Frommer article full of WDW misinformation

[gk90]

http://travel.msn.com/Guides/article.aspx?cp-documentid=423141&GT1=10442

I left a low rating for this article and sent msn an email complaining about all the misinformation and anti-Disney bias from the author. Take a look at it, I'm sure that those of you with several WDW trips under your belts will find even more to annoy you than I did.

Maybe there's a thread on this board posted about this already? I didn't see one but if there is, I'm sorry for duplicating--but this article really irked me.

[Chime]

My favorite line in that article:

Epcot won't have enough to interest your younger kids.

I must be imagining things when I see kids having a good time there then. Silly me.

[JeanfromBNA]

"only their corporate overlord would give them "stars.""

Who does she think owns Sea World & Universal Studios?

I agree with you; the article is biased from the first word.

[MichiganMomto4]

"Disney enforces a four person limited so if you bring baby you have to get two rooms." :sad2: This woman admittedly has never been to Disney World yet is getting paid to spout misinformation and down right horrible advice. And she's coming out with a whole book on the subject. That should be interesting.

[surfergrl31]

Has this person ever been to Disney World? That is the first problem with this article. I loved the fact that she told them that they would need two rooms if they took the baby. The meal plan was also another one that made it sound like the was only about 4 resturants that were included. That poor woman, I wish I knew who she was so I could tell her to come over to the boards. I think I might zip an email to tell them how many mistakes are in this article.:sad2:

Here is the email address if anyone else wants to share their thoughts: msntrav@microsoft.com

[1rockinmamato2]

Well, that article just made me angry. :lmao:

She is just another example of people not getting it if they've never been. I know she's been to Disneyland, but really, can you compare the two?

I gave her a poor rating for reflecting her own personal judgments about WDW in her article without having been there and for the glaring misinformation.

How can a Frommer be so, well, clueless? I feel sorry for the lady she was responding to. :confused3

[FigNewton]

Meh, let the mis-info flow, crowds are rising enough as is. :P

[marivaid]

Disney's eating plan is inconvenient (only certain properties are included, some of which require reservations).

SOME OF WHICH ?
No wonder so many families get turned away at CRT if that's the kind of people they get their info from :sad2:


Did you see that part

The newest book in the series, Pauline Frommer’s Walt Disney World & Orlando, hit the bookstores this June.
She wrote a book but doesn't know that it's 4 person + a child under 3 in one room ?
For crying out loud.. 10mns on the DIS and you'd know that.

[AuroraBorealis]

Meh, let the mis-info flow, crowds are rising enough as is. :P

Exactly!

If they really want to know about WDW, they'll do a bit more research than this article!

[MinnieGirl33]

Meh, let the mis-info flow, crowds are rising enough as is. :P

I'm with you :thumbsup2

:goodvibes

[iluveeyore]

Her article was so anti-Disney:headache: , I just had to email them my opinion! Thanks for the link!

[disneynutt1225]

Several of us from the CB have emailed her. None have received a reply as far as I know. Apparently her book (which is co-authored by her) is also chock full of misinformation. It's a shame that people will buy it and that could be the only thing they read. :sad2:

[BankBunny]

On top of everything else wrong with that article isn't that a picture of the Materhorn for DisneyLAND in the article about DisneyWORLD?

[MKhead72]

What a joke...... people that listen to this lady probably have never been themselves, and she is making it sound like an un-wanted vacation to them. WDW is the most visited vacation spot in the world. Men, women, and children of all ages have enjoyed their vacations for a long time now, and will continue to do so for many more years to come !!:goodvibes

[ironz]

And yet she ends with this quote, "Despite my carping about high prices, I have to admit a soft spot for the theme parks of Orlando."

haha! :lmao: Maybe for the unmissable Sea World. Obviously NOT WDW.

[missypie]

Oh well, her article will discourage readers from visiting...more room (and available ADRs for us).

I think articles like this give people the idea that food is going to cost more than they've ever seen anywhere in their lives. Sure, it's more expensive than your local McDonalds. But have they ever bought food at their local professional sports venue, or at the State Fair, or at Six Flags?

I remember reading one of those "How to Survive Your WDW Vacation" articles in a popular magazine....it wasn't even an "on a budget" article. It assumed that the reader was only going to MK, and only for one day, and basically advised the reader to bring in sandwiches and avoid buying food there.

[KKB]

But I think she DID have some good advice in there amid the biased opinions.

I know many will disagree w/ me, but I WOULD recommend this person wait until children are older, particularly since budget is an issue. We waited, and DS12, DD9 and DS7 are all old enough, tall enough and generally brave enough to ride EVERYTHING!!!

We are choosing to stay onsite, but you certainly can get a much better price offsite. It certainly would have been nice to see the reasons TO stay onsite. ESPECIALLY w/ little ones, the convenience of being able to take an afternoon break offsets the cost, IMO. The misinformation about the extra room is unacceptable.

It is too bad that DDP was not sufficiently explained. Two of their children would be free and one is only $11/day!!!

From a budgetary standpoint, base tickets are best. But no explanation that buying multiple day tickets is one of the most cost effective tricks. It is too bad that the sites and wandering performers at EPCOT were not seen as appropriate for youngsters, much less kidcot activities. I think how children view EPCOT is directly related to their parents attitude..."I don't want to learn on vacation, I just want to be entertained" We are looking forward to EPCOT most of all! The only park we have 2 days scheduled for! And AK is our next one we are looking forward to...wish we had 2 days to spend there! Of course, MK for 2 days w/ little ones makes sense.

Sure hope this person sought a second opinion!

[TDC Nala]

Ms. Frommer states that her daughters have never been to Disney World. I would assume she has. However, it seems to be some time since she's gone.

I do hope that lots of folks read her article and decide to hit Sea World instead, maybe some restaurant reservations will open up.

[CathrynRose]

But I think she DID have some good advice in there amid the biased opinions.

I know many will disagree w/ me, but I WOULD recommend this person wait until children are older, particularly since budget is an issue. We waited, and DS12, DD9 and DS7 are all old enough, tall enough and generally brave enough to ride EVERYTHING!!!

We are choosing to stay onsite, but you certainly can get a much better price offsite. It certainly would have been nice to see the reasons TO stay onsite. ESPECIALLY w/ little ones, the convenience of being able to take an afternoon break offsets the cost, IMO. The misinformation about the extra room is unacceptable.

It is too bad that DDP was not sufficiently explained. Two of their children would be free and one is only $11/day!!!

From a budgetary standpoint, base tickets are best. But no explanation that buying multiple day tickets is one of the most cost effective tricks. It is too bad that the sites and wandering performers at EPCOT were not seen as appropriate for youngsters, much less kidcot activities. I think how children view EPCOT is directly related to their parents attitude..."I don't want to learn on vacation, I just want to be entertained" We are looking forward to EPCOT most of all! The only park we have 2 days scheduled for! And AK is our next one we are looking forward to...wish we had 2 days to spend there! Of course, MK for 2 days w/ little ones makes sense.

Sure hope this person sought a second opinion!


Exactly what you just wrote here, you should send to them/her - whatever.

That article was laughable AT BEST.

And FTR - I have a 12 year old whom LOVES Epcot - and not even for the 'learning' aspect of it. He's always loved it - the shops, the food, the ambiance... the park where you can kick back and just ENJOY yourself.

That woman is a twit.

[Brian_WDW74]

Prices in Orlando are skyrocketing, with theme park hot dogs costing a whopping $7 and a one-day entry ticket at Disney World soaring to $71 per adult (defined as age 11 and over—tell that to the DMV).

Ummm...no. A hot dog is $4.25. A hot dog combo, which includes chips and a large beverage, is $7. But thanks for playing. :)

["Cinder" Ella's Mom]

We took our DS6 and DD4 to all four parks in December. We just returned from a short trip and they could only choose two parks to visit. They chose Epcot as one. They love Soaring, Test Track, Nemo, Ellen's Energy Adventure, etc. My son loves the countries! What an ignorant comment.

[Chuck65]

I love the fact that she calls All Stars nothing more than a cinder block building full of school groups. Geez!:sad2:

[WillCAD]

"Despite my carping about high prices, I have to admit a soft spot for the theme parks of Orlando."

I think she has a soft spot in her head when it comes to WDW.

But I think she DID have some good advice in there amid the biased opinions.

I know many will disagree w/ me, but I WOULD recommend this person wait until children are older, particularly since budget is an issue. We waited, and DS12, DD9 and DS7 are all old enough, tall enough and generally brave enough to ride EVERYTHING!!!

We are choosing to stay onsite, but you certainly can get a much better price offsite. It certainly would have been nice to see the reasons TO stay onsite. ESPECIALLY w/ little ones, the convenience of being able to take an afternoon break offsets the cost, IMO. The misinformation about the extra room is unacceptable.

It is too bad that DDP was not sufficiently explained. Two of their children would be free and one is only $11/day!!!

From a budgetary standpoint, base tickets are best. But no explanation that buying multiple day tickets is one of the most cost effective tricks. It is too bad that the sites and wandering performers at EPCOT were not seen as appropriate for youngsters, much less kidcot activities. I think how children view EPCOT is directly related to their parents attitude..."I don't want to learn on vacation, I just want to be entertained" We are looking forward to EPCOT most of all! The only park we have 2 days scheduled for! And AK is our next one we are looking forward to...wish we had 2 days to spend there! Of course, MK for 2 days w/ little ones makes sense.

Sure hope this person sought a second opinion!

I agree with you for the most part KBB, although I think the base-vs-hopper thing is a matter of opinion and personal preference; I categorically refuse to go to WDW without a hopper pass, but there are those who find them a complete waste of money. YMMV.

Ummm...no. A hot dog is $4.25. A hot dog combo, which includes chips and a large beverage, is $7. But thanks for playing. :)

Pauline Frommer, come on down! You're the next contestant on, "The info is WRONG!"

[Spectro is #1]

I can't believe she is ripping people off by writing a book!
We should all post reviews on Amazon to let people know what a fraud she is:sad2:

[Mkrop]

I can't believe she is ripping people off by writing a book!
We should all post reviews on Amazon to let people know what a fraud she is:sad2:

that is an excellent idea

[marivaid]

... Disney World soaring to $71 per adult (defined as age 11 and over—tell that to the DMV

Is she right on that ? I thought it was 10 and up.

[WDW Poly Princess]

Yeesh, this is even more motivation for me to get to work on my disney guidebook!

I especially have something against calling Epcot not for kids! Heaven forbid that kids might actually enjoy something educational!

[aplejax76]

This was posted on the community board. I posted what till the trip planning board gets a hold of this.

I KNEW you guys would rip into this lady!!!!!:thumbsup2 :lmao:

I sent an email a couple days ago. Haven't heard anything back.

[nick262]

I dont know if I should :lmao: ,:mad: , or :sad1: . I sent an email to her. I am all for the reviews on amazon. Off to find her book. :rolleyes1

[streudel423]

good grief...does that write have ANYTHING positive to say about ANYTHING?! all he does is complain about how scared his kids were and the heat....he obviously only sees the glass half empty

[streudel423]

.

[Cory's Gal]

Thanks for posting the article. I too rated it the lowest rating. What a mis-representation of WDW. She needs to do her homework a lot better and actually take a trip to Florida.

[WillCAD]

I can't believe she is ripping people off by writing a book!
We should all post reviews on Amazon to let people know what a fraud she is:sad2:

I wouldn't recommend that. Posting about how bad her book is without actually reading her book would be just as bad as her posting negative things about WDW without having visited in at least several years, if at all.

Rebutting her article, on the other hand, is perfectly reasonable, considering the gross exaggerations, misrepresentations, and outright incorrect information she recounts, not to mention the sour opinions that she espouses based on that crap.

This was posted on the community board. I posted what till the trip planning board gets a hold of this.

I KNEW you guys would rip into this lady!!!!!:thumbsup2 :lmao:

I sent an email a couple days ago. Haven't heard anything back.

I wouldn't rip into someone who did at least some research, went to WDW, and still didn't enjoy the trip. WDW is not everyone's cup o' joe, and I wouldn't presume to tell anyone that they are wrong for disliking it. Crazy, maybe, but not wrong.

However, any time someone in a position of some kind of authority or expertise passes along wildly inaccurate information, and bases advice to the unitiated based on that inaccurate info, they deserve to be called on the carpet. For a professional travel writer with millions of readers, this is the worst kind of professional misconduct - don't write about something unless you actually know something about it!

good grief...does that write have ANYTHING positive to say about ANYTHING?! all he does is complain about how scared his kids were and the heat....he obviously only sees the glass half empty

Actually, it's a she - Pauline Frommer, apparently the daugher of the legendary Authur Frommer.

And the story she related was actually at Disneyland, not WDW. Yes, some of those problems (heat, high prices, kids scared of characters) can occur at DLR or WDW, but the solution to them is the same on both coasts, as well - adequate research and preparation, for both parents and kids.

Ironically, she is in the business of providing information to people so they can do the research and advance planning for their own trips, yet she apparently doesn't bother to do the research and advance planning for her own trips, or he own articles or books.:lmao: :guilty: :mad:

[kaelarad]

The article was also posted on msn, which id owned by NBC which is owned by UNIVERSAL...of course it will be anti Disney.

[holcomb-mania]

Has anyone gotten a response back?

[grimley1968]

Gotta love that she refers to ALL Disney resorts, not just the All Stars, as "motels." Where I come from, motel is short for motor hotel, where you drive up to your room. You can't drive up to your room at any of the Deluxe resorts, and I'm betting the Moderates as well, so they're at least "hotels", if you don't like calling them actual resorts. That's just about as dis-informative as the "4 person limit, so no babies" comments.

Does this writer ever actually travel? Calling resorts on lakes, with their own exotic forms of transportation, motels?

I cannot imagine she actually set foot anywhere on WDW property before writing this article.

[missypie]

The thing is, it is so EASY to find accurate information. You can find actual hotel photographs, rates, restaurant menus, etc. on line in just a few minutes. What kind of writer does no homework/research whatsoever?

[missypie]

Gotta love that she refers to ALL Disney resorts, not just the All Stars, as "motels."

Hey, if you're going to eat a $7 hot dog, you might as well pay $400 a night for your motel!;)

[PrincessTiffany]

But I think she DID have some good advice in there amid the biased opinions.

I know many will disagree w/ me, but I WOULD recommend this person wait until children are older, particularly since budget is an issue. We waited, and DS12, DD9 and DS7 are all old enough, tall enough and generally brave enough to ride EVERYTHING!!!

We are choosing to stay onsite, but you certainly can get a much better price offsite. It certainly would have been nice to see the reasons TO stay onsite. ESPECIALLY w/ little ones, the convenience of being able to take an afternoon break offsets the cost, IMO. The misinformation about the extra room is unacceptable.

It is too bad that DDP was not sufficiently explained. Two of their children would be free and one is only $11/day!!!

From a budgetary standpoint, base tickets are best. But no explanation that buying multiple day tickets is one of the most cost effective tricks. It is too bad that the sites and wandering performers at EPCOT were not seen as appropriate for youngsters, much less kidcot activities. I think how children view EPCOT is directly related to their parents attitude..."I don't want to learn on vacation, I just want to be entertained" We are looking forward to EPCOT most of all! The only park we have 2 days scheduled for! And AK is our next one we are looking forward to...wish we had 2 days to spend there! Of course, MK for 2 days w/ little ones makes sense.

Sure hope this person sought a second opinion!
We just got back and our kids are 11, 7, 6 and 5 (they have all been riding all of the rides since they were four). They were tall enough for everything and did ride everything. As far as budgeting, it's cheaper to take them before they are 10 and are charged as an adult.

[missypie]

We just got back and our kids are 11, 7, 6 and 5 (they have all been riding all of the rides since they were four). They were tall enough for everything and did ride everything. As far as budgeting, it's cheaper to take them before they are 10 and are charged as an adult.

Our kids had their first Disney trip when they were 12, 10 and 7. I wanted to wait until everyone could ride everything. (I also knew that my husband was the biggest kid in the family and that he would leave me behind in Fantasyland while he rode the thrill rides if we went when the kids were younger.)

A GOOD article would have presented both the pros and cons for waiting vs. going when the kids are little, so that the reader could make his or her own, informed decision based on her knowledge of her own family.

[fairycat]

I have to say that if I stumbled across this article and had known nothing about WDW I would still have ignored any and all advice given.

My first problem is that the writer only discusses a visit to a park 2000 miles or so away and uses that as its base for why this ladies kids will hate the trip. How does that compare? I mean I can say my 8 year old cousin went to Universal and was terribly frightened by the costume characters so you should never take your kids until they are at least 10 to any amusement park. You would probably think I am nuts! Wouldn't it be better to find out what the different types of characters are at different types of parks and look at your own children. Do they hide in terror when its time to take pictures with Santa or the Easter Bunny?? Or are they interested and comfortable with characters at malls and places? If so you know what to watch for with your kid, its very easy to look at your childs reactions in your normal world and then work around this. Simply let characters know your childs boundaries they are there for that and they are not going to push them.

Weather is weather, if you don't want heat visit Anartica. The vast majority of theme parks tend to be in places that have warm summers. If you don't like the heat go in the Fall-Spring. Why do you think all the east coasters love WDW I can guarentee its not the heat of summer that brings them but the comfort it offers in the winter.

I love that she complains heavily about food prices but her only suggestion to battle this is to rent a car. So what about Lunch?? I can see eating Breakfast at your hotel that is easy, maybe if you chose to leave the park early in the evening for a 6pm Dinner or maybe went later (but how late can you really go with kids that young?), but if you chose to leave for lunch too you really add to your already shortened day. Also unlike DL which has outside hotels close to the park, if your child wants to break for a nap and swim you are going to spend all day driving in and out of the parks which means your ticket value is getting you less and less.


Amusement parks are expensive!!!!!!! Its the nature of the beast they offer you rides, fun, and entertainment. Your ticket while expensive does not cover very much of the up keep, personal and all the other parts of running a park, it is a nice base but not the money maker. The biggest money maker at almost every event/amusement park is always food and drink. Its just the way it is and for convience many of us will pay for it, others also feel its part of the experience. Again this is not just Disney parks, this is any and all parks. I work at Renaissance Faires our drink prices are in line with what Disney and other events and parks charge. In fact at one point I noticed Magic Mountain had higher drink prices then DL.

Overall this ladies advice sounds like its coming from not an expert but as some one we may know in our lives a neighbor, co-worker, lady at the grocery store whatever. She gives the advice short of "well my SIL's cousin went to WDW and had an awful time, it was hot and muggy and it rained a lot. You should never go there." Maybe she should talk to some more real experts, that goes for the Questioner and the Writers!

[The Big Daddy]

The only info I think is wrong in the article is regarding the two rooms if you have 4 people and a baby. But otherwise she gives some very good advice about how to cut costs. Having been to Disneyworld and stayed on property 7 or 8 times now I really can't find fault with the article. The budget and moderate "resorts" ARE motels, by Illinois standards. You drive up to them and there are no internal corridors connecting rooms to the main building. And we know prices are higher for a value at Disney than if you stayed in a nicer property off-site. In fact I've seen several posters who frequent the deluxe resorts at Disney and have stated that the quality is much better if you stay at a deluxe hotel someplace else...you're paying for the Disney name and the closeness to the parks and free busses. With regards to kids not enjoying EPCOT, we have to do EPCOT early in the trip because my niece and nephew, ages 5 and 10, are bored to death at EPCOT. Heck some of the adults find it boring. EPCOT is the least kid friendly of the parks and with the park being so large kids and adults become tired quickly. EPCOT really is a two day park to see it all without killing yourself. Now how many kids, if asked, would rather spend two days at Magic Kingdom and ride everything a second time, or spend two days at EPCOT to see everything once. I really haven't seen any squealling children scrambling with delight to be the first in line to see the display of Hummel figurines in Germany or who are mesmerized by the extra large cucumbers on Living with the Land. We have to get EPCOT in early in the trip because by the end of the week if we have to take the kids to EPCOT on a Thusday they complain because it isn't as fun for them. Now if we tell them we're going to Magic Kingdom Friday night after being at parks all week and have to be up early the next day for the plane home they'll be in he bus with their light up ears all ready to go, aches and pains forgotten.

I know she refers to the "corporate" machine but what isn't run by the corporations these days? Just look at how they influence our government. And Disney HAS gone more commerical over the years. I was watching some of the Disney shows on the travel channel this past Sunday and they mention in one of them that "Disney saw an opportunity" with regards to hotels on site. Of course they did...an opportunity for profit and to keep visitors onsite rather than let tem spend some time at Universal or elsewhere. Not everything Walt put into the parks had to be tied to one of the Disney films but it seems like everything now is getting reverse engineered to incorporate movie merchadise (Pirates adding Johnny Depp, Stitch Encounter?) And why is Disney forcing Stitch down everyone's throat? Is he the new Mickey Mouse? He's everywhere down there. Seems like 25% of the pins the produce feature Stitch and he's made his way onto the World of Disney store like they were adding him to Mt Rushmore. Just my opinion but I think her article is fair and isn't far off the kinf of advice I would give to someone looking to cut costs, being a Disney veteran. And before you say otherwise, I love Disney and got my whole family hooked on it, but I'm also aware that quality has slipped since I first started going and costs have been rising.

[The Big Daddy]

The only info I think is wrong in the article is regarding the two rooms if you have 4 people and a baby. But otherwise she gives some very good advice about how to cut costs. Having been to Disneyworld and stayed on property 7 or 8 times now I really can't find fault with the article. The budget and moderate "resorts" ARE motels, by Illinois standards. You drive up to them and there are no internal corridors connecting rooms to the main building. And we know prices are higher for a value at Disney than if you stayed in a nicer property off-site. In fact I've seen several posters who frequent the deluxe resorts at Disney and have stated that the quality is much better if you stay at a deluxe hotel someplace else...you're paying for the Disney name and the closeness to the parks and free busses. With regards to kids not enjoying EPCOT, we have to do EPCOT early in the trip because my niece and nephew, ages 5 and 10, are bored to death at EPCOT. Heck some of the adults find it boring. EPCOT is the least kid friendly of the parks and with the park being so large kids and adults become tired quickly. EPCOT really is a two day park to see it all without killing yourself. Now how many kids, if asked, would rather spend two days at Magic Kingdom and ride everything a second time, or spend two days at EPCOT to see everything once. I really haven't seen any squealling children scrambling with delight to be the first in line to see the display of Hummel figurines in Germany or who are mesmerized by the extra large cucumbers on Living with the Land. We have to get EPCOT in early in the trip because by the end of the week if we have to take the kids to EPCOT on a Thusday they complain because it isn't as fun for them. Now if we tell them we're going to Magic Kingdom Friday night after being at parks all week and have to be up early the next day for the plane home they'll be in he bus with their light up ears all ready to go, aches and pains forgotten.

I know she refers to the "corporate" machine but what isn't run by the corporations these days? Just look at how they influence our government. And Disney HAS gone more commerical over the years. I was watching some of the Disney shows on the travel channel this past Sunday and they mention in one of them that "Disney saw an opportunity" with regards to hotels on site. Of course they did...an opportunity for profit and to keep visitors onsite rather than let tem spend some time at Universal or elsewhere. Not everything Walt put into the parks had to be tied to one of the Disney films but it seems like everything now is getting reverse engineered to incorporate movie merchadise (Pirates adding Johnny Depp, Stitch Encounter?) And why is Disney forcing Stitch down everyone's throat? Is he the new Mickey Mouse? He's everywhere down there. Seems like 25% of the pins the produce feature Stitch and he's made his way onto the World of Disney store like they were adding him to Mt Rushmore. Just my opinion but I think her article is fair and isn't far off the kinf of advice I would give to someone looking to cut costs, being a Disney veteran. And before you say otherwise, I love Disney and got my whole family hooked on it, but I'm also aware that quality has slipped since I first started going and costs have been rising.

[PrincessTiffany]

Our kids had their first Disney trip when they were 12, 10 and 7. I wanted to wait until everyone could ride everything. (I also knew that my husband was the biggest kid in the family and that he would leave me behind in Fantasyland while he rode the thrill rides if we went when the kids were younger.)

A GOOD article would have presented both the pros and cons for waiting vs. going when the kids are little, so that the reader could make his or her own, informed decision based on her knowledge of her own family.
You are correct. A GOOD article would have mentioned it. I sent an email listing the inaccuracies. I hope they forward it to Pauline Frommer.

[TommyTutone]

We took our DS6 and DD4 to all four parks in December. We just returned from a short trip and they could only choose two parks to visit. They chose Epcot as one. They love Soaring, Test Track, Nemo, Ellen's Energy Adventure, etc. My son loves the countries! What an ignorant comment.

Of the choices, were Universal and SeaWorld listed as options for your kids? If so, then fooey on her, otherwise the pool of options are not the same.

I know my son, age 5, given a choice would take Isle of Adventure in a heartbeat over EPCOT since he's a superhero and dinosaur nut.

Her comment in this regard was ill-informed and she should instead suggest parents tell their kids about what each park offers and let the kids decide.

[marivaid]

The only info I think is wrong in the article is regarding the two rooms if you have 4 people and a baby.

She said adults are age 11 and up, it's 10 and up. That the dining plan is inconvenient because only certain places accept the plan - making it sound like the majority of eateries do not. That the values are packed with school groups "most of the year".
But mostly it's the LACK of information. How can you write an article about WDW and not mention EMH, or the free transportation ?! It's like she was purposely avoiding to mention any on-site guest perk.

With regards to kids not enjoying EPCOT, we have to do EPCOT early in the trip because my niece and nephew, ages 5 and 10, are bored to death at EPCOT. Heck some of the adults find it boring.

So it wasn't YOUR cup of tea. We don't like MGM, that does not mean that others will not enjoy it and it certainely doesn't qualify me to tell a perfect stranger what her kids will or will not enjoy.

I really haven't seen any squealling children scrambling with delight to be the first in line to see the display of Hummel figurines in Germany or who are mesmerized by the extra large cucumbers on Living with the Land.

I've seen plenty of kids squealing with delight at the Nemo ride, Turtle Talk with Crush, Soarin', Test Track, meeting characters around the WC....
No wonder your DN think Epcot is boring if all you take them to is Germany and Living with the Land :rolleyes1

[missypie]

I totally agree that the article is like something your neighbor or co-worker would say, based one trip. If I go to Vegas and hate it, I am entitled to tell my co-workers that I hated it and why. But if I was a travel writer, I would have the obligation to be more objective, listing the bad and the good.

[Mkrop]

. With regards to kids not enjoying EPCOT, we have to do EPCOT early in the trip because my niece and nephew, ages 5 and 10, are bored to death at EPCOT. Heck some of the adults find it boring. EPCOT is the least kid friendly of the parks and with the park being so large kids and adults become tired quickly. EPCOT really is a two day park to see it all without killing yourself. Now how many kids, if asked, would rather spend two days at Magic Kingdom and ride everything a second time, or spend two days at EPCOT to see everything once. I really haven't seen any squealling children scrambling with delight to be the first in line to see the display of Hummel figurines in Germany or who are mesmerized by the extra large cucumbers on Living with the Land. We have to get EPCOT in early in the trip because by the end of the week if we have to take the kids to EPCOT on a Thusday they complain because it isn't as fun for them. Now if we tell them we're going to Magic Kingdom Friday night after being at parks all week and have to be up early the next day for the plane home they'll be in he bus with their light up ears all ready to go, aches and pains forgotten.



Now see my kids were 9 and 4 this last trip and they LOVED EPCOT. More FW then WS but they begged to go back one night so they could ride Soarin again. DS4 loved Soarin, Nemo ride and esp loved Turtle Talk with Crush. He did like the Land ride and thought the vegtables were cool and of course my other gut loved TT and MS.

Epcot was one of out fvaorite parks this time around so even if it is not for your family or the author's family many kids do like.

[icecrystahl]

The one thing that stuck out most, to me, is her Epcot comment.....I've been going to Epcot since I was around 3 (15 now) and it has always been a very close second to MK.

She's is soo ridiculous...:lmao:

http://www.amazon.com/Pauline-Frommers-Disney-Orlando-Frommer/dp/0470125357/ref=sr_1_10/102-4767100-6025749?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190670705&sr=8-10

Post bad reviews!!

[The Big Daddy]

She said adults are age 11 and up, it's 10 and up. That the dining plan is inconvenient because only certain places accept the plan - making it sound like the majority of eateries do not. That the values are packed with school groups "most of the year".
But mostly it's the LACK of information. How can you write an article about WDW and not mention EMH, or the free transportation ?! It's like she was purposely avoiding to mention any on-site guest perk.

I did not go away with the impression that MOST eateries do not accept the plan. But do you honestly think very young children are going to get their monies worth out of the dining plan? Kids stomachs are bigger then their brains. My niece orders a full meal at breakfast EVERY Sunday at the restaurant we go to and also orders a small cup of soup. After she's done with the cup of soup the rest of the food goes to waste. I think when advising someone on how to do Disney on a BUDGET that the dinning plan for MOST small children will be more than necessary...and she does state that dining options are cheaper outside the world. Certainly you aren't disputing that fact. Even for a 10 year old who will eat his own weight in chicken strips, is the dining plan still going to be a CHEAPER option than going offsite to eat?

Lack of information? That's like asking Dr Phil a question and being upset that he can't analyze your entire life in a 5 minute snippet. I take this article for what it is...the Dear Abby or Dr Phil of travel info...

