Michael Eisner ran WDW almost twice as long as Card Walker & Ron Miller did (and he ran Disneyland twice as long as Walt did). All the “original intent” of the place has now been buried under two decades of neglect and disinterest.

If you want to know what the standard was, look up the plans for the Asian and Persian Resorts. Find out how the Contemporary was run (the garden wings allowed Disney to set wide price points in a single resort, allowing more people to have the experience – unlike today’s “keep those poor people away from me” attitude of today’s “Deluxe” caste system).

Look at the Cheyenne Hotel at Euro Disney (which started life as WDW’s Buffalo Junction). See how a “Disney Value” resort was supposed to have been designed before the concept was turned into chattel houses for poor with fifty foot “Groovy Man” signs glued onto the cell blocks.

There are bits and pieces of Real Disney around if you look for them now. But a lot of time has passed. People’s memories are short. And Disney has spent billions to lower everyone’s expectations. It’s taken its toll.

You really have to wonder – what if Disney World consistented of nothing but what was built after 1984. How many would show up today to see Disney MGM Studio, to shop at Downtown Disney, to watch the ‘Stitch Encounter’ or to stay at All Stars Music? Would people go to the Magic Kingdom is 'Splash Moutain' was the biggest, most elaborate attraction there (think of a bigger one built since 1984).

Not many.

Walt Disney World exists today only because of what was built before – what was built to Real Disney standards. Pop and All Stars exist only because they are cheap. No one buys a single day ticket to Animal Kingdom – it’s a freebie when you buy a ticket to the Magic Kingdom. Downtown Disney exists only because the Magic Kingdom closes at 9pm instead of midnight these days.

WDW strip mines its past to support the weak efforts of its present. People drop thousands on a trip to see the Castle, not the Tree of Life. But the more Disney destroys what really attracts people, the less desirable the place becomes.

WDW has never had a slump in attendance as long and deep as what it is suffering today. It’s direct competition – Hawaii. National Parks, other destinations – are now beating all time records. Disney has yet to even come close to a “9/11 recovery”.

There’s a reason for it. It’s not going to be solved by chopping off bits of property and selling it to the highest bidder (it didn’t work at Euro Disney either). No budgeting scheme, no cleaver investment strategy, no brand management plan is going to do it.

It can only be solved through the age old art of showmanship. Amaze your audience and they will beat down the doors to throw money at you. Treat them like consumers to be squeezed, and you get a company that has to sell off 900 acres to prime real estate.

MassJester

03-25-2007, 11:12 PM

Simple – did the place have show, or was it just a hotel/ride/restaurant.

In 1971 the Contemporary was the future. The Polynesian was the first themed hotel and it wowed everyone how stayed there (it would take Las Vegas decades to catch up). Fort Wilderness was the west with a steam train and horse drawn carts and .

Remember – Michael Eisner ran WDW almost twice as long as Card Walker & Ron Miller did (and he ran Disneyland twice as long as Walt did). All the “original intent” of the place has now been buried under two decades of neglect and disinterest.

If you want to know what the standard was, look up the plans for the Asian and Persian Resorts. Find out how the Contemporary was run (the garden wings allowed Disney to set wide price points in a single resort, allowing more people to have the experience – unlike today’s “keep those poor people away from me” attitude of today’s “Deluxe” caste system).

Look at the Cheyenne Hotel at Euro Disney (which started life as WDW’s Buffalo Junction). See how a “Disney Value” resort was supposed to have been designed before the concept was turned into chattel houses for poor with fifty foot “Groovy Man” signs glued onto the cell blocks.

There are bits and pieces of Real Disney around if you look for them now. But a lot of time has passed. People’s memories are short. And Disney has spent billions to lower everyone’s expectations. It’s taken its toll.

You really have to wonder – what if Disney World consistented of nothing but what was built after 1984. How many would show up today to see Disney MGM Studio, to shop at Downtown Disney, to watch the ‘Stitch Encounter’ or to stay at All Stars Music? Would people go to the Magic Kingdom is 'Splash Moutain' was the biggest, most elaborate attraction there (think of a bigger one built since 1984).

Not many.

Walt Disney World exists today only because of what was built before – what was built to Real Disney standards. Pop and All Stars exist only because they are cheap. No one buys a single day ticket to Animal Kingdom – it’s a freebie when you buy a ticket to the Magic Kingdom. Downtown Disney exists only because the Magic Kingdom closes at 9pm instead of midnight these days.

WDW strip mines its past to support the weak efforts of its present. People drop thousands on a trip to see the Castle, not the Tree of Life. But the more Disney destroys what really attracts people, the less desirable the place becomes.

WDW has never had a slump in attendance as long and deep as what it is suffering today. It’s direct competition – Hawaii. National Parks, other destinations – are now beating all time records. Disney has yet to even come close to a “9/11 recovery”.

There’s a reason for it. It’s not going to be solved by chopping off bits of property and selling it to the highest bidder (it didn’t work at Euro Disney either). No budgeting scheme, no cleaver investment strategy, no brand management plan is going to do it.

It can only be solved through the age old art of showmanship. Amaze your audience and they will beat down the doors to throw money at you. Treat them like consumers to be squeezed, and you get a company that has to sell off 900 acres to prime real estate.

Is it your contention that the company has been in a decline since the 1970's? That it hasn't been run right in 40 years?

DisneyKidds

03-25-2007, 11:32 PM

For the record, I never said that the DTD hotels were an example of them "always" farming out hotel operations.
Come now, let's not mince words. You clearly state with your examples and the wording you chose that it was always, from the very beginnings of WDW, part of Disney's modus operendi to bring in other companies to build, own and operate WDW resort hotels. You throw that out with the implication that it somehow supports the arguments regarding Walt's lack of desire to be in the hotel business. Those arguments are misleading and incorrect. Yes, there are certain aspects of the hotel business that Walt wasn't interested in (the only thing the DTD hotels are indicative of), and later the Company wasn't interested in (thanks AV for clarifying the convention aspect of the Tishman-Starwood deal), but those facts do not support the faulty arguments that Walt wasn't interested in the hotel business, or that the Four Seasons deal is just another example of many similar outsourced resort projects that have existed at WDW from the beginning.

Fine, argue that increasing third party resort operations is a good thing, or at least isn't a bad thing, but don't argue that the Four Seasons deal is just a continuation of business as usual. Walt very much wanted to be in the themed resort business. I don't care how many hotels existed at WDW before Eisner exploited the underperforming asset that all that unused Florida swampland represented, the fact is that Walt envisioned five resorts surrounding one theme park. Specific types of resorts the likes of which didn't really exist previously. Resorts they designed and operated themselves so as to be able to provide a level of immersive service that hadn't existed elsewhere either. That clearly shows a committment to being in a Disney version of the hotel business. Being able to continue to do those types of things, Disney style by Disney standards, is the precise reason so much land was purchased for the Florida Project in the first place. Sure, times change, business is business, make money, etc., etc.. Those are all arguments that can be made, but you can't throw the baby out with the bathwater. You can't simply forget or ignore what was originally intended, a business philosophy that led to the success in the first place, when you make those arguments. the Four Seasons deal represents just another departure n what has become a long line of departures.

DisneyKidds

03-25-2007, 11:40 PM

Is it your contention that the company has been in a decline since the 1970's? That it hasn't been run right in 40 years?
AV's answer is probably already in his post (1984) and Eisner was a turning point. But things really were lost when Frank Wells died in 1994.

YoHo

03-25-2007, 11:51 PM

Is it your contention that the company has been in a decline since the 1970's? That it hasn't been run right in 40 years?

I can't speak for AV, has pretty consistantly, since he registered, illustrated what a terrible executive Michael Eisner was.

