DEBATE: Maintaining the Walt Standard

[DisneyKidds]

There is so much talk of the failure to maintain the Walt Disney 'standards' having led to the erosion of the Disney Magic and the ungluing of the Disney empire. Failure to put the Show above all else. Failure to 'do it right or not do it at all'. Failure to 'give the guest everything you can'. Failure to ask the question 'what would Walt do'? These can be easy things to say, but would they have been so easy to do?

But what exactly would Walt have done? While Walts 'ideals' may have been the basis for everything that WDW was, Walt never managed WDW a day in his life, which sadly ended long before the Orlando dream was realized. Walt built an empire that thrived under his 'standards'. But keep in mind, some of his other actions driven by those 'standards' had him near penniless at times. So, would Walt have changed his 'standards' throughout the years had he been alive to run WDW? Would that have represented a compromising of his 'standards'? Could WDW be all that it has been if all those 'standards' had been strictly adhered to?

Some consider excess to have been the downfall of the Roman empire. Adherence to a way of life that left them oblivious to those that would challenge them. As it goes in the American Adventure - excess and plenty as the greatest threat to a young America. All of that highlighting the risks of becoming successful and prosperous doing things a certain way, living a certian way, and only a certain way. Failure to change and evolve can easily lead to ruin - history tells us that.

Perhaps if Walt had been alive and refused to compromise his 'standards' we wouldn't have moderate and value resorts. Perhaps we would only have two theme parks. Perhaps a lot of things would be different in Orlando today. Would that have been such a good thing? Keep in mind that the theme parks represent half the operating profit for the entire company. Could strict adherence to Walts 'standards' have led to the same levels of success in the long term that The Disney Company has experienced? Or, could the refusal to adjust a way of living, a way of thinking, have led to the downfall of the Disney empire.

I know nobody really has the answer to the question 'What would Walt have done?' It is all speculation. Not that a lot of the decisions that represent departures from Walts 'standards' have not been mistkaes. Indeed, the Nepoleon that is Ei$ner may have met his Waterloo. But what if..........

[raidermatt]

Nobody knows what Walt would have done with respect to any specific area. That's why the "What would Walt do" philosophy didn't work.

What we DO know is two things:

1- He would not have compromised his standards, unless it was out of financial necessity.

2- He would always be looking for new challenges to pursue.

Bottom line is that Walt showed the philosophy of not compromising standards does work. Yes, he had a good grasp on what people wanted (even if they didn't know it themselves), but he still made mistakes.

However, he never compromised unless he just plain had to.

There are companies today that set high standards and maintain them. True, not every company can be the "premium provider" in its industry. However, when you have acheived that status, its foolish to let it slip away.

[manning]

Excess and quality are not necessarily the same. I'm sure Roman excess was not quality excess.

[DisneyKidds]

However, he never compromised unless he just plain had to.

Agreed. However, would he have had to change? My guess is yes. How, I have no idea.

Excess and quality are not necessarily the same.

Good point. But would it have been excessive if WDW had a dozen quality deluxe resorts that went for $250 a night. Yeah, you can find them discounted now, but if adherence to the standards would have protected WDW from the problems it is having there would be no need for the discounts.

I'm sure Roman excess was not quality excess.

I'm sure they thought they had a qualiuty society at the time, and for the most part it probably was. Furthermore, they never realized they were being excessive. That was the trap. Could Disney have fallen in the same trap?

[Walt's Frozen Head]

But keep in mind, some of his other actions driven by those 'standards' had him near penniless at times. As opposed to Eisner's actions, which have the company in an unprecedented state of decay while he personally walks off with four-fifths of a billion dollars?

If there's a choice between investing in something you believe in versus profiting off of anything you can... I'll take the investment. Other folks are free to prefer the pay-out, if that's the end-all of what's important to them. Let them eat Enron.

I'll take the three high-quality resorts that aren't competing for guests with Motel 6, and the two high-quality parks that don't have to support the dead weight of ABC, Go.com, Bubble Boy...

The Disney "empire" as you refer to it mostly benefitted a few high-end stockholders at the expense of a ton of guests. I say screw the Disney empire.

-WFH

PS: Since we had the big Carpool shake-out, I find myself agreeing with a good 90%+ of what raidermatt has to say about things, including 100% of that last post.

If I may add to/refine what you are calling "compromise," it seems to me that Disney used to create in the service of a creative visionary, and the sharp pencil guys were tasked with financing it, somehow. Now, Disney creates in the service of the sharp pencil guys, and the creative visionaries largely work elsewhere. Instead of focusing on a product, they focus on a measure, a number to be hit.

I play golf, with the intention of getting better at it over time, and I keep score to mark my progress. The score means nothing in and of itself; it is only of value in describing the relative quality of the round I played. I could easily post a 67 on every round, if I decided to take my balls and go home after about fourteen holes. If all I care about is the score, I can maximize my performance on that measure while completely missing the point that my game has failed to improve... in fact, my round really isn't even "golf," anymore, as most people have come to understand the term.

By focusing too much on the measure, you can completely lose sight of the goal you intended to measure, in the first place.

I don't feel like Disney bothers to play golf. They just post scores that mean little in and of themselves, while the real point of it all withers and dies.

[wdw4us2]

Don't forget about that Walt Disney was one to put his personal assets (selling his first car, cashing in his Life Insurance policy, mortgaging his home) to realize his ideas through the company. He also had Roy O. to reign him in when necessary.

Could you imagine Ei$ner forgoing his guaranteed bonus? Drawing no salary until the stock is back where it should be? Without Frank Wells to reign him in, short term gains have become the norm (econo resorts, shorter park hours, off the shelf rides - etc.) rather than long range planning.

I don't think it's realistic for anyone to expect The Disney Co. to live up to standards established during Walt's lifetime. However, to totally disregard them is not realistic either.

Lisa:cool:

[DisneyKidds]

As opposed to Eisner's actions

As I said - it looks like that little Napoleon will get his. Yes, he will laugh all the way to the bank, but is he perhaps more about ego?

I'll take the three high-quality resorts that aren't competing for guests with Motel 6, and the two high-quality parks that don't have to support the dead weight of ABC, Go.com, Bubble Boy...

But could Disney have survived on three high quality resorts and two high quality parks?

I say screw the Disney empire.

For a moment, forget the mistakes of the past 5 years. The 'empire' was growing before that. Without the 'empire' where would the money have come from for all the things people say Disney should have done? Should they have done nothing or would it have been considered stagnation if WDW was nothing more than three resorts and two parks?

In keeping with the golf analogy, Walt would have faced many a day like Tiger struggled with at Muirfield. That most certainly would have required him to improvise his game, no?

Now I'm not trying to turn this into a current management love fest. On the contrary, since we had the big carpool shake-out I find myself agreeing with what a lot of other people have to say as well - that's a good thing - we are communicating. I am just lookig to spark a little fun discussion and debate.

It seems sometimes that people view things as very cut and dry - if Disney followed this formula we wouldn't be in this mess today. Can that be so? Perhaps - I really don't know. I do think Lisa is correct.....

I don't think it's realistic for anyone to expect The Disney Co. to live up to standards established during Walt's lifetime. However, to totally disregard them is not realistic either.

But others don't feel that way - so share with me why. Lets not get into the same old rhetoric, lets answer some fundemental questions and imagine a WDW under Walts hand.

[wdw4us2]

A WDW under Walt's guidance.

A few guesses:

1) New attractions that utilize today's technology - not technology from a park he opened 47 years ago (The Magic Carpets of Aladdin).

2) Refurbishment that takes place at night or out of view during operating hours unlike the current situation with Horizons/Mission Space in Epcot.

3) Keeping away from "carnival" type attractions - Dinorama being the prime example.

4) Guest satisfaction as a main priority.

I'm sure I'll think of some others later.

Lisa:cool:

[Peter Pirate]

Sorry Lisa but most of this wouldn't even exist had Walt stayed around - or been a younger man...He didn't want to repeat himself & he mostly cared about HIS visions.

A very plausable scenerio (IMO) is that Walt would have pushed everything into the biggest dream he ever had...EPCOT. The living & working EPCOT, not the Epcot theme park. Looking back and seeing Walt's propensity for having things 'Walt's way' I think there is a good chance that everything would have been gambled into EPCOT, a vision of astonishing ideology & deserving of platitude on many level. But this vision could possibly have caused the end of the Disney. Hindsight shows us that the self contained, one way or the highway ideology hasn't been too successful (perhaps Walt would have once again been the exception) But Walt wasn't into 'empire building' and Walt wasn't into being the best. Walt was into Walt and his dream du jour and to his credit his dream seldom compromised quality, but it is foolish to think that Walt would have continued historic development of the theme parks - after all he was already virtually done with them (been there, done that). They would have fallen to managers and they would have to fight Walt's new projects for the budget dollars (sound familiar?). Who do you think would win those battles?

This sets up the possibility of collapse. Disney skirted disaster on many occasions and the odds are that sooner or later the good luck would run out (as it may be running out now under Eisner's misguidance). At that point Disney would have been dismantled and the growth precendent set by Disney under Eisner would have never taken place. Certainly parks would have evolved but I seriously doubt that theme parks as resort destinations would have taken the same turn without the circumstances that allowed Disney to set the pace.

So, my friend Disneykidds, I believe that this Walt wishing is pure hogwash. He was a great man who did great things and history will show that. Eisner led Disney to a place that Disney would never have gone under Walt and although it pains me to say it, it is too bad he can no longer see the forest for the trees...
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

[DisneyKidds]

Good to see you Pirate :) - that was quite some time out at sea ;). Those are some interesting thoughts. I do hope to gain a little more insight into such things as I am awaiting my literature on good old Walt himself. You'd be surprised at how many book stores don't carry books on Walt.

[manning]

We will never know. What did Walt want with all that land???

[DVC-Landbaron]

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

WELCOME BACK THE PIRATE!!!!

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[Walt's Frozen Head]

But could Disney have survived on three high quality resorts and two high quality parks? Absolutely, but they wouldn't have had to. There is always a market for the highest of quality, and demand would easily justify building more high quality resorts and parks. WDW would have grown less spectacularly but more supportably, with a deeper and richer foundation.Without the 'empire' where would the money have come from for all the things people say Disney should have done? Actually, it was the parks that provided the money for the empire, not the other way around. Reinvesting in the parks could have meant Anaheim DisneySea, "empiring" bought us Fox Family and DCA. Take your pick, Eisner did.Hindsight shows us that the self contained, one way or the highway ideology hasn't been too successful Hindsight? Eisner's right in front of us. You are right about his ideology bringing the company to the brink of collapse, though.What did Walt want with all that land??? Well, there were a couple of reasons. First, Walt hated the cheap hotels and general tackiness that sprang up around Disneyland, and wanted to make sure there was a buffer zone between his Magical World and the mundane outside world. He also became interested in engineering an "outside world" that wasn't so mundane. That grew into E.P.C.O.T., Walt's Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow... as Peter alludes, a living, working, producing community.

-WFH

[Peter Pirate]

Scoop, I think EPCOT was Walt's dream, but I don't believe it was ever anyone eles's...I mean when Walt died so did the EPCOT dream. After all Walt had little to do with the completion of the Florida Project & I think the plans to duplicate DL at MK was the 'weenie' to Roy & the bankers, et al...But I believe Walt would have built EPCOT...