I've seen plenty of kids squealing with delight at the Nemo ride, Turtle Talk with Crush, Soarin', Test Track, meeting characters around the WC....
No wonder your DN think Epcot is boring if all you take them to is Germany and Living with the Land

And by and large I've seen kids having more fun at MGM than at EPCOT, but you don't like MGM. Are you really saying that EPCOT is a huge kid friendy park? I would agree that they are making strides towards becoming more kid friendly but they have a long way to go. Even Walt Disney's original intention for EPCOT didn't sound kid friendly...Experimental Prototype Community Of Tomorrow? Line up, kids! I think buying a non-park hopping ticket (which might be advisable to cut costs for this person) and taking a chance on EPCOT with young kids might be risky. If they complain are you going to waste that day on the ticket and ust go back to the resort? Perhaps your budget is much larger than the person asking the question. Maybe you can afford park-hoppers with the no expire option, go all out for the dining plan, stay at one of their resorts and get the full water view (which, by the way, seems to be another money making scam, since they have increased the number of water view rooms to include anything with a puddle larger than a frisbee outside your door) and all the souvenirs the kids want.

It's up to the person asking the question in the article to look further into whether or not EPCOT is for them, to review the costs of staying onsite versus offsite, if their kids will make the dining plan a worthwhile option, etc. Let's be realistic, this isn't Walt's Disneyworld anymore...this is corporate America. They have stock prices and investors to please and bottom line is everything. That's not to say that it doesn't have some of the best service I've ever seen and I do always feel like I get my money's worth but if they stopped turning a profit and couldn't reverse the situation, they'd close their doors.

I think that some people on this board are too sensitive when it comes to someone being critical about their favorite vacation spot. So the article had an error in it, maybe even two errors...the author of the article says right away she hasn't been to Disneyworld, so she isn't intentionally misleading anyone. Can you really tell me she's wrong about Disney being corporate? Why do you think other companies try to emulate the Disney approach to customer service? Because they see it makes MONEY!!!

[The Big Daddy]

Sorry my posts keep doubling up. My computer keeps timing out. :confused3

[Kathi OD]

Several of us from the CB have emailed her. None have received a reply as far as I know. Apparently her book (which is co-authored by her) is also chock full of misinformation. It's a shame that people will buy it and that could be the only thing they read. :sad2:

One thing (albeit small) thing that we can do is hit the B&N and Amazon websites and post our own reviews of her book. At least this will let others know she doesn't have a freaking clue!

[disphoto]

Disney's All Star Resorts, but truthfully, only their corporate overlord would give them "stars." They're cinderblock motels, packed with loud school groups for much of the year, that are located farther from the Disney attractions than most of the (often nicer) motels that are clustered around the gates of Disney World. And, at between $89 and $129 a night, they cost about twice as much as those motels

This also seems to imply that the All Star Resorts are MORE expensive than the moderates???

[JennyMominRI]

Big Daddy, I have taken 5 kids to EPCOT... 3 out of five call it their favorite park..

[ScottNBecky]

I love that the picture used is Mickey from many years ago:rotfl2: . That says enough right there.

[marivaid]

I think when advising someone on how to do Disney on a BUDGET that the dinning plan for MOST small children will be more than necessary...and she does state that dining options are cheaper outside the world. Certainly you aren't disputing that fact. Even for a 10 year old who will eat his own weight in chicken strips, is the dining plan still going to be a CHEAPER option than going offsite to eat?

Then she could have simply said that this family would find better dining options offsite. No arguing there. There was no need to say that something is "inconvenient" - which it's not, or imply that it'll be hard to find a place that'll accept it, which could not be further from the truth.

Lack of information? That's like asking Dr Phil a question and being upset that he can't analyze your entire life in a 5 minute snippet.

Somehow she had time to discuss all that was wrong with the Value resorts, give website addresses for offsite motels and condos, and tell the reader to go to Seaworld, but she didn't have time to mention EMH. :rolleyes:

Are you really saying that EPCOT is a huge kid friendy park?

I - like you - don't have any kids, but several parents on this thread have already said that EPCOT is their kids' favorite park. And I have seen plenty of kids having a ball at Epcot - no pun intended. My friend's son who loves everything about animals HATED AK - think she saw that one coming??? They even stayed at AKL in order to be closer to that park, but spent 4 out of 7 days at Epcot. Go figure.

So the article had an error in it, maybe even two errors...the author of the article says right away she hasn't been to Disneyworld, so she isn't intentionally misleading anyone.

The author has published a guide book about Disney World. I checked the front page on Amazon and don't see "Written by someone who's never set a foot on Disney property"... but it's not misleading, of course. It'd be silly to assume that someone who writes a guide book about a vacation destination has actually been there.

I think that some people on this board are too sensitive when it comes to someone being critical about their favorite vacation spot.

Well, for one thing, my favorite destination spot is Clearwater Beach.
I'd be just as annoyed if this was an article on how to spend some time at the beach on a budget and the author was giving out false information.

[DanMedix]

The budget and moderate "resorts" ARE motels, by Illinois standards.

I've been to Illinois once.
I was robbed at gunpoint, and pistol-whipped.
Guess where I'm NOT going again, despite the "high hotel standards"

[nick262]

Here is the response that I received today from MSN:

"Dear MSN Travel Reader:



Thanks for taking the time to respond to our story on Disney World written by Pauline Frommer. As the editor of the site, I certainly appreciate when readers are passionate enough about a topic to tell us what they think – and where we’ve got the story wrong.



This was one of those rare occasions when we did make a few factual errors in the piece, which we acknowledge and regret. As a result, we’re publishing a correction on the site that reads as follows:



As several readers pointed out, children under age 2 do not count toward the four-person limit stipulated at certain Walt Disney World Resorts. For Walt Disney World tickets, adult fees apply to children ages 10 and above, not ages 11 and up. Also, while a children’s meal including a hot dog can cost up to $7, an individual hot dog costs less at Disney. Finally, the photo originally used in this article pictured the Matterhorn, a ride at Disneyland in Anaheim.



Many of you also disagreed with our writer’s conclusions about Disney World. Here’s what Pauline Frommer, our “Vacation Doc,” had to say in response:



I was sorry to see that my article angered you and I do apologize for the

error in terms of the pricing for babies. I misread that bit of fine print,

and thought that the five-people to a room rule also applied to infants. We

will be changing that and posting an apology. Our producers at MSN also put

in the wrong picture and that's been changed (I have nothing to do with the

artwork).



As for the other comments posted by you and other readers: The article was

based partially on the research done for the book Pauline Frommer's Walt

Disney World and Orlando and partially on my own trips to Disney World

(which I've visited a number of times over the years as a travel writer,

though I haven't been able to take my children there yet). No hotel or

theme park paid to be included in the article, nor did I feel I was doing a

"hatchet job" on Disney. As I said at the end of the article, I think that

Disney's ability to engage the imaginations of their visitors is

unparalleled. I've been going to Disney World since I was a child, and love

many things about it.



That being said, I do think many of Disney's offerings are overpriced. At

$45/day, per person, I don't think the meal plan is a good value especially

when you consider the price of food outside the parks. There are also

restrictions on the eating plan that I find onerous: everyone in the room

must buy one, not every eatery on property is included, and it’s good for

one counterservice and one sitdown meal a day meaning that you have to

spend a good amount of time making and keeping reservations (something a

lot of visitors don't enjoy doing). You also can't customize it so that you

pay less if you leave early on your last day at Disney, which means many

guests end up paying more than they have to.



As for the All Star Resorts: I stand behind my assessment. I think there

are better values elsewhere in the area, and I was disappointed by their

"theming" and didn't feel it was up to the usual Disney high standards. And

they are consistently booked by large school groups, which can lead to

noise problems.



To those of you who argued that the reader could stay at Disney World for

that amount of time for $1600 are forgetting that the original questioner

was including airfare in the cost of her budget. That would have added

another $800 at minimum for the four of them. They therefore only had $800

left for the rest of the vacation (theme park tickets, hotel room,

etc.), which is why I was recommending only the most rock-bottom of

options. The advice given would have been very different had the original

questioner had a different budget to work with.



Finally, many of you found it hard to believe that my children didn't enjoy

Disneyland and felt that it skewed my reaction to the parks. I included

that anecdote because I felt it was a pretty common one. I've heard from

many readers in the past that their small children found the parks a bit

overwhelming and enjoyed them more at a later age. (And I don't think that

Epcot has enough to keep the younger guests happy, especially when compared

to the other Disney parks.) I'm glad to hear that your children had a

wonderful time when they visited. Our visit was mixed, but what I wrote in

the rest of the article wasn't based simply on our experience.



I want to thank you for writing in and sharing your thoughts with me. It's

always enormously helpful to get feedback from readers.



Cordially,



Pauline Frommer



Again, my sincere thanks for telling us what you thought of this story. I hope you’ll continue to visit MSN Travel to engage with our content and plan your next trip, whether it’s to a Disney park or someplace else in the world.



Safe travels!



Best,



Jon Douglas

Managing Editor, MSN Travel"



Ms. Frommer seems a tad defensive. :snooty:

[TDC Nala]

Disney's All Star Resorts, but truthfully, only their corporate overlord would give them "stars." They're cinderblock motels, packed with loud school groups for much of the year, that are located farther from the Disney attractions than most of the (often nicer) motels that are clustered around the gates of Disney World. And, at between $89 and $129 a night, they cost about twice as much as those motels

This also seems to imply that the All Star Resorts are MORE expensive than the moderates???

She's talking about offsite accommodations. She is very clear about what she believes to be the superior value of offsite accommodations. Many visitors would agree with her.

[wen8jr]

IMO, this is just an outright dig at WDW.

I think the lady is a joke. Even though she states that she hasn't been to WDW, that is all she talks about...as if she has been there and outright telling people it isn't a great place to vacation. Somehow I even get the feeling she hasn't really been to Disneyland either, what she writes about seems false and made up to me. I may have taken it seriously if it were someone who has been 10 or 12 times.

And if there is(I mean if there is one little inkling) any truth to it, she just sounds mad at the entire world rather than just at WDW. I mean whose fault is it that her children are afraid of the characters or rides and screwed her Disneyland vacation up or she can't afford to go to WDW and stay in a nicer resort? She wouldn't like ANY theme park I've been to then, nor would her children. Why would you give others advice on how your own children behave??? The food prices (CS) are the same everywhere and most don't even offer fine dining like Disney. I would never take advice from someone who spouts negativities about everything. She won't have a very long career in this I'm afraid. Sounds like a spoiled brat who wouldn't be happy being anywhere or doing anything...sort of like she described her children's attitudes when she took them on vacation to DL.

And btw my family, including my DS who is 12 are most looking forward to EPCOT, for the rides, the experience and the food. :woohoo:

[marivaid]

Ms. Frommer seems a tad defensive. :snooty:

And she is again wrong. The DDP is not $45 a day, it's $38.99 including tax and tip (for 2007), and $37.99 not including tip for 2008.

[DisneyGuess]

Hey, if you're going to eat a $7 hot dog, you might as well pay $400 a night for your motel!;)

:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

[wen8jr]

When has the dining plan been $45 per person? We're paying $38.99.

I think her statements are so full of holes she has nothing left to do but sink.

[TDC Nala]

I think she should have done more research, especially into the resorts. While the Allstars have a 4 in a room limit (except for infants, and I think it's under age 3, not under age 2, but I might be mistaken and I am too lazy to look it up), there are several deluxe resorts that have a room capacity of more than 4. Of course, the cost may be prohibitive.

But it's rather clear that she hasn't said she's never been to WDW. What she did say is that her DAUGHTERS have never been to WDW.

Epcot's my favorite park...but that may be because it seems more adult friendly.

I do find it interesting that instead of stating that almost every restaurant on WDW property participates in the dining plan (and there are a lot of restaurants on WDW property), she states that not every restaurant on property participates. Being a travel writer she is most likely approaching from a point of view that says "all-inclusive" should mean just that.

We all do a lot of research, but there are some who probably aren't interested in having to figure out which restaurants participate and which ones don't.

[LarryJ]

You know I only read the first 20 or so posts and now see this thread is growing and can only say "WHY BOTHER" commenting on someone that has absolutely no clue. I wouldn't waste my time and I guess I just did by posting this :lmao: :rotfl2: :rotfl2:

Larry

[wen8jr]

But it's rather clear that she hasn't said she's never been to WDW. What she did say is that her DAUGHTERS have never been to WDW.

She doesn't sound like someone who has been to WDW to me. I've never been and I know much much more about it than her. :sad2: And to write an article about it. Shame shame on her, still didn't get her facts right in her response to the feedback she has received. I think I would learn to read before I decided to write advice columns.

[aplejax76]

Here is the response that I received today from MSN:

"Dear MSN Travel Reader:



Thanks for taking the time to respond to our story on Disney World written by Pauline Frommer. As the editor of the site, I certainly appreciate when readers are passionate enough about a topic to tell us what they think – and where we’ve got the story wrong.



This was one of those rare occasions when we did make a few factual errors in the piece, which we acknowledge and regret. As a result, we’re publishing a correction on the site that reads as follows:



As several readers pointed out, children under age 2 do not count toward the four-person limit stipulated at certain Walt Disney World Resorts. For Walt Disney World tickets, adult fees apply to children ages 10 and above, not ages 11 and up. Also, while a children’s meal including a hot dog can cost up to $7, an individual hot dog costs less at Disney. Finally, the photo originally used in this article pictured the Matterhorn, a ride at Disneyland in Anaheim.



Many of you also disagreed with our writer’s conclusions about Disney World. Here’s what Pauline Frommer, our “Vacation Doc,” had to say in response:



I was sorry to see that my article angered you and I do apologize for the

error in terms of the pricing for babies. I misread that bit of fine print,

and thought that the five-people to a room rule also applied to infants. We

will be changing that and posting an apology. Our producers at MSN also put

in the wrong picture and that's been changed (I have nothing to do with the

artwork).



As for the other comments posted by you and other readers: The article was

based partially on the research done for the book Pauline Frommer's Walt

Disney World and Orlando and partially on my own trips to Disney World

(which I've visited a number of times over the years as a travel writer,

though I haven't been able to take my children there yet). No hotel or

theme park paid to be included in the article, nor did I feel I was doing a

"hatchet job" on Disney. As I said at the end of the article, I think that

Disney's ability to engage the imaginations of their visitors is

unparalleled. I've been going to Disney World since I was a child, and love

many things about it.



That being said, I do think many of Disney's offerings are overpriced. At

$45/day, per person, I don't think the meal plan is a good value especially

when you consider the price of food outside the parks. There are also

restrictions on the eating plan that I find onerous: everyone in the room

must buy one, not every eatery on property is included, and it’s good for

one counterservice and one sitdown meal a day meaning that you have to

spend a good amount of time making and keeping reservations (something a

lot of visitors don't enjoy doing). You also can't customize it so that you

pay less if you leave early on your last day at Disney, which means many

guests end up paying more than they have to.



As for the All Star Resorts: I stand behind my assessment. I think there

are better values elsewhere in the area, and I was disappointed by their

"theming" and didn't feel it was up to the usual Disney high standards. And

they are consistently booked by large school groups, which can lead to

noise problems.



To those of you who argued that the reader could stay at Disney World for

that amount of time for $1600 are forgetting that the original questioner

was including airfare in the cost of her budget. That would have added

another $800 at minimum for the four of them. They therefore only had $800

left for the rest of the vacation (theme park tickets, hotel room,

etc.), which is why I was recommending only the most rock-bottom of

options. The advice given would have been very different had the original

questioner had a different budget to work with.



Finally, many of you found it hard to believe that my children didn't enjoy

Disneyland and felt that it skewed my reaction to the parks. I included

that anecdote because I felt it was a pretty common one. I've heard from

many readers in the past that their small children found the parks a bit

overwhelming and enjoyed them more at a later age. (And I don't think that

Epcot has enough to keep the younger guests happy, especially when compared

to the other Disney parks.) I'm glad to hear that your children had a

wonderful time when they visited. Our visit was mixed, but what I wrote in

the rest of the article wasn't based simply on our experience.



I want to thank you for writing in and sharing your thoughts with me. It's

always enormously helpful to get feedback from readers.



Cordially,



Pauline Frommer



Again, my sincere thanks for telling us what you thought of this story. I hope you’ll continue to visit MSN Travel to engage with our content and plan your next trip, whether it’s to a Disney park or someplace else in the world.



Safe travels!



Best,



Jon Douglas

Managing Editor, MSN Travel"



Ms. Frommer seems a tad defensive. :snooty:

I just received the same email. She is STILL misinformed. You would think if you write a rebuttal letter it would have the correct information. I guess I am asking to much. :rolleyes:

[marivaid]

I just received the same email. She is STILL misinformed. You would think if you write a rebuttal letter it would have the correct information. I guess I am asking to much. :rolleyes:

OTOH it's nice to at least be acknowledged. I have written many emails about misleading articles (the majority of them not related to Disney at all) and in most cases never got a response.

But you're so right though - she keeps on shooting herself in the foot.

[GinnyFavers]

I dunno, I think she's giving pretty good advice to a family that is trying to stay in budget and hasn't been to WDW before.

I love the on site WDW thing, but honestly, if you don't know for sure how much your family will enjoy the experience, what's so bad about staying off site at a rental condo? Sounds sane to me.

And people going to Orlando for the first time often don't just want Disney. And if I had to pick two parks to skip with young kids, they would indeed be the Studios and Epcot.

I guess I don't see what everyone is finding so offensive.

[Deb & Bill]

WillCAD, I DID read her book at B&N the other night and it was chock full of errors. In fact, just about everything that she wrote in the article was in the book. Many, many pages about renting a house offsite. About renting a car to save money. But little mention about $11 a day to park if you are not a resort guest. She also listed ten free things to do at Disney. Including spending the night at a Disney resort pool - park your car at DTD and catch a bus to the resort you want to swim at. She said you wouldn't be able to drive your car to the resort because you'd have to be staying on the property to get past the guard gate. She also said you are supposed to have a resort ID, but if you don't push it, no one will even know.

The big theme in her book is Spend Less and See More.

She advised if you have only two days to only do Disney, but if you have three days, only do two at Disney and one at Sea World or Universal.

[TDC Nala]

She also listed ten free things to do at Disney. Including spending the night at a Disney resort pool - park your car at DTD and catch a bus to the resort you want to swim at. She said you wouldn't be able to drive your car to the resort because you'd have to be staying on the property to get past the guard gate. She also said you are supposed to have a resort ID, but if you don't push it, no one will even know.




Maybe she'll get a lot of messages from her readers who decided to spend the day swimming at the Beach/Yacht Club.

[JeanfromBNA]

I totally agree that the article is like something your neighbor or co-worker would say, based one trip. If I go to Vegas and hate it, I am entitled to tell my co-workers that I hated it and why. But if I was a travel writer, I would have the obligation to be more objective, listing the bad and the good.
I agree with this completely. Like it or not, having a last name that is equated with a high degree of reliability in the travel industry, and exploiting same as a travel writer, conveys a greater degree of responsibility to be accurate and fair.

If what others have posted is accurate, and she encourages dishonest behavior in her books, like trespassing at Disney resort pools, it is shameful that publishers would continue to sponsor her. Her publishers should be made aware of that fact.

[gk90]

I just received the same email. She is STILL misinformed. You would think if you write a rebuttal letter it would have the correct information. I guess I am asking to much. :rolleyes:

I just got the same email! And yes, where did she she get
the fact that DDP is "$45/day, per person"? Is she just pulling numbers out of the air?

[Mickey&Donald]

Fourth recipient of the exact same email checking in! God, nothing makes me feel valued like a form email. :rolleyes:

This chick is seriously delusional. Oh well, maybe lots of people will follow her WDW advice, have a horrible time, and leave the parks nice and empty for the rest of us! :)

[CanadianGuy]

Ironically, the Frommer family both Pauline and Arthur, have never really had much nice to say about Disney hotels (or parks) historically and I think they will be rather delighted when the Four Seasons Walt Disney World opens. That's what they know best, upscale & high end.

I find their travel writing which is aimed at the budget category to be so completely off the mark as to be laughable; which is what we see here. They completely understand get the high-end travel market and they can write credibly about that and I generally find that they do. I think they should stick to their knitting as my grandmother might have said. Do what they know and leave the rest to others.

That said, the Frommer family is exceedingly wealthy and I'd be absolutely shocked if SHE ever actually stayed at any of the value hotels. I'd be much more likely to believe her if she said her STAFF found the value theming to be 'un-Disney' etc; because that's probably much closer to the truth.

But like I said, Frommer's never have much nice to say about Disney, why on earth expect that to change I guess.

Knox

[twinmom319]

I've seen plenty of kids squealing with delight at the Nemo ride, Turtle Talk with Crush, Soarin', Test Track, meeting characters around the WC....
No wonder your DN think Epcot is boring if all you take them to is Germany and Living with the Land :rolleyes1

Hey! Our girls threw the biggest fit of the trip when we tried to get them out of the toy store in Germany!! :rotfl2:

[tecdavidt]

At least now I know I bought the best guide book: The Unofficial Guide to Walt Disney World. It has the good and the bad plus it is updated every year. At the time I bought the book I was looking at the Frommer's book, glad I didn't choose that one. I am now on my third copy of the Unofficial Guide. I love reading it even after several park stays. It is full of useful info. Kathy

[NancyIL]

I have a lot of Frommer's travel books, including one by Pauline Frommer about New York City - which we found very helpful. But I don't buy Frommer's or Fodor's WDW guidebooks - choosing to stick with Birnbaum/Unofficial Guide/Passporter. :)

[mking624]

I've been to Illinois once.
I was robbed at gunpoint, and pistol-whipped.
Guess where I'm NOT going again, despite the "high hotel standards"
Sorry to go off topic here, but you're judging an entire state based on an experience you had in one location of that state? What happened to you was terrible, but I would my life that there is crime right in the town you live in...but you still live there, don't you? I'm not saying to suck it up and go again. But one experience, no matter how horrible, doesn't make the entire place bad. I have enough of a hard time, being a native Chicagoan, trying to convince many people we meet in Kentucky and other places in the south that we aren't all packing guns and joining gangs.

But anyway, to say something about the original person who made some comment about "high hotel standards" go for Illinois...I grew up in Chicago. You had the ritzy places, and you had the seedy places where you knew people weren't just going there because they just needed a place to rest their head at night. Shoot, there's one street that wasn't too far from where I grew up where the motels were known just for that!! The same can be true about any place. It's not like Illinois is known worldwide for such terrific hotel standards...Illinois has the "best" of both worlds.

[mking624]

I dunno, I think she's giving pretty good advice to a family that is trying to stay in budget and hasn't been to WDW before.

I love the on site WDW thing, but honestly, if you don't know for sure how much your family will enjoy the experience, what's so bad about staying off site at a rental condo? Sounds sane to me.

And people going to Orlando for the first time often don't just want Disney. And if I had to pick two parks to skip with young kids, they would indeed be the Studios and Epcot.

I guess I don't see what everyone is finding so offensive.
I guess we find it offensive because we're failing to see how it's "good advice" when the "advice" being given has quite a bit of faulty/wrong information. Good advice would be getting the correct information and correctly sharing it. It's not good advice when you're giving wrong information and seemingly getting numbers out of thin air (as others have pointed out from the "form email"...since when is the dining plan $45 per day? Answer: never).

[MommyBoo!]

It's children under 3, not 2, do not count towards the room limit.

And all of my kids, 3, 10 and 12 love Epcot and have always enjoyed it.

[Macca1111]

Ummm...no. A hot dog is $4.25. A hot dog combo, which includes chips and a large beverage, is $7. But thanks for playing. :)

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[Macca1111]

The one thing that stuck out most, to me, is her Epcot comment.....I've been going to Epcot since I was around 3 (15 now) and it has always been a very close second to MK.

She's is soo ridiculous...:lmao:

http://www.amazon.com/Pauline-Frommers-Disney-Orlando-Frommer/dp/0470125357/ref=sr_1_10/102-4767100-6025749?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190670705&sr=8-10

Post bad reviews!!

Oh, she's the series editor. Drat! I was all ready to flame, but the dude may have some idea of what he's talking about. I did write to msn about the article tho. Your original complaints did create a small correction, so keep complaining!

[kerry34]

I just have to make a comment about the food cost remark. My family just visited Six Flags New England recently. It cost me 80.00 for a totally lousy CS lunch for my family (there are 7 of us). My cheeseburger was lukewarm and skimpy, soda was watered down and the fries were just barely okay. The particular spot we ate at offered no kids meals at all for the little ones. My kids had pizza and were still hungry afterward. At disney I have never spent 80.00 for lunch and the food quality is much better as is the quantity. Also after checking out a few other eating places during our visit we discovered that there were a few places that offered kids meals for close to 10.00. No thanks. The other comment that bothered me is to make the decision to tell people that Epcot offers nothing of interest for children. Not a very well rounded and informed statement to make. All of my kids enjoy epcot and all of the little things it has to offer. I have never bought a book from frommer before and I probably will not because I like to read pros and cons based on experience. I will stick with UG.

[WDW Poly Princess]

Reading the response letter some of you got, I think it's funny that not only is it too scattered with misinformation, but is still putting the anti-Disney spin on. For example, she mentions that the dining plan requires planning meals, which many people do not enjoy. However, one look at the dining board here, and you could also make the exact opposite statement- planning meals is soething which many people do enjoy, and still be true.

The inaccuracies really make me question the other books in the Frommers series. I'd hate to use them to plan a trip to Europe, just to get there and find that much of what they say is totally wrong!

I wonder if she has any idea how contreversial some of her "advice" is? A quick search of this or any other Disney board will bring up a decade's worth of debates on pool hopping, for instance. Perhaps she should add a side-note that if you choose to try to use the pools as a non-resort guest, you may want to arm yourself with last year's refillable mugs, to throw at people in defense if they come after you in an angry mob? ;)

I just can't believe that they've got the nerve to charge people for information that they haven't put the research into. Yet another reason to love Passporter! At least we KNOW Jennifer & Dave go out to experience things first hand! (And take kids to get their reactions, rather than just making assumptions!)

If the article was published with the intent to promote the book, I think it's safe to say it backfired!

[Mkrop]

Reading the response letter some of you got, I think it's funny that not only is it too scattered with misinformation, but is still putting the anti-Disney spin on. For example, she mentions that the dining plan requires planning meals, which many people do not enjoy. However, one look at the dining board here, and you could also make the exact opposite statement- planning meals is soething which many people do enjoy, and still be true.



Or to make it sound that if you skip the Dining Plan you dont need to plan your meals. No you dont need to plan them if you advise someone to eat offsite all the time. I dont care if it is Disney or SW but I dont want to be driving my family out of the park at lunch or dinner esp if we want to stay for fireworks. That seems a waste of time to save a few bucks. I aslo think that the Dining Plan is a great deal for families with kids if you plan any character meals. The cost of a character meal alone pays for the cost of the Dining Plan.

But hey staying offsite is wonderful for a lot of families, I know two families of 5 going down soon who are staying offsite and they were very grateful for the advice about ADRs(didnt realize that you had to make them etc), rope drop arrival, and for them not staying on property avoiding EMH.

So I think her article could have been better written to givve people offsite good advice I just dont think this one was.

BTW my kids (one who thinks he is Diego he is so into animals) were less than thrilled with AK and loved Epcot, so you never know.

ANd I thought in those shows on the Travel Channel that the lady who says "people think that Epcot isnt for kids is wrong" was a writer for Frommers but I could be wrong, I'll have to pay more attention

[boomhauer]

There are alot of guidebooks on the market with bad information. This is pretty much the worst I've seen. Very bias.

Her response really makes her seem bitter. She's STILL posting inaccurate information. Whatever.

FWIW - If you want a fantastic book about Disney World, pick up The Complete Guide To WDW. You can get it on Amazon. It's lacking detailed resort info, but in terms of the parks and it's attractions, it's fantastic!

[Corryn]

I just read the article and sent off an email Thanking her for all her misinformation.....The Park Hoppering was very funny and I pointed that out, too.
But what OP should do is start another thread in order to point out the option of Rating the story:

Rate this story Poor Thank you for rating.
Current average rating by 2371 users: (2 and a half stars out of 5)

We should get a campaign going and have all Dis'ers rate the story poor. That'll send a message to Pauline to stop sticking her nose into something she knows nothing about!

[skw444]

She added this to the article yesterday:

Corrections - September 24, 2007: As several readers pointed out, children under age 3 do not count toward the four-person limit stipulated at certain Walt Disney World Resorts. For Walt Disney World tickets, adult fees apply to children ages 10 and above, not ages 11 and up. Also, while a children’s meal including a hot dog can cost up to $7, an individual hot dog costs less at Disney. Finally, the photo originally used in this article pictured the Matterhorn, a ride at Disneyland in Anaheim.

[Stinky_Pete]

I think some of y'all have been drinking a little too much of the kool-aid...

Sure, there were some inaccuracies - it happens all the time in journalism, which is why you can't always believe what you read.

But I mean really...she is being blasted for not providing an in-depth exploration of the pros and cons of the various levels of on-site lodging options, the dining plan, stressing the parking fee if you stay off-site, etc. in one article? There are pages and pages of threads on the DIS about these topics, but some of you expect her to cover all that in one article?

My experience with travel books is that you often get the opinion of the author thrown in. Even the much praised UG (which I love) is full of the author's opinions.

[mking624]

I think some of y'all have been drinking a little too much of the kool-aid...

Sure, there were some inaccuracies - it happens all the time in journalism, which is why you can't always believe what you read.