From my personal perspective, Prior to EuroDisney's failure, WED was able to spend money because it made Eisner looked good. Managment by ego stroking. Prior to the ABC purchase, Disney had no gigantic moneypit to throw it's profits into so the Parks could actually sink profits back into themselves.
Prior to Pearl Harbor, and escalating Animation costs and escalated expected returns, Disney was able to afford so much more.

From MY perspective, yes, Disney has been mismanaged for at least the past 25 years. It simply took about 10 years of low hanging fruit, a tragic accident and a foolish merger for the bad managment to destroy what had been built up since the 1920s.

YoHo

03-25-2007, 11:53 PM

AV's answer is probably already in his post (1984) and Eisner was a turning point. But things really were lost when Frank Wells died in 1994.

I've been reading AV's posts for years. I've always got the impression that he thinks well of Frank Wells for what he is, but doesn't paint him as any more talented or more mythical then he was. Prior to Frank Wells' Death, Eisner was a figurehead. Afterwords, Eisner really was in charge.

Wells had no particular creative talent, but he was an impecable media businessman.

Another Voice

03-26-2007, 01:20 AM

Is it your contention that the company has been in a decline since the 1970's? That it hasn't been run right in 40 years?

The company was not well managed in the 1970s. That had dramatically turned around by the early 1980s - EPCOT Center turned WDW into a true destination, The Disney Channel and the return to network television brought Disney back into the public's living room, Tokyo Disneyland opened up a huge new market for Disney and Splash and Country proved that Disney could even make mainstream Hollywood movies.

Roy Disney grew greedy and threw out the people who had organized that turnaround. Frank Wells rebuilt the company's operations and finances. Michael Eisner allowed the changes already happening in Disney to continue - while the worst tendencies of his nature were held in check by Frank Wells and Jeffrey Katzenberg.

The company's problem began with the failure of Euro Disney. Until that point, everything that "Disney" produced had been a huge, gleeming success. Eisner took the disaster of the Paris park as a personal insult - the mad emproreer running around the palace screaming for the head of his generals after loosing a battle is the scene I'm most reminded of. Eisner simply became unglued and lost all confidence in anything "Disney".

The was nothing wrong with Euro Disney that couldn't be fixed. The problem was financial - Eisner got too greedy with hotel rooms and prices. Both were in the process of being fixed. But Frank Wells was killed and Eisner lost his "Jimminy Cricket". All the horrible traits that made him disliked at Paramount (and eventually fired) came rushing out full force. The midnight execution of Katzenberg removed what little outside control was on Eisner.

Disney began to loose its indentity and began to reflect that of Eisner. He forced the company into becoming a giant media conglomerate not because that made any business sense, but because Eisner saw himself as a Media Mogul along the lines of Sumner Redstone, Rupert Murdoch and (his old boss and nemisis) Barry Diller.

"Disney" used to mean a the work of people that tried to do something different in many fields - movies, amusement parks, hotels, retail, television. But under Eisner "Disney" became a comfort brand used to more easily sell products. Real Disney could do whatever they wanted to do; Magic Disney was limited to explotiting existing markets where easy profits could be had for minimal investment.

This whole Four Seasons mess is a result of that mismanagement. Disney has so poorly managed a business they've been in for 35 years - hotels - that they are now forced to sell land to a competitor to do it for them. And they have so throughly mismanged the brand that no one expects high quality from a Disney resort these days.

MassJester

03-26-2007, 04:29 AM

"Disney" used to mean a the work of people that tried to do something different in many fields - movies, amusement parks, hotels, retail, television. But under Eisner "Disney" became a comfort brand used to more easily sell products. Real Disney could do whatever they wanted to do; Magic Disney was limited to explotiting existing markets where easy profits could be had for minimal investment.

This whole Four Seasons mess is a result of that mismanagement. Disney has so poorly managed a business they've been in for 35 years - hotels - that they are now forced to sell land to a competitor to do it for them. And they have so throughly mismanged the brand that no one expects high quality from a Disney resort these days.

Ok, so they've only been on a decline for the past quarter century or so.

I have to say, for a company that's been on a creative decline for 25 years, and only willing to make minimal investment, the record is populated with some anomolous behavior. MGM, Animal Kingdon, the Tokyo and Hong Kong Theme parks, Broadway musicals (some quite good), and the purchase of Pixar came with just the teensiest bit more than "minimal investment."

As for "no one expects high quality"--there are no facts to support such a sweeping statement. Disney provides the same relative quality that it has since Contemporary and Poly debuted. They have never offered a luxury option, and now have corrected that.

MassJester

03-26-2007, 04:34 AM

WDW has never had a slump in attendance as long and deep as what it is suffering today. It’s direct competition – Hawaii. National Parks, other destinations – are now beating all time records. Disney has yet to even come close to a “9/11 recovery”.

Hmmm, you've said this a few times but the last time figures were posted that didn't jive. I seem to recall that WDW had in fact recovered from post 9/11 slump. Do you have other figures?

DisneyKidds

03-26-2007, 08:12 AM

I have to say, for a company that's been on a creative decline for 25 years, and only willing to make minimal investment, the record is populated with some anomolous behavior. MGM, Animal Kingdon, the Tokyo and Hong Kong Theme parks, Broadway musicals (some quite good), and the purchase of Pixar came with just the teensiest bit more than "minimal investment."
Well, MGM and Animal Kingdom aren't nearly as successful as the MK and Epcot, and both parks, while I think still good, aren't great because they were conceived and executed with a we can do less and add later mentality. The Tokyo and Hong Kong parks operate on a different business model. Disenyland Tokyo is owned and operated by The Oriental Land Company under license from The Walt Disney Company. Another 'let someone else do it and take a slice' arrangement. Fortunately for Disneyland Tokyo, The Oriental Land Company has been willing to invest in the parks in a way that The Walt Disney Company hasn't for years. Case in point: Tokyo DisneySea. A much better conceived and executed park than MGM or AK. In Hong Kong the park is not owned and operated by Disney, but rather Hong Kong Interenational Theme Parks, which is jointly owned by Disney and the Government of Hong Kong. Once again, someone elses money is being put to use and you have management outside of Disney making a lot of the decisions. We've talked about the whole animation/Pixar situation, which was a mistake that cost a bundle to fix. So you have a couple of successful Broadway shows, but you can see Disney starting to coast on the brand with that as well, putting forth Tarzan, something that has been widely viewed as less impressive than the previous two long running hits. So your shining examples of Disney investment and quality over the last quarter century ring a little hollow. I still think Disney has done some good things, but it could have been, should have been, so much more.
I've been reading AV's posts for years. I've always got the impression that he thinks well of Frank Wells for what he is, but doesn't paint him as any more talented or more mythical then he was. Prior to Frank Wells' Death, Eisner was a figurehead. Afterwords, Eisner really was in charge.

Wells had no particular creative talent, but he was an impecable media businessman.
I agree Yoho. I don't think he ever held Wells out to be a genius, but he very much was a guiding influence on Eisner. Kept him in check and they did do some good things together. Without that influence Eisner was free to spiral downward.

Another Voice

03-26-2007, 08:54 AM

They have never offered a luxury option, and now have corrected that.
As I must repeatly write - Disney was never interested in offering a "luxury" hotel - they want to offer show.

You keep on swinging at straw agruements without ever bothering to answer any of the real issues. WDW is not suffering because millions of Americans are demanding 600 thread count cotton sheets on their rental beds or anyother place to have a sea salt facial while having their toes steam cleaned.

People want the Real Disney again. People want to be amazed, people want to be wowed. That's why people are lining up for hours to ride 'Soaring' while 'Mission Space' begs for riders. That's why the Magic Kingdom is crammed to the rafters while Animal Kingdom closes early.