Married to the Mouse didn't give me any indication otherwise & I don't think I've read Vinal Leaves...Your side Counselor, will be appreciated...
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

[Peter Pirate]

I'm a little confused...are you saying (1) that Walt didn't really want the 'ideal EPCOT' and (2) the whole Reedy Creek deals were just land-use based? - I must say I agree with the second part but not the first after all by the time these negotiations (with the State) were taking place Walt was pretty much out of the picture - meaning (as you suggest) Walt's EPCOT was never going to be built (by Roy, Card, Ron or whoever) but not meaning that had Walt lived and/or been in good health that the same would be true...Had his health held up I believe his plan WAS to build EPCOT & thats the basis of my original post...
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

[wdw4us2]

Peter,

I agree that if Walt had lived, he would have built or attempted his version of EPCOT.

However, I also believe the MK would have been built because Roy would have convinced Walt they needed the $$ from the MK to fund EPCOT.

I still stand by my earlier statements regarding some current situations as they pertain to the parks.

Lisa :cool:

[Another Voice]

Walt very much wanted to build the city of EPCOT. He truly did. It’s also fair to say that he was the only one that really wanted to build it. The project died when Walt did although the people that followed him thought they really would get around to it one day. Card Walker and folks lacked the confidence to try and pull something like this off, but their attitude was that “if this is what Walt wanted, well who are we to say no”. And the plan all along (even in Walt's time) was to build the Magic Kingdom, the hotels and the recreation areas first and get them successful and only then start on EPCOT.

By the time the Florida Project was contemplated, Walt was somewhat getting bored with theme parks. He’d already mastered that and he was willing to try new things. He was also at a point in his life when he was worried if he had accomplished anything worthwhile. It’s a very typical Hollywood disease. People can become rich and famous for making movies – but it’s only making movies. They don’t have a lasting impact on the world (that’s why so many flaky actors get involved with politics). EPCOT was Walt’s way of taking what he learned from the parks and applying it to real life. It was to be his “big and lasting contribution” to the world.

Remember, this is the mid sixties we were taking about. A time when everything started going to hell. In the middle of the Cold War, racial problems, Vietnam, a sour economy and growing discontent. Someone presenting a hopeful and workable view of the future was an extremely radical thing. Sure, EPCOT might not have ever worked, but it would have been fascinating to watch. Certainly much more interesting than the yuppie strip mall development that Celebration is turning into or the stagnate art form that theme parks have become.

[wdw4us2]

Well said, AV.

Lisa:cool:

[DVC-Landbaron]

First a couple of little things.

Mr. Head writes: The Disney "empire" as you refer to it mostly benefited a few high-end stockholders at the expense of a ton of guests. I say screw the Disney empire.Oh frozen one!!! Why don’t you tell us what you really think!!!

But you know I’m only kidding!! ;) I kneel before you!! And agree with every single word you say (unless it’s to the Pirate!! The Pirate and I go back a while, ya know! ;))

To Lisa who says: I don't think it's realistic for anyone to expect The Disney Co. to live up to standards established during Walt's lifetime.I have to ask: Why not??!!


OK! That’s taken care of. And now the prelude!!!

There certainly can’t be a thread with this title that won’t have an essay from me somewhere within. So here it is. And in order to “do it right”, I’ve gone back to the original question and, for the most part, avoided the side issues.

Maintaining the Walt Standard The introduction!

But what exactly would Walt have done?You have brought up a real poser, Mr. Kidds. But fortunately it is one that I have thought about for quite some time now. I believe that Peter is 100% correct when he says that Walt would have built EPCOT or died trying. Which, in my humble opinion, makes Scoop’s assertion 100% wrong. And it very well could have changed the modern model of urban development. Or, what is more likely, (personal belief only) it would have ruined the company to a point that Walt would have realized that he was in the theme park business, like it or not. Some really tough times, and the realization that he couldn’t run Disneyland the way he wanted anymore, might (and I stress “might” because Walt was hardheaded) have lead him pretty much in the direction of the present day WDW. It would definitely NOT lead him to change his philosophy, but would perhaps led to a change in property (real estate usage) concept and development. Does that make sense?

But I don’t think you’re asking that. Are you? I think we need to take the EPCOT aspect out of the equation. We need to level the playing field and compare apples to apples. Right? So, my take on you’re question is not, “What would Walt have done if he lived through the years to the present?” but instead, “What would Walt DO, given the same conditions, circumstances and property GOALS (as opposed to company goals), that Ei$ner has had?” Is that more what you had in mind? I will assume, for the purposes of this piece anyway, that it is.

To me that is almost a ridiculous premise and a question with such an apparent answer that it need never be posed in the first place. It’s like asking, “Is water wet?” Or, “Is Florida hot, humid and crowded in the summer?” (Thus the reason for midnight closings!! ;) I had to slip it in there somewhere!!) The answer is self-evident. Obvious. But, then again, two years ago I thought EVERYONE would see the dramatic change in philosophy at WDW as I did. WOW!! Was I wrong!! So maybe we shouldn’t ask, “Is water wet?” but instead ask, “Why is water wet?” or “What is the difference between wet and dry?”

Maintaining the Walt Standard The body of the text!

OK, finally I get to the point!! My take on a Walt Disney World (with the EPCOT angle excised):

First, there would be much more development around the MK. The master plan, most of which was knowingly approved by Walt, called for it, and I see no reason in the world why that would have changed. Walt liked it and his staff developed it. It was set in granite (as much as anything in planning could be)!! So the resort count goes up to five at least and probably more, but who knows. Anyway, we are NOT stuck with only three resorts (and a campgrounds) for all of eternity!!!

I believe that Walt would have approved a plan for an EPCOT type park. It was radically different from other theme parks, and had concepts and goals that I think he would have happily approved. Now, here’s where we get a little sticky. The details would have been vastly different. Walt had a lot of input into these things, so while I think the overall concept would be pretty much what we see today, I don’t think the particulars would be the same.

There would be no Swan or Dolphin. PERIOD!! If he lost the case he would have made some other concession. Even it cost him or the company much more money. I don’t think he would have let ANYONE in on his land. And especially located where they are now!! He approved the Hotel corridor, but made sure it was squeezed into a little corner of the world, far from his main “stuff”. And the compromise with Tishman would have been no different. There’s not a chance in hell that he’d let someone build in the middle of the property, within the sight lines of EPCOT!!!

There would be growth in the World Showcase. New countries would be added and/or replaced using any and all incentives or strong arm tactics he could employ. I believe he would have considered it a failure NOT to add anything in 15 or twenty years. I really think he would have taken it personally. The same, though not as imperative, goes for Future World and, by extension, the Magic Kingdom itself!! We would have seen a SPACE Pavilion and a Film/Arts Pavilion years ago, and who knows what would be on the drawing board for next year!!! And you could bet that they would be true, knock your socks off, PAVILIONS, and not just a ride!!

We would see hotels around the EPCOT-like theme park. But these resorts would have matched the theme of World Showcase. They would NOT be themed to Western Hemisphere, American motifs. Imagine walking through Morocco to get to the Moroccan Suites. Or walking through Norway to the “Norwegian Bed and Breakfasts”!! And that’s just what my pea-sized brain can come up with. Imagine Walt and a fully operational WDI working on it!!! WOW!!!!

Transportation would still have to include buses, but very, very, very minimally. Monorails and especially the Peoplemover concept would be prevalent throughout the complex. This was very important to the Disney company at one time because it was very important to Walt!! Alternative modes of transportation would be explored constantly. Some winners. And some losers. But experimentation and cutting edge, “state-of-the-art” technology would be employed at all times. Of this I AM SURE!!!!

Now, for a touchy subject and one upon which I have written volumes. I will try to keep it to a paragraph!! RESORTS WOULD HAVE ONE SET STANDARD AND ONE SET PRICE RANGE. I know this sounds ludicrous, but hear me out. I have thought long and hard about the subject. The logic I use is what I’ve read, heard and seen in the guy named Walt Disney. How he looked at money, business, and most importantly the SHOW! He wasn’t about money. He wasn’t about maximizing profits. And he wasn’t about business. He WAS about quality. In everything he did, quality was the watchword. I firmly believe that he NEVER compromised quality for cost and more importantly for price. If we accept this basic premise, and I see NO reason to doubt it, then this very concept would preclude the existence of the All Stars and the Floridian!! Heck, it would also cancel out the moderates!!! ALL resorts would be similar in nature to what is represented in the Poly and the Contemporary, but they would have vastly different and exotic themes. And the price would NOT be set by the market or the hotel industry, but would instead be set by Walt, who NEVER gouged and in fact took great pains to make the experience as affordable as possible!!! (THERE MR. KIDDS!! A thumbnail sketch of the caste system of resorts. If you understand nothing else about Walt, please understand this very basic philosophical concept!!! Not many do!!)

There would be no Studios and no Animal Kingdom!! Yep! No theme parks trying to play catch up with the joints down the street!! What we would see is something completely and wonderfully different!! Something that no one had thought of. Something that would WOW(!!) us. Thrill us. And at the same time, MAKE A TON OF MONEY!!!!

Maintaining the Walt Standard Summation!

All of the above is just a guess though. But as thoughtful a ‘guess’ as I could give it. If EPCOT failed he may have retired. He may have grown bored with the whole thing. I really don’t know. But I think that the above also highlights the ‘philosophical’ tenets and doctrine of the old Disney. And it was Ei$ner’s to carry on if he chose to do so. Card Walker and Ron Miller tried to and to a certain extent succeeded, but as we can see, in retrospect, lacked something in the implementation.

To me, it all boils down to quality and the conscience effort NOT to gouge or out price your guests. Niche marketing and “capturing certain demographics” was not something that was widely practiced in Disney and I really think that this business model is the cornerstone to Walt’s philosophy. Remember Walt is the guy who wanted NO admission cost at all for his park. It was one of the few battles that Roy actually won. Walt wanted to build a park, free for all to use. He’d charge for the rides. And he’d charge for the pop corn and soda (he wasn’t stupid, after all!!). But his park, the landscaping, the architecture and the ambience, were to be free for all to enjoy. Roy insisted that they charge a token amount to keep the riff-raff out! (GOOD THINKING ROY!!)

But this was Walt’s way. It is this business philosophy that drew me to Disney in the first place. Isn’t it what drew all of us?

[DisneyKidds]

There certainly can’t be a thread with this title that won’t have an essay from me somewhere within.

I was counting on it ;).

But fortunately it is one that I have thought about for quite some time now.

I was counting on it ;).

Or, what is more likely, (personal belief only) it would have ruined the company to a point that Walt would have realized that he was in the theme park business, like it or not. Some really tough times, and the realization that he couldn’t run Disneyland the way he wanted anymore, might (and I stress “might” because Walt was hardheaded) have lead him pretty much in the direction of the present day WDW.

And quite an interesting start I might add, thoughts I have to say I agree with.

Now if only I had the time to disect - but it is off to lovely Victorian Cape May in a few hours - but trust me, I'll be back.

[Luv2Roam]

Just to put Walt's philosophy in the simplist of terms of I think it was just to follow the Golden Rule.

"...Walt would have built EPCOT or died trying."
Maybe he did.

[DVC-Landbaron]

Gentleman and gentleladies, I believe in my heart of hearts that Walt would have loved to one day see his dream of E.P.C.O.T. come to lifeThen why bring up all that other nonsense which is conjecture at best and may not be anything but a wild a** guess on your part. The question was “What would WALT do?" It was NOT, “What did Walt’s successors do to screw his dream over?”

Now, do some good and tell us your thoughts on the real question. Just what does Scoop think “Walt would do!?” And excise the EPCOT thing. That just muddies the waters and does not address the spirit of the question.