But I mean really...she is being blasted for not providing an in-depth exploration of the pros and cons of the various levels of on-site lodging options, the dining plan, stressing the parking fee if you stay off-site, etc. in one article? There are pages and pages of threads on the DIS about these topics, but some of you expect her to cover all that in one article?

My experience with travel books is that you often get the opinion of the author thrown in. Even the much praised UG (which I love) is full of the author's opinions.

Why do people have to be criticized about "drinking the Disney koolaid" just because we're pointing out facts? Good grief.

By the way, it's not just one article...someone has read her book and posted here about how the book is just as bad.

And yes, when someone acts as a travel authority, I expect factual information about a travel destination they are writing about. If she cannot take the time to get the facts straight, she should not be writing the article, period. It makes her look unprofessional, ignorant, and quite frankly, untrustworthy. For many people, this "one article" gave quite a defining first impression. I would dare say that the amount of wrong information in the article (and the email response) was enough to make some DISers not trust future articles she will write on other travel destinations. Many of the things she wrote about and got wrong were not considered to be "in depth" information. Trying to pass off the dining plan as a bad deal because it's $45...she acts like she looked into it to know the cost when a simple visit to the WDW website would have told her the correct cost. Not exactly heavy research required. The reason why there are "pages and pages" of these topics is because the same question/answer gets posted over and over again. I mean seriously, do you realize how many threads will pop up for something like "what time can you enter MK with just your MNSSHP ticket?"

If expecting a "travel authority" to do their job correctly and get the facts straight makes me a koolaid drinker, then pass the cup on over!

[grimley1968]

Why do people have to be criticized about "drinking the Disney koolaid" just because we're pointing out facts? Good grief.

By the way, it's not just one article...someone has read her book and posted here about how the book is just as bad.

And yes, when someone acts as a travel authority, I expect factual information about a travel destination they are writing about. If she cannot take the time to get the facts straight, she should not be writing the article, period. It makes her look unprofessional, ignorant, and quite frankly, untrustworthy. For many people, this "one article" gave quite a defining first impression. I would dare say that the amount of wrong information in the article (and the email response) was enough to make some DISers not trust future articles she will write on other travel destinations. Many of the things she wrote about and got wrong were not considered to be "in depth" information. Trying to pass off the dining plan as a bad deal because it's $45...she acts like she looked into it to know the cost when a simple visit to the WDW website would have told her the correct cost. Not exactly heavy research required. The reason why there are "pages and pages" of these topics is because the same question/answer gets posted over and over again. I mean seriously, do you realize how many threads will pop up for something like "what time can you enter MK with just your MNSSHP ticket?"

If expecting a "travel authority" to do their job correctly and get the facts straight makes me a koolaid drinker, then pass the cup on over!

I agree with every word. Well stated. :thumbsup2

[WillCAD]

I think some of y'all have been drinking a little too much of the kool-aid...

Sure, there were some inaccuracies - it happens all the time in journalism, which is why you can't always believe what you read.

But I mean really...she is being blasted for not providing an in-depth exploration of the pros and cons of the various levels of on-site lodging options, the dining plan, stressing the parking fee if you stay off-site, etc. in one article? There are pages and pages of threads on the DIS about these topics, but some of you expect her to cover all that in one article?

My experience with travel books is that you often get the opinion of the author thrown in. Even the much praised UG (which I love) is full of the author's opinions.

I can't speak for everybody in this thread, but my criticism of the article stems not from her lack of depth (I never expected a 3-page article to delve into the intricacies of the MYW ticket system or evaluate all 24 WDW resorts).

My criticism is based on three points:

1) Her facts are incorrect
2) Her conclusions, which are based on incorrect facts, are also incorrect
3) She is a professional travel writer whose opinions are given tremendous weight thanks to her famous name, and her opinions are based on irresponsibly limited experience and criminally negligent lack of research.

You and I can state our opinions without the facts to back them up all we want; we are not professional travel writers with tens of thousands of readers spending millions of dollars in precious, limited vacation funds based on our opinions and recommendations.

Pauline Frommer, on the other hand, IS a professional travel writer with tens of thousands of readers spending millions of dollars in precious, limited vacation funds based on her opinions and recommendations - thus, ergo, and DUH - she has a responsibility to base all of her writing on painstaking research and first-hand experience, and not to simply pull made-up or inacurate facts out of her butt to support her personal opinion.

I have no problem with someone who is critical of Disney. In point of fact, I AM someone who is highly critical of Disney, on a regular basis; anyone who has read some of my posts on the various boards can tell you that. But I do have a problem with a prefessional travel writer, from one of the most trusted, respected, and widely-read travel guides in the world, doling out criticism without doing basic research or having any first-hand experience.

But maybe that's just me; Your Milage May Vary.

[The Big Daddy]

I dunno, I think she's giving pretty good advice to a family that is trying to stay in budget and hasn't been to WDW before.

I love the on site WDW thing, but honestly, if you don't know for sure how much your family will enjoy the experience, what's so bad about staying off site at a rental condo? Sounds sane to me.

And people going to Orlando for the first time often don't just want Disney. And if I had to pick two parks to skip with young kids, they would indeed be the Studios and Epcot.

I guess I don't see what everyone is finding so offensive.

I agree.

[nick262]

Here is the response that I sent back to Jon Douglas:

"Hello Mr. Douglas,

Thank you for the follow up letter. I would like to inform you that Ms. Frommer still does not have her facts correct, even in the letter below. The correction that was added to the article yesterday only covered some of the inaccuracies this reporter has stated. It frightens me that she has written a book on this subject. In her article and in the letter below it is quite clear that she knows nothing about Disney World, nor does she care to find out the facts, as show by her blatant distain for the Disney Company. This makes me question any article and/or book she has ever written. Please have another reporter do the research and write an article that contains the accurate information, as Ms. Frommer has shown a lack of integrity when it comes to her writing.

Thank you,"

I think that he needs to know that this is far from fixed.

[The Big Daddy]

1) Her facts are incorrect
2) Her conclusions, which are based on incorrect facts, are also incorrect
3) She is a professional travel writer whose opinions are given tremendous weight thanks to her famous name, and her opinions are based on irresponsibly limited experience and criminally negligent lack of research.

Criminally negligent? NOW whose facts are erroneous?:lmao:

[nick262]

Criminally negligent? NOW whose facts are erroneous?:lmao:

Are you Ms. Frommers father? It sure seems like it. When someone tells millions of readers to park their car at DTD and tresspass on Resort property to stay the night at a pool, that is indeed criminally negligent. She is encouraging people to break the law.

I am sorry folks, but I smell a troll.

[mking624]

I am sorry folks, but I smell a troll.
I smelled that troll since before the post on this thread....

I'm still failing to see how giving wrong information (including wrong prices) is considered "good advice" to some here? :confused3 Am I missing something here...do people really believe that giving out such faulty information is indeed good?

[boomhauer]

There are 36 books about WDW on Amazon. Her book is ranked #36 in sales.:)

If she wants to change that, she better seriously consider either a retraction to her follow-up or a whole new review all together.

[grimley1968]

Criminally negligent? NOW whose facts are erroneous?:lmao:

You're quoting someone on an internet discussion board, which is filled mostly with opinions, not articles supposedly based on researched facts! Improper use of the terms "criminally negligent" on an internet discussion board hardly compares to an entire article, and even a book, about WDW being written with shoddy fact-finding, and illogical leaps to conclusions based on said shoddy fact-finding, and this in what used to be a reputable and highly trusted travel journal.

Just because you may agree with Pauline Frommer's viewpoint (unfounded as it is with seemingly no accurate facts) does not mean that her sloppy, inaccurate and biased article is anything other than a waste of vacationers' precious money and/or time. I agree with others that this article makes me cross Frommer's off my list of travel reading for when I wish to research visiting unfamiliar places.

[The Big Daddy]

Here is the response that I sent back to Jon Douglas:

"Hello Mr. Douglas,

Thank you for the follow up letter. I would like to inform you that Ms. Frommer still does not have her facts correct, even in the letter below. The correction that was added to the article yesterday only covered some of the inaccuracies this reporter has stated. It frightens me that she has written a book on this subject. In her article and in the letter below it is quite clear that she knows nothing about Disney World, nor does she care to find out the facts, as show by her blatant distain for the Disney Company. This makes me question any article and/or book she has ever written. Please have another reporter do the research and write an article that contains the accurate information, as Ms. Frommer has shown a lack of integrity when it comes to her writing.

Thank you,"

I think that he needs to know that this is far from fixed.

Yes please, let's get this woman fired! That's a very Disney-esque attitude! Thank goodness none of us have EVER made mistakes at our jobs. Thank goodness none of us have ever made MORE than one mistake on our jobs, right? Does she claim to have a PhD in travel? It's very easy to say she should be an expert but should everyone here be called an expert at their job then? Should we all face the same hostility when making a mistake because we're an expert because it's our job? I personally found nothing offensice in her follow-up letter. Sure if you go into expecting the writer to have an attitude then that's the way you're going to read it. But is the attitude really on her part? I'm not so certain.....

[mking624]

Yes please, let's get this woman fired! That's a very Disney-esque attitude! Thank goodness none of us have EVER made mistakes at our jobs. Thank goodness none of us have ever made MORE than one mistake on our jobs, right? Does she claim to have a PhD in travel? It's very easy to say she should be an expert but should everyone here be called an expert at their job then? Should we all face the same hostility when making a mistake because we're an expert because it's our job? I personally found nothing offensice in her follow-up letter. Sure if you go into expecting the writer to have an attitude then that's the way you're going to read it. But is the attitude really on her part? I'm not so certain.....

You seem rather quick to defend such faulty information. Why are you so against people trying to correct everything that was wrong so that people who are researching trips are getting the correct information?
Yes, how horrible of us to expect a travel writer, who even publishes a book on the subject (and whose family name is VERY well known in the travel world so there are many many people to who look to their info for advice) to at least do basic research on the topic she's writing about. Terrible terrible people we are. :rotfl2:

[The Big Daddy]

Just because you may agree with Pauline Frommer's viewpoint (unfounded as it is with seemingly no accurate facts) does not mean that her sloppy, inaccurate and biased article is anything other than a waste of vacationers' precious money and/or time. I agree with others that this article makes me cross Frommer's off my list of travel reading for when I wish to research visiting unfamiliar places.

Unfounded with no accurate facts? Is it inaccurate that it's cheaper to room and eat offsite than on? If you read her follow-up she stated the $1,600 has to cover airfare. So leaving them $800 after airfare where would you have them stay and eat for a week? Maybe they could sleep behind a dumpster and eat park leftovers as the remaining $800 might be needed to buy park tickets. Again I say that most posters in this topic feel too strongly about Disneyworld to view the article objectively and I think sending emails to people's supervisors in the heat of the moment is wrong. You can cost someone their job. She had a few mistakes. Move on. She didn't cost anyone their life. She commited no crime (despite being accused of being criminally negligent) and no one was hurt. Let the buyer beware. If the person asking the question in the article stops his research right there with her advice then he isn't a very smart consumer.

[The Big Daddy]

You seem rather quick to defend such faulty information. Why are you so against people trying to correct everything that was wrong so that people who are researching trips are getting the correct information?
Yes, how horrible of us to expect a travel writer, who even publishes a book on the subject (and whose family name is VERY well known in the travel world so there are many many people to who look to their info for advice) to at least do basic research on the topic she's writing about. Terrible terrible people we are.

And you seem very quick to nail her to the cross over it.

[Mkrop]

Yes please, let's get this woman fired! That's a very Disney-esque attitude! Thank goodness none of us have EVER made mistakes at our jobs. Thank goodness none of us have ever made MORE than one mistake on our jobs, right? Does she claim to have a PhD in travel? It's very easy to say she should be an expert but should everyone here be called an expert at their job then? Should we all face the same hostility when making a mistake because we're an expert because it's our job? I personally found nothing offensice in her follow-up letter. Sure if you go into expecting the writer to have an attitude then that's the way you're going to read it. But is the attitude really on her part? I'm not so certain.....

yes if I put incorrect information out in a company document and it was published extrenally then YES I probably would be fired. Thta is how may company worked.

[Mkrop]

And you seem very quick to nail her to the cross over it.

IT IS HER JOB! If I wrote that article, then yes I would deserve to be crucified.

[grimley1968]

Unfounded with no accurate facts? Is it inaccurate that it's cheaper to room and eat offsite than on? If you read her follow-up she stated the $1,600 has to cover airfare. So leaving them $800 after airfare where would you have them stay and eat for a week? Maybe they could sleep behind a dumpster and eat park leftovers as the remaining $800 might be needed to buy park tickets. Again I say that most posters in this topic feel too strongly about Disneyworld to view the article objectively and I think sending emails to people's supervisors in the heat of the moment is wrong. You can cost someone their job. She had a few mistakes. Move on. She didn't cost anyone their life. She commited no crime (despite being accused of being criminally negligent) and no one was hurt. Let the buyer beware. If the person asking the question in the article stops his research right there with her advice then he isn't a very smart consumer.

Umm, I don't think she will be fired anytime soon, being PAULINE FROMMER, writing for Frommer's! :rolleyes:

I don't expect anyone to get fired, but I would hope she wouldn't make any money on this book or article, since it's shoddy journalism. I really doubt she has any "supervisors." That's another thing that makes the article/book troubling, that the editor/owner of the company is the one making the bogus claims and conclusions with no independent fact-checking before publication.

And it IS inaccurate in this instance to say it's cheaper to stay offsite than onsite, since there is no perspective. For all we know, someone could be staying offsite at the 4 Seasons in Manhattan, flying in on a private jet, and then going to parks. That's a little more expensive than staying at All Stars and riding the bus in. That may sound ridiculous to you, but to me it sounds no more ridiculous than Pauline Frommer, inheritor of the great Frommer's Name, calling resorts like Grand Floridian, Polynesian, Contemporary and Wilderness Lodge "motels", which is exactly what she was referring to when she talked about "motels" that form a ring around Magic Kingdom.

[The Big Daddy]

I'm still failing to see how giving wrong information (including wrong prices) is considered "good advice" to some here? Am I missing something here...do people really believe that giving out such faulty information is indeed good?

Suggesting to someone on a VERY tight budget that staying offsite might make his trip actually doable IS good advice. To have someone misquote the price of a hot dog by $2.50 is not worth getting her fired. Am I missing something? Do people really believe that misquoting a hot dog by $2.50 is criminally negligent and worth geting someone fired? And do people really believe that a PERCEIVED preference to Orlando attractions other than Disneyworld is worthy of tar and feathering this woman?

[nick262]

Yes please, let's get this woman fired! That's a very Disney-esque attitude! Thank goodness none of us have EVER made mistakes at our jobs. Thank goodness none of us have ever made MORE than one mistake on our jobs, right? Does she claim to have a PhD in travel? It's very easy to say she should be an expert but should everyone here be called an expert at their job then? Should we all face the same hostility when making a mistake because we're an expert because it's our job? I personally found nothing offensice in her follow-up letter. Sure if you go into expecting the writer to have an attitude then that's the way you're going to read it. But is the attitude really on her part? I'm not so certain.....

Sorry, but where in my response did I request that she be fired. I only requested that they have another reporter do another article with the correct information as she had already shown she had no interest in doing the necessary research. No where did I say fire her.

[The Big Daddy]

And it IS inaccurate in this instance to say it's cheaper to stay offsite than onsite, since there is no perspective. For all we know, someone could be staying offsite at the 4 Seasons in Manhattan, flying in on a private jet, and then going to parks. That's a little more expensive than staying at All Stars and riding the bus in.

No perspective? In this instance? We are well aware of what this instance is...the person with the question is on a tight budget. We even know how much...$1,600 for everything! So I guess what led you to beleive he had a private jet?

[grimley1968]

Suggesting to someone on a VERY tight budget that staying offsite might make his trip actually doable IS good advice. To have someone misquote the price of a hot dog by $2.50 is not worth getting her fired. Am I missing something? Do people really believe that misquoting a hot dog by $2.50 is criminally negligent and worth geting someone fired? And do people really believe that a PERCEIVED preference to Orlando attractions other than Disneyworld is worthy of tar and feathering this woman?

Big Daddy, no one gets fired. She's Pauline Frommer!

Yes, misquoting the price of a hot dog IS a big deal, when you then use that misquoted information to buttress your conclusion that food is more expensive at WDW than other places.

You try going to an NFL football game or MLB game and getting a hot dog or a beer for less than what you'd pay at WDW. Well, you don't need to, because I've done it at both places, and I can assure you that WDW is much less expensive than any professional sporting event I've been to and tried to buy food or drinks.

[tweedlemom]

popcorn::

[The Big Daddy]

You try going to an NFL football game or MLB game and getting a hot dog or a beer for less than what you'd pay at WDW. Well, you don't need to, because I've done it at both places, and I can assure you that WDW is much less expensive than any professional sporting event I've been to and tried to buy food or drinks.

Did she suggest he take his meals at a football game rather than eating in the parks? I don't remember that. I'm pretty certain, without trying to be criminally negligent, that he can probably get a hot dog much cheaper offsite at a Portillos than he can at Disney.

[marivaid]

She's wrong about other things besides Disney.

From my research, there's little cost difference between Oklahoma City and Dallas-Fort Worth, at least on this route. Go with whichever is more convenient.

Does she even know that there's a 2nd airport in Dallas, less than half an hour away???

Flying from Dallas (Love Field) to Orlando is $95 each way.
Flying from Oklahoma City is $177 each way.
That's almost twice the cost.

She has no clue about anything, she just throws facts around without doing any research.

This family is supposed to be on a budget yet she's telling them to spend a day at SeaWorld, which will add about $200 to their expenses, while an extra day at a Disney park would have cost them around $10.

(And for the record, I LOVE SeaWorld, been there more times than WDW).

[The Big Daddy]

IT IS HER JOB! If I wrote that article, then yes I would deserve to be crucified.

That's not a very Disney attitude. Thank goodness most employers don't take the same hardline attitude that you do or everyone in America would be unemployed because of the human errors we make.

[mking624]

"The Big Daddy", it's become quite clear that you're adamantly against any form of accountability and against well seasoned travelers from trying to help provide the correct information so that other travelers actually know the facts...and it's become quite clear that you have no interest in listening to any form of reason. You've made up your mind that apparently her words are "good advice" in spite of much of it being downright wrong, so there's no point in continuing to argue with you. I will say, though, that if you think that a hot dog price was the only thing she got wrong, you're obviously not well aware of WDW yourself.

As for me, I'll happily continue this discussion without feeding the troll. I suggest others do the same since it's plainly obvious he is more interested in controversy and debate (and not just in this thread, but others as well) then he is actually discussing things.

[The Big Daddy]

I don't expect anyone to get fired, but I would hope she wouldn't make any money on this book or article

So she'll have a job...just not get paid for it. Wow there's a big difference between the two.....

[nick262]

Did she suggest he take his meals at a football game rather than eating in the parks? I don't remember that. I'm pretty certain, without trying to be criminally negligent, that he can probably get a hot dog much cheaper offsite at a Portillos than he can at Disney.

Actually, that offsite hotdog will cost more then the onsite one. After paying for the rental car, gas and the parking at the parks.

I am sorry that all we want is for accurate information to be printed. I am sorry that you dont care about the details but some do. If you were to really crunch the numbers, staying offsite could possible cost you more then onsite in some cases. If she had done her research, she would know that.

[grimley1968]

"The Big Daddy", it's become quite clear that you're adamantly against any form of accountability and against well seasoned travelers from trying to help provide the correct information so that other travelers actually know the facts...and it's become quite clear that you have no interest in listening to any form of reason. You've made up your mind that apparently her words are "good advice" in spite of much of it being downright wrong, so there's no point in continuing to argue with you. I will say, though, that if you think that a hot dog price was the only thing she got wrong, you're obviously not well aware of WDW yourself.

As for me, I'll happily continue this discussion without feeding the troll. I suggest others do the same since it's plainly obvious he is more interested in controversy and debate (and not just in this thread, but others as well) then he is actually discussing things.

I'll feed the troll just a little more: Being from Chicago, Mary, you might remember just how far offsite "Portillo's Hot Dogs" would be that The Big Daddy mentioned. It's a Chicago area chain! :lmao: Oh, it has 3 locations opening soon in California by the way. Yes, they have slightly cheaper hot dogs, but I think I'd rather pay the $1.50 extra for a WDW hot dog than pay to have a Portillo's dog delivered to my park bench inside Magic Kingdom.

[mking624]

I'll feed the troll just a little more: Being from Chicago, Mary, you might remember just how far offsite "Portillo's Hot Dogs" would be that The Big Daddy mentioned. It's a Chicago area chain! :lmao: Oh, it has 3 locations opening soon in California by the way. Yes, they have slightly cheaper hot dogs, but I think I'd rather pay the $1.50 extra for a WDW hot dog than pay to have a Portillo's dog delivered to my park bench inside Magic Kingdom.
:lmao: :lmao: Good point. Yeah WDW does come out cheaper in the end when you consider Portillos delivery of crossing state lines. :lmao:

[The Big Daddy]

"The Big Daddy", it's become quite clear that you're adamantly against any form of accountability and against well seasoned travelers from trying to help provide the correct information so that other travelers actually know the facts...and it's become quite clear that you have no interest in listening to any form of reason. You've made up your mind that apparently her words are "good advice" in spite of much of it being downright wrong, so there's no point in continuing to argue with you. I will say, though, that if you think that a hot dog price was the only thing she got wrong, you're obviously not well aware of WDW yourself.

Reason? Apparently you aren't aware of WDW if you think you can stay onsite more cheaply than offsite, given the same level of accomodations.

As for me, I'll happily continue this discussion without feeding the troll. I suggest others do the same since it's plainly obvious he is more interested in controversy and debate (and not just in this thread, but others as well) then he is actually discussing things.

Just because my opinion differs from yours doesn't mean we aren't discussing things. I'm not the person throwing out wild accusations like "criminally negligent" or blowing my stack over a $2.50 difference in the price of a hot dog as opposed to a hot dog combo.

Regarding my post in another thread, I seem to see many of YOUR posts, in this thread and others, that are very judgemental. I leave the absolutes of right and wrong to a higher power than myself. Might I make a suggestion that you do the same.

If you want to live someplace where the minority have no voice and the only discussion had is among people who only share your narrow views then I'm sure there's plenty of room in ex-communist Russia.

[mking624]

Actually, that offsite hotdog will cost more then the onsite one. After paying for the rental car, gas and the parking at the parks.

I am sorry that all we want is for accurate information to be printed. I am sorry that you dont care about the details but some do. If you were to really crunch the numbers, staying offsite could possible cost you more then onsite in some cases. If she had done her research, she would know that.
I agree, there have been times we have been able to stay onsite for cheaper than offsite. But apparently I know nothing. :rotfl: Apparently my wanting people to have correct WDW info so they can make an informed decision is just so narrow minded of me and is deserving of me being sent to Russia. Ah, I needed a good laugh today!!

[grimley1968]

Just because my opinion differs from yours doesn't mean we aren't discussing things. I'm not the person throwing out wild accusations like "criminally negligent" or blowing my stack over a $2.50 difference in the price of a hot dog as opposed to a hot dog combo.

Regarding my post in another thread, I seem to see many of YOUR posts, in this thread and others, that are very judgemental. I leave the absolutes of right and wrong to a higher power than myself. Might I make a suggestion that you do the same.

Judgmental?

People have been picking apart a supposedly "professional" travel writer/magazine owner's factual inaccuracies and unfounded conclusions based on those facts. No one has "blown their stack" over a difference in hot dog price alone, when there are factual wrongs galore in that article.

Usually when someone accuses another of being judgmental, it's been my experience that the accuser is usually the one truly being judgmental. From reading all these previous posts, I see nothing to change this trend.


If you want to live someplace where the minority have no voice and the only discussion had is among people who only share your narrow views then I'm sure there's plenty of room in ex-communist Russia.

:lmao: Stop it! You're killing me with this stuff. That's one of the most hyperbolic things I think I've ever read on this site, and I've seen a lot of hyperbole.

I think the person who has the most narrow views in this case would be Pauline Frommer herself. People with narrow worldviews tend to make up facts, or badly distort facts, to support their views, and that is exactly what she did in this article.

[nick262]

I agree, there have been times we have been able to stay onsite for cheaper than offsite. But apparently I know nothing. :rotfl: Apparently my wanting people to have correct WDW info so they can make an informed decision is just so narrow minded of me and is deserving of me being sent to Russia. Ah, I needed a good laugh today!!

I guess you and I will be moving there together. I'll spring for the vodka if you get the tonic. :lmao:

[grimley1968]

I guess you and I will be moving there together. I'll spring for the vodka if you get the tonic. :lmao:

One thing in it's favor: it's probably cheaper than going to WDW. :rolleyes:

There, I just made a completely uninformed comment about a place I've never been close to, just like that Frommer's article!

I bet hot dogs there are dirt cheap, too. Is Portillo's expanding to ex-Communist Russia soon? Oh wait, no, I looked at the website and it's expanding to California, not Russia.

[nick262]

One thing in it's favor: it's probably cheaper than going to WDW. :rolleyes:

There, I just made a completely uninformed comment about a place I've never been close to, just like that Frommer's article!

I bet hot dogs there are dirt cheap, too. Is Portillo's expanding to ex-Communist Russia soon? Oh wait, no, I looked at the website and it's expanding to California, not Russia.

Hot dogs are most likely cheaper, but you have to stand in line for 3 days (is that uninformed enough for you?).... or have they installed fastpass?:goodvibes

[ntsammy5]

Meh, let the mis-info flow, crowds are rising enough as is. :P

Good point!:lmao:

[Stinky_Pete]

popcorn::

[The Big Daddy]

Usually when someone accuses another of being judgmental, it's been my experience that the accuser is usually the one truly being judgmental. From reading all these previous posts, I see nothing to change this trend.

Sorry but I wasn't the person that accused another of refusing to participate in a "discussion". I also wasn't the person who said they had a "run-in" with me in another thread. I thought that's what we were doing...having a discussion. Not feed the troll? That's something my 5 year old niece would do. Ignore me because they don't like what I have to say. I still stand by the fact that some of you are too close to the topic of Disneyworld to be objective on criticism of anything Disney.

So there's no Portillo's in Florida? Really? Wow good for them!

[Mkrop]

That's not a very Disney attitude. Thank goodness most employers don't take the same hardline attitude that you do or everyone in America would be unemployed because of the human errors we make.

What exactly is a Disney attitude?

[jdb0822]

the 1st question in the article had me laughing.. .....

"I want to plan a trip to Disney World sometime next year. I've heard that it's expensive, and I really want to give my children the whole experience. It would be awesome to stay at Cinderella's Castle, but something similar would work too...."

Stay at the castle or similar. Wow, thats a new one for me.. !!!!

[Mkrop]

the 1st question in the article had me laughing.. .....

"I want to plan a trip to Disney World sometime next year. I've heard that it's expensive, and I really want to give my children the whole experience. It would be awesome to stay at Cinderella's Castle, but something similar would work too...."
Stay at the castle or similar. Wow, thats a new one for me.. !!!!

Yeah the Rodeway Inn and the Castle are really just the same, dontcha think:rotfl: :rolleyes1

[grimley1968]

Stay at the castle or similar. Wow, thats a new one for me.. !!!!

Well, we all know the Grand Floridian "motel" offers similar accommodations. :rotfl2:

Ok, so you're not staying IN the castle, but you might be able to see it. :)

I was hoping when we drive down I-75 in October that we could find a good "motel" like they have near Magic Kingdom. We went ahead booked a Fairfield Inn in Tifton, GA. But I was really hoping for a "motel" with a monorail next to it and boat access to the nearest theme park. Where can I find that? Anyone know?

:lmao:

[aplejax76]

Unfounded with no accurate facts? Is it inaccurate that it's cheaper to room and eat offsite than on? If you read her follow-up she stated the $1,600 has to cover airfare. So leaving them $800 after airfare where would you have them stay and eat for a week? Maybe they could sleep behind a dumpster and eat park leftovers as the remaining $800 might be needed to buy park tickets.

I recieved an email back from Msn travel. When I read Mrs. Frommer's part of the email, she said that she had to include the airfare in the $1600 budget.

I never read it that way. I went back and reread the article. Yet again Mrs. Frommer is WRONG!!!!. That was not what the questioner was asking. Her email was ridiculous.

[Helpmate]

Well, we all know the Grand Floridian "motel" offers similar accommodations. :rotfl2:

Ok, so you're not staying IN the castle, but you might be able to see it. :)

I was hoping when we drive down I-75 in October that we could find a good "motel" like they have near Magic Kingdom. We went ahead booked a Fairfield Inn in Tifton, GA. But I was really hoping for a "motel" with a monorail next to it and boat access to the nearest theme park. Where can I find that? Anyone know?

:lmao:
Very very funny! And yet slightly frightening to have such power with so little truth.

It's such a shame that misinformation can actually cause some to rule out WDW as an affordable option. It does cost, but there are many price ranges to choose from depending on what a person can live with or without. Obviouslly, the poor woman who wrote this book has never allowed herself to truly experience the wonder involved in a real WDW vacation. I hope that was spoken like a true DW.

[PrincessTiffany]

I recieved an email back from Msn travel. When I read Mrs. Frommer's part of the email, she said that she had to include the airfare in the $1600 budget.

I never read it that way. I went back and reread the article. Yet again Mrs. Frommer is WRONG!!!!. That was not what the questioner was asking. Her email was ridiculous.
I also just received my email response from MSN. Pauline Frommer is clearly clueless.