The name "Disney" used to be the label for work produced by a group of creative people - a group that could make anything they desired. From movies to theme parks to hotels.

But the Company is trying to make "Disney" a comfort brand for the overly indebted middle class. Slap the Mouse on it, it must mean "quality". The people aren't buying it. They is plenty of the low grade, corporate quality about the Disney represents these days.

But too many people still remember when Disney meant "magic" as more than a marketing slogan. That's what people really want in their lives. All the joint ventures, all the marketing, all the ferns on the Internet aren't going to change that. Millions don't find that at WDW anymore, and the trend is growing.

DancingBear

03-26-2007, 09:04 AM

Hmmm, you've said this a few times but the last time figures were posted that didn't jive. I seem to recall that WDW had in fact recovered from post 9/11 slump. Do you have other figures?I think your recollection of previously posted figures is flawed. Do you have figures that say WDW is back to pre-9/11 attendance?

YoHo

03-26-2007, 10:49 AM

DB is correct, there are no published figures......And there are no guestimates that indicates they have recovered.

Attendence has improved, but it has not recovered to pre-9/11 numbers.
Whereas the other mentioned travel destinations have not just recovered, but exceeded their pre-9/11 numbers.

LuvDuke

03-26-2007, 11:08 AM

Disney provides the same relative quality that it has since Contemporary and Poly debuted. They have never offered a luxury option, and now have corrected that.

Huh? "Disney provides the same relative quality that it has since Contemporary and Poly debuted." Again, huh?

Disney doesn't even provide the same quality it did 5 years ago. Every year, for the last 7 years, my family and I made 3 trips to WDW and stayed at the PO-FQ with some detours to AKL and PO-RS. Last June, we stayed at the PO-FQ and it was a dump. For a 5 night stay, our room was cleaned twice because the other 3 days, housekeeping came at 4:00PM or later after we had been to the parks and were resting. Service was surly or non-existent at the Food Court. The place was dirty.

And for the privilege of no-housekeeping, lousy service, and a dirty food court, we paid $158 per night because Disney did not offer a discount for Florida residents of AP'rs. Yes, I do expect a little something extra for being a loyal, longtime time. Call me entitled.

Bottom line: We have not and will not renew our AP's nor will we be going to WDW.

As far as Disney selling to Four Seasons, if they can't do the job, let someone handle it who can.

Btw, I stayed at the Polynesian in 1982 and it was paradise.

Mickmse2002

03-26-2007, 12:12 PM

......everyone step away from the dead horse.

MassJester

03-26-2007, 01:12 PM

MassJester

03-26-2007, 01:16 PM

Huh? "Disney provides the same relative quality that it has since Contemporary and Poly debuted." Again, huh?

Disney doesn't even provide the same quality it did 5 years ago. Every year, for the last 7 years, my family and I made 3 trips to WDW and stayed at the PO-FQ with some detours to AKL and PO-RS. Last June, we stayed at the PO-FQ and it was a dump. For a 5 night stay, our room was cleaned twice because the other 3 days, housekeeping came at 4:00PM or later after we had been to the parks and were resting. Service was surly or non-existent at the Food Court. The place was dirty.

And for the privilege of no-housekeeping, lousy service, and a dirty food court, we paid $158 per night because Disney did not offer a discount for Florida residents of AP'rs. Yes, I do expect a little something extra for being a loyal, longtime time. Call me entitled.

Bottom line: We have not and will not renew our AP's nor will we be going to WDW.

As far as Disney selling to Four Seasons, if they can't do the job, let someone handle it who can.

Btw, I stayed at the Polynesian in 1982 and it was paradise.

I have had different experiences. My stays have been comfortable, and the service has been consistent.

I'm sorry you didn't enjoy your stay.

MassJester

03-26-2007, 01:17 PM

I think your recollection of previously posted figures is flawed. Do you have figures that say WDW is back to pre-9/11 attendance?

I don't have any on hand, but the repeated assertion here is that attendance has not recovered--where are the facts upon which this assertion is based?

MassJester

03-26-2007, 01:27 PM

As I must repeatly write - Disney was never interested in offering a "luxury" hotel - they want to offer show.

Ok, well say that is true, although I find "never" a glaringly large word in your assertion. Why is it wrong ot offer one now?

But too many people still remember when Disney meant "magic" as more than a marketing slogan. That's what people really want in their lives. All the joint ventures, all the marketing, all the ferns on the Internet aren't going to change that. Millions don't find that at WDW anymore, and the trend is growing.

So you say, but you cannot back that up with any facts or figures. The only thing we have is your "Eeyore's View of Disney" to validate the contentions. Well, if annecdotal expression of satisfaction or not is to carry the day, then these boards are filled with people who are happier customers. You make sweeping statements about attendance being down, customers being disatisfied and people demanding more/different--according to who? You?

YoHo

03-26-2007, 01:29 PM

Amusment business used to publish estimates of yearly attendence. Disney itself has never released numbers.

Last year AB stopped publishing estimates, so we only have numbers through 2005, but Disney has made it clear through the grapevine that attendence was lower then expected at WDW for the 50th and constant rumors about bad attendence in 2006.

As for the AB numbers, they've been quoted repeatedly in numerous threads on this board including one that was going on concurrently with this one a few weeks ago. You can feel free to find them yourself, or wait for someone less ornery to copy and paste them with a golden invitation to read them.

MassJester

03-26-2007, 01:33 PM

Last year AB stopped publishing estimates, so we only have numbers through 2005, but Disney has made it clear through the grapevine that attendence was lower then expected at WDW for the 50th and constant rumors about bad attendence in 2006.

"made it clear through the grapevine'??

That's a source?

MassJester

03-26-2007, 01:35 PM

Disney slams Universal in 2005 theme park attendance
2005-12-27
By Robert Niles: More big news today:

The Walt Disney Company's decision to mark flagship theme park Disneyland's 50th anniversary with newly installed shows and attractions at all its theme parks around the world paid off with significant attendance gains. Amusement Buisness magazine's annual estimate of global theme park attendance gives Disney's parks in the U.S., Japan and France the top 8 spots.

In North America, Walt Disney World's Magic Kingdom continued to lead the nation, with an increase of 6.5 percent, pushing the park's 2005 attendance to more than 16 million visitors. Nationwide, attendance at the nation's top 50 parks increased 4.2 percent.

The big loser in this year's report was Disney's archrival, Universal, which saw attendance at all three of its U.S. parks decrease, led by twin 8.5 percent slides at Universal Orlando's Universal Studios Florida and Islands of Adventure. Apparently, new "Fear Factor" shows on both coasts weren't anywhere near enough to draw fans from the competing Disney parks down the road.

Universal's Islands of Adventure lost the top spot in the annual Theme Park Insider Awards to Tokyo DisneySea this summer, in part due to a lack of new attractions at the Orlando park. Now IoA has suffered the further indignity of dropping behind Disney's California Adventure in annual attendance. (Though it must be noted that DCA's attendance was helped greatly by sopping up the overflow crowds from Disneyland's blockbuster 50th aniversary celebration.)