[Sandy Fisher]

Sometimes I think it presumptious of me to congratulate you on your well-thought-out posts, but I'll do it anyway.
So often I am thinking along the same lines but just don't have the words to put it "down on paper".
Thanks again for making the point(s) so well.
:cool:

[DVC-Landbaron]

Sandy Fisher!! Thank you!!
Sometimes I think it presumptuous of me to congratulate you on your well-thought-out posts, but I'll do it anyway.NO!! Please!!! Keep it coming!! I need the support. And so do the others, in ALL the cars. If you think about it, the only ones we hear from are the ones we disagree with! It’s nice to know that I’m making sense to someone!! Cause I sure ain’t moving Scoop’s world!! ;)

Which brings us to… Baron, I'm not sure what question you are specifically referring to but with the tone and mood of your last post, you and I better just move along on this one...Come on Scoop!! I’m trying to be conversational and you’re making it real hard!! All I was saying is that we should forget the EPCOT (city) thing and try to answer what Mr. Kidds asked. Let me point out the salient section to refresh your memory (did I do that right? Like a witness?;))

But what exactly would Walt have done? While Walts 'ideals' may have been the basis for everything that WDW was, Walt never managed WDW a day in his life, which sadly ended long before the Orlando dream was realized. Walt built an empire that thrived under his 'standards'. But keep in mind, some of his other actions driven by those 'standards' had him near penniless at times. So, would Walt have changed his 'standards' throughout the years had he been alive to run WDW? Would that have represented a compromising of his 'standards'? Could WDW be all that it has been if all those 'standards' had been strictly adhered to?

Now do remember? So, all I was asking you, was to get off the EPCOT (city) thing and play nice with Mr. Kidds’ question. Cause I really wanted to know.

I put out quite a long piece. I was hoping to see something from you. And every time I saw that you had replied to this thread I was anxious to get to it. Only to have my hopes dashed (OK!! A little hyperbole) to see you were still on that same old EPCOT was a red herring thing.

Scoop, don’t you ever put out a post or a question which can be answered by the general masses, but it’s really only a couple posters you want to know about. Mr. Kidds did that with me this time. YoHo did it recently and even put my name in the title!! I’ve done it to Peter and he has with me. That’s all I was trying to do. Elicit a response from you. But not any response. I wanted to know your take on the question that was raised.

Anyway, though I’m quickly growing indifferent, I’m still curious as to your take of the question at hand. If you feel like it, write it. If you don’t feel like, then don’t write it.

And I hope this answers your PM as well. I was not being dismissive and my attitude was supposed to come off as friendly (which I thought we were) and conversational. I was simply very, very curious to know what YOU, and you in particular, thought about the subject and I wanted to see if you and I agreed on anything. I thought it would be fun to discuss it. Just you and I. Getting down to philosophies. I pretty much know what AV and the Frozen one would say. For that matter Peter and I have been round and round on similar subjects. And I knew Mr. Kidds would answer when he had a chance (I was the one he was asking!!). But it was YOU that I wanted to talk to. Can’t you understand that? DISMISSIVE!!!??? I did everything I could but call your mom and ask if you could come out and play!!! :crazy:

GEEZE!!! It’s like walking on eggs!!!!! CHILL!!! :cool:

[DisneyKidds]

I'm baaack............

First of all - scoop and Baron - get along! This is supposed to be fun. You guys are going around too much on too many threads. I hate to seem my friends fighting :(.

OK - no to dance with you my lord Baron.

But I don’t think you’re asking that. Are you? I think we need to take the EPCOT aspect out of the equation. We need to level the playing field and compare apples to apples. Right? So, my take on you’re question is not, “What would Walt have done if he lived through the years to the present?” but instead, “What would Walt DO, given the same conditions, circumstances and property GOALS (as opposed to company goals), that Ei$ner has had?” Is that more what you had in mind? I will assume, for the purposes of this piece anyway, that it is.

The 'that' you refer to is part of what I was getting at, but your take is a logical follow on. An initial question, however - doe this observation...

Or, what is more likely, (personal belief only) it would have ruined the company to a point that Walt would have realized that he was in the theme park business, like it or not. Some really tough times, and the realization that he couldn’t run Disneyland the way he wanted anymore, might (and I stress “might” because Walt was hardheaded) have lead him pretty much in the direction of the present day WDW.

conflict in any way with any of the things you outline in what Walt would have done? Perhaps if you are saying that only the 'Walts Epcot' issue would have precipitaded these outcomes I could let it go - but the tough times, DL realizations would have been independant of the Epcot issue. Or is what you list more like what Walt would have liked to have done? It appears you agree that strict adherence to the original Walt standards might not have been possible. I guess you are saying that Walt would have done things differently that differed from his original ideas, but still maintained his standards. So lets look at your thoughts on what the man would have done.

I'm with you on Epcot.
I'm with you on S/D.

Your thoughts on theming and integration of hotels is interesting and could have happened. Walt was one to see things that were cutting edge and a future staple of an industry. Same with innovation and 'state of the art' stuff. Just thinking of sound and color integrated into animated shorts - both of which Walt pushed for even though it hurt the Disney Studios financially for some time (remember this - we'll get back to it) makes me believe he would have gone for it - or pushed darn hard.

Now to tip toe around that caste system.

RESORTS WOULD HAVE ONE SET STANDARD AND ONE SET PRICE RANGE. I know this sounds ludicrous, but hear me out. I have thought long and hard about the subject. The logic I use is what I’ve read, heard and seen in the guy named Walt Disney. How he looked at money, business, and most importantly the SHOW! He wasn’t about money. He wasn’t about maximizing profits. And he wasn’t about business. He WAS about quality. In everything he did, quality was the watchword. I firmly believe that he NEVER compromised quality for cost and more importantly for price. If we accept this basic premise, and I see NO reason to doubt it, then this very concept would preclude the existence of the All Stars and the Floridian!!

I just don't know that I agree with what Walt would have accomplished in this regard. You are right - he was not about money, he didn't sacrifice quality - but how far could he take that. Think of all the money he lost on the Mickeys and Silly Symphonies. He kept uping the quality while UA kept the pay below cost. Only though the merchandising of Mickey Mouse (can anyone say Plush?) was the company able to survive that. Granted, much of those losses were really investment in the future as it set a standard - but would the same apply to hotels? I don't think so. Walt was on the forefront and did things before the competition - heck, he did it while the competition was aware and thought he was crazy (an animated feature? - you must be crazy! - Disney's Folly - $8 mil later who was laughing?) Walt could not have pulled off the pay one price hotel scenario. He could not have survived the 'give them Poly quality at a price everyone can afford' thinking. I think he would have done 'less expensive' resorts, but found a way to do them better than the AS and PC. The moderates with a Walt touch would have been a reality IMHO. All deluxe hotels all the time at a working mans price would have been a loss generator, and not the type of investment that his other cutting edge ideas represented. It simply gets back to your earlier thoughts I quoted above.

There would be no Studios and no Animal Kingdom!! Yep! No theme parks trying to play catch up with the joints down the street!! What we would see is something completely and wonderfully different!! Something that no one had thought of. Something that would WOW(!!) us. Thrill us. And at the same time, MAKE A TON OF MONEY!!!!

No Studios or AK - very possible. Something different and WOW - very possible. MAKE A TON OF MONEY!!!. Given Walts record on a lot of things I don't know - at least not if he didn't evolve the way he chose to implement his standards. Joking about paying people with potatoes in the 30's might have been cute - but not in the 70's and beyond.

What do I think Walt would have done. I do think he would have evolved his thinking. Just how I am not sure. Let me educate myself a bit more before I take that on.

[DVC-Landbaron]

Every time I try to get out - - They pull me back in!!

OK, Caste system you want – Caste system you got!!!

Walt could not have pulled off the pay one-price hotel scenario. I couldn’t disagree more!!
He could not have survived the 'give them Poly quality at a price everyone can afford' thinking.I really don’t understand why not. That is EXACTLY what he did his entire life! That is the very principle upon which Disneyland was founded. Remember at the time what type of amusement venues were out there. The tunnel of Love ride was the dark ride of the moment. For fifty cents you hopped aboard a boat that ran through rat infested waters with cheap cutouts (usually weather-worn with chipped paint). At Disney, for ninety cents you ‘experienced’ Small World or Pirates!! More expensive? You bet! But was the expense commensurate with the experience and what was common throughout the industry at the time? ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!!

The same concept guided the theme and price of the original resorts that WDW had and the future resorts on the drawing boards. They were the moderates!! Heck, you could even call them “value” for all the theme they gave you (very unique at the time). And there were some ‘industry standards” that Disney did not provide, and many “extras” that comparably price hotels simply didn’t even consider. The plain fact was that they were Disney Resorts. Built, operated and priced according to the Disney standard!!

And it is that Standard that decides whether or not something is Disney. You slap a Disney ® sticker on a Six Flags type roller coaster and that still doesn’t make it Disney. The Designers at WDI could have built it from scratch (not off the shelf) and that still doesn’t make it Disney. Ei$ner could issue a press release saying that this roller coaster is the best Disney ride Disney ever invented and that still doesn’t make it Disney!! You can even move that roller coaster into the middle of the Magic Kingdom and that STILL doesn’t make it a Disney “Attraction”. Why? Because it does not live up to the standard!! Pretty simple isn’t it?

Why, in the whole wide world, do you think that this principle, this very basic philosophical concept, something that Walt lived and breathed his entire live, would not apply to “Disney” resorts? I don’t get it.

I think he would have done 'less expensive' resorts, but found a way to do them better than the AS and PC.What possible evidence do you have to back that up? What did Walt EVER do, to make you think he would undercut is philosophical “QUALITY” to do something “less expensive”? Did he EVER do that with his short features? Did he EVER do that in his full-length motion pictures? Did he EVER do that in his personal life? Did he EVER do that in Disneyland? And the men who first took over, who lived by the: What Would Walt Want, watchword, did they EVER do that in the building and operation of WDW? Did they EVER do that in the building and operation of EPCOT? Why do you think he would start with the resorts? Again, I don’t get it.
All deluxe hotels all the time at a working mans price would have been a loss generatorKind of like Pirates or Small World is a loss generator compared to the Coney Island or Riverview ‘Tunnel of Love”, eh?
The moderates with a Walt touch would have been a reality IMHOModerates and ‘Walt’s touch’ cannot be in the same sentence. It doesn’t make sense. Moderate prices? YES!!! Of course!! Value? YES!! Definitely!! But you’re saying he’d have lowered his standard for price. In order to capture a market segment. Nah! I don’t see ANYTHING he ever did to back that up. Do you?

[DisneyKidds]

Ok Mr. Property Magnate - the short answer to your question.....

What possible evidence do you have to back that up? What did Walt EVER do, to make you think he would undercut is philosophical “QUALITY” to do something “less expensive”? Did he EVER do that with his short features? Did he EVER do that in his full-length motion pictures?

...is yes. The long answer is .... yes - but I will flesh that out as I continue my education on the man who started it all.

As for that short answer, we can first look to his animated features. Perhaps we can even relate them to the WDW hotels he planned and envisioned.

The first animated feature was Snow White. Humor me, and equate Snow White with the Contemporary. Despite the roadblocks thrown up and the $1.5 mil spent with no guaranteed return, Snow White went on to be a landmark, and an $8 mil success. However, that was his last profitable bit of animation for some time. Likewise, the Contemporary was unique and visionary. No hotel had ever been themed like it.