[pednurse]

Another tidbit of misinformation from the Frommers....also on msn travel....excerpted from the Frommer's Walt Disney World & Orlando with kids book.....is a list entitled Family:Disney World's Top 10. It's not Disney World & Orlando's Top 10, just Disney World's Top 10. There are 3 subdivisions, based on ages, each with the "top 10" rides/attractions, supposedly from Disney World. Yet again Frommer shows blatant misinformation with a total of 14 rides/attractions that will be found no where in Disney World (instead they are from places such as US and SW). Yet according to the title, you can find them at WDW. Go figure!:confused3
http://travel.msn.com/Guides/article.aspx?cp-documentid=345359

[Brian_WDW74]

Another tidbit of misinformation from the Frommers....also on msn travel....excerpted from the Frommer's Walt Disney World & Orlando with kids book.....is a list entitled Family:Disney World's Top 10. It's not Disney World & Orlando's Top 10, just Disney World's Top 10.

To be fair on this one: It's the people at MSN that mistitled this excerpt, not Frommer's. The book itself is clearly titled Frommer’s Walt Disney World & Orlando with Kids. Despite Pauline's shoddy journalism in the original article, we can't blame her for this one. :)

[kgilchri]

Wow, that was pretty bad. From the rate for the value resort (we got $81/night for Pop, not the $89 she suggested was the lowest rate) to the recommendation of staying at the Rodeway Inn on I-Drive. I'm sorry, but anyone who suggests I-Drive is less stressful and just as nice as a WDW property is a bit dillusional. It makes me sad b/c that article really could turn away families who think they simply can't afford WDW. Such a shame...

[hoffman1]

I must admit I am coming in late on this thread. I have not read the full thread, but I did meet Ms. Frommer at a local book festival. (I posted about it here http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=1430404 ) It was right before her Disney book came out. I was excited to meet her to see what kind of "expert" advice she might give me. I was greatly disappointed. The first thing she told me was to not stay on property.:eek: We love staying on property. Then she asked how long we were staying. I replied 10 days and she said something like "and you want to?" :sad2: She was so snobby. Needless to say I did not buy her book and now have much diminished opinion of all the Frommers line.

[wen8jr]

I think I'll just stick with reading "sound" advice from my DIS friends who do know the facts. :thumbsup2 :grouphug:

BTW - I'm getting POR for $105.00 a night with the Fall promo, dining for $39 per day per person and 5 days of tickets for $650.00. Costing a total of $2,000.00. Tell me, where can I stay cheaper as comfortably or eat cheaper without packing our own sandwiches, eating hot dogs all day or going to town for a $5 combo meal at McD? Hotels on our trip down I75 will cost at least as much, TS food the same.

Other hotels near attractions also cost just as much, if not more. For example 1 night and 2 days in OH for a family of three: 1 day at the Zoo and one day at Kings Island, with that one night hotel stay at a Ramada Limited cost us approx. $450.00. My 5 night 6 day trip at Disney, including food will cost me $2,000.00. This is not including gas or extra purchases for either trip. Why does Disney cost more? Because we are choosing to go for more than one night. I feel that a Disney vacation can be very reasonable unless you splurg and go all out. And if you can afford it, I say go for it. If you need to spend less there are cheaper options onsite. To each their own.

Anything you do can be expensive, with a little sound advice and good planning it can be a little cheaper than just jumping right in without research. We've even planned our WDW vacation cheap enough to splurg in St. Augustine for a few days at $300 per night. ;) What! And all this without Ms. Frommer's help!!!!

While we could stay off site in a hotel that might be $10 cheaper per night and go to Universal Studios and Sea World instead, we want to go to WDW despite Ms. Frommers incorrectly stated advice. :rolleyes

Anyone with issues about vacationing at WDW can always go somewhere else on vacation and quit lurking on the Disney forums. Somehow it just seems very weird to be on here arguing that Disney isn't that great.

[DanMedix]

We at the DIS know what's real and what's not at WDW.


All others....

http://www.ladragonera.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/troll_no_feed.jpg

[surfergrl31]

The fact that she is still clueless is what bothers me the most and is not wanting to admit that she is wrong. I guess reading fine print, which I don't remember the print being fine about occupancy rules, was something she left to an assistant. The dinning plan still makes me laugh because her "apology" has the information wrong again. If this many people went out of their way to point out mistakes, I would research all points before having a rebuttal.

"That being said, I do think many of Disney's offerings are overpriced. At
$45/day, per person, I don't think the meal plan is a good value especially
when you consider the price of food outside the parks. There are also
restrictions on the eating plan that I find onerous: everyone in the room
must buy one, not every eatery on property is included, and it’s good for
one counterservice and one sitdown meal a day meaning that you have to spend a good amount of time making and keeping reservations (something a
lot of visitors don't enjoy doing). You also can't customize it so that you
pay less if you leave early on your last day at Disney, which means many
guests end up paying more than they have to."

Even with tax the dp isn't $45 a day, for that matter it isn't calculated per a day. So their goes her argument about if a guests leaves early on the last day and cannot use their credits because they have probably used them all. How many resturants are actually not on the plan? I think most of them are in DTD and the Swan & Dolphin. The reservations will have to be made anyway if you really want to eat at a certain time and depending on what time of year you are going. I had no problem switching reservations once I was there and realized they didn't work. If this is how well they research their articles, I will no longer be looking at advice from frommers.

[mking624]

We at the DIS know what's real and what's not at WDW.


All others....

http://www.ladragonera.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/troll_no_feed.jpg
LOVE that image!

[WillCAD]

Just because my opinion differs from yours doesn't mean we aren't discussing things. I'm not the person throwing out wild accusations like "criminally negligent" or blowing my stack over a $2.50 difference in the price of a hot dog as opposed to a hot dog combo.

Okay, okay, I'll admit that my use of the term "criminally negligent," which seems to have struck a major chord with you, was inacurate and inappropriate. But then you'll have to admit that:

"with theme park hot dog meals costing a whopping $7 and a one-day entry ticket at Disney World soaring to $71 per adult (defined as age 10 and above—tell that to the DMV)."

is completely misleading, because she completely fails to mention that per day prices drop sharply as you buy longer tickets, and since there are 4 theme parks, you need a minimum of 4 days to see them all.

And:

"They're cinderblock motels, packed with loud school groups for much of the year, that are located farther from the Disney attractions than most of the (often nicer) motels that are clustered around the gates of Disney World."

Is completely WRONG - the Disney Value resorts are demonstrably NOT "packed with loud school groups for much of the year," though some of them do have tour groups or PW or cheer groups at SOME times.

And I dare you to find me ANY non-Disney hotel (or motel), other than those on Hotel Plaza Blvd or the Swan & Dolphin, that is closer to the parks than Pop or the All-Stars.

"Epcot won't have enough to interest your younger kids."

Horse-hockey. Epcot has all sorts of kid-friendly stuff, although admittedly it's not all princesses and muppets and Mr. Sanderz. Some kids don't like Epcot, but some do; to issue such a blanket statement, dismissing the entire park out of hand, is ridiculous to anyone who has been to Epcot.

"Be wary of "upgrading" your passes, as that's not the best value"

Say what? Since when is upgrading your pass from 4 days to 5, getting another full day at a theme park for $3 not the best value!? (NOTE: 4-day base ticket $225.78, 5-day base ticket $228.98, difference $3.20).

"You probably won't get to the water park,"

Says who? Plenty of folks with younger kids hit the water parks.

" and Disney's eating plan is inconvenient (only certain properties are included, some of which require reservations)."

Again, simply WRONG. The Dining Plan includes almost every restaurant and eatery on WDW property (some require two credits instead of one), and ALL of them require reservations, unless you want to wait a long time as a walk-up.

"Then, do one day at SeaWorld (http://travel.msn.com/Destinations_Seaworld_Florida_tier2_DATE_DESC_1103 2_200000388_4.aspx) (an unmissable, exuberantly fun and educational Orlando attraction)"

SeaWorld is unmissable and exhuberantly fun for a 5-year old and a 2-year old, but Epcot has nothing to interest them? Well, that's a matter of opinion, but my opinion is that this a whacked opinion.

" and, if your older one's into action heroes, one day at Universal Studios (http://travel.msn.com/Destinations_Universal_Studios_Florida_Florida_tie r2_DATE_DESC_11032_10116289_4.aspx)."

Er, the action heroes are not at Universal Studios, they are next door at Islands of Adventure.

Now, as far as the whole on-site vs. off-site thing, I've never been shy about staying off-site when I get better bargains than on-site (which, unfortunately, is quite often). But I'll be on-site for MouseFest, staying at the fabulous All-Star Cinderblock Movies resort for $59 a night.

And renting a car - I'm all over that. I always rent a car at WDW; in my 17 years of visiting, I've only done two trips without wheels and hated every minute of it.

Visiting Universal or SeaWorld? One of my number-one reccomendations to anyone planning a trip to Orlando is that the world doesn't end at the Disney property line - get the heck out and try other stuff, because there's plenty of great stuff out there that you'll miss if you limit yourself to WDW.

So no, I don't disagree with everything she wrote, but the stuff she got wrong completely destroys her credibility as a professional journalist in my eyes.

By the way - ARE you actually Pauline's Big Daddy, Aurthur Frommer? Cause if you are, man, I really dug your appearance in "Eurotrip." Way cool, bro!

[mking624]

I just have to point out how amusing I found it that she criticizes the expense of a WDW ticket (and fails to mention that adding an extra day is a merely few dollar difference), but advocates spending a day at SeaWorld and Universal.
One day ticket for SeaWorld for an out of state visitor:
Adult - $64.95
Child - $53.95

Universal Studios one day ticket:
Adult - $77 (more than a one day ticket to a park at WDW)
Child - $67 (barely less than a one day ticket to a park at WDW)
If you wait until you get to the gate, those prices increase as follows:
Adult - $82.95
Child - $72.95
BOTH of those prices are more expensive than a one day ticket to a WDW park. And yet she complains about the WDW one day ticket price as "soaring"...so instead of trying to save them money when the family is on a budget, she advocates spending more money. I think a $3 cost to add an extra day at WDW is far cheaper than spending a few hundred dollars extra at other parks. Now of course it's up to the travelers if they want to visit those other parks (and more power to them if they do), but the point here is that Frommer is being misleading about what is more and less expensive.

And while she complains about WDW's policy on the ages of "adults", what she fails to realize is that by 10 years old, the average child is tall enough to ride just about all the rides and therefore starts paying the higher cost since he or she now has the ability to do much more. Whether or not that child chooses to go on them is an entirely different matter. And Ms. Frommer failed to realize that both SeaWorld AND Universal also have their adult prices beginning at age 10 years old.

[amyhughes]

As far as journalistic integrity, I worry about the misinformation given. Yes, there was an edit, but alas the damage was done. The information was not checked and rechecked (I am in the habit as are many in journalism of sending articles to our sources for verification and also if they dispute any of the information BEFORE going to print!), and also she has stated that SHE has gone to Disney but is giving advice for another person taking her CHILDREN. So if you haven't actually taken your own children to WDW, not DLR, how would you have practical advice for this much larger resort? Also, as has been stated above prices, a negative slant, etc. does leave the reader with a deffinite tinge on their pallette. I agree some advice translates from Coast to Coast but regarding an age groups preference of one park over another, WOULDN'T IT BE BETTER TO HAVE HAD THAT EXPERIENCE WITH YOUR OWN CHILDREN OR CHILDREN IN YOUR TRAVEL PARTY BEFORE MAKING THAT LEAP?

In all, I did rate it based on the fact that she did not know her subject matter fully, did not take the time to investigate facts regarding lodging, air fare, dining, or even if children ENJOY one of the 4 MAJOR parks, Epcot (which as has been stated many do). She also is dealing in GENERALIZATIONS galore! She may have walked through Epcot with a group of adults and seen a few children crying, or misbehaving or looking bored and BOOM! "STOP THE PRESSES! KIDS HATE EPCOT!" My kids, as with many others!, love anything where they can get hands on and learn in an interactive way. I think it is time to shed the monicre that children get bored if they are asked to LEARN. I find that very thought ignorant.


In all, I hope there are those out there who do their homework beyond her book, CANNOT believe she endorses gate crashing resort pools!
Um, Hello, SECURITY! Get the Frommers out of our pool! They are staying offsite!
We did stay offsite this past time and I NEVER WILL AGAIN! Too much of headache and I felt we missed out on an integral experience of the vacation which is RELAXATION! I want to lose my car keys on vacation and not see them until check out!

And the deal with the food! COME ON! If the 4 of us eat at Outback it costs between 60-70 bucks. When we ate at The Grand Floridian it was 72. A whole whopping $12 more and we got to meet Cinderella to boot. Sometimes in life you pinch pennies, I agree. But sometimes you spend 10 bucks more for the experience.

Instead of branding her book, we should look for those lost in the parks and ask "Did you read Frommer's? Talk to me it will be alright!":goodvibes

[suzimar57]

sad thing is, people who don't know any better (none of us!) will read that article and believe the misinformation it contains

[TommyTutone]

I just have to point out how amusing I found it that she criticizes the expense of a WDW ticket (and fails to mention that adding an extra day is a merely few dollar difference), but advocates spending a day at SeaWorld and Universal.
One day ticket for SeaWorld for an out of state visitor:
Adult - $64.95
Child - $53.95

Universal Studios one day ticket:
Adult - $77 (more than a one day ticket to a park at WDW)
Child - $67 (barely less than a one day ticket to a park at WDW)
If you wait until you get to the gate, those prices increase as follows:
Adult - $82.95
Child - $72.95
BOTH of those prices are more expensive than a one day ticket to a WDW park. And yet she complains about the WDW one day ticket price as "soaring"...so instead of trying to save them money when the family is on a budget, she advocates spending more money. I think a $3 cost to add an extra day at WDW is far cheaper than spending a few hundred dollars extra at other parks. Now of course it's up to the travelers if they want to visit those other parks (and more power to them if they do), but the point here is that Frommer is being misleading about what is more and less expensive.


I am not defending Frommer by any means, but if you are going to throw numbers out there, you should do so accurately. For anyone smart enough to look online (not knocking you but I imagine there are visitors to UO who don't know better), you can get a 7-day pass, equivalent to a Park Hopper since you can go back and forth between parks, for UO for $86. The Disney 7-day park hopper price, from their website, is $264, which can probably be had cheaper elsewhere, but not $180 cheaper.

Lastly, for $85, you can get two days at Seaworld, not that I know of anyone who would need two, but that option is there. How does that compare to Disney's prices?

[bookgirl2632]

I work at a Barnes & Noble. I regularly check out any new Disney guidebooks that come out. It's good to get different perspectives on the parks and resorts, right? Anyway, a few months ago, I was pleased to see that a new one was in, one by Pauline Frommer. I figured with such a respected name in travel it would have to be good.

Wrong! I didn't read the whole thing, but after just the first few chapters, I could see that this woman was horribly biased against Disney. This bias colored all aspects of her writing. What we are left with in her book is a disservice to anyone looking to travel to Disney. Yes, we on the Dis, know better. But there are a lot of people who go without the benefit of this website. They rely on guidebooks. So if one were to pick hers up, they'd be terribly misinformed.

The good news is that her book has not sold well. And when I am asked advice or if I see someone comparing Disney guidebooks, I try to steer them in the right direction. Personally, I like the Unofficial Guide, the Passporter, and Birnbaum's. I always point those out to customers. I also let them know about the Dis and Allears. People deserve to be well-informed about such a magical vacation.

[Jason71]

I don't consider myself a Kool-Aid drinker, and to be honest, I tend to agree with her comments re: the All-Stars (concrete box motels inconvenient to the parks). But her alternative is...the Roadway Inn on I-Drive??? :confused: I can think of at least a dozen off-site motels that are nicer and a lot more convenient just off the tip of my head. I'd be suspicious if I thought the Roadway Inn could afford to pay kickbacks...

Also, anyone who prefers Sea World to all the Disney and Universal parks is a stick-in-the-mud. Just totally incapable of having fun.

[grimley1968]

I am not defending Frommer by any means, but if you are going to throw numbers out there, you should do so accurately. For anyone smart enough to look online (not knocking you but I imagine there are visitors to UO who don't know better), you can get a 7-day pass, equivalent to a Park Hopper since you can go back and forth between parks, for UO for $86. The Disney 7-day park hopper price, from their website, is $264, which can probably be had cheaper elsewhere, but not $180 cheaper.

Lastly, for $85, you can get two days at Seaworld, not that I know of anyone who would need two, but that option is there. How does that compare to Disney's prices?

Maybe this is all true, but what does this have to do with the Frommer's article/book?

We're talking about a so-called travel professional who is distorting facts and sometimes just making things up to support her unfounded and biased conclusions about WDW.

The person you quoted was merely pointing out one of the many inaccuracies in the article. If you are on Disney property already, and already have park tickets, it IS far less expensive to add one day to your WDW tickets than to go elsewhere for one day, such as Universal or Seaworld.

Yes, the 7-day total prices may be cheaper at Universal, but it's not really fair to compare apples to oranges here. Universal has 2 parks, and Disney has 4 parks. When Universal has 4 parks, an equivalent number of rides, equivalent proportion of thrill-to-family rides, equivalent number of show attractions, equivalent number and variety of restaurants, etc. as Disney, let's see just how cheap Universal stays. I actually hope they accomplish having an equal-sized presence as WDW someday, since I'd love to have more options for my vacation dollar, but it's a plain fact that they haven't yet. Apples versus oranges.

[mking624]

I am not defending Frommer by any means, but if you are going to throw numbers out there, you should do so accurately. For anyone smart enough to look online (not knocking you but I imagine there are visitors to UO who don't know better), you can get a 7-day pass, equivalent to a Park Hopper since you can go back and forth between parks, for UO for $86. The Disney 7-day park hopper price, from their website, is $264, which can probably be had cheaper elsewhere, but not $180 cheaper.

Lastly, for $85, you can get two days at Seaworld, not that I know of anyone who would need two, but that option is there. How does that compare to Disney's prices?

Um, yes, I WAS smart enough to look online, I got the prices directly from their websites. And I gave the prices I did because Frommer mentioned spending one day there. The family was interested in spending the majority of her trip at Disney, which is pretty clear since that's the only place she asked about. And why spend the extra money for two days at SeaWorld or two days at UO/IOA when you only need one? Just to spend it? Doesn't exactly seem like a smart piece of advice for a family on a budget...especially when they're already being told to spend one day each at both places, which would be additional money to what they're already paying at WDW. In this case, yes it would be more expensive to go that route. She advocates doing a three day base ticket...which is $203 (for one adult ticket). Then she advises to spend a day at SeaWorld and UO. Let's assume she's going to buy the advance purchase price at SeaWorld. That would be about $54, bringing the total to $257. Then she says to possibly spend a day at UO...and let's assume she'll ONLY go to UO and not IOA (since I want to check the lowest price, even if it's only by a few dollars). That's $67. Bringing the total to $324. At that price, she could upgrade that three day base ticket to a 10 day park hopper with water parks and more...since the cost for that is $320. And this is assuming that the family would not be doing the two park/one day ticket for UO/IOA (which is only a few dollar difference, in my previous post I did quote the two park/one day ticket since I felt that was the best value) and would be purchasing a ticket in advance to SeaWorld (which would save $11 off the adult ticket only...it's the same price for a child's ticket) and to UO. And this is also assuming that they would not be doing a two day option at SeaWorld or a 7 day pass for UO...which of course would add additional money. Now I'm not saying the family should ditch the idea of going to UO or SeaWorld...but I believe Frommer is misleading this family in terms of the cost.

Here are screen shots of the SeaWorld and Universal websites since you think I'm just inaccurately throwing numbers around and I'll even throw up the Disney one for the 10 day ticket so you know I'm not throwing that number around either....

SeaWorld Screen Shot:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0903/mking624/seaworld.jpg

Universal Orlando Screen Shot:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0903/mking624/UO.jpg

WDW Screen Shot:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0903/mking624/10day.jpg

[agnes!]

...And:

"Then, do one day at SeaWorld (http://travel.msn.com/Destinations_Seaworld_Florida_tier2_DATE_DESC_1103 2_200000388_4.aspx) (an unmissable, exuberantly fun and educational Orlando attraction)"

SeaWorld is unmissable and exhuberantly fun for a 5-year old and a 2-year old, but Epcot has nothing to interest them? Well, that's a matter of opinion, but my opinion is that this a whacked opinion.



The positive slant of those words really jumped out at me...unmissable exuberantly fun educational

Did the article's author say anything remotely as positive about Walt Disney World?...which, after all, is the subject the letter-writer actually wanted information about!!!

agnes!

[mking624]

The good news is that her book has not sold well. And when I am asked advice or if I see someone comparing Disney guidebooks, I try to steer them in the right direction. Personally, I like the Unofficial Guide, the Passporter, and Birnbaum's. I always point those out to customers. I also let them know about the Dis and Allears. People deserve to be well-informed about such a magical vacation.
I work at The Disney Store and regularly get asked about guidebooks...those are the three I recommend as well (including one other one). I try to learn a little about how they prefer to tour or what their interests are, etc, then I recommend them like this:
Birnbaums: great for simple details to flip through, especially if you prefer to stick with the element of surprise (which some of my guests do)...includes coupons in the back.
Passporter & UG: great detail and information...Passporter is great if you're a scrapbooker or have kids who like to hangs onto things like tickets and such!
Complete Guide to WDW: Loaded with hundreds of stunning visuals and thorough detail (with the exception of the resorts)

Depending on what I'm learning about the person, I'll recommend a particular guide first...such as if I'm working with a guest who wants to know exactly how every ride/attraction goes from start to finish and is more visually stimulated, I'll recommend the Complete Guide, for example (there are some inaccuracies, but small ones...such as the author said you couldn't do a WDW return at a Disney Store, which is incorrect, but that's about how big it goes). But they always walk away knowing the other options as well...so they can look through all of them and choose the best one for them.

[grimley1968]

Um, yes, I WAS smart enough to look online, I got the prices directly from their websites. And I gave the prices I did because Frommer mentioned spending one day there. The family was interested in spending the majority of her trip at Disney, which is pretty clear since that's the only place she asked about. And why spend the extra money for two days at SeaWorld or two days at UO/IOA when you only need one? Just to spend it? Doesn't exactly seem like a smart piece of advice for a family on a budget...especially when they're already being told to spend one day each at both places, which would be additional money to what they're already paying at WDW. In this case, yes it would be more expensive to go that route. She advocates doing a three day base ticket...which is $203 (for one adult ticket). Then she advises to spend a day at SeaWorld and UO. Let's assume she's going to buy the advance purchase price at SeaWorld. That would be about $54, bringing the total to $257. Then she says to possibly spend a day at UO...and let's assume she'll ONLY go to UO and not IOA (since I want to check the lowest price, even if it's only by a few dollars). That's $67. Bringing the total to $324. At that price, she could upgrade that three day base ticket to a 10 day park hopper with water parks and more...since the cost for that is $320. And this is assuming that the family would not be doing the two park/one day ticket for UO/IOA (which is only a few dollar difference, in my previous post I did quote the two park/one day ticket since I felt that was the best value) and would be purchasing a ticket in advance to SeaWorld (which would save $11 off the adult ticket only...it's the same price for a child's ticket) and to UO. And this is also assuming that they would not be doing a two day option at SeaWorld or a 7 day pass for UO...which of course would add additional money. Now I'm not saying the family should ditch the idea of going to UO or SeaWorld...but I believe Frommer is misleading this family in terms of the cost.

Here are screen shots of the SeaWorld and Universal websites since you think I'm just inaccurately throwing numbers around and I'll even throw up the Disney one for the 10 day ticket so you know I'm not throwing that number around either....

SeaWorld Screen Shot:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0903/mking624/seaworld.jpg

Universal Orlando Screen Shot:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0903/mking624/UO.jpg

WDW Screen Shot:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0903/mking624/10day.jpg

Ummm, well, ummm.

What she said! :thumbsup2

:rotfl2:

You have to admit: it's tough to argue with the above, especially with screenshot proof of it all.

How long did it take this poster, on her own time, to come up with those screenshots and fact-based cost comparison analysis? Probably far less time than it took Ms. Frommer to write the fiction she came up with. It's amazing how just a little bit of thorough research like the above can end up saving time, versus all the time people will end up wasting reading the previously respected Frommer's articles/books.

[The Big Daddy]

By the way - ARE you actually Pauline's Big Daddy, Aurthur Frommer? Cause if you are, man, I really dug your appearance in "Eurotrip." Way cool, bro!

No unfortunately I can't claim any movie appearances at this point, unless you count the family home videos we shoot while in Disneyworld, and even most of the family gets bored watching family home movies. :happytv:

[Another Voice]

The sheer amount of hate in this thread is fascinating.

[Deb & Bill]

The sheer amount of hate in this thread is fascinating.

You are kidding, correct? I don't read hate, I read more disgust with a supposedly reputable author (actually she is NOT the author of her book on WDW and Orlando; another author actually gets the credit for writing the book) who skews the info to make her sound so much better.

[YoHo]

This thread is giving me a headache.


The day I feel the need to email a tarvel writer because they were somewhat inaccurate about my favorite Multi-Billion Dollar international media conglomerate's overpriced multibillion dollar Themeparks that have been in constant decline and have changed from a fundimental part of our national identity to a laughing stock akin to crazy cat ladies is the day I eat a bullet.

In either case, I'm sure emailing your displeasure will have an impact on Disney. Yes, I'm sure it will, it must I mean, they only brought in 45 Million ish visitors (industry estimate) last year. a couple thousand people may have read that article. Think of the implications man!

[BRERALEX]

popcorn::

[Another Voice]

You are kidding, correct?
I'd be suspicious if I thought the Roadway Inn could afford to pay kickbacks...”
Just totally incapable of having fun.
Pauline Frommer is clearly clueless.
She was so snobby.
we want to go to WDW despite Ms. Frommers incorrectly stated advice.
Ayone with issues about vacationing at WDW can always go somewhere else on vacation and quit lurking on the Disney forums.
The fact that she is still clueless is what bothers me the most...
Well, that's a matter of opinion, but my opinion is that this a whacked opinion.
I could see that this woman was horribly biased against Disney.
Yes, we on the Dis, know better.

And that’s just the high minded, honest and straightforward discussion I found on pages 10 and 11. All I’m really reading is a bunch of people whining that their own opinion is not be echoed.

Sorry – but I think the guidebook is probably a much better description of how the normal, average vacationing American sees WDW than internet posters. The average American does see a seven dollar hot dog, they do see the Pop Century as a cinderblock motel, they do look at what a one day admission costs and really don’t care how “cheap “ it is to add days nine and ten (and by Disney’s own admission, nearly a third of all admission at WDW are one-day tickets).

It is actually possible to have different opinions, to have different tastes. It actually is possible for children to like SeaWorld more than Epcot – gee, it’s even possible that adults might like Seaworld over Epcot.

That’s normal.

Sorry to barge into the private clubhouse here. This just seems like more and more of a trend here – you’re either 100% in lockstep with the collective mentality (“run to get your Dole Whips!!!!”), or you’re evil. Too bad Disney can’t survive on just princess dinners alone…they do have to appeal to a wide audience if they want to stay in business.

[mking624]

I'd be suspicious if I thought the Roadway Inn could afford to pay kickbacks...”
Just totally incapable of having fun.
Pauline Frommer is clearly clueless.
She was so snobby.
we want to go to WDW despite Ms. Frommers incorrectly stated advice.
Ayone with issues about vacationing at WDW can always go somewhere else on vacation and quit lurking on the Disney forums.
The fact that she is still clueless is what bothers me the most...
Well, that's a matter of opinion, but my opinion is that this a whacked opinion.
I could see that this woman was horribly biased against Disney.
Yes, we on the Dis, know better.

And that’s just the high minded, honest and straightforward discussion I found on pages 10 and 11. All I’m really reading is a bunch of people whining that their own opinion is not be echoed.

Sorry – but I think the guidebook is probably a much better description of how the normal, average vacationing American sees WDW than internet posters. The average American does see a seven dollar hot dog, they do see the Pop Century as a cinderblock motel, they do look at what a one day admission costs and really don’t care how “cheap “ it is to add days nine and ten (and by Disney’s own admission, nearly a third of all admission at WDW are one-day tickets).

It is actually possible to have different opinions, to have different tastes. It actually is possible for children to like SeaWorld more than Epcot – gee, it’s even possible that adults might like Seaworld over Epcot.

That’s normal.

Sorry to barge into the private clubhouse here. This just seems like more and more of a trend here – you’re either 100% in lockstep with the collective mentality (“run to get your Dole Whips!!!!”), or you’re evil. Too bad Disney can’t survive on just princess dinners alone…they do have to appeal to a wide audience if they want to stay in business.

How the average American "sees" Disney World is not the same as what is actually accurate. Which is why responsible journalism needs to come into play here. When you're writing a travel piece, be it book or article, on a specific destination in order to give people information on that destination, it is your responsibility to give accurate information. Of course the dining plan will seem like a bad deal when you quote a price higher than it really is. Of course EPCOT will seem like a bore to kids when you don't say a thing about what is available to the children (and that's not to say all children will fall in love with EPCOT, but it's not someone's place to give no info and then say the kids will hate it without even knowing those childrens' tastes). Of course Disney's one day ticket seems way more expensive when you conveniently leave out the prices of one day tickets to the other Orlando parks and conveniently leave out the fact that they, too, view the "adult age" as 10 and up. The average vacationing American tends to do at least basic research for their vacations, so when a writer misleads the reader by either skewing the facts or completely getting them wrong, that continues the prejudice against WDW (and I use the word "prejudice" as a pre-judging before anyone takes that term and twists it around). If the writer was to give all the correct information and the average vacationer still decided it wasn't in their best interest, that would be one thing...no vacation spot is a one size fits all. But that isn't what happened here and that's irresponsible.