Here are the numbers for the top 25 parks in North America, courtesy Amusement Business:

Magic Kingdom at Walt Disney World in Orlando, 16.1 million, +6.5 percent
Disneyland in Anaheim, Calif. 14.5 million, +8.5 percent
Epcot at Walt Disney World in Orlando, 9.9 million, +5.5 percent
Disney-MGM Studios at Walt Disney World in Orlando, 8.6 million, +5 percent
Disney's Animal Kingdom at Walt Disney World in Orlando, 8.2 million, +5 percent
Universal Studios Florida at Universal Orlando, 6.1 million, -8.5 percent
Disney's California Adventure in Anaheim, Calif., 5.8 million, +3.6 percent
Universal's Islands of Adventure at Universal Orlando, 5.76 million, -8.5 percent
SeaWorld Orlando, 5.6 million, +0.2 percent
Universal Studios Hollywood, 4.7 million, -6 percent
Adventuredome at Circus Circus in Las Vegas, 4.5 million, +2.3 percent
Busch Gardens Tampa Bay, 4.3 million, +5.1 percent
SeaWorld San Diego, 4.1 million, +2.5 percent
Paramount Canada's Wonderland in Maple, Ontario, 3.6 million, +7 percent
Knott's Berry Farm in Buena Park, Calif., 3.47 million, -3 percent
Paramount's Kings Island in Kings Island, Ohio, 3.3 million, -5.1 percent
Morey's Piers in Wildwood, N.J., 3.1 million, +1 percent
Cedar Point in Sandusky, Ohio, 3.1 million, -2 percent
Santa Cruz Beach Boardwalk in Santa Cruz, Calif., 3 million, flat
Six Flags Great Adventure in Jackson, N.J., 2.9 million, +6 percent
Six Flags Great America in Gurnee, Ill., 2.8 million, +24 percent
Six Flags Magic Mountain in Valencia, Calif., 2.8 million, +5 percent
Hersheypark in Hershey, Pa., 2.7 million, flat
Busch Gardens Williamsburg, 2.6 million, +8.3 percent
Dollywood in Pigeon Forge, Tenn., 2.3 million, +7.3 percent

This is the nearest bit of information I could find. I thought I read someone quote MK attendance in 2000 as 15 million, but I'll keep looking.

YoHo

03-26-2007, 01:40 PM

"made it clear through the grapevine'??

That's a source?

I have no interest in causing trouble for those in a position to know what's going on in Burbank.

Would you prefer if I said "Deep Throat?"

There are sources for information which cannot be confirmed by news media. When taken with the AB info, it paints a single logical picture.

I suppose I should dig up the info. Hold on.

YoHo

03-26-2007, 01:43 PM

I could only find the info for DL, I'm pretty sure Raidermatt knows where it is.

MassJester

03-26-2007, 01:47 PM

I could only find the info for DL, I'm pretty sure Raidermatt knows where it is.

I thought the AB numbers posted above told a nice story. Not exactly the depressed picture you'd expect after reading how badly everything is going.

YoHo

03-26-2007, 01:52 PM

Those are for one year. How does that matter when we're talking about the year 2000?

Another Voice

03-26-2007, 02:10 PM

It's simple - if Disney was hitting record attendance you'd hear it trumpted at each and every report, news conference and rope drop announcement the company made. Disney is a business - you know. Those kinds of things not only help the stock price, but they stroke the management's ego to no end. Yes, being up 6.5% from a previous low number is wonderful - but the company has never said it's even fully recovered to 9/11 levels, let alone peak attendance in 2000.

Hell, if Dollywood can post a 7.3% growth compared to my merger 5%, I'd be embarassed too.

And where are your facts and figures that everything is so happy. Where are your record crowds, where are your higher than ever occupancy rates.

Let's hear some figures from you to back up your statements*.

But discussions about attendance is all a gimick anyway. You know in your gut that hotel discounts, free food and "Year of a Million Turkey Legs" all really points to. Cheap debating techniques aren't going to hide the real problem, even if you try to deny it.

How many years did we get "Disney is happy with the returns from their Feature Animation offerings" during the years of Emperor's New Groove and Atlantis. Corporate camels always spin and spew - right up until the day they have to justify closing down the same unit they just hyped up.

So, continue to spin. Next month we'll get to hear why it's so wonderful that Disney doesn't have to operate its sit down restuaruants any more. Then we'll hear about this unit or that unit being sold off - and how it's all for the best. Every move the company makes is wonderful.

Except for the one that cuts off your paycheck.

* - Since I won't be around to get your answer, I'll just assume the old high school debating club trick "I'm not making the allegation, so I don't have to prove anything" non-answer and move on from there.

MassJester

03-26-2007, 02:16 PM

This is the best I could find from the following web site:

http://www.wdisneyw.co.uk/attend.html

Of course, it is not an unidentified/unamed source in the know, but perhaps it moves the discussion forward.

2003

Magic Kingdom - 14 million

Epcot - 8.6 million

Disney-MGM Studios - 7.9 million

Animal Kingdom - 7.3 million

Universal Studios Florida - 6.9 million

Islands of Adventure - 6.1 million

SeaWorld Florida - 5.2 million

2002

Magic Kingdom - 14 million

Epcot - 8.3 million

Disney-MGM Studios - 8 million

Animal Kingdom - 7.3 million

Universal Studios Florida - 6.9 million

Islands of Adventure - 6.1 million

SeaWorld Florida - 5 million

2001

Magic Kingdom - 14.7 million

Epcot - 9 million

Disney-MGM Studios - 8.3 million

Animal Kingdom - 7.7 million

Universal Studios Florida - 7.2 million

Islands of Adventure - 5.5 million

SeaWorld Florida - 5.1 million

2000

Magic Kingdom - 15.4 million

Epcot - 10.6 million

Disney-MGM Studios - 8.9 million

Animal Kingdom - 8.3 million

Universal Studios Florida - 8.1 million

Islands of Adventure - 6 million

SeaWorld Florida - 5.2 million

1999

Magic Kingdom - 15.2 million

Epcot - 10.1 million

Disney-MGM Studios - 8.7 million

Animal Kingdom - 8.6 million.

hopemax

03-26-2007, 02:25 PM

As a project, awhile back, I gathered these numbers:

http://www.geocities.com/hopemax.geo/wdwattendence.htm

MassJester

03-26-2007, 02:29 PM

Let's hear some figures from you to back up your statements*.

You're a riot. You make the assertion, and when I question where you get your facts you come back with "prove me wrong." Have you ever worked for the Bush Administration?

So, continue to spin. Next month we'll get to hear why it's so wonderful that Disney doesn't have to operate its sit down restuaruants any more. Then we'll hear about this unit or that unit being sold off - and how it's all for the best. Every move the company makes is wonderful.

You sloganeering is so compelling, it almost makes one forget that you offer no facts to back up your points.

Except for the one that cuts off your paycheck.

They'd have a hard time affecting my paycheck.

* - Since I won't be around to get your answer, I'll just assume the old high school debating club trick "I'm not making the allegation, so I don't have to prove anything" non-answer and move on from there.

Trick? No trick at all my good DISer--you got caught making statements you can't support.

Safe travels.

YoHo

03-26-2007, 02:35 PM

So MK appears to be hitting a record attendence level, but WDW overall is still off.

And as AV says, it's including all sorts of gimicks to get you there like free food and discounts.

MassJester

03-26-2007, 02:45 PM

So MK appears to be hitting a record attendence level, but WDW overall is still off.

And as AV says, it's including all sorts of gimicks to get you there like free food and discounts.

And yet revenues are up -- no tripple secret source for that, the annual report will do. So these "gimicks" can't be very costly.

DancingBear

03-26-2007, 03:09 PM

And yet revenues are up -- no tripple secret source for that, the annual report will do. So these "gimicks" can't be very costly.Better provide your citations for park revenues and the time periods you are comparing.

DancingBear

03-26-2007, 03:29 PM

Here's some interesting figures (sources are the 2000 and 2006 10-Ks):

2000 Parks and Resorts Revenue: $6.8 billion
2006 Parks and Resorts Revenue: $9.9 billion

2000 Parks and Resorts Operating Income: $1.62 billion
2006 Parks and Resorts Operating Income: $1.53 billion.

So, MJ is correct that revenues have increased. But it looks like costs have increased at a much greater rate.