The second animated feature - Pinocchio. We'll call this one the Polynesian, if you will. $2.6 mil and a huge loss later, Disney had another great animated feature in Pinocchio. Boy was Walt making a name and establishing a rep with the quality and innovation.

The third - Fantasia. Perhaps we can call that the GF. I know you don't like that hotel, but it is one of the big three by the MK. The film and the hotel are very sophisticated. So, $2.28 mil later you have an even bigger loss than Pinocchio, but another landmark incorporating classical music and never before seen animation technique. The sky is the limit, right? What can we do to top the quality of these films? Walt was not a man to look back, as you know. So you say Bambi - another great film. However, lets not forget the two films that were released while Bambi was in production.

The Reluctant Dragon and Dumbo. It is recognized that after the wonderful acclaim, but significant losses, that existed after Fantasia Walt recognized that he needed to find a way to produce features that actually made money. Dragon didn't make it, but Dumbo did. Even the distributors criticized these films. Dragon was actually a compilation of three shorts that were tied together in a feature. Some felt it lacked the animation quality of his previous works. Dumbo was a sixty three minute version of what had been intended to be a thirty minute featurette. The distributor wanted another ten minutes, but Walt refused because he couldn't afford the $500k those ten minutes would cost and he saw it complete as it was at sixty three.

So what happened there? Simple as the nose on your face. Walt put out shorter, cheaper films in order to bring in some cash so production of Bambi could continue and the Walt Disney Studios could continue to grow. Boy, if someone did that today..........

We'll - lets just call Dragon and Dumbo the Carribean Beach and Dixie Landings. Did Walt compromise his standards in those two films? Not really. They were still quality animation that had good story. Dumbo is one of the most loved films. But these films were a departure from the multi million dollar budget feature. Walt evolved his thinking and changed his modus operendi in order to respond to a business need and the prevailing economic environment.

So I say the moderate hotels are a cheaper and perhaps more profitable version of WDW hotel. Did those hotels live up to the Walt standards? Perhaps not. A view of the parking lot might be bad Show. But getting to my point.......

The moderates with a Walt touch would have been a reality IMHO

.... I think Walt would have evolved his thinking regarding hotels as well. He would have found a way to make a cheaper hotel with good Show. Just because it was not a deluxe doesn't mean he wouldn't have done it. Dragon was not a deluxe film in the scheme of things either.

We can find other instances where Walt compromised - such as the Prince in Snow White whose animation was less than perfect in the final scene and Walt passed on fixing it due to cost - but I hope to explore those later in the long version of my answers to you.

Yes - that was the short answer.

Bottom line is, while Walt may not have been the greatest of business men, he was not oblivious to the need to turn a profit. All too often he said screw it. Hence the failures and losses. Shortly after Dumbo Disney was in the hole $4 mil to the bankers. However, most of the time it was to be cutting edge. As I said before - those losses represented an investment. As you point out, he survived such thinking for most of his life. That principle provided a platform. That principle had him ahead of the curve, using sound, color, multi plane cameras, etc, before the rest of the animation world.

If Walt continued to put out deluxe hotels and priced them as you suggest, he would have been looking at losses, just like Pinocchio and Fantasia. However, what platform would these have provided? A dozen deluxe hotels affordably priced and generating losses wouldn't have done much for the hotel aspect. Without exploring different options for hotels Walt would have fallen behind the curve as someone else would have done the quality, affordable moderate hotel before Walt. It wasn't Walts style to let that happen.

Moderates and ‘Walt’s touch’ cannot be in the same sentence.

This is where I believe you are wrong, my friend. Walt had a unique way of doing things. You admit he may have been swayed by events and looked down the path that WDW eventually followed in some respects. I think he would have gone down that path in his own way and given us 'moderate' resorts that you would have felt were good Show. Would he have done it just to capture a market segment? No. Because it was good business and necessary? Yes. Remember, Walt wanted his parks to be free to get in. He wanted to produce a place where families could go and have fun, quality time. If a lower priced hotel done with his flare, by his standards, afforded more people the opportunity he would have made it happen, and helped the business as well.

That is my view on the hotels - and I don't know that I see having different priced resorts as a caste system, per se. Just options - one of those things you are so fond of. Are the current levels of hotel all done to Walt standards - no. Could they have been - yes. Would Walt have - I think so. But as you point out it is all conjecture. However, do you think Walt ever envisioned WDW being the size and scope of what it is today?

[DVC-Landbaron]

The third - Fantasia. Perhaps we can call that the GF. I know you don't like that hotel, but it is one of the big three by the MK.My liking it has nothing whatsoever to do with it!! IT IS NOT DISNEY!! Yes! For as one can strip away amenities and theme to lower the standard so that it is no longer “Disney”, one can also get carried away at the other end of the spectrum and make a resort just too high faluting to be “Disney”. Don’t you get that? Look at the Poly and Contemporary. THOSE are the Disney standard. NOT the Floridian and NOT the Sports!! Opposite ends of the spectrum and they BOTH miss the Disney mark.

If Walt continued to put out deluxe hotels and priced them as you suggest, he would have been looking at losses, just like Pinocchio and Fantasia.You keep referring to them as “Deluxe”!! They are not!! They are simply Disney!! See! Ei$ner’s got you brainwashed too. Don’t you get it? The original two resorts were the VALUE resorts of the time. They were not Deluxe, moderate or economy! They gave you a ridiculously magical experience, for relatively little money (remember they were priced like a moderate or even a little less)!! In other words VALUE!!!

(get ready here comes the caste system but)

But labeling these resorts as “Deluxe” and by radically raising the “price” of these once VALUE resorts they created a vacuum within that price range recently vacated. Which they filled with a very much lesser product. Which they slowly raised prices on, outdistancing inflation, until that “low end” vacuum appeared once again and they filled that need with yet LESS product. Or in other words a caste system was developed in which only the truly blessed got the real deal Disney (because there is only one standard!). Everyone else got a poor substitute diminishing down the line, depending on what you could pay for. (perhaps not a true caste system, but close enough and I liked the way it looked in print the first time I thought of it!! ;) )

It’s funny you said that: If Walt continued to put out deluxe hotels and priced them as you suggest, he would have been looking at losses, just like Pinocchio and Fantasia.Why funny? Because for the first 16 years or so they turned a tidy profit and they were booked SOLID two year (or more) out!

There is no question that they made money. Now! The question you should be asking is, “did they make as much profit as their potential indicated.” In other words, did they maximize profits? Why were they the laughing stock of the hotel industry? Why did the rest of the industry think that gave away too much and charged far to little? If I grant you all those questions (and I do) it would seem to indicate that Ei$ner was right on track when he radically raised the rates to support 80% occupancy (the industry standard) instead of 100% (Disney’s standard).

But that’s where Card Walker and Ron Miller (learning from Walt) knew what they were selling and Ei$ner didn’t. Ei$ner, and perhaps you, think they are selling hotel rooms. They think they are selling a place to stay when vacationing to WDW. And they price it at the very upper edge of what the market can bear. And then they have to offer discount and incentive (read EE and E-Ticket nights) in order to fill those rooms. That is a practice that was unheard of in pre-Ei$ner days. And they pay travel agents and ADVERTISE!! Two more things that the old Disney would never even consider!! Ei$ner turned the resorts into a commodity. He has a funny habit of doing that, doesn’t he?

The old guard, however, knew their product was NOT a resort room. Or even the resort itself. It was a “DISNEY” resort experience at a tremendous VALUE!! That was their product. And since day one, way back in 1971, with NO advertising and NO rate reductions and NO incentives they enjoyed as near to 100% occupancy as can be had in the resort business.

No. The Walker/Miller problem was that they didn’t build any more resorts. The same type of resorts that they had already built. They should have stuck to their original plan and did all five or six of them. As designed. Chances are if they had and they would have opened the film vault, they wouldn’t have been ripe for take over and Ei$ner would never had had the chance to cheapen the Disney Resort Experience!! I find that really sad!! Too bad they got cold feet and let others bully them out of the master 5 year plan!!

Without exploring different options for hotels Walt would have fallen behind the curve as someone else would have done the quality, affordable moderate hotel before Walt.Come on! Fallen behind the curve!! Since when did Walt worry about the curve! He was so far out in front that he didn’t see a curve. No! I don’t think he would have care at all. It was the experience that was all important. Not the profit margin. And As I said, the way he had them priced, they were making a profit. Just not as much as possible. But that was more than made up for with the good feelings, the positive word of mouth, and the pixie dust that was spread out all over the land for all to enjoy!! In a system with no CASTE!! Hurray!!:bounce:

[DisneyKidds]

Baron - you should know Walt well enough to know that he would, indeed, have explore new ideas and options. Out of a desire to give something more, out of necessity to bring in some money, because it was an idea he fixated on, for any number of reasons. We can go back and forth and I can point out how I think you too narrowly define and constrict the Walt Disney 'standard', but we will never really know.

I see how you conveniently ignore my animation 'proof' that Walt would changed his thinking without compromising the standard, go to a smaller scale, do something less expensive. Likewise, he might have done similarly with hotels, or perhaps decided to offer up something like the GF in time. A grand hotel like none other - a chance to give something more than he originally envisioned. Perhaps not - but you never know. However, he would have done all that his way, maintaining his 'standard' - a 'standard' that was capable of accepting evolving thinking, so long as a certain level of quality was maintained. I believe it is you that is too caught up on 'deluxe', 'moderate' and 'value'. I use those terms to simply describe the three different offerings. Yes, the original (I will use that instead of 'deluxe') hotels were a value. I think they still are today - given what you get for your dollar. But why couldn't there be something different offered?

You are right - these original hotels are simply 'Disney'. But that does not preclude other hotels done differently from being 'Disney'. Walt never said 'do it this way and only this way forever more'. He thought, he collaborated, he came up with ideas, he did things that would become industry standard before the industry had an inkling. That is how he was ahead of the curve. You are right - he never worried about falling behind that curve and I didn't say he ever did. He was too far ahead. Evolving his thinking in regard to hotels like he did with animation would have kept him so far ahead that the curve would never have been in sight. That was his way.

As to the original resorts making a profit - I can neither confirm or deny. I am curious how much a room at the Contemporary went for in 1972.

The old guard, however, knew their product was NOT a resort room. Or even the resort itself. It was a “DISNEY” resort experience at a tremendous VALUE!! That was their product.

Agreed. I am not talking about recent management and their motivations for varying types of hotels. They may have lost sight of this product. However, Walt would not have - and he still could have found a way to make that product, developed to his standards, available to more families. If that meant a 'cheaper' hotel that would cost the public less but still give the Disney experience then so be it. That is part of what he was about - providing something that as many families as possible could enjoy.

Or in other words a caste system was developed in which only the truly blessed got the real deal Disney (because there is only one standard!).

Maybe your vacuum theory would hold up with respect to the way current management views things. I might give you that. Other than that, only the Kirby man might be interested in those theories. Remember, I am talking about what Walt would have done. He most certainly could have created more Disney experience for more people if he saw a need. The 'only one standard' can be applied to a lot of different things. But just because you implement those ideals in a different setting does not make those settings non-Disney. So Walt would have left the original hotels priced as they were, climbing in price by only the rate of inflation. That would make you happy, no? I would say that might put those hotels around two bills a night now. Wow - I can get that now. But even if Walt did that, why would he not have made another hotel that he could charge half as much for, thereby opening that experience up to more families, so long as he didn't compromise his standards? If anyone could do it, Walt could give the real deal to everyone, not just the blessed. Are you saying he couldn't have? If you are I think you underestimate the man.