This isn't hatred, this is reasonable expectation.

[Another Voice]

What I see is that people are furious that the article was not biased in favor of Disney. The ticket price is the ticket price, the sneering "but Universal charges the same time" might make people here feel better, but it doesn't matter to normal, average tourist.

In fact - it proves one of her points. Why waste that amount of money on child-challegned Epcot when you can spend the same amount of money for child-friendly Sea World. Sorry to all the Kidcot card table fans, but most people do not think Epcot has a lot for children to do. For a family on a budget, it is sound advice to recommend one park over the other. Your opinion may vary, so write your own book.

Travel writing is, by nature, based on opinion. This author has her opinion of WDW, people here have a far different one. The real question that has to be asked is the people here have grown so far out of the mainstream that the "conventional wisdom" of the fanboards has any meaning to the average tourist. When people demand that everyone acknowledges $71 a day for an amusement park as "reasonable", I think the average just kind of shakes their head.

[boomhauer]

In fact - it proves one of her points. Why waste that amount of money on child-challegned Epcot when you can spend the same amount of money for child-friendly Sea World. Sorry to all the Kidcot card table fans, but most people do not think Epcot has a lot for children to do. For a family on a budget, it is sound advice to recommend one park over the other. Your opinion may vary, so write your own book.

First off, our 6 year old's favorite park is Epcot, but that's another thread.

Secondly, if you're spending a week in central Florida, what makes more financial sense - To buy a 6 day Disney park hopper and a 1 day ticket to Sea World or a 7 day park hopper to Disney? Obviously, the 7 day park hopper.

I think the issue is she's not stating opinions based on any sort of fact. She's basing opinions clearly on her personal dislike for Disney. If Joe Schmo reads that article knowing nothing about Disney, he's gonna go stay at the Rodeway Inn instead of All Stars or Pop which would be dense and thoroughly lessen his enjoyment of his Disney vacation.

As a writer, she's misleading the public (or attempting to.)

[Wick]

What I see is that people are furious that the article was not biased in favor of Disney.

You may be right, but you should also acknowledge that the article was laden with factual inaccuracies, many of which concerned pricing.

Other posts have ridiculed some Dis members for nitpicking over little things like hot dog price vs. hot dog meal price. At face value this may seem trivial, yet these critics are the same people who nitpick over paint chips on trash cans and whatnot.

[The Big Daddy]

This just seems like more and more of a trend here – you’re either 100% in lockstep with the collective mentality (“run to get your Dole Whips!!!!”), or you’re evil.

Amen, brother! And this coming from someone not going to be labeled as a "troll" because they have more than 1000 posts.

The atmosphere in these forums, which I've been reading for years, is definitely feeling like one of exclusion to new posters that go against the grain.

:cheer2:

[grimley1968]

What I see is that people are furious that the article was not biased in favor of Disney. The ticket price is the ticket price, the sneering "but Universal charges the same time" might make people here feel better, but it doesn't matter to normal, average tourist.

In fact - it proves one of her points. Why waste that amount of money on child-challegned Epcot when you can spend the same amount of money for child-friendly Sea World. Sorry to all the Kidcot card table fans, but most people do not think Epcot has a lot for children to do. For a family on a budget, it is sound advice to recommend one park over the other. Your opinion may vary, so write your own book.

Travel writing is, by nature, based on opinion. This author has her opinion of WDW, people here have a far different one. The real question that has to be asked is the people here have grown so far out of the mainstream that the "conventional wisdom" of the fanboards has any meaning to the average tourist. When people demand that everyone acknowledges $71 a day for an amusement park as "reasonable", I think the average just kind of shakes their head.

Opinions are fine, and I frankly don't care what Ms. Frommer's opinion is. She can believe what she wants, even if unsupported by facts.

However, when you are writing for what was once a respected travel journal, and people are making vacation decisions based upon your supposed expertise and accurate fact-gathering, you have a responsibility to check all facts, and to at least visit the places you describe. Ms. Frommer's failure to do so invalidates the entire article, and indeed her opinions, since they are so heavily influenced by her gross inaccuracies, lack of fact-checking before publication, and blatant bias.

I'm not sure why people continue to insist that those of us who are critical of this shoddy piece of supposed "journalism" are "haters", or are blind followers of everything Disney.

Read some of my posts with my criticisms of Disney things, such as the DVC, overpriced Photopass CD's, the constant cross-selling that goes on, and on and on, and you'll see I'm not a blind follower of everything Disney. I really don't think any of the other posters in this thread are either.

But I have a real problem with pieces of "journalism" like Ms. Frommer's article. Whether you like Disney or not, I'd hope you'd see the obvious bias (calling the Grand Floridian a "motel" is very biased or incredibly ignorant) in her writing, and how the grossly erroneous pricing she uses to make her points were used irresponsibly.

Responsible journalism involves fact-checking before publication, in-context price reporting, and a lack of real or perceived bias. Ms. Frommer's article had none of that. It deserves all the criticism we're giving it, and I would hope it would be criticized well outside the scope of this little website.

This kind of reporting and/or editorial writing is the biggest problem I have with modern journalism in general. Many hit pieces against people are written this way, with lack of context, made-up facts, little fact-checking before publication, and a bias which colors the conclusions. It's irresponsible of the writer to write this kind of stuff, and I frankly think it's also irresponsible of readers who care about honest and accurate reporting not to criticize it.

There, soapbox rant over. :)

[mking624]

What I see is that people are furious that the article was not biased in favor of Disney. The ticket price is the ticket price, the sneering "but Universal charges the same time" might make people here feel better, but it doesn't matter to normal, average tourist.
I'm not sneering about Universal ticket prices. I'm pointing out the fact that a Disney one day ticket price isn't exactly highly expensive when you compare it to the one day ticket price of UO or SeaWorld. But she leaves out that fact and instead comments on how the one day price at WDW "soars." She says that the upgrade is not a good deal, when you can get a 10 park hopper with water parks for cheaper than you can the 3 day base ticket and one day tickets to SeaWorld and UO. This is completely outside my preference for WDW, these are downright facts. She argues about what's a good deal but then advises for something that's more expensive. Many budget minded people would not consider the more expensive option to be the better deal.

In fact - it proves one of her points. Why waste that amount of money on child-challegned Epcot when you can spend the same amount of money for child-friendly Sea World. Sorry to all the Kidcot card table fans, but most people do not think Epcot has a lot for children to do. For a family on a budget, it is sound advice to recommend one park over the other. Your opinion may vary, so write your own book.
Sound advice would be to offer examples of what each park would provide and then tell the family to make their own decision based on what they know their children prefer. As far as what Epcot has to offer to children, you are now only giving your opinion on it. Have you surveyed every last WDW traveler to know that "most people" do not think Epcot has a lot for children to do? I would guess no. You may know people who don't prefer Epcot, but that doesn't make it "most people." It's the same way if I said that most people do prefer it. Unless I polled everyone who traveled there, that statement has no ground to stand on. So the best option is to simply give the facts about the park and let people decide for themselves if they'll love it or hate it. I don't care for MGM myself, but I would never tell someone "oh you'll hate it!" and leave it at that. I can share MY opinion on the park, but also provide all the facts of what the park offers so that the person is more informed rather than just being given a blanket statement.

Travel writing is, by nature, based on opinion. This author has her opinion of WDW, people here have a far different one. The real question that has to be asked is the people here have grown so far out of the mainstream that the "conventional wisdom" of the fanboards has any meaning to the average tourist.
You're right, much of travel writing is based on opinion. However, Ms. Frommer is also attempting to address factual things. And therein lies the problem.

When people demand that everyone acknowledges $71 a day for an amusement park as "reasonable", I think the average just kind of shakes their head.
I said it's reasonable expectation to be accurate. That said, why is it not ok to accept $71 for a one day WDW ticket, but it's perfectly fine for her to suggest purchasing a one day ticket to UO or SeaWorld, both of whom have one day prices very similar to WDW? If they want to purchase those tickets, good for them! I hope they do enjoy themselves! I personally can't wait to visit SeaWorld myself! BUT, my point is that it seems rather backwards to complain about the cost of a one day ticket to WDW and then turn around and suggest spending about the same amount of money for a one day ticket to another Orlando park.

People can like or dislike WDW all they want. But it should be based on accurate information...not just because someone made up some numbers and then said "you'll hate it!" And the fact for me is that I would be just as turned off by her if she did this with any other travel destination. And something tells me that WDW is NOT the first travel destination that she was inaccurate about....so too bad for her, because DH and I enjoy traveling and we have no intention on trusting the information that she provides now that we see that there was a lack of research on things easily found.

[YoHo]

This thread still gives me a headache.

Was it a rumors and news thread originally or did it get moved here?

[WillCAD]

The sheer amount of hate in this thread is fascinating.

I don't see hate. I see rhetorical bluster on both sides of the issue, a complete polarization of the two sides, and lots of emotional arguments where facts should rein supreme. Including your posts - post some facts instead of opinions and emotional reactions, and I'll gladly have a sane, civil discussion with you on teh relative merits of WDW, Universal, SeaWorld, on-site vs off-site, and car rental vs WDW transportation. You'll find that my opinions on these subjects do not, in fact, fall 100% in lockstep with the prevailing opinions on the DIS Boards, but I don't use that as an excuse to berate people for having different vacation styles than me.

This thread is giving me a headache.


The day I feel the need to email a tarvel writer because they were somewhat inaccurate about my favorite Multi-Billion Dollar international media conglomerate's overpriced multibillion dollar Themeparks that have been in constant decline and have changed from a fundimental part of our national identity to a laughing stock akin to crazy cat ladies is the day I eat a bullet.

In either case, I'm sure emailing your displeasure will have an impact on Disney. Yes, I'm sure it will, it must I mean, they only brought in 45 Million ish visitors (industry estimate) last year. a couple thousand people may have read that article. Think of the implications man!

Yes, it certainly is amazing how much free time some people have on their hands - writing to complain that you didn't like something that somebody else wrote, and deriding them for not liking it, without presenting any concrete facts to support their opinions or presenting a logical arguement... but I digress.

I'd be suspicious if I thought the Roadway Inn could afford to pay kickbacks...”
Just totally incapable of having fun.
Pauline Frommer is clearly clueless.
She was so snobby.
we want to go to WDW despite Ms. Frommers incorrectly stated advice.
Ayone with issues about vacationing at WDW can always go somewhere else on vacation and quit lurking on the Disney forums.
The fact that she is still clueless is what bothers me the most...
Well, that's a matter of opinion, but my opinion is that this a whacked opinion.
I could see that this woman was horribly biased against Disney.
Yes, we on the Dis, know better.

And that’s just the high minded, honest and straightforward discussion I found on pages 10 and 11. All I’m really reading is a bunch of people whining that their own opinion is not be echoed.

Sorry – but I think the guidebook is probably a much better description of how the normal, average vacationing American sees WDW than internet posters. The average American does see a seven dollar hot dog, they do see the Pop Century as a cinderblock motel, they do look at what a one day admission costs and really don’t care how “cheap “ it is to add days nine and ten (and by Disney’s own admission, nearly a third of all admission at WDW are one-day tickets).

It is actually possible to have different opinions, to have different tastes. It actually is possible for children to like SeaWorld more than Epcot – gee, it’s even possible that adults might like Seaworld over Epcot.

That’s normal.

Sorry to barge into the private clubhouse here. This just seems like more and more of a trend here – you’re either 100% in lockstep with the collective mentality (“run to get your Dole Whips!!!!”), or you’re evil. Too bad Disney can’t survive on just princess dinners alone…they do have to appeal to a wide audience if they want to stay in business.

Maybe you haven't read the posts in this thread, including mine, that acknowledged those parts of the article that Pauline actually got correct, such as the off-site accomodation options or renting a car instead of depending entirely on WDW transportation. If you think those posts don't exist, I suggest you go back and read the thread again, because while you are complaining about how "everybody thinks alike and nobody is allowed to have a different opinion!", the rest of us have been calmly and rationally discussion the ways in which our opinions differ, without feeling the need to denegrate each other for their differing opinions.

What I see is that people are furious that the article was not biased in favor of Disney. The ticket price is the ticket price, the sneering "but Universal charges the same time" might make people here feel better, but it doesn't matter to normal, average tourist.

In fact - it proves one of her points. Why waste that amount of money on child-challegned Epcot when you can spend the same amount of money for child-friendly Sea World. Sorry to all the Kidcot card table fans, but most people do not think Epcot has a lot for children to do. For a family on a budget, it is sound advice to recommend one park over the other. Your opinion may vary, so write your own book.

Travel writing is, by nature, based on opinion. This author has her opinion of WDW, people here have a far different one. The real question that has to be asked is the people here have grown so far out of the mainstream that the "conventional wisdom" of the fanboards has any meaning to the average tourist. When people demand that everyone acknowledges $71 a day for an amusement park as "reasonable", I think the average just kind of shakes their head.

Firstly, let me repeat what I said at the beginning of this post:

post some facts instead of opinions and emotional reactions, and I'll gladly have a sane, civil discussion with you on teh relative merits of WDW, Universal, SeaWorld, on-site vs off-site, and car rental vs WDW transportation. You'll find that my opinions on these subjects do not, in fact, fall 100% in lockstep with the prevailing opinions on the DIS Boards, but I don't use that as an excuse to berate people for having different vacation styles than me.

And as to your assertion that "Travel writing is, by nature, based on opinion;" you'r only 1/3 right. Travel writing is only partially based on opinion - it is, first and foremost, a recitation of verified fact and personal experience, neither of which Pauline had when she wrote the original article.

There are three parts to a good review of any destination, be it a country, city, town, restaurant, sports bar, or theme park:

1) Preliminary research and fact-gathering
2) Personal (anecdotal) experience with the destination
3) Personal opinions based on parts 1 & 2.

Pauline Frommer's original article had only part 3, meaning that this respected, internationally published travel author, whose books will doubtless form the basis for thousands of peoples' very expensive vacations to Orlando, did only 1/3 of her job when crafting that article.

In point of fact, not only was she missing many vital and relevant facts, but many of those facts she cited were demonstrably incorrect. And she had little or no personal experience with the destination. All of this means that part 3, personal opinion based on parts 1 & 2, were crtitically flawed, because she didn't even have parts 1 & 2.

I don't know about you, but in my business, if I only did 1/3 of my work and tried to turn it in as a complete product, I'd be in deep kimchi.

If she doesn't like Disney, that's fine by me. I have lots of friends, family, and co-workers who don't like Disney. But a professional travel writer should be held accountable when she passes off baseless, uninformed personal opinion as genuine vacation spending advice.

[Another Voice]

What I see is an article that appears to be written from the point of the view of a more "average" traveler than the people on this board. A seven dollar hot dog is still a seven dollar hot dog whether paid with cash or an expensive "Dining Plan". Furthermore, the artilce seemed to be mostly aimed at saving cash for the typical vacationer with an interest in Disney that is short of the "I dress my cat like a princess" level. It is shocking to many, but I think if ask most travellers they will tell you that they think SeaWorld is more interesting to childern than Epcot. So it doesn't matter if a 10-day ticket is "cheaper per day" when most people have no intention of spending 10 days at WDW anyway

Frankly - how many average Americans can afford a ten day vacation?

People here have appear to have more bias than the author of this article and fewer real facts about vacation spending. I'm just amazed by the level of bile and hated being spewed. To me, it just fits into a long term - and disturbing - trend I've seen among "Disney fans". The parks are becoming more and more the private clubhouse and less and less appealing to the general public.

That's a serious danger to the future of the company.

[grimley1968]

This thread still gives me a headache.

Was it a rumors and news thread originally or did it get moved here?

I believe it started out in the Theme Parks forum, then got moved.

If this thread gives you such a headache, why on earth do you read it, let alone post in it, thereby perpetuating it? :confused3

[YoHo]

Because, as AV says, it's facinating.

I'm always facinated when the rest of the Dis invades the rumors and news board.

[grimley1968]

Again - one does not follow the collective mindset and there she is either evil or mentally unfit. You know what, I call the Grand Floridian a motel as well. It is no where near the level of service or quality the would justify as calling it a "resort".

...

And a motel is a motel even with a fifty foot "Do The Funky Chicken" sign on the roof.


Oh, where to begin!

First of all, a "motel" is not just a "motel." The term motel was coined for the motor hotels that sprung up along Route 66 in the first half of the 20th century. It literally means a place where you can drive up to the door of your room. So, factually, calling the Grand Floridian, or any other "property" ringing the lake along MK, a "motel" is wrong. You simply do not drive up to your room in those resorts.

If you don't want to call GF a "resort", I guess that's your prerogative. I'm not sure what else it would need to have to be called a "resort" under whatever criteria you have. Maybe a golf course? Maybe a beach? Given that it is a) on the resort monorail loop to MK and b) on Bay Lake, those two other options would be difficult to meet.

Split the difference and call them hotels.

The pejorative way you describe motels in the last sentence is a big example of another reason why it was wrong of Ms. Frommer to refer to the Deluxe resorts near MK as "motels." I think she means it in a pejorative way as well, and wished to color those resorts in that way, even though it is factually wrong, and intellectually dishonest to do so.


All I see is that people are bashing the author for not sharing their point of view and for not properly twisting the facts.


That's a pretty myopic way to see it. I'm criticizing the author for twisting the facts. Period. I don't want facts twisted in any direction. I just want the straight unvarnished facts, so I can make my own decision, without bias getting in the way.


A seven dollar hot dog is still a seven dollar hot dog whether you pay for it cash or as through inflated "Disney Dining Points".


Hot dogs don't cost $7 at WDW. A combo meal with a hot dog might, but that's a lot more than just a dog. Did you not read any of the voluminous numbers of posts in earlier pages detailing this?

Yes, you pay a premium for eating anywhere onsite, but it's cheaper to the average consumer who's already inside a park to pay that than to pay for the fuel to get offsite to go to a McDonald's, and pay maybe 25% less for a combo meal.

[nick262]

People can like or dislike WDW all they want. But it should be based on accurate information...not just because someone made up some numbers and then said "you'll hate it!" And the fact for me is that I would be just as turned off by her if she did this with any other travel destination. And something tells me that WDW is NOT the first travel destination that she was inaccurate about....so too bad for her, because DH and I enjoy traveling and we have no intention on trusting the information that she provides now that we see that there was a lack of research on things easily found.


This is my point. Putting Disney aside, this writer did not do her research and stated false facts. I would too have a problem with any non factual article regarding any business, not just Disney. I am well aware that Disney has gotten very expensive on both coasts, but they do offer specials throughout the year that make it affordable to do and in some cases cheaper then off site. I am not apposed to others opinions, but when I am reading a news article, I want facts. When a reporter makes a mistake and is called on it by emails from the readers, the paper makes a retraction. Why is my writing MSN any different? I would expect the writer to do at least minimal research on the question asked and write an accurate article. Trust me, had she written an article going the other way, such as saying they should only stay on property and not do other things and misquoted pricing for US and SW, I would have still written the publisher. This may come as a shock to you but I am not only an AP holder at DL but I am also an AP at Sea World in San Diego as well as the Zoo. :eek: Yes I love Disney, but I am not blind to its faults. Had she written a inaccurate story about Sea World or the Zoo, I would have written the publisher. If the public does not point out these mistakes then that information will stay out there. If you don't have time to write, then fine, you don't have to. It only took me a whopping minute combined to write what I did to MSN. And IMHO, it was a well spent minute.

[mking624]

What I see is an article that appears to be written from the point of the view of a more "average" traveler than the people on this board. A seven dollar hot dog is still a seven dollar hot dog whether paid with cash or an expensive "Dining Plan". Furthermore, the artilce seemed to be mostly aimed at saving cash for the typical vacationer with an interest in Disney that is short of the "I dress my cat like a princess" level. It is shocking to many, but I think if ask most travellers they will tell you that they think SeaWorld is more interesting to childern than Epcot. So it doesn't matter if a 10-day ticket is "cheaper per day" when most people have no intention of spending 10 days at WDW anyway

Frankly - how many average Americans can afford a ten day vacation?
First of all, you're giving an opinion on the expense of the Dining Plan. Not that you can't have an opinion, but there are travelers out there who spend way more money on food per day during vacations. Not to mention that the fact remains she still gave the wrong price quote for it. As far as the 10 day vacation is concerned, you keep missing my point. My point is not who can and cannot afford it. The point is that she puts Disney down for their ticket prices and claims upgrading is not the best value, but then advises an option that would cost more than if she actually upgraded her ticket all the way up to a 10 day pass. It seems that Ms. Frommer's preference is to do a 3 day base ticket with two days split at SeaWorld and UO. But cost wise, it's still not the best value. And that said, it shouldn't matter who the article is aimed at...average vacationer or ritzy glitzy one, the article still has a responsibility to present factual information. And again with Epcot, I'm not arguing that some would find SeaWorld more interesting. But what I've been saying is that there is a lack of information and someone just imposing their own preference (without having personal experience) instead of just providing the information and allowing the reader to decide for themselves. And an unbiased opinion would do just that when personal experience is not involved. As far as "most people" not wanting to spend 10 days at WDW, well again I must ask you if you've polled every traveler to know that information. It would be no different than me saying that most people would want to stay there. They have plenty of people who do and who don't. But I think it's safe to assume here that the family in question is interested in spending the majority, if not all of the trip at WDW since that is the only destination the question brought up.

People here have appear to have more bias than the author of this article and fewer real facts about vacation spending. I'm just amazed by the level of bile and hated being spewed. To me, it just fits into a long term - and disturbing - trend I've seen among "Disney fans". The parks are becoming more and more the private clubhouse and less and less appealing to the general public.

That's a serious danger to the future of the company.
I'm failing to see how pointing out inaccuracies all of a sudden endangers the future of a company? I have no problem with people not liking Disney. It's not a big deal to me. Opinions about hotels and where people want to go on their vacation aside, some of this article is dealing with specific facts that she is getting wrong. I could hate a travel destination but I would still expect a travel writer to get their information right. And why it is "bile and hatred" when some of us point out the inaccuracies? Since when are people only allowed to just take things for whatever it says instead of saying "hmm, this isn't right, here is the correct info"? And how is putting down the people who are sharing the correct info not considered "bile and hatred"?

As far as these "vacation spending facts", please share your sources so we can share in this "real facts" that you tell us we are unaware of.

[Another Voice]

Hot dogs don't cost $7 at WDW. A combo meal with a hot dog might, but that's a lot more than just a dog.
That's the point, isn't it. The average traveller sees "seven dollars for a hot dog!"; Disney fans are screaming "She's evil because she didn't see the fries!"

People are trying to use nuance and spin to overcome the obvious and clear point of the article. WDW is expensive for the average, normal American family. You can yell and kick and scream about Universal and off-site and "feeling the magic" - but most people care about the hit to their wallet, not the goose bumbs they're supposed to feel when their motel room looks over over a giant bowling pin.

Most people are not so all enthralled with all things Disney to overlook or to even care about the difference between with drink or without. That's the point of view from the article. The piece was about get the most real value from an Orlando vacation. And for most people that means only a couple very expensive days at WDW and money to spend at the other attractions.

And that's what I find so interesting - the absolute hate directed at anyone who does not show Disney to proper amount of love. Like I said, Disney is becoming a private club that dislikes any outsider and out-of-touch with the desires of average people that might want to visit the parks.

Anyway... sorry for the interuption. Please resume the normal course of discussion.

[YoHo]

The point is that she puts Disney down for their ticket prices and claims upgrading is not the best value, but then advises an option that would cost more than if she actually upgraded her ticket all the way up to a 10 day pass. It seems that Ms. Frommer's preference is to do a 3 day base ticket with two days split at SeaWorld and UO. But cost wise, it's still not the best value.


No, cost wise it's not the Cheapest.
If spending 3 days at Disney and 2 days at other parks provides more enjoyment then 10 days at Disney, then it's still might be a better value.

In other words, value is determined by the desire to spend time in any place as well as the actual cost to spend that time.

[mking624]

No, cost wise it's not the Cheapest.
If spending 3 days at Disney and 2 days at other parks provides more enjoyment then 10 days at Disney, then it's still might be a better value.

In other words, value is determined by the desire to spend time in any place as well as the actual cost to spend that time.

Personal preference might determine what the better value of time spent is. However, in terms of money spent, the option that Ms. Frommer presented is more expensive. I bring it up because Ms. Frommer made it a point to mention how high Disney prices are getting while failing to mention that other ticket prices are pretty comparable.

[mking624]

That's the point, isn't it. The average traveller sees "seven dollars for a hot dog!"; Disney fans are screaming "She's evil because she didn't see the fries!"
I'm an average American traveler. When I see the cost of something, I check to see what specifically comes with it. I wonder how many people just order something at any restaurant without checking to see what the cost of it includes? For example, when I go to any given restaurant, I want to see if a particular meal will come with sides, or if sides have to be ordered separately.

People are trying to use nuance and spin to overcome the obvious and clear point of the article. WDW is expensive for the average, normal American family. You can yell and kick and scream about Universal and off-site and "feeling the magic" - but most people care about the hit to their wallet, not the goose bumbs they're supposed to feel when their motel room looks over over a giant bowling pin.

Most people are not so all enthralled with all things Disney to overlook or to even care about the difference between with drink or without. That's the point of view from the article. The piece was about get the most real value from an Orlando vacation. And for most people that means only a couple very expensive days at WDW and money to spend at the other attractions.
The question the family asked was not about an Orlando vacation in general. It was about a WDW vacation. Now I'm not saying Ms. Frommer was wrong in presenting options other than WDW, but she wasn't even upfront about those costs either. And again, you bring up "most people"...where are you getting these statistics from? And I didn't realize that sharing actual facts such as price quotes taken directly from UO & SW was considered using nuance and spins...? :confused3

And that's what I find so interesting - the absolute hate directed at anyone who does not show Disney to proper amount of love.
I'm not quite sure how many different people have to say the exact same thing to you...it has nothing to do with Disney specifically, or her opinion on Disney, it has to do with the wrong information that she is presenting as fact when it indeed is not. You imply that we're somehow full of hatred for pointing out inaccuracies, and yet I'm not seeing a ton of respect for those who feel that we shouldn't just accept whatever line is fed to us.

[Another Voice]

You imply that we're somehow full of hatred for pointing out inaccuracies,
I don't know about you - but 13 pages seems to be go way beyond "pointing out inaccuracies". And if you would look at the name calling, insults and biased statements that I culled from just two pages of this thread, that's a little more than finger pointing as well.

That is what makes this thread so interesting. There really is an attack pack mentality that goes on through here. She was perceived as a threat and people are going to amazingly lengths to bash her - including demands and letters to the publisher. Of course, this is all done with the most noble of intentions (protecting the poor, unknowing vacationer), but it sure feels like there's a lot more going on here than fact checking.

To me, sadly, this is more a comment on the shape of "Disney fans" than it is on the alleged journalistic shortcomings of some writer.

[YoHo]

Personal preference might determine what the better value of time spent is. However, in terms of money spent, the option that Ms. Frommer presented is more expensive. I bring it up because Ms. Frommer made it a point to mention how high Disney prices are getting while failing to mention that other ticket prices are pretty comparable.

Which is irrelevent to the article.

I just read the article again, she has corrections on the hotdog thing (where do you buy a hotdog not in meal form?) as well as the picture and the under 3 counting against the room.

Aside from that, I found her article to be informative and well reasoned. I think she undersold Epcot, but given the age of the kids involved, I agree that SeaWorld in particular would be better.

[The Big Daddy]

I just read the article again, she has corrections on the hotdog thing (where do you buy a hotdog not in meal form?)

I was wondering the same thing. Maybe the kids meal hot dog is just a hot dog? Then I guess it wouldn't really be a kid's MEAL then, huh?

[nick262]

So let me get this straight. A news organization can print whatever they want regardless of the facts and you will just sit back and let it be? Since when is it ok to spread false information? No wonder our media is in the state that it is in. This reader came to Ms. Frommer asking for facts, trusting that she would receive them, and she did not get them. I state again, if the article had been about Sea World, The San Diego Zoo, Wild Animal Park or any other park or business that I am very familiar with, I would have still sent in a request for correction. I do not know where you get "hate" out of a request for an accurate article? The only reason that I requested another reporter to do a new piece is because she clearly was not willing to do any research on the topic based on the article and the follow up letter. That research including all of the resorts and parks in the article, not just Disney. To tell you the truth, I had never even heard of her or her family before this article. And I am now more disinclined to seek out her advice on any and all travel destination.

[YoHo]

I'm sorry, I just don't see where the errors are. Does a hotdog meal not cost $7? Are there not cheaper options for quick service meals then Disney itself? Are there not better food options at any price then Disney?

Are off site hotels not less expensive, particularly the condos/suites? Would Sea World not perhaps be better for young children then Epcot?

The original asker of the question was looking for an opinion. They got one.

The write placed a Value, her perceived value on every aspect of a Disney vacation and gave advice based on that value. That's what someone asked to give an opinion does. The fact that a 10 day ticket may be cheaper in the long run doesn't matter if the opinionater sees no value in spending 10 days at WDW.