DisneyKidds

03-26-2007, 03:41 PM

Hmmm.......no mention of the fact that inflationary factors could cause the revenues to be up, even if overall attendance were static, or even down.

But that wouldn't fit the argument very well I suppose.

YoHo

03-26-2007, 04:16 PM

Which is interesting considering the number of cuts since 2000.

raidermatt

03-26-2007, 04:47 PM

There are also more Disney parks and hotels open in 2006 than in 2000. Tokyo DisneySeas, DCA, Disney Studios Paris, Hong Kong Disneyland, Pop Century, Beach Club Villas, Saratoga Springs DVC, and DLR's Downtown Disney all opened after 2000 (parts of DLR's DTD opened during 2000 I believe). The Boardwalk Villas DVC, Vero Beach DVC and Hilton Head DVC were also all still selling in 2000.

Forgive me if I missed anything.

I sure would hope that revenues would be up. Doesn't really tell us much though.

The stock price has underperformed vs. both the DJIA and S&P 500 at the 5, 10 and 15 year comparison marks.

While that doesn't address the comparison of a hypothetical Disney vs. the current Disney, it does tell us Disney's performance vs. other coroporate entities has been less than steller over the long haul.

LuvDuke

03-26-2007, 05:38 PM

And yet revenues are up -- no tripple secret source for that, the annual report will do. So these "gimicks" can't be very costly.

For crying out loud, you don't have to be a genius to figure out how Disney's revenues went up.

Here's a basic law of economics: When you charge more per head than the cost of gimmicks, you make a profit. Disney raised their prices twice last year. They raised their parking fees. They raised the prices of AP's and renewals. That's how they made their money. And, btw, that's how they lost this longtime customer and AP'r.

manning

03-26-2007, 09:23 PM

They raised the prices of AP's and renewals. That's how they made their money. And, btw, that's how they lost this longtime customer and AP'r.

I hear ya. I own DVC and the last two visits (25 days each) very little time and money was spent at Disney. And when we didn't go off property we mostly stayed in our room and ate in. Even ordered pizza off property.

larry_poppins

03-27-2007, 01:14 AM

LuvDuke

03-27-2007, 10:11 AM

Hey LuvDuke and Manning you can beat Disney at their own game. You can use Magical Express to go to DVC and then when you are their you can rent a car for the days you need it to go off property. Then use Magical Express to get back to the airport. You save money on airport transportation. You only rent a car for the days you need it. And instead of trapping you on property you are able to Magical Express allows you to come and go on and save money.

Larry

For me and my family, Disney outsmarted themselves with their price increases, lousy service, and a screw-you attitude towards the Florida resident. We took it one step further: We don't go at all.

Instead, we're going to US/IOA for 3 days, staying at the Royal Pacific for $179 per night, enjoy FOTL access to ALL attractions, a 20% discount on ALL merchandise/food, and an AP that cost $99 to renew.

In addition, with the money we're saving while staying away from the Disney's fabulous new "1,312,401" dream gimmick, we're going to Washington DC via a 2 week car vacation.

Maybe next year, when Disney comes out with a new gimmick, we'll take our Disney vacation money and go to Hawaii instead of a Disney 3-star version of Polynesia at 5-star prices. Keep 'em coming, Iger. ;)

ConcKahuna

03-27-2007, 01:06 PM

[QUOTE=LuvDuke;17775403]

Instead, we're going to US/IOA for 3 days, ...[QUOTE]

You can spend 3 days there? I have an AP, but even if I bring people who have never been I can go to both parks and do everything in one day LOL

And being a Poly fan, I do have to say that they are now a 4-diamond resort. Both them and the Grand just got the 4th diamond.

LuvDuke

03-27-2007, 01:34 PM

You can spend 3 days there? I have an AP, but even if I bring people who have never been I can go to both parks and do everything in one day LOL

And being a Poly fan, I do have to say that they are now a 4-diamond resort. Both them and the Grand just got the 4th diamond.

Yanno what they say about "different strokes".

YoHo

03-27-2007, 02:11 PM

Yanno what they say about "different strokes".

That it takes them to move the world, yes it does?

rwodonnell

03-27-2007, 04:20 PM

You know, I have been wondering what exactly is a "luxury hotel", if none of the expensive (to me anyway) Disney resorts qualified.
WDW is not suffering because millions of Americans are demanding 600 thread count cotton sheets on their rental beds or anyother place to have a sea salt facial while having their toes steam cleaned.

:lmao: Thanks, AV, for shining the light on that mystery, and giving me a good laugh! Given the choice between steam-cleaned toes, and a well-themed "storybook setting", I'll take the storybook!

LuvDuke

03-27-2007, 08:22 PM

That it takes them to move the world, yes it does?

Mr. YoHo, you lost me here. ;)

YoHo

03-27-2007, 08:54 PM

Now, the world don't move to the beat of just one drum,
What might be right for you, may not be right for some.
A man is born, he's a man of means.
Then along come two, they got nothing but their jeans.

But they got, Diff'rent Strokes.
It takes, Diff'rent Strokes.
It takes, Diff'rent Strokes to move the world.

Everybody's got a special kind of story
Everybody finds a way to shine,
It don't matter that you got not alot
So what,
They'll have theirs, and you'll have yours, and I'll have mine.
And together we'll be fine....

Because it takes, Diff'rent Strokes to move the world.
Yes it does.
It takes, Diff'rent Strokes to move the world.

LuvDuke

03-27-2007, 08:59 PM

DisneyKidds

03-27-2007, 10:19 PM

What u talkin about Luv........

DisneyKidds

03-27-2007, 10:21 PM

Think TV shows.

Think really screwed up child actors.

YoHo

03-27-2007, 10:34 PM

Now I think loansharks when I think of him. Cause he's always advertising one of those payday loans places.

LuvDuke

03-27-2007, 11:44 PM

Oh for crying out loud, if it had teeth, it would've bitten me. Honestly, though, I never watched the show.

raidermatt

03-28-2007, 12:11 PM

Heathen.

raidermatt

03-28-2007, 12:19 PM

If you'd like to hear somebody other than the local yocals on this board make some of the same points about these two developments, have a listen to the latest episode of the DIS Unplugged podcast. It's discussed during the first 20 or so minutes, in conjunction with the potential developments at Disneyland Resort.

Not that it proves anything, but maybe it would help to hear it coming from someone without all the baggage some us longtime posters seem to be hauling (at least in the eyes of some).

NCRDU2007

04-01-2007, 07:06 AM

Hello everyone!

As you can see, I'm new to this board, and I'd like to state why Four Seasons is a good idea for Disney. For background information, I'm 43 with a partner of 17 years, without children. We both love to travel and have been fortunate to visit many wonderful and different places.

Someone mentioned "value", which is what I almost always look for in ANY of my purchases; be that a hotel stay, restaurant dinner, or piece of clothing. That said, I've found the deluxe resorts at Disney tend to be overpriced for what is offered. I've stayed at the CR and POLY, and both times we were upgraded to concierge level rooms. Those upgrades made the "value" of what we paid for, rise greatly.

Disney can, and I believe will, in the future, offer a five diamond, five star type hotel. Obviously, the first will be managed/owned by Four Seasons.

That competition will greatly encourage the Grand Floridian to rise to the occasion. Every exterior light bulb will ALWAYS be lit! The linens will have to be luxury grade, and the bath toiletries will be a recognized exclusive brand. There will be no need to have flowers ordered for the room, the Grand Floridian florist will already have an arrangement in your room. Don't worry techies, wireless internet access is complimentary, along with a three line cordless phone, and flat screen TV in the bath.