I applaud your strong belief and conviction in the standard. There should be more of that. However, I believe your thoughts on that standard and it's application are too set in stone and I don't agree. Just as Walt put together his 'package' pictures and had them be 'Disney' (btw - even he wasn't entirely pleased with all those pictures), just as he could stretch a 30 minute featurette into a 63 minute feature and have it be 'Disney', so could he have found a way to make more hotel concepts work if that is what he believed the public needed (even if they didn't know it) or was what the business required.

An interesting quote from Walt himself....

"I knew that I must diversify. I knew the diversifying of the business would be the salvation of it."

Interesting, huh?

[DVC-Landbaron]

Mr. Kidds. You are interesting. You come very close to “Getting It”, and then suddenly – WHOA!! A left turn out of nowhere!!! And all because of some lousy compilation Walt was forced to do ONCE!! You know, he even tried a sequel once too. But he learned from it. And he NEVER repeated it. (You can’t top pigs with pigs!!) Is that justification for the glut of Ei$ner’s sequels?

And as far as him not being satisfied with the Prince Sequence, well I think he wasn’t satisfied with Tomorrowland when Disneyland opened. But guess what? The well had run dry. And tough choices have to be made. Hmmm. Buy a crystal chandelier for Frontierland and thus doing three-quarters of the place “right” and postpone Tomorrowland until it could be done right, too or cheapening the whole joint so it would be affordable? I think he choose wisely. And it sounds very reasonable to me!!

And what about the prince? Hmmm. Put out the picture as is or never put it out (cause there ain’t no more money folks!) and just play the existing footage at home for my wife and kids. And maybe Roy!! Again, a tough choice, but I think he made the right one. Don’t you?Baron - you should know Walt well enough to know that he would, indeed, have explore new ideas and options. But never at the expense of his all encompassing QUALITY!!
I see how you conveniently ignore my animation 'proof' that Walt would changed his thinking without compromising the standard, go to a smaller scale, do something less expensive. Likewise, he might have done similarly with hotels, or perhaps decided to offer up something like the GF in time. A grand hotel like none other - a chance to give something more than he originally envisioned. Perhaps not - but you never know.Well of course we’ll never know!! That’s the whole point of this exercise, isn’t it? Conjecture and opinion. You don’t know and I don’t know. All I can do is look and observe, examine and study what he built and how he ran it! And there is nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that he ever built and/or priced that would lead me to the conclusion that he would condone the existence of the moderates, the economies or the ultra deluxe resorts and sanction them as “Disney”.
However, he would have done all that his way, maintaining his 'standard'How? How would it be possible to reduce those standards commiserate with price and yet maintain the same standard? How is that possible? You’ve got me baffled! I can’t see it how that could happen. It’s either a Standard or it isn’t!!
I think they still are today - given what you get for your dollar.Ahhh! But much, much, much better back then!! Before the price hikes “made” them “deluxe” resorts. About a year ago we went round and round on this and found that (and I can’t remember the actual figure but…) since Ei$ner took over the price increases nearly doubled inflation!! YES!!! Ask YoHo (if he’s still here)!!! I would be very, very happy if they had merely kept up with inflation. Paying a little below “moderate” prices for the DISNEY STANDARD!! Now that’s “VALUE”!!! But even if Walt did that, why would he not have made another hotel that he could charge half as much for, thereby opening that experience up to more families, so long as he didn't compromise his standards?A very good question!! And I have to ask it as well!! So let’s ask together!

“Hey Walt!! There were very extensive plans for Walt Disney World!! Remember? Marvin Davis's original master plan!? The “official” ones that were a five and ten year plan and included a COMPLETE Magic Kingdom resort complex detailed down to the last hotel location and monorail rail!! It laid out a far-reaching plan for a total of seven resorts and a campground. SO!!! WHERE ARE THE MODERATES IN THIS COMPLETE PLAN??!!”

Listen to the silence! I guess it’s a question that Walt never considered either. Because it would have reduced his (and mine) all-important quality!!! And that was the guidepost. NOT how many people could cram onto his property!!

[raidermatt]

There was more than one compilation. Make Mine Music and Fun and Fancy Free come to mind...

However, the point Baron makes still holds, as it does with Dumbo. And this is a point I didn't get at first either. These were not made to get at a different market, or just to increase profits. They were made because Disney was in a survival mode. They had to put out something on a budget that would sell, or likely face bankruptcy. Note that when the financial situation had stabalized, the compilations stopped.

I'm not a member of Baron's "WDW Resort Caste System" cult, however, I agree that Walt would not have built "value" resorts for profit reasons, unless it was necessary for the survival of the company.

Now, it may have turned out to become necessary, since under-utilization of assets is part of what led to the takeover attempts in 83-84. But Walt's first choice would have likely been to build more of the same type of resorts, rather than the lower priced alternatives, or more DL/MK quality theme parks, or maybe something else that would utilize the land and generate cash.

I suspect he would have done something to generate cash and keep the wolves at bay, but I have to agree with Baron that it probably wouldn't have been the values, or even the moderates.

[DVC-Landbaron]

At the risk of offending my one and only ally on this subject (although the old JJ agreed, he doesn’t seem to posting much anymore!) I have to say: I'm not a member of Baron's "WDW Resort Caste System" cultWell, that’s fair enough. You certainly wouldn’t be in the minority!! however, I agree that Walt would not have built "value" resorts for profit reasonsBut this automatically pays your initiation fee into “The Caste Hating He Man Club”!!

All it takes, Mr. Matt, is for you to understand that Ei$ner manipulated the market (raised prices to the ridiculous level) in order to install three separate classes of resort guest. And that Walt would have NEVER done so, BECAUSE IT DESTROYED HIS STANDARD!!!

[raidermatt]

I suppose its more of a problem with the societal implications of a caste system, and how I don't really think all of that applies to the WDW resorts.

I see the difference in resorts, and the philosophy that created it, but I don't see caste system as really applying.

We've gone over this before, but to me, its really no different than restaurants. Cinderella's table being the deluxe, and let's say the Electric Umbrella (Epcot FW) being the value. (I used Cosmic Ray's last time, and admittedly, that wasn't the best example).

I'd like to see a better job done with the Electric Umbrella, as well as the All Stars, but I just don't see it as a caste system.

Maybe its just semantics?

(I also suspect I don't think the values/moderates are as far off the mark as you, but I do see how they lack some show elements.)

[Captain Crook]

Why wouldn't Walt have built low-end accomodations? Certainly not because he was above making a cheap buck....Remember Walt was the guy who purposely had very few water fountains at DL at opening so drink sales would be high. Not very altrustic or guest oriented would you say?

To say he wouldn't have opened an ALL-Stars is simply speculative based on personal myth or faith in something that simply wasn't true IMO or, at best, cannot be proved...
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[hopemax]

Remember Walt was the guy who purposely had very few water fountains at DL at opening so drink sales would be high.

Ummm...no.

You're running out of money and you're running out of time. You can either have the construction people finish the bathrooms or install drinking fountains. Which do you pick?

[DVC-Landbaron]

I suppose its more of a problem with the societal implications of a caste system, and how I don't really think all of that applies to the WDW resorts.OK! Fair enough, but…

How about if I rename my little idea? Instead of “caste system” I call it,

“The subterfuge of the Walt Standard, by purposely building different levels of resorts, and charging offensive, excessive and extremely exorbitant rates for these accommodations, with the sole purpose of creating a need for lower lodging rates, just to capture wider market segments, in a purely profit motivated maneuver, that ultimately led to the collapse of “Standard Disney Quality” and more importantly juxtaposed Profit over Show which led to ultimately replacing their primary product of “the SHOW” with the mere commodity of hotel accommodations!!”

Is that a little bit better?

Captain, my friend!! Welcome to the discussion!!

With your permission, I’ll begin![ Why wouldn't Walt have built low-end accommodations?[/quote]Why weren’t they in the original plans? And what did Walt EVER build that leads you to this conclusion? Or is it, as I suspect, just a hunch?
Remember Walt was the guy who purposely had very few water fountains at DL at opening so drink sales would be high. Not very altrustic or guest oriented would you say?Well, I’ve heard the story and I’ve heard the counter story and I really don’t know what to believe. But I can tell you that I’ve never witnessed any “sharp practices” from any of the things he produced. EVER!!! AN I don’t think you have either or I dare say, you wouldn’t be here!! Altruistic!! There are some philosophers that say that it is an impossibility. For the mere fact of being self-satisfied at your altruism, simply denies it!!

To say he wouldn't have opened an ALL-Stars is simply speculative based on personal myth or faith in something that simply wasn't true IMO or, at best, cannot be provedSo, your telling me, in your heart of hearts, that Walt would have built the All Stars? Be careful Captain. Think hard before you answer. The way others perceive your logic and sanity is at stake!!

[Captain Crook]

First of all, I thought my sanity was pretty much always in question around here and secondly, why should I start to think before I speak now?;)

hopmax, I have read in a couple of places that it was on Walt's direct order that water fountains not be readily available for the specific purpose of selling soft drinks. I'll try to find my sources.;)

With regard to All Star type Resorts. It is my view of Walt that he would want to take care of (and take the money of) all Americans so inclined to want to visit a Disney Park. I don't think his ideal included snobbery and I don't believe oppulence is the same as quality. Further, I don't think Walt would snub so many woking class people nor ignore their pocketbooks - I already said that, didn't I?

Although I personally have no problem with Pop Century (I'll never be staying there) I do believe Walt would have snubbed this type of garishness in its infancy and probably would have had the designers thrown out without their last paycheck! -Because Walt did have (quite obviously) good taste (subjective on my part). But I believe that good taste would also include sense enough to see that simple quality for folks less willing or able to pay deluxe prices is a no brainer.
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[Another Voice]

"I have read in a couple of places that it was on Walt's direct order that water fountains not be readily available for the specific purpose of selling soft drinks. I'll try to find my sources."

It's an urban legend that's been traced to a negative newspaper article about the opening day of Disneyland. Most people in town thought the idea of an amusement park way out in the middle of absolute nowhere was a stupid idea - everyone was primed for the place to be a grand failure. The closet anyone can find to the "no water fountains" is that a plumer's stike delayed a lot of work on the park until the last minute. Hence, several fountains were still incomplete and the water pressure hadn't been fined either. Of course you can also claim that Walt intentionally ordered the ashaplt on Main Street should be soft so he could make a killing of all those women buying new shoes when their high heels got stuck...

As for low-end accomidations at WDW. The Company at the time deliberatley decided against building those type of hotels since they weren't Disney. Instead, they had other hotel chains build those kinds of accomidations in the hotel plaza instead. That way people that wanted to stay at a Howard Johnson level of hotel had the opporunity to do so - and Disney maintained its brand image and its standard of resort. Up until Eisner got cheap, Hotel Plaza guests got all the same benefits as Disney hotel customers and Disney even ran Disney busses to each of those hotels. Disney had each hotel maintain a high level of service and Disney ran shops and guest service counters in the hotels as well. They had as much "Disney Magic" in that regard as any of the other resorts.

[hopemax]

I was just going to reply with the plumber's strike, but I see AV beat me too it.

[Captain Crook]

Talk about beating a dead horse!!! Neighhhhh, neighhhhh!!!

I see every argument I set forth debunked! I'm starting to think you guys don't like me, sniff, sniff - Or are you just making this stuff up? Come on, fess up!