[mking624]

I don't know about you - but 13 pages seems to be go way beyond "pointing out inaccuracies". And if you would look at the name calling, insults and biased statements that I culled from just two pages of this thread, that's a little more than finger pointing as well.
Well many of the posts are just responses to each other, much like you and I are doing right now. I wouldn't consider that hatred. And just because something is 13 pages doesn't mean something is filled with hatred. As far as name calling and insults and biased statements...well let's see, we've been told we're full of bile and hate, we've been told we have too much time on our hands, and I've even been recommended to be sent off to Russia. The "name calling, insults, and biased statements" seem to go both ways.

That is what makes this thread so interesting. There really is an attack pack mentality that goes on through here. She was perceived as a threat and people are going to amazingly lengths to bash her - including demands and letters to the publisher. Of course, this is all done with the most noble of intentions (protecting the poor, unknowing vacationer), but it sure feels like there's a lot more going on here than fact checking.

To me, sadly, this is more a comment on the shape of "Disney fans" than it is on the alleged journalistic shortcomings of some writer.
You're more than welcome to sit back quietly when you see an inaccuracy. Some of us, however, feel differently and that doesn't make us wrong. I'm personally growing weary with the mentality that we should "shut up and suck it up." Why are we not allowed to voice our opinions? What is so wrong with that? And since when is emailing a publisher about inaccuracies considered bashing someone? Since when has the idea of journalistic accountability become something to fear and stay away from?

Your comments have been biased against us rather than listening to what we have to say. You keep bringing up "Disney fans" ignoring the fact that some of us have repeatedly pointed out that we don't care if they didn't like Disney. But the fact that this is a DISNEY based fan site and the article was about DISNEY, it is reasonable to expect that DISNEY fans will respond to the inaccuracies in the article. And since it's a discussion board, we have chosen to discuss it. Unfortunately, now we're being put down for that, and yet we're the ones being accused of bashing. :confused3

[The Big Daddy]

That is what makes this thread so interesting. There really is an attack pack mentality that goes on through here. She was perceived as a threat and people are going to amazingly lengths to bash her - including demands and letters to the publisher. Of course, this is all done with the most noble of intentions (protecting the poor, unknowing vacationer), but it sure feels like there's a lot more going on here than fact checking.

I think that was my main problem with this thread. People seemed to be taking glee in attacking this woman and emailing the publisher. It was like a holy crusade for some. I don't have a problem with people emailing the publisher and stating the facts are wrong, but when you start making it personal and telling the publisher that the writer is biased against Disney, well you lose your credibility. It sounds like whining and I'm sure the publisher just rolled their eyes. I think if just the inaccurate facts had been pointed out it might have been received better.

I don't know about you - but 13 pages seems to be go way beyond "pointing out inaccuracies". And if you would look at the name calling, insults and biased statements that I culled from just two pages of this thread, that's a little more than finger pointing as well.

Again I agree. To the people who called me a troll, I guess I missed the days when you signed up as a new user and you were automatically granted 1,000 posts on your profile so it didn't look like you were new. I've been coming to the boards off and on for 8 or 9 years, usually laughing with people's stories and occasionally being irritated with some of the abusive posts. I guarantee you there are more lurkers than posters.

And to the person that said they had a "run in" with me on another thread, you must be referring to the thread about running into "those" kind of parents where I posted, not even in response to a post of yours, that I felt people should mind their own business about how others raise their kids. And of course you responded about how screaming kids (screaming kids at Disneyworld? No way!) infringed upon your rights somehow. I didn't even respond to you! So to throw it out there like we had some sort of "throw down in the prison yard" is ridiculous. I don't appreciate the constant "I gotta be right attitude and get the last word" and misrepresentation of the facts of the other thread. There are trolls and there are drama queens. I guess I'd rather be the troll.

And Grimley1968, I hope we can agree to disagree. I don't know you and don't have a problem with you. I know things got heated but I don't feel the same level of personal attack from you as I have from someone else. It's just differing opinions. You have yours and I have mine.

[mking624]

Which is irrelevent to the article.
Actually I believe it's quite relevant. When you complain about the cost of a one day ticket to WDW and then recommend purchasing one day tickets to another Orlando theme park while failing to mention those prices, you give the implication that the other parks are cheaper, when they are indeed comparable. She also complains about the "adult" age at WDW when UO & SeaWorld are exactly the same, but she omits that as well. For a family deciding what is the best monetary value (which the obviously are since they are working on a budget), it's not the best help to complain about the price of one yet recommend something that costs just about the same but not telling them that. Instead, tell them both and let them decide if they want to opt for the one day WDW ticket or the one day UO or SW ticket...or even all three.

[The Big Daddy]

I'm personally growing weary with the mentality that we should "shut up and suck it up." Why are we not allowed to voice our opinions? What is so wrong with that?

And since it's a discussion board, we have chosen to discuss it. Unfortunately, now we're being put down for that, and yet we're the ones being accused of bashing.

"The Big Daddy", it's become quite clear that you're adamantly against any form of accountability and against well seasoned travelers from trying to help provide the correct information so that other travelers actually know the facts...and it's become quite clear that you have no interest in listening to any form of reason. You've made up your mind that apparently her words are "good advice" in spite of much of it being downright wrong, so there's no point in continuing to argue with you. I will say, though, that if you think that a hot dog price was the only thing she got wrong, you're obviously not well aware of WDW yourself.

As for me, I'll happily continue this discussion without feeding the troll. I suggest others do the same since it's plainly obvious he is more interested in controversy and debate (and not just in this thread, but others as well) then he is actually discussing things.

Funny but it seems you put me down for trying to particiapte in this discussion and for voicing my opinions.

[mking624]

Again I agree. To the people who called me a troll, I guess I missed the days when you signed up as a new user and you were automatically granted 1,000 posts on your profile so it didn't look like you were new. I've been coming to the boards off and on for 8 or 9 years, usually laughing with people's stories and occasionally being irritated with some of the abusive posts. I guarantee you there are more lurkers than posters.
Everyone started as a newbie at some point, but most people don't join a board and only participate in controversial threads and start putting people down. In the internet world, most people view that as a troll. With your internet experience, I'm sure you know that.

And to the person that said they had a "run in" with me on another thread, you must be referring to the thread about running into "those" kind of parents where I posted, not even in response to a post of yours, that I felt people should mind their own business about how others raise their kids. And of course you responded about how screaming kids (screaming kids at Disneyworld? No way!) infringed upon your rights somehow. I didn't even respond to you! So to throw it out there like we had some sort of "throw down in the prison yard" is ridiculous. I don't appreciate the constant "I gotta be right attitude and get the last word" and misrepresentation of the facts of the other thread. There are trolls and there are drama queens. I guess I'd rather be the troll.
I *never* said I had a run in with you (n fact I never even said that I had responded to a post of yours), perhaps it's best if you reread what I said. I did say this was not the first thread you've posted in this manner. You're the only one who keeps bringing up a "run in." But apparently this was deserving of me being sent to a foreign country. When I responded to you in that particular thread, I did so respectfully. I'm not the one misrepresenting facts here, nor am I the one who feels the need to brood over it. And I guess it's not a personal attack to you when you call my views narrow just because you don't agree with them and then recommend having me go to Russia. I didn't realize that was considered civil and polite conversation. My mistake.

[mking624]

Funny but it seems you put me down for trying to particiapte in this discussion and for voicing my opinions.

And you have not?

ETA: Honestly Big Daddy, I'm really not interested in some fighting match with you. I'm interested in a discussion. I have no problems with people who don't have the same viewpoint on things...I participate in threads all the time and I still come out of them happily chatting in another thread with the same people I previously disagreed with. My intention here is not to cause dissension but admittedly I am frustrated with this constant putting down especially just for pointing out inaccuracies. So let bygones be bygones and lets continue discussing.

[WillCAD]

I'm sorry, I just don't see where the errors are. Does a hotdog meal not cost $7? Are there not cheaper options for quick service meals then Disney itself? Are there not better food options at any price then Disney?

Are off site hotels not less expensive, particularly the condos/suites? Would Sea World not perhaps be better for young children then Epcot?

The original asker of the question was looking for an opinion. They got one.

The write placed a Value, her perceived value on every aspect of a Disney vacation and gave advice based on that value. That's what someone asked to give an opinion does. The fact that a 10 day ticket may be cheaper in the long run doesn't matter if the opinionater sees no value in spending 10 days at WDW.

Are you even reading the posts, or are you just ignoring those that you can't make a dent in?

Let me repeat all the errors by quoting one of my previous posts:

Okay, okay, I'll admit that my use of the term "criminally negligent," which seems to have struck a major chord with you, was inacurate and inappropriate. But then you'll have to admit that:

"with theme park hot dog meals costing a whopping $7 and a one-day entry ticket at Disney World soaring to $71 per adult (defined as age 10 and above—tell that to the DMV)."

is completely misleading, because she completely fails to mention that per day prices drop sharply as you buy longer tickets, and since there are 4 theme parks, you need a minimum of 4 days to see them all.

And:

"They're cinderblock motels, packed with loud school groups for much of the year, that are located farther from the Disney attractions than most of the (often nicer) motels that are clustered around the gates of Disney World."

Is completely WRONG - the Disney Value resorts are demonstrably NOT "packed with loud school groups for much of the year," though some of them do have tour groups or PW or cheer groups at SOME times.

And I dare you to find me ANY non-Disney hotel (or motel), other than those on Hotel Plaza Blvd or the Swan & Dolphin, that is closer to the parks than Pop or the All-Stars.

"Epcot won't have enough to interest your younger kids."

Horse-hockey. Epcot has all sorts of kid-friendly stuff, although admittedly it's not all princesses and muppets and Mr. Sanderz. Some kids don't like Epcot, but some do; to issue such a blanket statement, dismissing the entire park out of hand, is ridiculous to anyone who has been to Epcot.

"Be wary of "upgrading" your passes, as that's not the best value"

Say what? Since when is upgrading your pass from 4 days to 5, getting another full day at a theme park for $3 not the best value!? (NOTE: 4-day base ticket $225.78, 5-day base ticket $228.98, difference $3.20).

"You probably won't get to the water park,"

Says who? Plenty of folks with younger kids hit the water parks.

" and Disney's eating plan is inconvenient (only certain properties are included, some of which require reservations)."

Again, simply WRONG. The Dining Plan includes almost every restaurant and eatery on WDW property (some require two credits instead of one), and ALL of them require reservations, unless you want to wait a long time as a walk-up.

"Then, do one day at SeaWorld (http://travel.msn.com/Destinations_Seaworld_Florida_tier2_DATE_DESC_1103 2_200000388_4.aspx) (an unmissable, exuberantly fun and educational Orlando attraction)"

SeaWorld is unmissable and exhuberantly fun for a 5-year old and a 2-year old, but Epcot has nothing to interest them? Well, that's a matter of opinion, but my opinion is that this a whacked opinion.

" and, if your older one's into action heroes, one day at Universal Studios (http://travel.msn.com/Destinations_Universal_Studios_Florida_Florida_tie r2_DATE_DESC_11032_10116289_4.aspx)."

Er, the action heroes are not at Universal Studios, they are next door at Islands of Adventure.

Now, as far as the whole on-site vs. off-site thing, I've never been shy about staying off-site when I get better bargains than on-site (which, unfortunately, is quite often). But I'll be on-site for MouseFest, staying at the fabulous All-Star Cinderblock Movies resort for $59 a night.

And renting a car - I'm all over that. I always rent a car at WDW; in my 17 years of visiting, I've only done two trips without wheels and hated every minute of it.

Visiting Universal or SeaWorld? One of my number-one reccomendations to anyone planning a trip to Orlando is that the world doesn't end at the Disney property line - get the heck out and try other stuff, because there's plenty of great stuff out there that you'll miss if you limit yourself to WDW.

So no, I don't disagree with everything she wrote, but the stuff she got wrong completely destroys her credibility as a professional journalist in my eyes.

By the way - ARE you actually Pauline's Big Daddy, Aurthur Frommer? Cause if you are, man, I really dug your appearance in "Eurotrip." Way cool, bro!

[Peter Pirate 2]

You're more than welcome to sit back quietly when you see an inaccuracy. Some of us, however, feel differently and that doesn't make us wrong. I'm personally growing weary with the mentality that we should "shut up and suck it up." Why are we not allowed to voice our opinions? What is so wrong with that? And since when is emailing a publisher about inaccuracies considered bashing someone? Since when has the idea of journalistic accountability become something to fear and stay away from?


This is a fine attitude. Seriously. Do you spend lots of time trying to correct journalistic injustices that are heaved upon us? Or is it just Disney issues? Because if you're an active advocate for journalistic reform then this argument is put into a whole different perspective and you deserve kudos for fighting the fight ... But if you're simply a Disney fan who is incensed over a not so great review by a travel writer and this is really your only foray into the fight against bad journalisim then I certainly see Mr. Voices POV as this seems like a rather trivial issue (in the big picture) to wad the panties so tightly and circle the wagons...
pirate:

[raidermatt]

I'm not seeing much in the way of inaccuracies in the article. Could somebody please briefly bullet point them here?

[mking624]

Oh the hot dog meal thing reminded me...
I checked AllEars site and did a menu check for Casey's Corner....here's what's listed:
Grand Slam All Beef 1/4 lb. Hot Dog - served with apple slaw or french fries $5.79

I'm having trouble accessing other areas of the site right now (it was moving really slow for me), are there other counter service locations that charge more for it?

[raidermatt]

Ok, I see WildCad's list, but that is nothing but differences of opinion. Not inaccuracies. Where are the incorrect facts?

[mking624]

This is a fine attitude. Seriously. Do you spend lots of time trying to correct journalistic injustices that are heaved upon us? Or is it just Disney issues? Because if you're an active advocate for journalistic reform then this argument is put into a whole different perspective and you deserve kudos for fighting the fight ... But if you're simply a Disney fan who is incensed over a not so great review by a travel writer and this is really your only foray into the fight against bad journalisim then I certainly see Mr. Voices POV as this seems like a rather trivial issue (in the big picture) to wad the panties so tightly and circle the wagons...
pirate:
When an article piques my interest, Disney or not, I will do my best to research the information. I don't like to take things at face value...I want to make sure that what I'm reading is accurate. I do it even when taking my pets to the vet, I do my "homework" to make sure that the info I'm being given by my vet is correct (and I learned this the hard way with the first vet we had). Even if I wasn't like that, I find nothing wrong with a Disney fan writing in about Disney.

[raidermatt]

Oh the hot dog meal thing reminded me...
I checked AllEars site and did a menu check for Casey's Corner....here's what's listed:
Grand Slam All Beef 1/4 lb. Hot Dog - served with apple slaw or french fries $5.79

I'm having trouble accessing other areas of the site right now (it was moving really slow for me), are there other counter service locations that charge more for it?

Since the statement was about a hot dog meal, wouldn't we include the price of a drink? I know if somebody who had never been to WDW asked me what a hot dog meal cost, I wouldn't assume they wouldn't want a soda or something.

Added in Edit: The cheapest beverage at Casey's is a small bottle of water for $1.25, which would bring the meal cost to $7.04.

I can't remember, does that include tax?

[YoHo]

Are you even reading the posts, or are you just ignoring those that you can't make a dent in?

Let me repeat all the errors by quoting one of my previous posts:
Fine, We'll do it your way

Okay, okay, I'll admit that my use of the term "criminally negligent," which seems to have struck a major chord with you, was inacurate and inappropriate. But then you'll have to admit that:

"with theme park hot dog meals costing a whopping $7 and a one-day entry ticket at Disney World soaring to $71 per adult (defined as age 10 and above—tell that to the DMV)."

is completely misleading, because she completely fails to mention that per day prices drop sharply as you buy longer tickets, and since there are 4 theme parks, you need a minimum of 4 days to see them all.

It's not misleading at all. A hot dog meal does cost $7 (or, it does at DL, Hotdog, Chips, no soda) and a single day ticket is $71.
LAter on in the article when she actually discusses purchasing tickets, she recommends a 3 day pass. I suppose you could claim that singling out WDW's price is misleading, but really, come on reading intentional bias into it is a bit much.

And I'm sorry, but #1 she specifically recommends not seeing all the parks, so how many days you need to see all of them is completely irrelevent.
Further, MGM and AK are both largely considered half day parks. A problem that is only accentuated by the age of the children involved. She recommends 2 days for MK and 1 for AK. That sounds perfectly fine.


And:

"They're cinderblock motels, packed with loud school groups for much of the year, that are located farther from the Disney attractions than most of the (often nicer) motels that are clustered around the gates of Disney World."

Is completely WRONG - the Disney Value resorts are demonstrably NOT "packed with loud school groups for much of the year," though some of them do have tour groups or PW or cheer groups at SOME times.


And yet they are low rent, cheap and unthemed Motels. A little Hyperbole never hurt anyone....except for that one time, but she deserved it.

And I dare you to find me ANY non-Disney hotel (or motel), other than those on Hotel Plaza Blvd or the Swan & Dolphin, that is closer to the parks than Pop or the All-Stars.

Perhaps not physically, but they would have the advantage of not using the Disney branded Cattle cars err, busses. In some cases it is certainly faster then trying to get places from the Values.
And of course, none of this addresses her main point which is the true value in improved accommodations per dollar spent offsite.

AND, she goes out of her way to mention the camp ground and even to sing it's praises. Perhaps you missed that. The campground is demonstratively more Disney then the Values.


"Epcot won't have enough to interest your younger kids."

Horse-hockey. Epcot has all sorts of kid-friendly stuff, although admittedly it's not all princesses and muppets and Mr. Sanderz. Some kids don't like Epcot, but some do; to issue such a blanket statement, dismissing the entire park out of hand, is ridiculous to anyone who has been to Epcot.

This is her opinion and your opinion. this isn't an inaccuracy. Get over it.



"Be wary of "upgrading" your passes, as that's not the best value"

Say what? Since when is upgrading your pass from 4 days to 5, getting another full day at a theme park for $3 not the best value!? (NOTE: 4-day base ticket $225.78, 5-day base ticket $228.98, difference $3.20).

because she's recommending only spending 3 days at WDW so a 5th day is not a good value at any price.


"You probably won't get to the water park,"

Says who? Plenty of folks with younger kids hit the water parks.

Says her the experienced travel writer and mother of young children. Again, this is an opinion and she has a right to it. It isn't in any conceivable way an inaccuracy.


" and Disney's eating plan is inconvenient (only certain properties are included, some of which require reservations)."

Again, simply WRONG. The Dining Plan includes almost every restaurant and eatery on WDW property (some require two credits instead of one), and ALL of them require reservations, unless you want to wait a long time as a walk-up.

She is in this case pretty wrong, but in fact I think she's erring on the side of being too nice. The DIsney Dinning Plan has ruined the restaurants and made it nearly impossible to get a table unless you call months in advance. Neither of these things used to be true. The money saved is offset by the time needed to plan the vacation (something hard to do with young children) and the reduction in quality of the food. And that's not to say anything of the difficulty of actually using all your credits, especially given the small children involved.
Have you not read the many threads on bilking the system on this very site?
Value can be measured as time wasted on the phone at 7am 6 months before the vacation too.

"Then, do one day at SeaWorld (an unmissable, exuberantly fun and educational Orlando attraction)"

SeaWorld is unmissable and exhuberantly fun for a 5-year old and a 2-year old, but Epcot has nothing to interest them? Well, that's a matter of opinion, but my opinion is that this a whacked opinion.


Well, you've said itself and made yourself look bad in the process. This is an opinion. There's no facts to be erroneous.


" and, if your older one's into action heroes, one day at Universal Studios."

Er, the action heroes are not at Universal Studios, they are next door at Islands of Adventure.

And most Americans talk about going to Walt Disney World and Epcot too. She probably meant to imply both parks.

[nick262]

Since the statement was about a hot dog meal, wouldn't we include the price of a drink? I know if somebody who had never been to WDW asked me what a hot dog meal cost, I wouldn't assume they wouldn't want a soda or something.

Added in Edit: The cheapest beverage at Casey's is a small bottle of water for $1.25, which would bring the meal cost to $7.04.

I can't remember, does that include tax?

The original article stated that a hot dog alone was $7, she has since then gone in and edited the article and put a disclaimer at the end noting the change. She also stated that they would need a second room because the infant would put them in the 5 person catagory thus she would have to pay for 2 rooms. She "shakes with anger" over the soaring prices of a WDW ticket but fails to point out that is it not much cheaper to go to SW or UO. Now I have not personally been to UO and it has been years since I went to SW in Orlando, but if the prices are simular to SW in SD, a hot dog meal will cost about $7 as well. She is giving the reader an impression that she would save money by going to the other parks. Not necessary true. All theme parks are expensive. And any minimal savings would be nullified by the cost of the rental car and gas or taxi. She also misquoted the cost of the dining plan and the age that a child is concidered adult. Again, she has gone in an fixed the above mistakes but the impressions are still there.

[YoHo]

She's not giving that impression at all, she's saying they'd get a better VALUE by going to those other parks.

[raidermatt]

I assume she originally said a Hot Dog at DISNEY? Because now it not only clarifies "meal", but it says THEME PARK.

But ok, she originally made three mistakes, which she corrected. The impression is only there for those who read the article before she was bombarded with emails from Dis'ers. Everybody who reads it from that point on won't know any different.

She never said US or SW were not expensive. In fact, she talks about theme parks in general being expensive several times, as well as skyrocketing prices in ORLANDO. Again, not directed specifically at Disney. If that was a change you failed to mention, ok, but again, she changed it.

[mking624]

She's not giving that impression at all, she's saying they'd get a better VALUE by going to those other parks.
Value can mean monetary or nonmonetary. Monetary wise, her recommendation is not necessarily the better value. That's just finances, not opinion there. Time wise, the value depends on the person. To me, her complaining about the cost of WDW and then advising other options gives the impression she is trying to find the best cost for someone who very obviously is looking at a budget. She never tells the budget minded person that her advice really isn't different than the price of what she was previously complaining about. All that said, it is pretty clear that she is intended to give the impression of a more affordable trip...meaning its referring not just to time being spent, but money as well. She begins all her list of recommendations by stating this specifically:
"Since keeping this trip affordable is a top priority, here's some advice for saving on your vacation."

because she's recommending only spending 3 days at WDW so a 5th day is not a good value at any price.
What she recommends is not necessarily what the family wants. The question asked about a 7 day 6 night trip to Walt Disney World. Not a 3 day trip to WDW and 4 days everywhere else. If that had been the case, then yes I'd say that adding extra days to a 3 day ticket is not the best option.

She is in this case pretty wrong, but in fact I think she's erring on the side of being too nice. The DIsney Dinning Plan has ruined the restaurants and made it nearly impossible to get a table unless you call months in advance. Neither of these things used to be true. The money saved is offset by the time needed to plan the vacation (something hard to do with young children) and the reduction in quality of the food. And that's not to say anything of the difficulty of actually using all your credits, especially given the small children involved.
Aside from the difficulty of getting an ADR, I'd say the rest of your statements are pure opinion. DH & I didn't feel that at all. And while there are others who agree with you, there are also others who agree with me on the DDP. I know you weren't discussing this with me but with someone else...my only complaint about her DDP comment was regarding her email response in which she quoted a wrong price, one that was higher than it really is.

[mking624]

She never said US or SW were not expensive. In fact, she talks about theme parks in general being expensive several times, as well as skyrocketing prices in ORLANDO. Again, not directed specifically at Disney. If that was a change you failed to mention, ok, but again, she changed it.

Here's what is still in the article, just wanted to share so you know she did have a Disney specific comment...
"The cost is another matter, and this is what gets me shaking, not with fear but with anger. Prices in Orlando are skyrocketing, with theme park hot dog meals costing a whopping $7 and a one-day entry ticket at Disney World soaring to $71 per adult (defined as age 10 and above—tell that to the DMV). Since keeping this trip affordable is a top priority, here's some advice for saving on your vacation."

One day ticket prices to UO and SW are comparable, and both of those parks also define "adults" as age 10 and above.

[YoHo]

mking,

All of those items aside from her mistake in an email to you which was NOT posted by her are opinions. There's nothing inaccurate or misleading about them. I'm quite sure that had it been a forum rather then an article, there would have been more give and take between her and the questioner and that would have lead to a more precise answer.

Perhaps a more useful thing would have been to email her with a link to this site and in general evangilize on the potential for online help with a Disney Vacation.

Of course, she may come here and assume we're all looney, but still.

[mjstaceyuofm]

Sorry – but I think the guidebook is probably a much better description of how the normal, average vacationing American sees WDW than internet posters. The average American does see a seven dollar hot dog, they do see the Pop Century as a cinderblock motel, they do look at what a one day admission costs and really don’t care how “cheap “ it is to add days nine and ten (and by Disney’s own admission, nearly a third of all admission at WDW are one-day tickets).
AV... C'mon. I consider you very poignant and smart with your analysis of how TWDC manages its assets (ie the parks), but this article was ridiculous and riddled with misinformation. To rebut what you've said above I'd offer this: for every "average" American that chooses to go to WDW for a day or two (or more), there are plenty of people that that "average" American knows that has been there before or even posts on WDW chat boards that are more than willing to throw out a few real :cloud9: pictures of WDW and advice for them. I know I do it all the time to people/family/friends/coworkers I know who tell me they're thinking about going to WDW. I often tell them to keep their expectations guarded because I know how daunting a WDW vacation can be. I give them advice and pointers so they don't go down there and think that all WDW is is expensive food, 45 minute waits for Peter Pan and cheesy hotel/motels.... We may not everything about WDW, but we know how to deal with it. Bottom line is this lady is tainting the average American that thinks of going to WDW instead of offering them sound advice.

[YoHo]

Here's what is still in the article, just wanted to share so you know she did have a Disney specific comment...
"The cost is another matter, and this is what gets me shaking, not with fear but with anger. Prices in Orlando are skyrocketing, with theme park hot dog meals costing a whopping $7 and a one-day entry ticket at Disney World soaring to $71 per adult (defined as age 10 and above—tell that to the DMV). Since keeping this trip affordable is a top priority, here's some advice for saving on your vacation."

One day ticket prices to UO and SW are comparable, and both of those parks also define "adults" as age 10 and above.

But that's 1 sentence and she has 2 more pages of advice much of which has nothing to do with which parks to go to. You can't couple those 2 items indiscriminately.

[mking624]

But that's 1 sentence and she has 2 more pages of advice much of which has nothing to do with which parks to go to. You can't couple those 2 items indiscriminately.

Actually I can couple them together...she makes the statement and then immediately begins to recommend options to make it more "affordable", including the ticket options (which then becomes advice on where to go). Now I'm not arguing about on site vs off site since I do realize sometimes offsite can be cheaper, though there are also times when DH & I have been able to stay onsite for cheaper. What I'm saying is that when you tell someone "I'm going to tell you how you can save money and make this affordable", it's misleading when you then provide information that winds up benig more expensive.

[YoHo]

It certainly is more expensive then getting a 5/6 day pass, but then, since she makes it pretty clear that there's nothing they'll want to do at Disney for those 2 days, it would be even cheaper if she recommended they shorten their stay down to a long weekend.
Again, day 4 and 5 are worthless at any price as the author sees it, so the fact that Seaworld is equally priced is irrelevent.

[Another Voice]

but this article was ridiculous and riddled with misinformation.
But that’s what seems to be falling apart here.

She gets tagged for the cost of hot dog (“burn her for forgetting the apple wedges!!”) when in reality the price of a hot dog meal - becasue Disney refuses you the choice of just ordering a hot dog - actually turns out to be four cents higher than her figure.

She sights the ticket price at WDW as an example, and she’s smeared for not listing the prices for everywhere else to make Disney seem “better”. But in reality the “every kid is doing it" excuse doesn’t mean people will come home with fatter wallets.

And for this everyone makes it sounds like she had just given a speech at Columbia University.

Instead she gave lots of advice. And frankly, advicethat are much more in line with the thinking of the average traveler than with the people on this board – in my own humble opinion. It’s the ferocity of the attacks on her that are very telling. I think that the average “fan” has a horribly distorted view of how the rest of the world sees Disney, what the average traveler expects from Disney, and that’s leading to both a serious problem for “fandom” in general and leads Disney to make very bad business decisions.

Certainly have the Truth Squad impale anyone who dares quote incorrect hot dog prices is not going to make “fans” popular with travel writers or travel publications.

[WillCAD]

It's not misleading at all. A hot dog meal does cost $7 (or, it does at DL, Hotdog, Chips, no soda) and a single day ticket is $71.
LAter on in the article when she actually discusses purchasing tickets, she recommends a 3 day pass. I suppose you could claim that singling out WDW's price is misleading, but really, come on reading intentional bias into it is a bit much.

It's misleading because she is not recommending buying single-day tickets, she's recommending buying a 3-day ticket, which is $203, or $67.67 per day. Sure, only a 4$ difference, but the point is not that tiny $4, it's that she never even mentions that the price per day drops when you add more days, even if you're only buying a 3-day ticket. Nor does she mention the actual price of the 3-day ticket she's reccomending, a tidbit that can be found in about 1 minute online if she had bothered to do even 10 minutes of research before writing a 3-page article.

Heck, I've checked 3 different web sites to get facts just to write this post!

And I'm sorry, but #1 she specifically recommends not seeing all the parks, so how many days you need to see all of them is completely irrelevent.
Further, MGM and AK are both largely considered half day parks. A problem that is only accentuated by the age of the children involved. She recommends 2 days for MK and 1 for AK. That sounds perfectly fine.

It wouldn't be relevant if she wasn't recommending skipping entire theme parks and water parks just because she and her children don't like them. I don't care for the water parks, but I would never presume to recommend that people skip them just because I don't like them - instead, I recommend that people look at the water park maps and planning materials, and decide for themselves whether there is anything there, since I understand that my opinion means nothing; it's the FACTS that are important.