All guests, including visitor's to Disney, wish for something they can not get at home. I want my hotel's grounds, rooms and public areas to be at least as nice as at home.

The Four Seasons is a done deal. If you don't think it is a good idea for Disney, don't stay there!

Jaybrad

04-10-2007, 09:04 AM

Horace Horsecollar

04-10-2007, 09:22 AM

Last month while we were visiting WDW I played golf with a couple of WDW employees and they told me that Disney was selling the Osprey Ridge and Eagle Pines property to Four Seasons. They said the golf courses would be torn our for the Four Seasons Resort. I can't imagine why. They said the property was selling for one billion dollars. Can anyone confirm this?

See the thread New Four Seasons Timeshare on Disney Property and Value Oriented West Side (http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=1374232), which began March 1, 2007, on this forum. It includes the press release and discussion.

The business terms between Four Seasons and Disney were not disclosed. The amount of "one billion dollars" sound like a cast member rumor.

dwelty

04-10-2007, 09:48 AM

Horace Horsecollar

04-10-2007, 10:33 AM

Are they actually Selling the property, or is this just a long term land lease (Similar to the Dolphin and Swan)? I have read nothing anywhere that talks about an actual land "Purchase" I cannot see Disney selling this land outright.
The Disney Company and Four Seasons have only announced a Letter of Intent, so the financial terms were not disclosed (and may not yet be finalized). Some news articles said Disney would "team" with Four Seasons, but that could mean almost anything (or nothing).

Disney will eventually disclose as much as a publicly traded American corporation is required to disclose by the SEC. Currently, Four Seasons is a publicly traded Canadian company, but they're in the process of going private, so they might not have to disclose anything publicly.

In any case, I would be skeptical of the billion dollar figure from a WDW employee. Sure, we're talking 900 acres of valuable land, but my guess is that the financial terms will be far more complicated than a simple, outright purchase by Four Seasons.

raidermatt

04-10-2007, 12:05 PM

It is very likely that they are selling a portion of the property. Disney is seeking to de-annex a portion of it for the fractional ownership homes. This is so the owners will not have voting rights in the RCID. The only way they would have voting rights is if they owned the land, hence its a good bet the that portion is being sold.

With regard to the rest of the land, nothing was stated one way or the other.

crazy4wdw

04-10-2007, 01:03 PM

I am going to merge this thread with the initial thread on the Four Seasons Development so we'll have all of the discussion in one place.

Horace Horsecollar

04-10-2007, 01:26 PM

The only way they would have voting rights is if they owned the land, hence its a good bet the that portion is being sold.
That's not correct. Please think about it.

Voting rights are a function of residency, not ownership. If you live in an apartment in New York City, you would vote in New York City. But I could own that apartment building and the ground on which it sits, but I wouldn't be allowed to vote in New York City if my primary residence is in Illinois. (I don't really own any apartment buildings in New York City.)

Yes, the Four Seasons site has been de-annexed from the Reedy Creek Improvement District (RCID) because there will homes which people could use as the their primary residences. But right now we don't know if those homes will be built on leased property or fee-simple property, or if the homes themselves will be a long-term leases (like DVC) or owned outright.

DancingBear

04-10-2007, 01:38 PM

Yes, the Four Seasons site has been de-annexed from the Reedy Creek Improvement District (RCID) because there will homes which people could use as the their primary residences. But right now we don't know if those homes will be built on leased property or fee-simple property, or if the homes themselves will be a long-term leases (like DVC) or owned outright.But there's really no effective difference as far as whether that land is "gone" from WDW, at least in our lifetimes.

Horace Horsecollar

04-10-2007, 02:09 PM

But there's really no effective difference as far as whether that land is "gone" from WDW, at least in our lifetimes.
Yes. The land will be developed with Four Seasons-branded projects, not with Disney-branded projects.

But there is still an open question of the degree to which the Four Seasons development will be "part" of Walt Disney World. Will it be along the lines of the WDW Swan & Dolphin complex -- a development that's integrated with WDW transportation and which provides more dining options to WDW resort guests. Or will it be more like a higher-end version of something along the lines Marriott's Orlando World Center or the Bonnet Creek Resort -- nearby, but a completely separate entity from Walt Disney World?

Will the Four Seasons development be marketed as "within Walt Disney World" -- or has WDW simply lost 900 acres? In the former case, Disney will have influence (even if RCID does not govern the property). In the latter case, Disney has simply turned the land into money.

I'm not as negative about the Four Seasons announcement as some people here. I see a potential upside. We'll have new dining an shopping choices (presumably very good ones) within the Four Seasons development. Also, if Disney wants the guest from Four Seasons to spend money at Disney restaurants, shops, and attractions, then Disney will have to provide the high quality that Four Seasons guests expect and demand -- in which case we might all benefit.

Finally, if Disney wants to make money from unused and underused property at WDW, then I'm glad it's not for something like an industrial complex or a "Lake Buena Vista Auto Mall." The Four Seasons development will undoubtedly be of the highest quality and will further make Central Florida into more than just a place where parents take their little kids to see Mickey.

raidermatt

04-10-2007, 05:13 PM

You're right about the residency thing. That's not what's being reported (no, not just by AV), but its possible.

But I think its a pretty big stretch to think Four Seasons will build a residence club without owning the land, or at the least having a 99+ year lease.

I'm not as negative about the Four Seasons announcement as some people here. I see a potential upside. We'll have new dining an shopping choices (presumably very good ones) within the Four Seasons development. Also, if Disney wants the guest from Four Seasons to spend money at Disney restaurants, shops, and attractions, then Disney will have to provide the high quality that Four Seasons guests expect and demand -- in which case we might all benefit.

That gets back to the basic point though, which is Disney is, or at least should be, capable of providing some high quality options of its own. I can't even begin to agree with Disney brininging in Four Seasons as a way to force themselves to raise their own bar. What's more, I wouldn't see Disney turning more restaurants into V&A's a good thing anyway.

Finally, if Disney wants to make money from unused and underused property at WDW, then I'm glad it's not for something like an industrial complex or a "Lake Buena Vista Auto Mall." The Four Seasons development will undoubtedly be of the highest quality and will further make Central Florida into more than just a place where parents take their little kids to see Mickey.

Well, Stitch's Encounter is also better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, but that's not really a relevant comparison, and neither is an industrial complex or auto mall. Using that line of thinking, we'd also have to be happy if they brought in Motel 6.

Sure, the Four Seasons will be of the highest quality (and the highest price), but again, that says nothing about what alternatives for the land Disney could have come up with themselves.

There's no denying the fact that this, along with the Western Beltway development, is Disney trading its creative potential for at best being a landlord.

Horace Horsecollar

04-11-2007, 09:55 AM

There's no denying the fact that this, along with the Western Beltway development, is Disney trading its creative potential for at best being a landlord.
I agree with you there.

It's a shame that Disney is not looking for ways to broaden the appeal of Walt Disney World as a vacation destination -- to attract new guests, and to encourage once-on-a-lifetime guests to return more often.

However, all things considered, if Disney must use outside companies to turn under-used WDW real estate into money, then the Four Seasons development isn't nearly as bad as other things that Disney could have done.

DancingBear

04-11-2007, 10:49 AM

However, all things considered, if Disney must use outside companies to turn under-used WDW real estate into money, then the Four Seasons development isn't nearly as bad as other things that Disney could have done.The problem is that's become the standard, rather than "It's not nearly as good as other things that Disney could have done."