Well, I'm going to the source. As soon as Madame Cleo is out of jail I'm getting her to hook me up with Walt & if that doesn't work we'll have a seance in New Orleans Square right at the steps of Club 33...I just hope Elvis doesn't show up...The guys really getting too much press, ya know?:p
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[DVC-Landbaron]

I see every argument I set forth debunked!That is because they are debunkable!! I'm starting to think you guys don't like me, sniff, sniffAwe Captain!! We like you just fine! We even like the Pirate (well, for the most part I guess!)!! It is you logic and arguments that we don’t like!!! As soon as Madame Cleo is out of jail I'm getting her to hook me up with WaltCaptain!! You bust me up!!! Again!!!:

p :wave: :tongue: :teeth: :bounce
:

[Captain Crook]

Well, now that I'm sober again...

I don't thnk my points are really any more 'debunkable' than the naysayer crowd...I just generally bore with the 'yes you do, no you don't' type debate...

I have no reason to doubt Mr. Voice in his recant of the drinking fountain caper, but I know I've read it in at least two places & I recall one of the books as being very compelling in my eyes. That doesn't mean the author didn't have an axe to grind wth Walt, but sometimes I think you guys pull from the other side of the spectrum.

I'm going to go where no man dares to go now and make a blanket statement that will probably get me banned from the DIS. Walt had it easy!

Walt's vision was his own. Walt had to answer to virtually no one. Walt was improving on something very basic and generic (the amusement park). Walt's commitment to quality was bourne out of his disguest with the messy conditions and general seediness of the 'competetion". Walt never would have got funding for his 'pipe dream' today. Walt's commitment to quality as in expensive chandeliers was a showmanship issue (personally). Walt used off the shelf rides (carousel & skyway) - and who cares about the story behind the carousel...It's still a merry-go-round. Walt reinvented the wheel many, many, many times. The dark rides are all basically the same with different stories attached (seems he used the synergistic approach as much as Michael). Certainly all are unique and well done but would current management get praise if they decide to clone 5 or 6 Soarin' rdes with different locales, ques and stories? I don't think so. Walt's innovation at DL was slow. You know the HM & Pirates didn't even appear until the very end of the 60's! Walt loved trains so he gave us trains and is revered for it. Eisner liked quality stage shows and has given them to us (where s the same appreciation?).

OK, I know a few of you are waiting to rip into this baby so I'll quit (with hopes that a few of the more like-minded here will see a point or two they can work from).

Walt was a genius who we are very lucky to have had but the circumstances surounding what he was doing & when he was dong it is very different that modern day business (the business is business theory is just oversimplification).

I'm not trying to downplay what Walt did as much as I'm trying to point how vital it was that he did what he did when he did. It would be very hard for a modern day theme park genius to make his name in the world today, would it not? Why? Because the premise is no longer new. It has been refined. Business, people & investors are a lot less likely to 'bet the farm' today. How many new and exciting theme park attraction ideas can there be? We keep clamoring for a new 'dark ride' but what will it be? It'll undoubtedly be a basic clone. The only new idea I've heard since I've been here is the concept for the coaster at AK that would have combined coaster, dark ride, story & thrills all in one (stop, go, stop, go)...

OK, I'm really quitting now!
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[DisneyKidds]

Don't quit - I'm with you - oh Captain, my Captain ;).

Don't fret about Elvis showing up. He doesn't like to make too many appearances and he just showed up to give Nicolas Cage and Lisa Marie his blessing :p.

Mr. Kidds. You are interesting. You come very close to “Getting It”, and then suddenly – WHOA!! A left turn out of nowhere!!! And all because of some lousy compilation Walt was forced to do ONCE!!

You may have forgotten more than I have gotten to this point - but apparently one of the things you forgot was Walts use of 'package' pictures. There were indeed more than one. Dragon was the first circa 1940. The war years put a crimp in animation production, but it was around 1948 or so when Walt decided he needed to make some changes and moved ahead with Cinderella, which happened to be the first really successful feature (profit-wise) since Snow White. The 'package' pictures included Dragon, Make Mine Music, Fun and Fancy Free, Dear to My Heart, Melody Time, and The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad. These were not something he was forced to do ONCE. It was a medium that worked for the business at the time. A compromise if you will - Oh, wait Walt wouldn't do that! - Well, yes he would, and did! Another note - I did stay away from mentioning sequels because I know how Walt felt about topping pigs with pigs. However, the major reason he didn't do a sequel to Fantasia was because of the commercial failure of Fantasia - not his credo to not do sequels after that first mistake.

But guess what? The well had run dry. And tough choices have to be made.

I do love when you help me make my points (if I actually have one :crazy:.) But what is to say that Walt would not have faced more of these choices in the future. Just as he would have liked to have fixed the Prince, or gone right into production on Pan, or Alice, or another major feature instead of the 'packages' - might he have been put into a situation at some point that made him rethink the hotel thing. Given his track record I'm sure he would have found ways to put himself in more pickles that required him to make tough choices.

But never at the expense of his all encompassing QUALITY!!

Of course. The 'package' pictures were still quality, still 'Disney' - they were just something different - and that was ok. So, too, could a second type of hotel if that is what Walt felt was prudent at some point - and he would have done it with quality.

And there is nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that he ever built and/or priced that would lead me to the conclusion that he would condone the existence of the moderates, the economies or the ultra deluxe resorts and sanction them as “Disney”.

As you often say - I disagree!! The record speaks for itself if you choose to see it. So had the need or opportunity arisen Walt could have done a 'package' hotel.

How? How would it be possible to reduce those standards commiserate with price and yet maintain the same standard? How is that possible? You’ve got me baffled! I can’t see it how that could happen.

Ah…. But how, you ask. You know what – you sound a lot like Roy. I really don’t know exactly how, but if Walt felt it needed to be done he would have found a way. I think a time would have come, event would have transpired, that presented a need to Walt – be it a business thing, a personal thing, or a people thing.

It’s either a Standard or it isn’t!!

I have to say to you Baron that you are interesting as well. You are an advocate for the ‘standard’ and I like that. However, it is your view of the ‘standard’ that I am struggling with. With regard to hotels you say that the Contemporary and Poly are the ‘standard’. Likewise, you must feel that in animated features Snow White is the ‘standard’. But you know what – the ‘standard’ isn’t a hotel, or a picture, or a thing. As you pointed out, the ‘standard’ is really quality and adherence to 4 things….

1. Safety
2. Courtesy
3. Show
4. Efficiency

I think you set an arbitrary standard, such as the Contemporary for hotels, and discount anything that is not done like the Contemporary even if it is quality and adheres to those principle you hold dear. I just don’t understand that. Many of the films that came after Snow White did not live up to Snow White. But they still met the Walt ‘standard’. They were still quality. Likewise, there could be hotels that were not quite the Contemporary that were still quality, that met the real ‘standards’, not some arbitrary belief that everything had to be done like the thing before. Am I making any sense here?

Ok – to the caste system. Not sure I agree with your vacuums and voids, but let’s say for argument sake that I give them to you and concede a caste system under Eisner that was developed strictly to separate the consumer from their cash. But the caste system you describe is not necessarily a function of having different hotels, rather how they were implemented. When Walt did his new or different hotels that could be equated with the second generation hotels (read: ‘moderates’) of today, his motivation would not to have been to commoditize the hotels, but to make his dream available to more people (or save the company - he had to do that once or twice). No caste system involved.

SO!!! WHERE ARE THE MODERATES IN THIS COMPLETE PLAN??!!”

But it wasn’t in the Master Plan. Yes, you are right. However, it appears you are more of a black and white man than Walt ever was. Walt did a lot of things he might not have originally planned to. Things happen, opportunities present themselves. Walt capitalized on that, and not for greed or profit sake either. Sure, Walt may have finished the Master Plan first, but do you believe he would have stopped there? Well, that is a bad question because by the time it was realized he may have grown tired of the resort business and moved on to something else. But, assuming he didn’t, of course he could have added things outside the Master Plan. I think WDW has grown larger than Walt ever dreamed it would. I think he would have grown it larger than his Master Plan as well. He may have grown it differently, but I believe it would have grown. The Master Plan was developed, with great effort, but there is no way it could have accounted for every contingency or every opportunity or every need that might have presented itself as things grew.

At least it is nice to have heard your complete theory on the caste system and it is interesting, but not all attempts to present a different hotel option would be destined to be a caste system. Hopefully that is all I have to say about that – but I’m sure you buy none of this and on we will go ;).

A few other notes....

So, your telling me, in your heart of hearts, that Walt would have built the All Stars? Be careful Captain. Think hard before you answer. The way others perceive your logic and sanity is at stake!!

I don't think Walt would have built the All Stars as they are. I'll give you that Walt wouldn't have considered them good Show. But that doesn't preclude a third generation (read: 'value') hotel from being built. If Walt saw that need to fill, the ability to have more families experience his dream, or whatever the motivation, he would have done it with more quality and better show. Heck, he would have operated them at a loss if he had to. I agree with mi Capitans comments re: PC.

I see every argument I set forth debunked!

...and Baron is head of the bunko squad ;). Never mind them :p.

As I see the whole DL drinking fountain thing..... The strike delayed things. Appears as though the choice was toilets or fountains. Walt chose toilets and made the comment that 'people can buy Pepsi-Cola, but they can't pee in the street'. Did this mean he chose toilets to sell cola? I don't think so. If the strike made it impossible to get everything in, obviously toilets come before fountains. Walt's words were taken out of context if someone alleged that he eliminated fountains to sell soda. That is if it happened as I read (in the Bob Thomas bio).

[raidermatt]

DK, with respect to the compilations, you either ignored my last post, or found it so inept it was not fit to be acknowledged. (Don't worry, you wouldn't be the first to do either...).

I repeat:

However, the point Baron makes still holds, as it does with Dumbo. And this is a point I didn't get at first either. These were not made to get at a different market, or just to increase profits. They were made because Disney was in a survival mode. They had to put out something on a budget that would sell, or likely face bankruptcy. Note that when the financial situation had stabalized, the compilations stopped.

The situation had to be quite compelling for Walt to make this sacrifice (I think you'd agree that bankruptcy is compelling...).

So its clear that Walt would have to be facing similar circumstances if he were going to compromise in the future.

Maybe the takeover attempts would have forced him to compromise again. However, I think his form of compromise, whatever it turned out to be, would still be closer to the Disney standard than what the Eisner team did.


Regarding the water fountains, I've also heard both of these stories, and since I'm mostly a "show me" kind of person, I find it difficult to buy into one or the other 100%. But, I have to lean strongly to the AV/Baron side of that equation, if only because that fits better with Walt's other actions.

Putting in fewer fountains to sell more beverages in the SoCal heat is pretty low and unimaginative, and I just don't see very many (if any) other examples of this kind of decision making from Walt.

I can't label Walt's decisions with regard to his business as altruistic. That would require a deep insight into his true motivations, and I don't pretend to have that.

What I do know is that his business style was one of producing quality that people would pay for. Skimping on water fountains just doesn't fit.

[raidermatt]

“The subterfuge of the Walt Standard, by purposely building different levels of resorts, and charging offensive, excessive and extremely exorbitant rates for these accommodations, with the sole purpose of creating a need for lower lodging rates, just to capture wider market segments, in a purely profit motivated maneuver, that ultimately led to the collapse of “Standard Disney Quality” and more importantly juxtaposed Profit over Show which led to ultimately replacing their primary product of “the SHOW” with the mere commodity of hotel accommodations!!”

Is that a little bit better?

Better, but I'm just not "feeling" it...

How about submitting 4 other proposals and we'll go from there?