And yet they are low rent, cheap and unthemed Motels. A little Hyperbole never hurt anyone....except for that one time, but she deserved it.

That's a gross misrepresentation. You think a hotel (NOT motel) with 40-foot tall statues of Disney movie characters, musical instruments, pop culture icons, or sports equipment is "unthemed"? You think they're low-rent or cheap just because they're not $300 a night? Think again.

All-Star Sports has a Sports theme.
All-Star Music has a music theme.
All-Star Movies has a Disney movie theme.
Pop Century has a 20th century American popular culture theme.

Perhaps not physically, but they would have the advantage of not using the Disney branded Cattle cars err, busses. In some cases it is certainly faster then trying to get places from the Values.
And of course, none of this addresses her main point which is the true value in improved accommodations per dollar spent offsite.

Oh, so if we twist the whole deal around then you can justify a completely untrue statement as being a matter of opinion? Well, it's my opinion that if you put a scale on a map and measure the distance from the parks to the Values and to the nearest off-site hotels, you'll find that the Values are closer. That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.

Now, to the other issue - "value" is a measure of what you pay vs what you get. Off-site places give you larger rooms for less money. On-site rooms give you more perks and more atmosphere, and closer proximity to the parks, for more money. "Value" in this case depends entirely on what each person values - location, perks, room size, cost, food options, or atmosphere, or some combination thereof.

But that's a completely different topic - the original topic was that Pauline said that "They're cinderblock motels, packed with loud school groups for much of the year, that are located farther from the Disney attractions than most of the (often nicer) motels that are clustered around the gates of Disney World." And all three of those assertions are completely untrue. They're not matters of opinion - they're inaccurate facts.

AND, she goes out of her way to mention the camp ground and even to sing it's praises. Perhaps you missed that. The campground is demonstratively more Disney then the Values.

Fort Wilderness Campground is a wonderful place. I don't know any avid camper who has stayed there without being very impressed by every aspect of FW. But "more Disney than the Values?" Again, that's a matter of opinion. I dunno; maybe Pioneer Hall seems more Disney to you than Classic Hall or Cinema Hall, but hey, more power to ya.


This is her opinion and your opinion. this isn't an inaccuracy. Get over it.

That's your opinion and I disagree with it. Get over it.

because she's recommending only spending 3 days at WDW so a 5th day is not a good value at any price.

Recommending skipping half of what WDW has to off is no value, when you consider that you could add the extra days needed to experience that stuff for 1/10th of what it would cost to experience her alternatives at SeaWorld or Universal.

Says her the experienced travel writer and mother of young children. Again, this is an opinion and she has a right to it. It isn't in any conceivable way an inaccuracy.

She's stating opinion as fact, which makes it inaccurate - it's not a fact, it's her opinion.

She is in this case pretty wrong, but in fact I think she's erring on the side of being too nice. The DIsney Dinning Plan has ruined the restaurants and made it nearly impossible to get a table unless you call months in advance. Neither of these things used to be true. The money saved is offset by the time needed to plan the vacation (something hard to do with young children) and the reduction in quality of the food. And that's not to say anything of the difficulty of actually using all your credits, especially given the small children involved.
Have you not read the many threads on bilking the system on this very site?
Value can be measured as time wasted on the phone at 7am 6 months before the vacation too.

I haven't been thrilled with how the DDP has filled up the restaurants, either, since I'm the type who prefers not to plan my meals more than a day in advance, but I wouldn't say that it's "ruined" the restaurants. It's just made them really difficult to get into.

For me, the DDP is not a good value and I never use it. But it IS a good value for many people. If it wasn't, the restaurants wouldn't be so full, capice?

Well, you've said itself and made yourself look bad in the process. This is an opinion. There's no facts to be erroneous.

Yeah, I have egg all over my face. I'm slime. I'm a maroon.

But that's my opinion, and I'm entitled to it, no matter what yours is.

And most Americans talk about going to Walt Disney World and Epcot too. She probably meant to imply both parks.

Well that's just silly. Have you met most Americans and discussed WDW and Epcot with them?

And let's stick to what she wrote, not what you think she meant, okay?

[PrincessTiffany]

What I see is an article that appears to be written from the point of the view of a more "average" traveler than the people on this board. A seven dollar hot dog is still a seven dollar hot dog whether paid with cash or an expensive "Dining Plan". Furthermore, the artilce seemed to be mostly aimed at saving cash for the typical vacationer with an interest in Disney that is short of the "I dress my cat like a princess" level. It is shocking to many, but I think if ask most travellers they will tell you that they think SeaWorld is more interesting to childern than Epcot. So it doesn't matter if a 10-day ticket is "cheaper per day" when most people have no intention of spending 10 days at WDW anyway

Frankly - how many average Americans can afford a ten day vacation?

People here have appear to have more bias than the author of this article and fewer real facts about vacation spending. I'm just amazed by the level of bile and hated being spewed. To me, it just fits into a long term - and disturbing - trend I've seen among "Disney fans". The parks are becoming more and more the private clubhouse and less and less appealing to the general public.

That's a serious danger to the future of the company.
Just a quick question for Another Voice. I just opened up my email and opened up my link to this thread and have read through it. I guess my question is, If you have such an apparent distaste for Disney, why are you a member of the Disboards? I haven't been here too long, but I thought it was a board for Disney lovers to share tips and suggestions. You don't seem to like it at all. I think this is the first time I've run across you on here, so I don't really know you, and I'm being sincere in asking, not sarcastic. Just wondering.

[PrincessTiffany]

I was wondering the same thing. Maybe the kids meal hot dog is just a hot dog? Then I guess it wouldn't really be a kid's MEAL then, huh?
We were at Casey's in the Magic Kingdom on Saturday and you would buy a hot dog without anything else.

[Peter Pirate 2]

Just a quick question for Another Voice. I just opened up my email and opened up my link to this thread and have read through it. I guess my question is, If you have such an apparent distaste for Disney, why are you a member of the Disboards? I haven't been here too long, but I thought it was a board for Disney lovers to share tips and suggestions. You don't seem to like it at all. I think this is the first time I've run across you on here, so I don't really know you, and I'm being sincere in asking, not sarcastic. Just wondering.

Check Mr. Voice's post count. Then, since you haven't been here too long, go back and research some of his postings and then you'll see where he's coming from...It's all there, he's been here for years, his credentials speak for themselves and this silly "why do you come to the DIS when you obviously hate Disney" routine is just tooooo old.:sad2:
pirate:

[YoHo]

Peter, I think you're being a bit harsh. Though I agree it's a question asked every time a rumorsnewb ventures down here.

We should have a FAQ just for this forum.

[PrincessTiffany]

Check Mr. Voice's post count. Then, since you haven't been here too long, go back and research some of his postings and then you'll see where he's coming from...It's all there, he's been here for years, his credentials speak for themselves and this silly "why do you come to the DIS when you obviously hate Disney" routine is just tooooo old.:sad2:
pirate:
I don't know what routine you are referring to. I don't have a routine, I just wanted to know what all the animosity was about. Anyways, I addressed the question to Another Voice. Maybe my "credentials" weren't good enough for a response. Also, I originally came across this thread on the theme parks and stategies board. It has apparently been moved by one of the moderators and when I clicked on the link in my email it apparently brought me to "your" board. I didn't "venture" here and I certainly won't be venturing back if this is one of your typical discussions. Just too nasty for me. I guess I'm just one of those goody-goody disney people. Sorry for the interruption. Now back to your verbal berating of each other.

[Peter Pirate 2]

Well, if you think I'm being too tough then I must be...I apologize if that's how it seems but honestly this road is so warn I feel the pot holes are swallowing the car...

Mr. Voice, Yoho, The raider fan etc. don't hate the Disney they were raised on...They hate what has happened to it and is happening to it still and lament the losses of what remains of the entertainment company that Walt's ideals shaped...They're fighting for their memories, I think.
pirate:

[YoHo]

It's misleading because she is not recommending buying single-day tickets, she's recommending buying a 3-day ticket, which is $203, or $67.67 per day. Sure, only a 4$ difference, but the point is not that tiny $4, it's that she never even mentions that the price per day drops when you add more days, even if you're only buying a 3-day ticket. Nor does she mention the actual price of the 3-day ticket she's reccomending, a tidbit that can be found in about 1 minute online if she had bothered to do even 10 minutes of research before writing a 3-page article.

Heck, I've checked 3 different web sites to get facts just to write this post!

It is an oversight on her part, she's not telling them about the $12ish they're saving, but again, it's not relevent given the advice she's giving them. And it's still not a lie or a misrepresentation. It's an omission for the sake of brevity.



It wouldn't be relevant if she wasn't recommending skipping entire theme parks and water parks just because she and her children don't like them. I don't care for the water parks, but I would never presume to recommend that people skip them just because I don't like them - instead, I recommend that people look at the water park maps and planning materials, and decide for themselves whether there is anything there, since I understand that my opinion means nothing; it's the FACTS that are important.

It isn't her job to present the facts and nothing but the facts. She's giving advice. That's clearly the nature of the column. Somebody asked a question seeking advice and got it. Clearly if all the vacationer wanted was the facts, then they themselves could have gotten them.


That's a gross misrepresentation. You think a hotel (NOT motel) with 40-foot tall statues of Disney movie characters, musical instruments, pop culture icons, or sports equipment is "unthemed"? You think they're low-rent or cheap just because they're not $300 a night? Think again.

All-Star Sports has a Sports theme.
All-Star Music has a music theme.
All-Star Movies has a Disney movie theme.
Pop Century has a 20th century American popular culture theme.


YOu clearly are new to the rumors and news board. I'm not going to go into it here except to say that there's a wealth of threads dating back almost 8 years now discussing the issues with the values. If you understand how and why Disneyland and Walt Disney World became part of American culture. I mean understand why on a nuts and bolts level why, then you would understand why the values as built fail. There's plenty of threads on it here. Agree or disagree after you've read them.


Oh, so if we twist the whole deal around then you can justify a completely untrue statement as being a matter of opinion? Well, it's my opinion that if you put a scale on a map and measure the distance from the parks to the Values and to the nearest off-site hotels, you'll find that the Values are closer. That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.

Fine, but that really isn't helpful

Now, to the other issue - "value" is a measure of what you pay vs what you get. Off-site places give you larger rooms for less money. On-site rooms give you more perks and more atmosphere, and closer proximity to the parks, for more money. "Value" in this case depends entirely on what each person values - location, perks, room size, cost, food options, or atmosphere, or some combination thereof.

The questioner values paying $1600 for her vacation (which I suspect is impossible for a 6 day 7 night vacation including airfare)

But that's a completely different topic - the original topic was that Pauline said that "They're cinderblock motels, packed with loud school groups for much of the year, that are located farther from the Disney attractions than most of the (often nicer) motels that are clustered around the gates of Disney World." And all three of those assertions are completely untrue. They're not matters of opinion - they're inaccurate facts.

Actually, the values are used almost exclusively for the various camps and comps at the WWoS complex. Foreign tour groups tend to use them more then other onsite hotels. While it certainly is hyperbole, I think it is fair to say that you're generally more packed in at the values.


Fort Wilderness Campground is a wonderful place. I don't know any avid camper who has stayed there without being very impressed by every aspect of FW. But "more Disney than the Values?" Again, that's a matter of opinion. I dunno; maybe Pioneer Hall seems more Disney to you than Classic Hall or Cinema Hall, but hey, more power to ya.

It's a matter of understanding why Disney is what it is. If I am presented with somebody on such a limited budget and I want them to get the most true Disney bang for the buck AND they're willing to camp, there is no way I'd send them somewhere else. IF not, I'd recommend offsite and give them tips on how to explore WDW without staying on site.



Why not? Half of what Disney has to offer is complete rubbish. For kids that age and with their budget? better to spend the extra $12 and let the kids get soaked by Shamu.

[quote]
She's stating opinion as fact, which makes it inaccurate - it's not a fact, it's her opinion.

This is simply not true. It's an opinion piece start to finish. She fixed the actual inaccuracies. You're free to try and get hired by MSN travel and then you can write your own opinion piece.


I haven't been thrilled with how the DDP has filled up the restaurants, either, since I'm the type who prefers not to plan my meals more than a day in advance, but I wouldn't say that it's "ruined" the restaurants. It's just made them really difficult to get into.

The food porn threads over in the dining forum beg to differ.

For me, the DDP is not a good value and I never use it. But it IS a good value for many people. If it wasn't, the restaurants wouldn't be so full, capice?

perceived value and actual value are different. Hense why the person asked this lady the question in the first place.



Well that's just silly. Have you met most Americans and discussed WDW and Epcot with them?

It's something Disney has admitted to having to fight all the time.


And let's stick to what she wrote, not what you think she meant, okay?

You yourself are putting meaning into her words that simply isn't there. Casting aspersions, implying that she has a vendetta against Disney.

[minnie61650]

Well, if you think I'm being too tough then I must be...I apologize if that's how it seems but honestly this road is so warn I feel the pot holes are swallowing the car...

Mr. Voice, Yoho, The raider fan etc. don't hate the Disney they were raised on...They hate what has happened to it and is happening to it still and lament the losses of what remains of the entertainment company that Walt's ideals shaped...They're fighting for their memories, I think.
pirate:

I have ventured down to these rumor boards a few times and I have learned a lot from Another Voice, Yoho, The raider fan etc.

I sometimes feel while they may "lament the losses of what remains of the entertainment company that Walt's ideals shaped..." they also sometimes come down very hard on DIS members that do not agree with their opinions.

Perhaps they get so caught up in their own thoughts, opinions , & knowledge that they forget we are real people with real feelings when they ridicule us and our opinions so harshly.
I think they sometimes just view us a screen name.

JMHO

[YoHo]

I don't know what routine you are referring to. I don't have a routine, I just wanted to know what all the animosity was about. Anyways, I addressed the question to Another Voice. Maybe my "credentials" weren't good enough for a response. Also, I originally came across this thread on the theme parks and stategies board. It has apparently been moved by one of the moderators and when I clicked on the link in my email it apparently brought me to "your" board. I didn't "venture" here and I certainly won't be venturing back if this is one of your typical discussions. Just too nasty for me. I guess I'm just one of those goody-goody disney people. Sorry for the interruption. Now back to your verbal berating of each other.


PrincessTiffany, the reason we're being a bit short with you is that we get asked this question a lot. Usually once we explain ourselves, the person asking understands, or at least respects our position, but it's a little frustrating to be constantly asked.

Couple months ago I blogged on the subject
http://www.july171955.com/b2evolution/index.php?blog=3&title=12_disney_curmudgen_commandments&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

Actually, I recommend my entire blog to get an idea of where I and to a certain extent others are coming from.
In either case, here's a excerpt:

2. Being a Disney fan doesn’t mean you have to think every dumb thing they do is magical
Ugh, the tubes of the internet are clogged with Disney fanatics who laud every stupid thing Disney does.
“THANKYOU MOUSE MAY I HAVE ANOTHER!!!”

3. Corollary: I don’t need to like everything Disney does to enjoy their parks.
I’m sorry, being critical of Disney doesn’t mean I don’t enjoy the old Disney. The Disney that became a household name, Not the Disney that exploited that name

[PrincessTiffany]

PrincessTiffany, the reason we're being a bit short with you is that we get asked this question a lot. Usually once we explain ourselves, the person asking understands, or at least respects our position, but it's a little frustrating to be constantly asked.

Couple months ago I blogged on the subject
http://www.july171955.com/b2evolution/index.php?blog=3&title=12_disney_curmudgen_commandments&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

Actually, I recommend my entire blog to get an idea of where I and to a certain extent others are coming from.
In either case, here's a excerpt:
Thanks for the honest response. That's all I wanted to know.

[YoHo]

Perhaps they get so caught up in their own thoughts, opinions , & knowledge that they forget we are real people with real feelings when they ridicule us and our opinions so harshly.
I think they sometimes just view us a screen name.

JMHO

There's no crying on the internet.

I like to think of my role as Disney rumors and news drill Sargent. Insulting you and berating you into a bunch of critical Disney thinkers.

YOUR NEW NAME IS GOMER PYLE!!!
.
..
...

AV's just a jerk though. ;)

[minnie61650]

There's no crying on the internet.

I like to think of my role as Disney rumors and news drill Sargent. Insulting you and berating you into a bunch of critical Disney thinkers.

YOUR NEW NAME IS GOMER PYLE!!!
.
..
...

AV's just a jerk though. ;)

:rotfl:

Gee.......
I did not realize when I joined the DIS I was enlisting in the army.
I guess that's what I get for not reading the fine print.;)

[Another Voice]

If you have such an apparent distaste for Disney, why are you a member of the Disboards?
Ms. Tiffany, I am never bothered to answer honest questions and I'll give you an honest answer.

I think that Mr. Pirate had it best – I’m fighting for my memories. I have seen Disney for my entire life, both from the outside and as part of the inside. I know what Disney can accomplish when they really, really try; and I painfully know how much the world really needs “magic” to make it a better place.

I could go on for a long time and become very maudlin, but no one wants to read that. So I’ll stick to one memory.

It’s the memory of a bunch of animators watching the first cut of a scene. Everyone in the room was in tears because they were so full of pride. For most of them, working on Disney animated movie was the goal of a lifetime. And now, not only had that dream come true – but they thought they had actually created something that was finally worthy of the name “Disney”. It made them part of the legacy, it gave them something to point to and say “there – I created that”, it gave them the understanding that people will be watching that scene long after we are all gone.

That sense of pride – earned pride – caused people to work even harder. It filled their work with a sense of purpose and passion, emotions that carried down to the watching the first paying audience for the film laugh and scream and cry and applaud to the very end.

That is Disney to me: the ability to create the impossible, the willingness to put in all the effort to make it happen, the ability to communicate all that passion to the people who watch or visit. Walk through Disneyland or the Magic Kingdom or EPCOT Center and you can feel that surround you, you can feel the joy of creating real magic, the excitement of making the impossible.


Do you get that feeling walking around Pop Century? I don’t, there’s no magic there. I get associations – a fifty foot Mickey Mouse Phone tells me this is a Disney branded establishment – but the place doesn’t stir anyone’s soul. There’s no sense of pride in the place. There’s a sense of balance sheets and PowerPoint presentations – but no sense of someone standing there saying “only we at Disney could have pulled this off”.

Sure, some people will like the place. People watch ‘American Idol’, eat Cheez Whiz and follow the careers of professional wrestlers too. But that’s not the standard I want Disney to follow. “Just good enough” isn’t good enough; “but children like it” means the place is fell on the wrong side of "childish" and "child-like".

You don’t get 14 million people to visit a swamp in central Florida just to see the average, or the adequate or the “this-is-what-we-had-in-the-budget”. People want to feel the passion that Disney productions used to possess. They want to experience the real magic of true artists at work. They want more than just seeing characters – fiberglass or otherwise. They need more than just “Disney’s” in front of a hotel’s name for the place to feel special. They want to experience all that Disney used to produce, but so rarely does these days.

I want Disney to be great. I believe that is the best way to ensure the future success and growth of the company. Revenue management techniques will not get a single new visitor to WDW, but a brilliantly created unique attraction will bring them in the by the millions. It’s time that Disney – and its fans – expected more from the company. It's time that Disney actually created something they can be proud of again.

I’m just here doing my best to keep the bar raised.

[mking624]

Ms. Tiffany, I am never bothered to answer honest questions and I'll give you an honest answer.

I think that Mr. Pirate had it best – I’m fighting for my memories. I have seen Disney for my entire life, both from the outside and as part of the inside. I know what Disney can accomplish when they really, really try; and I painfully know how much the world really needs “magic” to make it a better place.

I could go on for a long time and become very maudlin, but no one wants to read that. So I’ll stick to one memory.

It’s the memory of a bunch of animators watching the first cut of a scene. Everyone in the room was in tears because they were so full of pride. For most of them, working on Disney animated movie was the goal of a lifetime. And now, not only had that dream come true – but they thought they had actually created something that was finally worthy of the name “Disney”. It made them part of the legacy, it gave them something to point to and say “there – I created that”, it gave them the understanding that people will be watching that scene long after we are all gone.

That sense of pride – earned pride – caused people to work even harder. It filled their work with a sense of purpose and passion, emotions that carried down to the watching the first paying audience for the film laugh and scream and cry and applaud to the very end.

That is Disney to me: the ability to create the impossible, the willingness to put in all the effort to make it happen, the ability to communicate all that passion to the people who watch or visit. Walk through Disneyland or the Magic Kingdom or EPCOT Center and you can feel that surround you, you can feel the joy of creating real magic, the excitement of making the impossible.


Do you get that feeling walking around Pop Century? I don’t, there’s no magic there. I get associations – a fifty foot Mickey Mouse Phone tells me this is a Disney branded establishment – but the place doesn’t stir anyone’s soul. There’s no sense of pride in the place. There’s a sense of balance sheets and PowerPoint presentations – but no sense of someone standing there saying “only we at Disney could have pulled this off”.

Sure, some people will like the place. People watch ‘American Idol’, eat Cheez Whiz and follow the careers of professional wrestlers too. But that’s not the standard I want Disney to follow. “Just good enough” isn’t good enough; “but children like it” means the place is fell on the wrong side of "childish" and "child-like".

You don’t get 14 million people to visit a swamp in central Florida just to see the average, or the adequate or the “this-is-what-we-had-in-the-budget”. People want to feel the passion that Disney productions used to possess. They want to experience the real magic of true artists at work. They want more than just seeing characters – fiberglass or otherwise. They need more than just “Disney’s” in front of a hotel’s name for the place to feel special. They want to experience all that Disney used to produce, but so rarely does these days.

I want Disney to be great. I believe that is the best way to ensure the future success and growth of the company. Revenue management techniques will not get a single new visitor to WDW, but a brilliantly created unique attraction will bring them in the by the millions. It’s time that Disney – and its fans – expected more from the company. It's time that Disney actually created something they can be proud of again.

I’m just here doing my best to keep the bar raised.
Though this was not addressed to me, I did want to respond.

I can totally respect your views and feelings on this. By your post, it's evident that it's something you feel passionate about. However, you should also respect that people DO feel that Disney provides an awesome experience of all "it used to produce." You may not agree, but yes, there are people who feel that way. I say go for it to keep trying to raise the bar to have a company meet your standards! But other people who feel that those standards have been met should not be silenced because you don't feel the same.

As far as the "magic" of Disney at Pop Century...we've stayed there twice. While we're not big fans of value resorts, the place is quirky enough for me to say "yep, that's Disney to me." Both times we've stayed, we've been treated with stellar attitudes and wonderful mousekeeping. And yes, that's definitely not something I've encountered at places outside of Disney. So you see, the experience is different to different people. And really, Disney can't please everyone...no matter how hard they tried (and that's not to say Disney shouldn't keep trying, but the fact is, no matter what they do, someone will complain about it). Am I WOWed by it? Well no, but honestly that's because we much prefer the "peace" of the other categories than the "loudness" of a value. But some people love the values! It's definitely a "to each his own" situation.

I'm not some person who blindly follows whatever Disney is doing. There are things that they have done that I didn't agree with, and yes I wrote them about it and I've spoken to Guest Relations managers about over the phone. I have no problem voicing my opinion to them when it comes to something that I'm concerned about because it's obviously something I prefer to see a change in, because like you, I want that bar to be raised. So when you state multiple times how we're Disney fans who are apparently unwilling to face reality (not your specific words, I know), it frustrates me because you obviously haven't taken the time to get to know some of us to see that we aren't just people who say "Disney is perfect, they can do no wrong!" I know enough about the company and its origins to know that there are things they do that I disagree with, sometimes ethically.

You want Disney to be great, and so do we. :)

[Another Voice]

You want Disney to be great, and so do we.
Then why settle for the Pop Century?

You must feel that Disney could have done better. You must know that Disney should have done better. It's not a matter of what people like or dislike - it's what Disney is capable of doing and what they must do to maintain their position. Like I said, they sell Cheez Whiz by the tanker truck load - but "popularity" is not a standard that Disney should strive for.

For the same amount of money Disney could have built a resort with true imagination, true charm, true "only Disney could have done this" appeal. It would have taken imagination and work...all the traits that Disney used to be associatated with. Instead we got an accountants spreadsheet and about ten mintues of thought. Sure some people "like" it...but that's not the standard that should be applied.

I'm not trying to silence anyone's opinion, but there is a difference between "something made in the Disney tradition" and "something branded as Disney". Disney has been successful when it creates true Disney products; it fails when it relies only on the good will generated by the brand.

I do think people feel the difference between Real and Branded products - Pixar films, made in the tradition of Walt, are massive hits. Disney's own animated films - with ads filled with "Disney" and "Magic" every third word, have been box office disasters for a decade now. The general public desires good movies, good productions first and foremost. They see through the marketing hype and can sniff out substrandard efforts.

That is what is so distrubing about "fandom" - they don't seem to be able to separate the product from the brand anymore. In fact, most people want nothing but the brand. Honestly, would you ever have stayed at Universal's Pop Century Resort or would you have considered it a cheap and loud cinderblock motel? The most vocal supporters of Pop would be the loudest detractor of the same identical facility had it been located in a different spot. It's that same attitude presented in this thread over and over and over again - the presumption that "Disney" is better just becasue it's "Disney" and that all other opinions are driven by malice.

For every bad move that Disney makes, some suit can hold up fifty internet postings from fans and claim "the public likes it". We are as responsible for the decline at Disney as much as the company is. We are the ones lowering the bar - as in the settling for places like Pop Century and attacking a travel writer that dares hold a different opinion.

[minnie61650]

........That is what is so distrubing about "fandom" - they don't seem to be able to separate the product from the brand anymore. .......
For every bad move that Disney makes, some suit can hold up fifty internet postings from fans and claim "the public likes it". We are as responsible for the decline at Disney as much as the company is. We are the ones lowering the bar - as in the settling for places like Pop Century and attacking a travel writer that dares hold a different opinion.

Maybe that suit can "hold up fifty Internet postings from fans and claim "the public likes it".
But I would also think that for every 50 who post they like it there are hundreds of postings from fans who did not like it.

Over time I think even the "suits" have to take notice and try to make improvements.

I disagree with the statement that the "fandom" cannot separate the product from the brand anymore.

Even though some of us may see some things differently than you do I think most of us want to raise the bar also.

Just my 2 cents

[harvardx]

Thank you everyone for posting. You are scaring me but I need a strong dose of of reality from both sides. I have got to get my expectations within reason. I was at EPCOT Center and Magic Kingdom in April 1989 trying to clear my mind for a week. It worked!

My memories are so vague that I remember "It's a Small World" being in Epcot and don't remember the TTC (stayed at a motel) and thought I just walked from my car to the entrance. And I certainly do not remember any crowds and it was Easter week! Planning for the worst and hoping for the best!:cool1:

[WillCAD]

YoHo, Another Voice, you're preaching to the choir when it comes to blindly accepting everything Disney does and not criticizing them and refusing to consider alternative destinations, etc.

I've never been one to spend my whole trip smothered by Disney; I go to both Univeral parks on every trip, I visit the outlets and off-site malls and dining options, I stay off-site as much as I stay on-site, and I love hitting the cheesy Lake Buena Vista area flea markets.

I've also been extremely critical of many of the corporate policies that Disney has established over the last 7 years or so, and have written some pretty heated emails to them about it. And for years I was getting madder and madder at the skyrocketing prices and swiftly falling cleanliness and maintenance in the parks, though on my last couple of trips cleanliness seems to have improved rather than degenerated.

And truthfully, I really don't have a problem with people who don't "get" or don't like the Disney parks.

My problem with this whole issue has been that Pauline Frommer got numerous facts wrong or partially wrong when she wrote that piece, making it fairly evident that she did no research on WDW and had little or no experience with WDW. Yet she gave some pretty specific advice based on that incomplete picture that would, if followed, completely change the character of a WDW vacation, not to mention seriously affect the vacationer's ROI. And in a 3-page article, she never mentioned any additional sources of research or information - not a guidebook, not a web site, not a forum or newsfeed. It's this behavior that I find unacceptable in a professional journalist, particularly one with the name Frommer.

In other words, I'm no Disney lemming, but I'm also not an anti-Disney lemming. I seem to share a lot of opinions with you guys, just not our opinion of this article or Pauline's journalistic integrity.

[PrincessTiffany]

Ms. Tiffany, I am never bothered to answer honest questions and I'll give you an honest answer.

I think that Mr. Pirate had it best – I’m fighting for my memories. I have seen Disney for my entire life, both from the outside and as part of the inside. I know what Disney can accomplish when they really, really try; and I painfully know how much the world really needs “magic” to make it a better place.

I could go on for a long time and become very maudlin, but no one wants to read that. So I’ll stick to one memory.

It’s the memory of a bunch of animators watching the first cut of a scene. Everyone in the room was in tears because they were so full of pride. For most of them, working on Disney animated movie was the goal of a lifetime. And now, not only had that dream come true – but they thought they had actually created something that was finally worthy of the name “Disney”. It made them part of the legacy, it gave them something to point to and say “there – I created that”, it gave them the understanding that people will be watching that scene long after we are all gone.

That sense of pride – earned pride – caused people to work even harder. It filled their work with a sense of purpose and passion, emotions that carried down to the watching the first paying audience for the film laugh and scream and cry and applaud to the very end.

That is Disney to me: the ability to create the impossible, the willingness to put in all the effort to make it happen, the ability to communicate all that passion to the people who watch or visit. Walk through Disneyland or the Magic Kingdom or EPCOT Center and you can feel that surround you, you can feel the joy of creating real magic, the excitement of making the impossible.