DancingBear

04-17-2007, 12:29 PM

I had dinner the other evening with a neighbor who is a long-time hotelier. Now an executive for the Ritz-Carlton, he also worked for Disney in the opening of the hotels at EuroDisney. I talked to him about the Four Seasons WDW deal and the inability of the Grand Floridian to achieve Mobile 4-star status, and asked him what made the difference for a hotel to achieve a 4- or 5- star rating. He said that, while of course you needed to have the proper facilities, what makes the difference are their people. They train their people to "wow" their guests by paying attention and anticipating things which will make their guests' experience wonderful.

I pointed out that the unemployment rate in the Orlando area was very low, but as the R-C at Grande Lakes in Orlando was hiring from basically the same pool as Disney, how would R-C have a better staff? He talked about their emphasis on hiring and training; he was surprised to hear that the Traditions program at Disney has been cut back. He talked about how the R-C empowers their employees to not only resolve issues for guests, but, again, to anticipate those things which might please a guest even before the guest makes a request. He talked about how this emphasis on service is reaffirmed through things such as a daily "lineup," in which everyone company-wide receives the same messages, and twice-weekly stories of how company employees went above and beyond to please the guests.

Based on this discussion, I go back to the earlier parts of this thread, and repeat my belief that the GF's inability to achieve greatness is a matter of management priorities and not any inherent issues it has with being part of the larger resort.

YoHo

04-17-2007, 01:21 PM

And I would suggest that traditionally, all WDW hotels metthat experience emphasis. Traditions didn't die out until much more recently.

It's probably a combination of issues.
Certainly though I agree that the size of the company isn't the issue.

OrlandoMike

04-17-2007, 04:04 PM

It also has a lot to do with the fact that Disney resorts have to basically let EVERYONE through the doors.

"I'm here to shop"

"I'm here to have dinner with Mickey"

"I'm here to just look around"

Imagine if the GF was for GF resort guests only, period!

The Four Seasons can put in a gate and let their guests enjoy their privacy.

raidermatt

04-17-2007, 04:26 PM

Are you saying that the guests of other resorts entering the GF grounds prevent the GF staff from providing top service to the GF guests?

Or is it the mere presence of non-guests that prevents the GF from acheiving 4 or 5 star status, regardless of how they treat the GF guests?

If it's the former, I disagree. If its the latter, than I guess that means the Four Seasons WILL put up a gate to keep non-guests of the Four Seasons out?

Do they do that elsewhere? I've never stayed at a Four Seasons, but I did eat at one of their resaurants and there was nothing to keep us out.

DancingBear

04-17-2007, 04:35 PM

Only the main building of the GF has lots of non-GF guests roaming through. Nothing about that keeps the GF from having 24 hour full-menu room service, for example. And I think GF could choose to have a GF-guest only lounge somewhere and it wouldn't be a big deal.

The 4-star (Mobil) Four Seasons in Las Vegas is inside of the Mandalay Bay. It has a separate pool area, but shares the lobby area/casino/restaurants and shopping with the hoi polloi.

raidermatt

04-17-2007, 04:53 PM

It's a shame that Disney is not looking for ways to broaden the appeal of Walt Disney World as a vacation destination -- to attract new guests, and to encourage once-on-a-lifetime guests to return more often.

However, all things considered, if Disney must use outside companies to turn under-used WDW real estate into money, then the Four Seasons development isn't nearly as bad as other things that Disney could have done.

Lesser of evils? I get that, and its probably a better practical view given the circumstances. But I'm still holding out.

Another Voice

04-20-2007, 08:41 PM

Voting rights are a function of residency, not ownership.
It's in the set up of the Reedy Creek Improvement District. Only landowners of property within the district's boundry are allowed to vote and sit on the board. Celebration was kicked out so that homeowners there couldn't become part of the governing body. And, in the past, Disney has sold tiny amounts of land to certain individuals so they could sit and service on the RCID board. I also understand the plan is de-annex the Four Seasons land from The City of Bay Lake, this will turn "policitical" control over to Orange County.

It seems clear that Disney is following Rasulo's template of the vast land sales at Euro Disney. It was a quick land-for-money deal: there no formal connection between be the hotels built on former EDL land and the current Disneyland Paris. The same thing has happened with Celebration (which is now just another housing development near WDW), the same thing will likely happen to the Four Seasons resort and adjacent tract housing.

DisOrBust

04-23-2007, 10:46 AM

Forgive my ignorance but is this where the Four Season development is going/replacing? My understanding was that DVC was very profitable for the company so why the change of plans.

Disney Vacation Club Announces Plans for Largest Ownership Resort to Date At Walt Disney World Resort

LAKE BUENA VISTA, Fla.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--July 23, 2001--Disney Vacation Development, Inc., operators of Disney Vacation Club (DVC) -- Disney's innovative vacation ownership program -- announced today that it will expand its timeshare resort presence at the Walt Disney World Resort in Florida (subject to obtaining necessary approvals) by building a seventh DVC property. This latest development for the growing Disney Vacation Club product marks the Company's largest ownership resort project to date.

The announcement heralds a time of exciting growth for Disney Vacation Club, which now boasts a membership of nearly 60,000 member families from over 60 countries.

The proposed 600-unit ownership development is slated to occupy a 61-acre site along the award-winning Disney's Eagle Pines Golf Course at Walt Disney World Resort. All rooms will feature either a pool, golf course or forest view. Initial plans call for the construction of a main Inn building encompassing a check-in area; accommodations; restaurant/lounge; theme pool with feature slide; retail space; arcade; common living room area and a health club, as well as Villa buildings containing vacation home accommodations. Development will begin this fall with an estimated opening in Spring/Summer 2004.

"We are very excited to expand the Disney Vacation Club concept to an entirely new resort area here at Walt Disney World Resort," said George Aguel, Senior Vice President and General Manager of Disney Vacation Development, Inc. "I am confident that this new offering will be a successful addition to the dynamic vacation options we provide."

The theme of the proposed DVC resort will complement and enhance the beautiful setting found at Disney's Eagle Pines Golf Course. The new resort will be inspired by the architecture of Addison Mizner, a celebrated early 20th century architect who led the renaissance of Florida resort design. The property's design will reflect a variety of motifs found in indigenous Florida buildings of this era, including Spanish, Moorish, Romanesque and Gothic forms. The atmosphere and elegance found in the coastal communities of southeast Florida (including West Palm Beach and Boca Raton) will be found in the resort's architecture, ranging from tile roofs to fountains to lush, tropical landscaping.

Commissioned to design the resort was renowned architect Graham Gund, who created the architectural look for such Disney projects as Disney's Coronado Springs Resort and Disney's Vero Beach Resort -- another Disney Vacation Club property. Gund designed the resort to take advantage of the pristine setting found at Disney's Eagle Pines Golf Course while maintaining the integrity of the existing golf course. Guests at the resort will have views to Disney's Eagle Pines Golf Course but golfers' view of the property will be buffered, with resort buildings "stepping down" in height as they near the golf holes.

The new resort is scheduled to open in phases, with the first phase consisting of the Inn building and five Villa buildings for a total of 360 units. The Inn and one Villa building are currently expected to open in Spring/Summer 2004, with the four additional Villa buildings opening throughout the remainder of that year. The final phase of five additional Villa buildings containing 240 units are currently anticipated to open by Spring/Summer 2005.

As Disney Vacation Club approaches its decade mark on October 1, 2001, the Company is celebrating a number of achievements, including the expansion of its resort collection through the proposed addition of the new resort at Disney's Eagle Pines Golf Course and the completion of Disney's Beach Club Villas, which is currently under construction at Walt Disney World Resort next to the popular Disney's Beach Club Resort (expected opening in September 2002).

"These latest expansions of our successful vacation ownership program will allow us to provide still more magical experiences for our guest and member families," added Aguel.