;)

[DisneyKidds]

DK, with respect to the compilations, you either ignored my last post, or found it so inept it was not fit to be acknowledged. (Don't worry, you wouldn't be the first to do either...).

Matt - neither ignored or inept ;). I read, I hear what you are saying - I just don't know that I agree.

I don't believe Walts sole motivation for the 'package' pictures and Dumbo was to save the company from bankruptcy. Yeah, he needed to bring in some money at times. After the losses of Pinocchio and Fantasia there were only cash fumes left from the profits of Snow White. Yes, they were indebted to the Bank of America to the tune of $4 mil. That seems to have been par for the course for Disney. But they weren't on the bankruptcy ropes just yet. They weren't desperate at the time.

The way I read it, Walt realized that not every film could be a multimillion dollar production. He knew he needed to scale back his ambitions for some films. He didn't abandon the big budget. When he put out the first compilation Bambi was in production and he was still spending. He just knew that he needed to put out more types of films because it was good for the business, not just a stop gap measure to prevent an impending bankruptcy.

Likewise, Dumbo wasn't just a quick save your a$$ picture. Walt wanted to prove that a feature could be produced on a modest budget in a reasonable amount of time. Walt Disney Studios could not go through life putting out films once every three years, or have three multimillion dollar features in production at once.

Real bankruptcy problems faced the Disneys after the war. The market for their animated features didn't come back quickly and they had made little, if any, money on their war efforts. After the war, with the market for animation slow to come back and TV entering the picture, Walt realized that those threats required him to go back to the full length animated feature - "lick 'em with quality" (too bad current management doesn't think that way) - and Cinderella was it. It wasn't simply the removal of the threat of bankruptcy that made Walt move away from the 'package' pictures.

So, no I didn't ignore you. I thought about what you said but also thought that my last post was too long already so I refrained from discussing your thought - but there you have it.

[DVC-Landbaron]

I don't think my points are really any more 'debunkable' than the naysayer crowdSEE!!!

Another debunkable point!!;)

[DVC-Landbaron]

I'm going to go where no man dares to go now and make a blanket statement that will probably get me banned from the DIS. Walt had it easy!:crazy: :jester: :crazy:





OK. I was going to just leave it alone. But then I continued reading and I was struck by the thought that you may really believe this tripe!! So, OK!! Let’s run with it a bit!! On guard!!
Walt was improving on something very basic and generic (the amusement park)GENARIC!! The one of a kind, never seen on the face of the planet before, experience that was Disneyland, and you call it ‘generic’!?!? Captain!! Come on!!
Walt never would have got funding for his 'pipe dream' today.So let me get this straight. Back then, when he decided to build his park in the middle of nowhere, and use real crystal for lighting and live steam for his trains, and NO ONE in the industry thought it would make a dime and the ‘competition’ was far in the gutter compared to what he had in mind, he could get the funding. But in today’s climate of Six Flags, Universal, IOA, Sea World, Busch Gardens, he could not. Are you serious!?!?
seems he used the synergistic approach as much as MichaelTake that back!!! Them’s fightin’ words!!

Seriously though. Of course he would use synergy!! Every company, heck(!), every individual uses it when it happens. Naturally. In a good fit. They DON’T shove it into every stinking thought they have!! They don’t do something simply for the ‘synergy'. And they don’t reject something because they can’t tie it into something else (with SYNERGY!!)!!
Certainly all are unique and well done but would current management get praise if they decide to clone 5 or 6 Soarin' rides with different locales, ques and stories?BRING IT ON!!! They won’t though!! And you know it. And I know it!! And EVERYONE knows it.
Eisner liked quality stage shows and has given them to us (where s the same appreciation?).When he presents them like Pirates and Haunted Mansion I might consider it, but basically I would prefer a robot over a human being any day of the week!! If I want theater, I’ll go to the Chicago Theater or the Schubert (local venues). We have a great Theater District, professional, semi-professional and armature that would knock your socks off!! My wife and I (even the whole family sometimes) attend all three regularly. However, I have searched high and low and you know what? I can’t find anything like Pirates or Haunted Mansion in Chicago!! Hey!! Maybe that’s the point!!
OK, I know a few of you are waiting to rip into this baby so I'll quitLook!! If you’re going to use a line like this, can I speak to the Pirate? It’s just doesn’t sound as good saying “Paranoid Captain”. It flows a whole bunch better saying “Paranoid Peter Pirate”!! ;)

Anyway, no one wants to “rip” you. At least I don’t. I like the conversation. I don’t feel ripped by Mr. Kidds, Bstanley, Mr. Matt (on the rare disagreement) the Pirate, yourself or even Scoop (well… there have been times with the Sco… anyway)!! I just like to talk. And if you really believe this, it is my duty to show you how very, very wrong you are!!! ;)
How many new and exciting theme park attraction ideas can there be? We keep clamoring for a new 'dark ride' but what will it be?Captain!! May I suggest that you head over to the MK. Proceed to Tomorrowland. There is an attraction there (not for long!) that you need to attend. It is call Carousel of Progress! It shows progress throughout the century as it affects one family. And at each stop, the current family just can’t believe it can get any better! “Where are all the new things going to come from?” they ask. “There’s nothing that can beat what we’ve got!”

I think you have the same syndrome. Thank God Walt didn’t think in those terms or we’d be stuck with carnival rides in Disneyland!!

[Captain Crook]

OK Landbaron...So you're scared to respond to me, eh?;)
I was struck by the thought that you might really believe this tripe.
Well, you should by now know that I always believe at least something about what I post. I figure that since you're sooooo good and knowing what Walt would do you surely can ascertain the true thoughts of a couple of sea-fearing souls like Peter & me...
GENARIC, the one of a kind never seen on the face of the planet before experience that was Disneyland...
Landbaron, I said that what came before Walt's innovative take on the material was the generic...But when you're starting with only vanilla the expansion to 31 flavors was easy for Baskin Robbins...But who expanded beyond 31? I know many new flavors have been produced but it's no longer a big deal. Or take the Snowmobile, when I left the frozen north we still called all snowmobiles Ski-Doo as if that were generic. They were the innovator, who cared about Polaris or Arctic Cat? Huge developments have been made, but they're still just 'Ski-Doo's. When Walt started there were only amusement park rides. Disney changed all that. How could Mike Ritchey (made up) come along and make a name for himself in the theme park history hall of fame along side of Walt? What radical form of innovation could possibly do that? (D) none of the above would be the correct answer...

Funding. Roy had trouble funding DL. The Disney's bet the farm. In today's environment who would bet the farm on a theme park innovation, betting they'll outdo Disney, Universal and all of the locals? (D) none of the above would be the correct answer.

So Landbaron, I will admit that I love talking with you as well...I just wish you could get something right occasionally. I know your heart is in the right place it's just that logic that causes you problems...;)

:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[raidermatt]

The sad part is that Disney now has the resources to truly innovate on the scale of an entire theme park without gambling the entire company. But they choose not to.

AK was a move in that direction, but DCA was a huge step backwards.

Even if they are averse to spending their own money on that large of an idea, they have enough parks already to test new, innovative ideas in without taking the risk of building a new park.

As much as I hate to believe it, the trend has been towards dressed up off the shelf stuff as opposed to true innovation.

(Though I do hold out some hope for Mission:Space. Call it guarded optimism).

[raidermatt]

Oh, and I absolutely disagree (with all respect of course, Captain, sir), that there is no room for innovation left in theme park attractions.

In your analogies of ice cream and snowmobiles, you chose two narrow categories. A fair comparison would be to spinners and flume rides, but not to the entire category of theme park attractions.

There is room for different flavors of ice cream, and improved snowmobiles, just as there is room for improvement on spinners and flume rides.

However, there is plenty of room for true innovation in food products and transportation, just as there is room for innovation in theme park attractions, and theme parks themselves.

[Captain Crook]

But my point is what's truly innovative in the theme park market? Spiderman, Indy, whatever...They're truly great but only innovative to a certain extnet but not innovative enough to 'build a house' around, so to speak...Which is what this whole argument is about. Walt had it easy, like Baskin Robbins and Ski Doo. Innovation from here is much tougher...Any head honcho's job is much tougher following a legend (and particularly a guy without imagination & with ego)...
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[raidermatt]

The thing about truly innovative ideas is that most of us don't think of them until the truly innovative soul shows them to us.

Before Walt did his wonders with animation, wasn't the general feeling that animation was "max'd out", much as you say the theme park industry is?

And what was the general consensus about amusement parks when Walt built Disneyland?

You see, the only real way I can "debunk" your statement about theme parks was if I had that truly innovative idea that could revolutionize the theme park industry, AND I could convince you it would do just that. But if I had that idea, and could sell it, well, I'd probably be doing something else right now.;)

All I can do is provide examples of how so often innovation has been deemed not possible, or not practical. And how time and time again, somebody has come along to prove everyone wrong.

Disney has (or at least had) the creative talent to come-up with these truly innovative ideas. Maybe nobody is around who can be "the Man", like Walt, but collectively, the talent exists.

And honestly, they wouldn't really have to come-up with an all new idea for a radically different kind of park. If they could just do what you describe, take the small steps with attractions like Indy, Spiderman and Soarin', AND combine that with quality AND THE SHOW, the detractors would be few and far between.

For if that kind of environment existed, the current parks would forge ahead and continue to evolve, just as Walt envisioned DL would. And every once in awhile, maybe every 10 years, or maybe 20, a grand innovation would spring out of this environment, and surprise us all.

Walt laid the groundwork for that kind of environment. His job was much more difficult than current mgmt, who really only had to nurture that environment.

[Another Voice]

“Walt had it easy because you can’t be innovative today!!!”

I’ll put that thought right in between the guy who said the Patent Office should be shut down because everything useful had already been invented (he said in about 1890) and the Hollywood suit that said “George – no wants science fiction with talking robots and laser swords, it ain’t ever going to sell tickets”.

Ya, Walt bet the farm on each of his projects and had the talent and determination to make sure the winners far outweighed the losers. Eisner doesn’t have the talent or the determination – and we’re supposed to think he’s courageous for producing lowest-common denominator dreck?

As for truly innovative in theme parks – gee, Sea World seems to have done alright with Discovery Cove and you should have seen some of the concepts for Animal Kingdom, Port Disney and WestCOT. Or even some of the concepts for the super water park Disney had thought about (don't worry, the Japanese my still build it).

The hard part isn’t coming up with innovative ideas – it’s finding someone with the courage to actually get them built.

[Captain Crook]

raidermatt, you hit the point I was hoping to elicit...We cannot ever predict the when the truly innovative will arrive. It always seems that we have it all until that point. That being said do the truly innovative ideas generally come on top of a previously innovative idea? Is it reasonable to think that something 'mind blowing' will be added to the theme park venue? I would certainly guess no...Not as we know it.

Voice, I never said anything good about Eisner, now did I. In fact I specifically said he lacked imagination & had a big ego & therefore couldn't be counted on in this arena. But did you seriously offer Discovery Cove as innovation? We've been swimming with this sea-life for years here in the keys...None of this was new...It's just packaged better and more complete. Perhaps the others you mentioned would have been innovative, but again, to what degree?

The other salient point is that I'm sure Walt wasn't trying to be innovative, he just was. But I stand by my original thought that innovation is most likely to be bourne where it is least expected. I believe we have an "expectation" in the theme park arena that will pretty much preclude any real innovation...
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[SnackyStacky]

Originally posted by DisneyKidds
Yes, the original (I will use that instead of 'deluxe') hotels were a value. I think they still are today - given what you get for your dollar.

WHAT?!?!