Do you get that feeling walking around Pop Century? I don’t, there’s no magic there. I get associations – a fifty foot Mickey Mouse Phone tells me this is a Disney branded establishment – but the place doesn’t stir anyone’s soul. There’s no sense of pride in the place. There’s a sense of balance sheets and PowerPoint presentations – but no sense of someone standing there saying “only we at Disney could have pulled this off”.

Sure, some people will like the place. People watch ‘American Idol’, eat Cheez Whiz and follow the careers of professional wrestlers too. But that’s not the standard I want Disney to follow. “Just good enough” isn’t good enough; “but children like it” means the place is fell on the wrong side of "childish" and "child-like".

You don’t get 14 million people to visit a swamp in central Florida just to see the average, or the adequate or the “this-is-what-we-had-in-the-budget”. People want to feel the passion that Disney productions used to possess. They want to experience the real magic of true artists at work. They want more than just seeing characters – fiberglass or otherwise. They need more than just “Disney’s” in front of a hotel’s name for the place to feel special. They want to experience all that Disney used to produce, but so rarely does these days.

I want Disney to be great. I believe that is the best way to ensure the future success and growth of the company. Revenue management techniques will not get a single new visitor to WDW, but a brilliantly created unique attraction will bring them in the by the millions. It’s time that Disney – and its fans – expected more from the company. It's time that Disney actually created something they can be proud of again.

I’m just here doing my best to keep the bar raised.
Thank you so much for your eloquent response. I appreciate your honesty. I can honestly say you have given me a few things to ponder. Thanks again for the response.

[mking624]

Then why settle for the Pop Century?

You must feel that Disney could have done better. You must know that Disney should have done better. It's not a matter of what people like or dislike - it's what Disney is capable of doing and what they must do to maintain their position. Like I said, they sell Cheez Whiz by the tanker truck load - but "popularity" is not a standard that Disney should strive for.

For the same amount of money Disney could have built a resort with true imagination, true charm, true "only Disney could have done this" appeal. It would have taken imagination and work...all the traits that Disney used to be associatated with. Instead we got an accountants spreadsheet and about ten mintues of thought. Sure some people "like" it...but that's not the standard that should be applied.

I'm not trying to silence anyone's opinion, but there is a difference between "something made in the Disney tradition" and "something branded as Disney". Disney has been successful when it creates true Disney products; it fails when it relies only on the good will generated by the brand.

I do think people feel the difference between Real and Branded products - Pixar films, made in the tradition of Walt, are massive hits. Disney's own animated films - with ads filled with "Disney" and "Magic" every third word, have been box office disasters for a decade now. The general public desires good movies, good productions first and foremost. They see through the marketing hype and can sniff out substrandard efforts.

That is what is so distrubing about "fandom" - they don't seem to be able to separate the product from the brand anymore. In fact, most people want nothing but the brand. Honestly, would you ever have stayed at Universal's Pop Century Resort or would you have considered it a cheap and loud cinderblock motel? The most vocal supporters of Pop would be the loudest detractor of the same identical facility had it been located in a different spot. It's that same attitude presented in this thread over and over and over again - the presumption that "Disney" is better just becasue it's "Disney" and that all other opinions are driven by malice.

For every bad move that Disney makes, some suit can hold up fifty internet postings from fans and claim "the public likes it". We are as responsible for the decline at Disney as much as the company is. We are the ones lowering the bar - as in the settling for places like Pop Century and attacking a travel writer that dares hold a different opinion.
We didn't "settle" for Pop Century, we chose to stay there. We have that right, regardless of you trying to convince us that we should stay far away. We are the kind of people who like to try out different resorts and may choose to stay at one more than once if presented with the opportunity; we are not what some people refer to as "resort snobs." Some people feel that the Contemporary falls into "what Disney used to produce", but quite frankly, we have no interest in CR. We've toured the rooms (since managers have let us look into unoccupied rooms) and we've toured the resort...and it all seems blah to us. Unthemed in our opinion...and pretty much a typical hotel with the exception that a monorail runs through it and in that sense, there is where feel Disney could have done better. But we don't chide people who may feel differently...in fact a good friend of mine loves that resort. This past trip we decided to tour/explore the Polynesian. We weren't that impressed. And yet there are Poly devotees. That's fine, that meets their needs and their wants. We've explored moderates and found we like certain ones better than others. Same with the values.

Why are you so adamant to get people to agree with your opinion? Why can't you respect that people just may think differently than you on this without you having to tell them that they must feel a particular way? No, I must not feel Disney should have done better...because we think that that Pop Century is pretty cool...we just happen to like moderates better in terms of the actual quietness. We feel that among all the resorts, Pop Century is the most "Disney-fied" theme. Others may feel differently, and that's fine. But I am not required to feel the same way as you do regarding a particular resort. You say you're not trying to silence anyone's opinion, but then you say that I must feel a certain way about a resort that you don't care for.

It's fine that you have a particular opinion about a certain resort...people are allowed to either dislike or like a resort or how it's done or whatever. BUT, there also needs to be a level of respect of how others feel on the subject, and telling people that they MUST feel the way you do is downright disrespectful, and quite frankly, arrogant. I'm a grown adult who can make decisions on my own and I've had a good knack on being able to determine my own feelings for myself, thank you.

It doesn't seem to be us who are having problems separating things...we're not the ones who are holding adamant opinions about Disney and trying to force others to agree in a condescending way. But that must be me and my "fandom" speaking again, considering the number of times people have said that they are not 100% pro-Disney and that has been repeatedly ignored.... :confused3

[grimley1968]

We didn't "settle" for Pop Century, we chose to stay there. We have that right, regardless of you trying to convince us that we should stay far away. We are the kind of people who like to try out different resorts and may choose to stay at one more than once if presented with the opportunity; we are not what some people refer to as "resort snobs." Some people feel that the Contemporary falls into "what Disney used to produce", but quite frankly, we have no interest in CR. We've toured the rooms (since managers have let us look into unoccupied rooms) and we've toured the resort...and it all seems blah to us. Unthemed in our opinion...and pretty much a typical hotel with the exception that a monorail runs through it and in that sense, there is where feel Disney could have done better. But we don't chide people who may feel differently...in fact a good friend of mine loves that resort. This past trip we decided to tour/explore the Polynesian. We weren't that impressed. And yet there are Poly devotees. That's fine, that meets their needs and their wants. We've explored moderates and found we like certain ones better than others. Same with the values.

Why are you so adamant to get people to agree with your opinion? Why can't you respect that people just may think differently than you on this without you having to tell them that they must feel a particular way? No, I must not feel Disney should have done better...because we think that that Pop Century is pretty cool...we just happen to like moderates better in terms of the actual quietness. We feel that among all the resorts, Pop Century is the most "Disney-fied" theme. Others may feel differently, and that's fine. But I am not required to feel the same way as you do regarding a particular resort. You say you're not trying to silence anyone's opinion, but then you say that I must feel a certain way about a resort that you don't care for.

It's fine that you have a particular opinion about a certain resort...people are allowed to either dislike or like a resort or how it's done or whatever. BUT, there also needs to be a level of respect of how others feel on the subject, and telling people that they MUST feel the way you do is downright disrespectful, and quite frankly, arrogant. I'm a grown adult who can make decisions on my own and I've had a good knack on being able to determine my own feelings for myself, thank you.

It doesn't seem to be us who are having problems separating things...we're not the ones who are holding adamant opinions about Disney and trying to force others to agree in a condescending way. But that must be me and my "fandom" speaking again, considering the number of times people have said that they are not 100% pro-Disney and that has been repeatedly ignored.... :confused3

Very well said, and I agree.

Except for your choices of favorite resorts. My favorites are Poly and Wilderness Lodge, and I'm not a big fan of Pop Century or the All Stars at all. Uh oh, does this mean I'm not a member of the WDW "fandom" any longer? ;)

But I think we're still in agreement that Ms. Frommer's article was a shoddy piece of work, riddled with factual errors, incorrect pricing, and bias, and it should never have been published in any form without proper fact-checking first and also some kind of editorial check against Ms. Frommer's bias.

[Another Voice]

And in a 3-page article, she never mentioned any additional sources of research or information - not a guidebook, not a web site, not a forum or newsfeed. It's this behavior that I find unacceptable in a professional journalist, particularly one with the name Frommer.
On which pages does the Birnbaum guide list other guide books, web sites, forums, newfeeds? Where in the Birnbaum guide do I find advice to SeaWorld, the phone number for the Marriott World Center, the operation hours of Wet ‘n Wild?

What I read in your posts is that you’re angry at the author for not providing other information to contradict her advice, that her opinions do not go unchallenged. And I still not seeing where these massive factual errors are. All I’ve seen is the hot dogs, her failure to play games with ticket prices and an inference that the Grand Floridian is a motel. Everything else people have brought up falls into the category of advice and opinion – and she’s being slammed for not having the proper opinion.

We didn't "settle" for Pop Century, we chose to stay there.
Where have I ever said people shouldn’t stay at the Pop Century or criticized anyone who stays there? You make me feel like I talked about an eight dollar hot dog.

My criticism is aimed at Disney. I think they did a poor job with Pop Century. The place is not up to Disney’s own standard of design, imagination and quality. For the same budget and for the same room price points, Disney could have created a truly great experience that would appeal even more to people and retain Disney’s level of quality.

Disney means more than just “owned by The Walt Disney Company (NSYE: DIS)”. Disney is a specific way of design to produce a specific affect on people. That philosophy turned a simple cartoon studio into a part of American culture. More people around the world recognize Cinderella Castle than the Capital Building, Buckingham Palace or the Taj Mahal. Main Street U.S.A. at Disneyland sparked the development of the modern pedestrian shopping mall. The name “Fantasyland” is part of the American vocabulary.

In my opinion a giant “Do the Funky Chicken” sign stapled to the top a four story cellblock just doesn’t fit with that tradition.

If you like the place, wonderful - enjoy your stays there. I found it a perfectly serviceable motel when I’ve stayed there. But answer this question – would you say the same great things about it had it been called ‘Marriott’s Pop Century’ resort and located on the other side of US192?

To answer that is to understand the difference between Disney the style and Disney the brand.

can honestly say you have given me a few things to ponder.
That is what makes posting worth the time.

[raidermatt]

Perhaps they get so caught up in their own thoughts, opinions , & knowledge that they forget we are real people with real feelings when they ridicule us and our opinions so harshly.
I think they sometimes just view us a screen name.


For my part, I try my best to be respectful of the other posters I am conversing with. My apologies if I fell short. I shall continue to work on it.

...they also sometimes come down very hard on DIS members that do not agree with their opinions.

As AV has said, we rarely if ever come down on the member. If we did the moderators would have booted us long ago. YoHo has Tourette's, but once you get past that he's almost bearable.

Again, it's really Disney we are coming down on. For all the criticisms of Disney management (and we don't all agree on every point), we all also still visit Disney parks and resorts to varying degrees. I'm extremely critical of DCA, but I still go there. I only go when I have multiple days to spend down there, but I do still go.

We aren't criticizing you for going or staying anywhere. We should all realize that by spending any money on anything Disney creates that we don't think is really worthy of the Disney name, we are supporting it in a way. But since we all do that to some extent, that's merely a statement of fact and not a criticism of anybody in particular.

The criticism is of DISNEY for the way they are doing things. That's a completely different question from whether it's fun to ride Primevil Whirl. I won't debate you on whether or not it's fun. That's purely a matter of personal preference. Just as deciding whether or not to stay at Pop Century is a matter of personal preference.

But the hows and whys behind those things are a different matter. Once you understand how and why Disney did things, there's just no way to look at some of the things that are done today and say they measure up to that standard of effort and care.

Is that just an opinion? Not really. We can compare the business practices of Target and Nordstrom (just an example) and objectively say there are differences in the way they operate and therefore the type of service/product they provide, and nobody would say that's "just your opinion". Why can we not say the same thing about different eras of the Walt Disney Company?

[raidermatt]

One last little comment on the whole "You're a bunch of meanies" thing...

I just opened up another thread and immediately saw references to Disney elitists and snobbery. We've got thick skins and can take it, but I think you'll find that the posts that are attacking the poster and not the post don't usually come from us.

[grimley1968]

What I read in your posts is that you’re angry at the author for not providing other information to contradict her advice, that her opinions do not go unchallenged. And I still not seeing where these massive factual errors are. All I’ve seen is the hot dogs, her failure to play games with ticket prices and an inference that the Grand Floridian is a motel. Everything else people have brought up falls into the category of advice and opinion – and she’s being slammed for not having the proper opinion.


I'll list some of the errors that I can remember:

- There is the hot dog thing
- There is the inference that all Disney lodging falls under the category of "motels", which I've posted on enough already
- She incorrectly stated that babies and toddlers cannot be brought along to your resort if you already have 4 in a room. She used this incorrect "fact" to form a conclusion that staying onsite is not the best option for bringing babies. That conclusion is fine, but she did not use other facts to support it. Bad writing there.
- When she "corrected" the incorrection, she STILL got the age wrong.
- She got the daily price of the Dining Plan wrong, by about a 20% difference. That's excusable if were corrected before publication, but it wasn't, and she used this incorrect pricing to form her conclusion that the Dining Plan is just too expensive. A 20% drop in the actual cost versus her wrong data makes a huge difference to a lot of people as to whether the price of the DP is "too expensive."
- She was right about pricing kids 10+ as adults in the DP, and in park tickets. However, there is no context with this fact, as every park I've been to in the last decade does the same thing. You can't just fault Disney for this, and let everyone else get off scot free. But she faults Disney for it anyway, with her comment about the DMV.
- There were others, but I can't remember now which now, and don't have the inclination to participate any further in this exercise.

Any one of these facts being wrong, I could probably deal with. But to have all of these things wrong, in an article that was, what 3 pages, long? That's an awfully short amount of space to have all these glaring errors, and invalid and incomplete conclusions based on them. It makes her bias come through loud and clear. It's not honest, and I don't like dishonesty in reporting or writing.

I'm not sure why people are choosing to ignore mine and many others' repeated and thorough explanations of why we think this is a shoddy piece of journalism, and instead focus on why they think Disney "isn't what is used to be", brand versus product, etc. That's not what this thread is about. It's about a poorly researched and written piece of "journalism", that with its bias could lead otherwise uninformed vacation researchers with a negative impression that is not based on demonstrated, and correct, facts. I feel this way about many journalists and the articles they write, no matter what the subject or their conclusions, and this Frommer piece is a great example of what journalism seems to increasingly be about these days.

[minnie61650]

For my part, I try my best to be respectful of the other posters I am conversing with. My apologies if I fell short. I shall continue to work on it.

No need to apogize. I was not refering to your posts. I think your posts (at least all of the ones I have read ) are very respectful


As AV has said, we rarely if ever come down on the member. If we did the moderators would have booted us long ago.



Perhaps I should not have said "come down" on the member.
Perhaps I should say some of the members on this rumors board seem to think it is OK to make fun of other DIS members just because we may have different points of view.

Just my 2 cents

[raidermatt]

The hot dog thing has been covered, ad nauseum, but nobody actually answered my question... did she originally say a Disney hot dog costs $7? Because it now not only says "meal", which is more than $7 by the way, but it says theme park, not Disney.

But either way, I see criticism of her for talking about non-Disney stuff because she was only asked about Disney, but then I see criticism of her for quoting Disney info and not quoting all the prices for everything else in the Orlando area.

There is the inference that all Disney lodging falls under the category of "motels", which I've posted on enough already

I can't find any inference. Was that changed too?

She incorrectly stated that babies and toddlers cannot be brought along to your resort if you already have 4 in a room. She used this incorrect "fact" to form a conclusion that staying onsite is not the best option for bringing babies. That conclusion is fine, but she did not use other facts to support it. Bad writing there.

Fair enough. Bad writing abounds.

When she "corrected" the incorrection, she STILL got the age wrong. Fair enough again. She, like thousands of other writers on the web, didn't do enough research.

She got the daily price of the Dining Plan wrong, by about a 20% difference.
I guess she completely removed any reference to the price? Either that or I'm just missing it.

...she used this incorrect pricing to form her conclusion that the Dining Plan is just too expensive. A 20% drop in the actual cost versus her wrong data makes a huge difference to a lot of people as to whether the price of the DP is "too expensive."

Doesn't matter what it does to anybody else's opinion. "Too expensive" was, and still is, HER opinion. Yes, wrong data, if it was there originially, is a problem. But it has been fixed and all of her suggestions for saving money on meals are still 100% valid.

She was right about pricing kids 10+ as adults in the DP, and in park tickets. However, there is no context with this fact, as every park I've been to in the last decade does the same thing. You can't just fault Disney for this, and let everyone else get off scot free. But she faults Disney for it anyway, with her comment about the DMV.

Again, she was asked about Disney, but when she provides info about Disney she is criticized? There was nothing to indicate that anybody else's prices are any different.

There were others, but I can't remember now which now, and don't have the inclination to participate any further in this exercise.
Good idea.


Nobody is disputing that there were a few inaccuracies in the original article. But much of the criticism of the writer goes way beyond just wanting a few inaccuracies checked.

[grimley1968]

The hot dog thing has been covered, ad nauseum, but nobody actually answered my question... did she originally say a Disney hot dog costs $7? Because it now not only says "meal", which is more than $7 by the way, but it says theme park, not Disney.

Yes, she said a hot dog itself costs $7. She corrected it later. But it was kind of like a genie out of a bottle by that time. The difference between a hot dog alone, and a combo meal is significant, if you are researching overall pricing.

And there was definitely an inference about all Disney resorts being "motels." She made her derogatory comment about the All-Stars, which I admit I'm not wild about myself. But then she made a comment about other "motels" that ring the perimeter of the lake around MK. There are no motels there. A motel is lodging where you literally can park next to your room. Except for the FW cabins, I know of no place that offers that little feature near MK. At the very least, GF, Poly, CR and WL are all hotels, if you don't wish to consider them resorts (I consider GF, Poly and WL resorts and CR a hotel personally). "Motel" tends to have a pejorative sound to it, and just isn't appropriate terminology in this case. People unfamiliar with the lodging near MK might be led to believe the offerings near MK are about the same as the Value resorts, and I think nothing could be further from the truth.

But all these "facts" should NEVER have appeared in an article meant for public consumption, without checking them first. She was irresponsible for publishing this. Anytime you draw conclusions about something, someone or a place based on facts, and those conclusions very possibly affect how others form their own conclusions and/or spend their hard-earned dollar, you really need to check your facts, and also your preconceived notions. Her failure to do so was highly negligent for a "journalist", especially considering she could have corrected every single one of her facts by staying in her office chair and getting on the web. Better yet would have been an actual visit to the place she criticizes so much.

[Another Voice]

It makes her bias come through loud and clear. It's not honest, and I don't like dishonesty in reporting or writing.
I don’t care about whether or not people stay at the Pop Century motels.

What am I interested is the hatred and intolerance that is a growing trend in Disney “fandom” that will, in a short time, really hurt the company. A travel advice writer gives some comments people don’t like, doesn’t price hot dog correctly – and we get pages of people calling her biased, incompetent, dishonest, and a long list of names in a way that is completely out of proportion to the capital crimes she has been convicted of committing.

It’s just extremely interesting the Mouse Correctness has finally seeped from Internet discussion boards out into the real world.

[grimley1968]

What am I interested is the hatred and intolerance that is a growing trend in Disney “fandom” that will, in a short time, really hurt the company. A travel advice writer gives some comments people don’t like, doesn’t price hot dog correctly – and we get pages of people calling her biased, incompetent, dishonest, and a long list of names in a way that is completely out of proportion to the capital crimes she has been convicted of committing.

It’s just extremely interesting the Mouse Correctness has finally seeped from Internet discussion boards out into the real world.

Okay, I have been asked to list the incorrections in the Frommer's article, which I did above, yet you still insist on saying this is all about the price of a hot dog.

Where is this "hatred" and "intolerance"? Please list this for us, because those are strong words. I don't see it at all. Wanting a journalist to show some integrity in her writing BEFORE she publishes an erroneous article has nothing to do with how I feel about that person or anyone else, so please don't accuse me of feeling "hatred" or "intolerance" toward anyone, because you do not know me (I hate no one), and that is not the subject at hand.

[marivaid]

I don’t care about whether or not people stay at the Pop Century motels.

What am I interested is the hatred and intolerance that is a growing trend in Disney “fandom” that will, in a short time, really hurt the company. A travel advice writer gives some comments people don’t like, doesn’t price hot dog correctly – and we get pages of people calling her biased, incompetent, dishonest, and a long list of names in a way that is completely out of proportion to the capital crimes she has been convicted of committing.

It’s just extremely interesting the Mouse Correctness has finally seeped from Internet discussion boards out into the real world.

She IS incompetent. Biased and dishonest, maybe not - maybe she's just not very bright. It doesn't exactly take a rocket scientist to type disneyworld.com and check prices.
But incompetent ? No question about that.

Let the hot dog go already. That's hardly the only mistake she's made. The first - and biggest,IMO - was telling her "reader" that she'd have to book two rooms.
Telling her it would be more affordable to pay a day at Seaworld and a day at Universal instead of adding 2 days at Disney was another big one.

What takes the cake is that not only did she make mistakes in her original article, after getting probably dozens of emails telling her the same thing she STILL didn't get the information right.

You assume that we're mad because we're Disney fanatics that can't see anything wrong with what Disney does. Coudn't be further from the truth.

The reality is that these days journalists don't research their materials, especially for articles that are only going to appear online.

I've blasted a so-called music expert online just a few weeks ago who wrote that the Bon Jovi's song "Bed of Roses" was the song "Always" rewritten as a way to cash in. Problem is, "B" was released two years BEFORE "A". You can bet that I let that guy know in no uncertain terms that he had no clue what he was talking about.

I don't know about you, but when I had projects to do in middle school I was supposed to do some research first, then start writing. I don't think that asking an author to do the same qualifies as being "hateful and intolerant".
It's called asking someone to do their job well and know their subject, whichever it is.

How sad that we live in the world of National Enquirers and should now expect journalists to be unprofessional.

[Another Voice]

You just called her writing "biased" and "dishonest" - implying that she intentionally lied in her piece just to bash Disney. That sure reads like hate from here.

Again - these are examples from just two pages:

I'd be suspicious if I thought the Roadway Inn could afford to pay kickbacks...” - she's willing to tak bribes to write bad things about Disney? How well does the writer know the author?

Just totally incapable of having fun. - a direct, personal attack

Pauline Frommer is clearly clueless. - another direct, personal insult.

She was so snobby. - what is this place, a high school?

Ayone with issues about vacationing at WDW can always go somewhere else on vacation and quit lurking on the Disney forums. - agree with us or shut-up.

The fact that she is still clueless is what bothers me the most... - insult'

Well, that's a matter of opinion, but my opinion is that this a whacked opinion. - now it's agree with us or we'll call you names too!

I could see that this woman was horribly biased against Disney. - direct personal attack.

Yes, we on the Dis, know better. - agree with us because we're better than you are.


The sad thing (or almost hopeful) is that had these postings been made against a member of this board, the moderators would have probably stepped in. But because the author is "outside" and "anti-Disney", these comments flow like Dole Whip in summer. It seems that far from being the kind hearted, magic loving fluffy wonder people that everyone assumes they are, perhaps they ought to look at themselves first.

[raidermatt]

Yes, she said a hot dog itself costs $7. She corrected it later. But it was kind of like a genie out of a bottle by that time. The difference between a hot dog alone, and a combo meal is significant, if you are researching overall pricing.

That wasn't my question, but even so I think that's a gross overeaction. Disney's posted price for a Hot Dog is well over $5. We aren't talking about a huge difference. Anyway, her current ariticle UNDER prices a hot dog meal, yet I haven't read a single complaint.

But my question was did it say DISNEY hot dog before? Becaue it now says THEME PARK hot dog (meal).

But then she made a comment about other "motels" that ring the perimeter of the lake around MK.
She mentions motels that are clustered around the gates of Disney World, not the Seven Seas Lagoon. Those aren't Disney establishments. Here's what I believe is the paragraph in question:

If that's too rustic for you, you could try one of Disney's All Star Resorts, but truthfully, only their corporate overlord would give them "stars." They're cinderblock motels, packed with loud school groups for much of the year, that are located farther from the Disney attractions than most of the (often nicer) motels that are clustered around the gates of Disney World. And, at between $89 and $129 a night, they cost about twice as much as those motels.


Not only does she say "gates of Disney World", which is not the same as the lake by the MK, she also says the All-Stars cost twice as much as these motels. So clearly she is not talking about other Disney accomodations.

[grimley1968]

Calling someone's writing biased and dishonest, which has been demonstrably shown to be the case repeatedly, is not hate. Any inference that she intentionally lied is yours, not mine. Please don't refer to my words as "hate." I am commenting on her article.

Also, none of the comments others made that you quote are "hatred" as well. Some were ill-advised and maybe harsh, but so was much of Ms. Frommer's article. But I don't consider Ms. Frommer's article, nor anything said in this thread, as "hatred." You can infer all you want from those comments, but that does not make them examples of "hatred", no matter how vitriolic you feel about it.

I live in the south, and I've seen lots of actual real-life examples of real hatred, and I've been to Europe and visited Mauthausen, which contains all too real visual and pictorial examples of the worst hatred of all, so I think throwing around terms like "hatred" and "intolerance" in a thread critical of a badly written and biased article about Disney is a bit over the top.

[grimley1968]

Not only does she say "gates of Disney World", which is not the same as the lake by the MK, she also says the All-Stars cost twice as much as these motels. So clearly she is not talking about other Disney accomodations.

She said MK in the original published piece, and something about ringing the lake around it. She edited it, but she should have edited it before it was ever published. This is what I've been trying to say from page 1 of this thread.

And since the article was strictly about Disney, wouldn't it have to be a Disney hot dog she refers to? :confused3

Oh, editing to add, there are no resorts, motels, or anything "clustered" around the gates of Disneyworld. Anything offsite is miles away, not "clustered" around the gates, which leads me to think she's still referring to Disneyland, where there are, yes, many, many hotels, motels, and everything in between surrounding that area. Even though the article was edited, this still shows a gross misunderstanding of the layout of WDW, which can really skew a Disney-ignorant tourist's understanding of the way it works staying onsite versus offsite.

[minnie61650]

....Yes, we on the Dis, know better. - agree with us because we're better than you are......


.... perhaps they ought to look at themselves first.

Yes, perhaps all of us should be tolerate of others and if someone has views that are different than ours we may disagree but we should be respctful of the other persons views.

Just my 2 cents

[YoHo]

The jist of this thread is a bunch of people seeing some minor inaccuracies in and article and then reading in a bunch of stuff that isn't there. Then getting offended when others don't read the same stuff in.

It sure would be nice to have a copy of the article as originally printed. Since it's apparently completely different.

[nick262]

The jist of this thread is a bunch of people seeing some minor inaccuracies in and article and then reading in a bunch of stuff that isn't there. Then getting offended when others don't read the same stuff in.

It sure would be nice to have a copy of the article as originally printed. Since it's apparently completely different.

(Bolding Mine) I dont care if you think that the in accuracies are minor or if you agree with my assessment or not. But calling a group of people "haters" and "intolerant" is a personal attack on my and the others integrity. As stated before by many of us, WE WOULD HAVE DONE THIS EVEN IF THE ARTICLE WAS NOT ABOUT DISNEY! (not shouting, applying ephasis to make more visual since nobody has seemed to read it before.) You dont know me, you have no idea what my feelings are about Disney.

For you information Voice, I feel alot like you regarding the Disney brand. It broke my heart when they closed The Gallery at Disneyland because I believe that Walt would have really loved it, especial as opposed to what it is going to become. I do not go off and defend Disney offhand regardless of the facts. I have been known to write letters and emails when I have seen something not up to Walts standards. And yes, I have done a lot of research on Walt and pretty much know what his vision was. The reason that I sent the emails that I did, was because I am tired of reporters writing what ever the heck they deem the truth with out research. Since you love the old style Disney so much here, ask yourself this question... Had the article printed been about Walt and the old Disney, and it contained glaring mistakes, intentional or not, and called him a hack, would you not have felt the need to bring the mistakes to the writers attention?

Again, this is not about Disney or drinking their "koolaid" it is about the integerety of the facts in the article, regardless of the subject. You did not even see the original article, but yet you are so willing to jump on us based on the edited version because you think we are part of the "fandom". The gist of the question asked was "I want to take my family to WDW on 1600.00, how do I do that." Ms. Frommer proceeded to give false or misleading information and based on that false or misleading information basically told that person she should go else where becase spending all her time at WDW would be a waste. The woman did not ask about anything other then WDW.

I am not against going to the other parks. I have gone to Sea World in Orlando myself and would HIGHLY recommend it (the one point Ms. Frommer and I agreed on). I have not gone to UO, not because I "hate" it, but because my daughter is four and is not old enough or tall enough for the bigger rides that I know she would want to go on. When she is older and taller we will most DEFINITELY be going, and I can not wait. Until then, it is WDW and SW for us. I am staying offsite for the majority of my upcoming trip because the deal was so good. We will not be spending 24/7 at WDW but futher exploring other attractions as well. We will have car and most likely eat off property.

I am sorry that you feel compelled to call us "haters" and "intolerant", even though you did not read the original piece and you really do not know any of us. I am now going back to the other boards. You can have your board back. I will not stray again, which is sad, because as I said before, we most likely share very simular views.