The current collection of Disney Vacation Club Resorts includes Disney's Old Key West Resort; Disney's BoardWalk Villas and The Villas at Disney's Wilderness Lodge -- all located at the Walt Disney World Resort -- as well as Disney's first resorts beyond the Disney theme park locations; Disney's Vero Beach Resort on Florida's Atlantic Coast and Disney's Hilton Head Island Resort in South Carolina.

G8RFAN

04-23-2007, 12:02 PM

Maybe the union's collective agreement with Disney has influence in this. A higher end hotel has by nature a much higher level of expectation from it's staff for service and attention. From true concierge to true turn down service, all employees must be able to act and appear professional, while their rewards are generally healthy gratuities. If a floor manager/housekeeping staff can make more money working at RC or at a FS, than a Marriott or Hilton, great. But I'm not sure the staff at GF makes more than any of the other deluxes by design.

Horace Horsecollar

04-23-2007, 03:05 PM

Forgive my ignorance but is this where the Four Season development is going/replacing? My understanding was that DVC was very profitable for the company so why the change of plans.
Yes, the Four Seasons-anchored luxury resort and golf community includes the site of the announced (but never built) DVC resort at Eagle Pines Golf Course.

According to this excerpt from the official Disney press release (http://corporate.disney.go.com/corporate/moreinfo/four_seasons030207.html):

"Along the northeast border of Walt Disney World Resort, Disney plans to convert its Eagle Pines and Osprey Ridge golf courses into a luxury resort and golf community. The development will include a luxury hotel, 18-hole championship golf course, single- and multi-family vacation homes and fractional ownership vacation homes.

"Disney entered into a letter of intent with Four Seasons Hotels and Resorts to bring these two complementary and respected brands together to anchor a new world-class family resort destination."

This page at MiceAge (http://www.miceage.com/kevinyee/ky031507b.htm) has a map of the Four Seasons site.

That doesn't mean that DVC won't keep expanding. It just eliminates the Eagle Pines Golf Course location.

umbluegray

05-26-2007, 10:24 PM

and gives up land in the process.

Disney announces two major resort expansions (http://www.bizjournals.com/memphis/othercities/orlando/stories/2007/02/26/daily30.html)

Orlando Business Journal - March 1, 2007
by Bob Mervine
Staff Writer

Walt Disney World said Thursday it is developing two large tracts of land on different areas of its 43-square mile property, one aimed at high-dollar luxury guests and the other designed to appeal to a more moderately-priced audience.

The announcement came from Meg Crofton, president of Walt Disney World, at a seminar for business journalists at the Central Florida resort.

The first, a 900-acre golf community, would replace the existing Eagle Pines golf course at the Bonnet Creek Golf Club with an as yet undetermined-sized Four Seasons hotel.

Disney says it has signed a letter of intent with the Toronto-based company.

Four Seasons (NYSE: FS), a luxury hotel product new to Central Florida, would also renovate the existing Osprey Ridge course and rebrand it as a Four Seasons course.

Also planned within the golf community are fractional homes and single-family homes on land that would be de-annexed by the Reedy Creek Improvement District and annexed into Orange County.

Disney says it expects to open the Four Seasons hotel by 2010 and a phase of the residential units at the same time.

The second project, also unnamed, is located on 450 acres near the new Western Beltway that Disney plans to sell to an as-yet-unnamed developer or group of developers.

Crofton describes it as appealing to the value- and mid-priced market and containing a mix of 4,000 to 5,000 non-Disney branded time share and low- to mid-rise hotel units. The area would also include 300,000 to 500,000 square feet of retail space -- shops, restaurants, entertainment venues and clubs -- aimed at the visitors staying in the complex.

No dollar amount was set for either project.

The announcement was unusual for Disney, since the company generally avoids announcing major projects without providing great detail about the expansion.

Disney Public Affairs Vice President Bill Warren explained the haste behind the announcement was driven by the need to begin de-annexation of the planned single-family homes. "We know there's not as much detail as you are used to," Warren told the business writers group, "however we felt an obligation to inform our local government partners about our plans."

The Walt Disney Co. (NYSE: DIS) is a diversified worldwide entertainment company. Its Parks and Resorts division owns and operates Disneyland and the Walt Disney World Resort. The company was founded in 1923 and is based in Burbank, Calif.

OKW Lover

05-27-2007, 05:51 AM

Isn't this the same story that was around a few months ago? I don't see anything new in it.

crazy4wdw

05-27-2007, 07:19 AM

This information has already been discussed extensively on another thread. I'm merging this thread with initial thread on the Four Seasons developement.

mitros

03-30-2008, 06:14 PM

Maybe Eisner wasn't so bad after all.

.........at least he didn't sell off Walt's property, :confused3 right? I'm sorry, but this has GOT to get Walt spinning in his grave!

BlakeNJ

04-01-2008, 09:24 AM

Is there anyone out there that could post one of those cool google earth maps to show me where this property is going up? I'm having a hard time picturing it's location.

THanks!

Blakely

Mouseaholic!!!

04-01-2008, 02:21 PM

As I must repeatly write - Disney was never interested in offering a "luxury" hotel - they want to offer show.

You keep on swinging at straw agruements without ever bothering to answer any of the real issues. WDW is not suffering because millions of Americans are demanding 600 thread count cotton sheets on their rental beds or anyother place to have a sea salt facial while having their toes steam cleaned.

People want the Real Disney again. People want to be amazed, people want to be wowed. That's why people are lining up for hours to ride 'Soaring' while 'Mission Space' begs for riders. That's why the Magic Kingdom is crammed to the rafters while Animal Kingdom closes early.

The name "Disney" used to be the label for work produced by a group of creative people - a group that could make anything they desired. From movies to theme parks to hotels.

But the Company is trying to make "Disney" a comfort brand for the overly indebted middle class. Slap the Mouse on it, it must mean "quality". The people aren't buying it. They is plenty of the low grade, corporate quality about the Disney represents these days.

But too many people still remember when Disney meant "magic" as more than a marketing slogan. That's what people really want in their lives. All the joint ventures, all the marketing, all the ferns on the Internet aren't going to change that. Millions don't find that at WDW anymore, and the trend is growing.

Ok, Let me apologize at the outset for not reading all of the skajillion posts here. I have, however, been waiting for the Four Seasons discussion to begin.

You see, I have been waiting for Anaheim to feel the affects of a TRUE and HONEST luxury offering on property.

We all love our Delux properties....the convenience to EPCOT at Christmas time, a quick boatride to the Magic Kingdom. The problem is......their definition of Delux does not match what is outside the park. Come on.....we didn't even have coffee pots as standard in the Delux resorts until a few years ago.

The reson offered here has often been....location...location....location.

Well, the Four Seasons will have location....location....location and I bet their designers have been ALL OVER WDW. I suspect the design of this new resort is going to WOW us like Disney has not in a long time. I agree, Values make a statement.....tacky and vulgar.

Now that Anaheim is going to allow REAL Delux and Luxury resorts on property, I believe their older properties...smaller rooms, less amenities are not going to stand up in comparison. Heck.....until recently we had the same bath ammenities as a Value Resort at the Beach Club. In TRUE Delux properties it's the service, style and the thousands of little touches that take you to a level above others. At Disney Delux resorts it's been....lets raise the prices each year and see how much less $$$ we can get away with spending.

We ALL love our favorite resorts......but $325 for Value Season for a small room (in comparison to what is outside the gates)....how long will they continue to get away with that??????

I suspect we are all going to be shown what a TRUE resort should look like and I suspect the service is going to blow away Disney Resorts. The Four Seasons is going to come out of the box with a big show.......can't wait to see it!

Ok, off my soap box.....calming down......being sprayed with cold water.....returning to normal now. Flame throwers on....I'm in my suit and ready!