If you have the planning video, check out the brochure that has a chart listing each resort and what amenities each one offers.

When I was looking to book a room for my September trip, I had a budget of about $75 - $80/night, including taxes. I did my research. POR and Courtyard Marriott in DTD were ABOUT the same price. $87.69/night at the Marriott, $84/night at POR. Sounds like a good bargain. Until you look at what the resort offers. EVERYTHING that is offered in terms of amenities in a standard view room at the Animal Kingdom Lodge is offered at the Courtyard Marriott, where only a fraction of that can be had at POR.

I completely understand where Landbaron is coming from, I could just NEVER verbalize it the way Landbaron does.

Disney soaks you for every penny you've got. If you want more magic, you're gonna pay! Especially with their "views". Less parking lot and more animals at AKL is going to cost you!!!!

For me personally, it is obnoxious and highly offensive the way Disney has their resorts setup.

[DisneyKidds]

WHAT?!?!

EVERYTHING that is offered in terms of amenities in a standard view room at the Animal Kingdom Lodge is offered at the Courtyard Marriott, where only a fraction of that can be had at POR.

Mr. Snacky - have you stayed at both of these resorts? I have and for the same price (POR is actually less in your example) I'll take POR 10 out of 10 times, hands down. The courtyard is a nice hotel, don't get me wrong. However, it pales in comparison to POR (or any of the moderates) when it comes to the overall experience. Funny thing about charts and lists - they often fail to tell the whole story. Been a while since I have looked at the planning video, but I'd be curious to take a closer look at those lists. Maybe you could post them. However, for the life of me I can't think of a significant 'amenity' that we received at the CY that was lacking in POR, CBR, CSR - at least anything of value or convenience.

Disney soaks you for every penny you've got. If you want more magic, you're gonna pay! Especially with their "views". Less parking lot and more animals at AKL is going to cost you!!!!

More to my point though - I couldn't disagree more. What are you going to pay for that Magic? Forget rack and look at rates comparable to what you listed above, realistically for the GF you shell out (including tax)$229, Poly and CR about $200, YC/BC/BW about $200, and WL/AKL about $170 or less (yes, AKL savannah view will be more - but you have a giraffe right outside your window for $200 - can you say WOW!). Just because you are trying to stick to $75 a night doesn't mean these hotels are not great values.

Case in point. We just returned from Cape May, NJ. For an EXTREMELY basic room across the street from the beach, with no amenities and ants in the bathroom, we paid $229 a night. Other hotels (they are really motels) with a parking lot view go for more. There are some that are less - but for good reason. The Seaview Marriott, a rather lovely resort that is comparable to say the GF runs about the same as the GF. We are going up to Cape Cod next weekend - the Courtyard in Hyannis - and the room goes for about the same as the GF. I defy the bunko squad to find any resort destination that has a hotel like the GF (or any hotel - moderates included) that is any cheaper than the Disney hotels.

Disney does not soak you. OK, rack rates if you pay them can be quite high. However, if you do have to pay them it is a supply and demand issue - not the fleecing of the WDW public.

You make Baronesque use of !!!!! regarding AKL savannah view. What do you think would be a reasonable charge for a nice sized room in an incredibly themed resort with lots of amenities and a giraffe right off your balcony? If you say $87.69 a night you better have your head examined - or go spend that night at the CY and tell me what you think. Oh, I see you did spend time at the CY - perhaps you should give a Disney deluxe (comparable amenities as you point out) a try to get a frame of reference for comparison. Admitted, there are times we have stayed at the CY as opposed to the GF because we didn't want to spend the $200+ a night. But that is only reflective of my wallet and not the value you receive for that $200+.

BTW - where is that bunko squad? That essay of those last posts of mine and not one debunking?

[SnackyStacky]

Mr. Snacky

Please! Call me Snacky!

Mr. Snacky - have you stayed at both of these resorts?

I haven't. And with good reason. The "experience" as you call it, is not worth that to me! If Disney can charge as low as $79 for a "value" room (god that term leaves a bad taste in my mouth), there is no reason that animals should be over $200 a night. The codes and discounts are horse puckey in my opinion, because the DIS represents a VERY small portion of the Disney-going public. How many times have we seen posts of "I paid $x, but that was before I found out about the DIS!"

I will respond in greater detail later. I have to get back to work!

[DisneyKidds]

Snacky - I look forward to your further reply (and the J-E-T-S, Jets, Jets, Jets beating the Bills twice this year).

When you return I ask you to consider......

If Disney can charge as low as $79 for a "value" room (god that term leaves a bad taste in my mouth), there is no reason that animals should be over $200 a night.

......why on earth not? Again I ask - have you actually seen the All Stars and the AKL? Please - go look if you haven't. I assure you, if you spend any time at your resort there is a world of difference in the 'experience', as well as the hotels themselves. Even our good friend Baron will give you that - the original (read: 'deluxe') resort vacation experience that is. I guess Baron is with you in thinking that the AKL should only cost $99. Of course, Baron probably doesn't approve of AKL - but it is probably harder to find a better Show when it comes to a hotel. An actual savannah as part of a resort, with wild animals from across the world right outside your door. Rather unique if you ask me, innovative in the hotel world - something Mr. Disney might have thought of. Quality, safety, courtesy, show, efficiency - it has it all (and that isn't even my favorite WDW resort!) Again, not everyone wants to pay for it - but that doesn't make it a bad value or a soaking.

See you soon ;).

[SnackyStacky]

Just because you are trying to stick to $75 a night doesn't mean these hotels are not great values.

And here is where I couldn't disagree more. I don't have that pamphlet in front of me, but I will post it when I get home. The original subject of this post was "maintaining the Walt standard". And from a man who didn't want to charge admission to the park at all to enjoy the atmosphere, the company that bears his name certainly has no problem charging for atmosphere.



(yes, AKL savannah view will be more - but you have a giraffe right outside your window for $200 - can you say WOW!).

Well, you have a point. I can understand the costs of keeping these animals is immense. So why is that the Animal Kingdom Lodge is the cheapest of all the "deluxe" resorts? Shouldn't it be more? Why is the Grand Floridian the most expensive? Forget the Animal Kingdom Lodge for a moment and look at the moderates. A "standard" view (meaning you can either end up with some lovely gardens, or a parking lot) is less than a room with a "water" view. :confused: Why does it cost more to look at water? Is the water a wow factor? And what about the people who decide they want the water enough to pay more for it, and end up looking at the corner of a pond, and more land than water.

Perhaps my standards are just different from everybody else's, but a hotel (or resort, as Disney likes to call them) is for sleeping.

Case in point. We just returned from Cape May, NJ. For an EXTREMELY basic room across the street from the beach, with no amenities and ants in the bathroom, we paid $229 a night. Other hotels (they are really motels) with a parking lot view go for more. There are some that are less - but for good reason.

Once again, if the question arises of maintaining the Walt standard, this was not his standard. His standard was to give everybody an equal chance.

perhaps you should give a Disney deluxe (comparable amenities as you point out) a try to get a frame of reference for comparison.

Why? I actually had a room reserved at BWI. For $193.14 including tax. I'm sorry. Neither magic, nor experience to me is not worth $165.39. In that statement alone, would Walt have EVER put WORTH on the "magic"? Actually, I'm paying $76.59 for the CY on the weekend, as $25 is only good for Monday-Thursday stays, but even with that rate, I'm still saving $116.55, and again, neither the magic, nor the experience is worth that much. Perhaps you'd say I could stay at an All-Stars for that much. Well, yes I could. And get limited pizza delivery. :confused: VALUE?!

You make Baronesque use of !!!!! regarding AKL savannah view. What do you think would be a reasonable charge for a nice sized room in an incredibly themed resort with lots of amenities and a giraffe right off your balcony? If you say $87.69 a night you better have your head examined

I'm assuming the head-examination comment was in good taste. Perhaps I would pay more for animals, but for ANY of the other deluxes, I won't pay it. No themeing, experience or magic is worth the exorbitant prices that Disney charges, even with discount codes.

EDIT: My final thought is that Disney charges the prices they do because people are willing to pay them. I am not. Both because I simply cannot afford them, and because I find it offensive that Disney limits the amentites, not to mention the magic based on what I can afford. I have not stayed in a Disney resort, but I have seen them. And nobody can tell me that the themeing, or if you will, the "magic" is not better at a deluxe than at the All Stars, which are basically glorified Motel 6s. That is absolutely ridiculous and nowhere NEAR matining the Walt standard.

[DisneyKidds]

I'm assuming the head-examination comment was in good taste.

Of course it was ;). I, too, find myself short on time and have not included the smilies that help to convey the humor :p.

A quick note - I'm well aware of the topic of the thread (heck, it was mine ;)) but on the value tangent I have been discussing the 'raw' value and not the value by Walt's standards. But lets explore that.......

Oh, another note, and the crux of the disagreement here.

No themeing, experience or magic is worth the exorbitant prices that Disney charges, even with discount codes.

I don't see the Disney prices as exorbitant at all. Others have pointed out that such a perception might depend on where the viewer is from. However, being used to NY (Metro) prices, frequent travels to beach locals and ski resorts, very frequent business travel where you pay $200 a night for a room next to nothing.... I'm not making any comment on the field of experience of others, but my experience tells me that the WDW prices are not exorbitant. Just my opinion though. And your comments about the theming , experience, or Magic not being worth it - boy, I couldn't disagree more. Like I said, we can't always pay for it and we have stayed at the CY several times - and they were great trips - but the WDW resorts (AS excluded) are just something else. That is why we purchased DVC as opposed to opting for cheaper off-site hotels in the future. A lot of it come down to this....

Perhaps my standards are just different from everybody else's, but a hotel (or resort, as Disney likes to call them) is for sleeping.

If that is where you are coming from, the CY at $25 a night is perfect. That is great. Different strokes for different folks. In that regard, the Disney hotels might not be a value for you, but looking at it objectively, do you really believe they are not a value at all? (ok - I know your answer - but I have you thinking straight on AKL - I think I could get you on the others had I the time ;))

We look at it a little differently. We find ourselves spending more and more time at the resorts. We love the parks, but we go very often and don't have to spend all our time in the parks. I assure you, the Disney Magic is not limited to the theme parks.

Oh, and another note......Disney is not the first or only to charge more based on view. Ocean view (and some of those ocean views are a stretch), slopeside, etc. - all cost more at other resorts.

And from a man who didn't want to charge admission to the park at all to enjoy the atmosphere, the company that bears his name certainly has no problem charging for atmosphere.

Not being flip here, but by this logic everythign is overpriced at Disney. People probably felt that way in 1972, 1982, 1992, 2002 - and will think that in 2012, 2022..... I have a question. I know Baron mentioned an analysis that showed WDW hotels grew 10x inflation since 1972. I bet that is based on peak rack at GF. However, I want someone to tell me what Walt charged for the Contemporary in 1972. Inflate that 3 to 5 percent a year (on the low side) through today - I bet you find that you can get a room at the CR for that or less if you call tomorrow. Atmospher or not - I think the prices are fair enough.

Once again, if the question arises of maintaining the Walt standard, this was not his standard. His standard was to give everybody an equal chance.

I believe, based on what Baron has taught me ;), that Walt's standard would be Quality, Safety, Courtesy, Show and Efficiency. Your standard - something I believe Walt would have liked to do - actually supports my whole argument about what Walt would have done regarding WDW hotels. If the original hotels grew too expensive through inflation, he would have found a way to make more hotels to give everyone a chance. I doubt he'd roll over in his grave over $84 a night for POR. Even if they could have made the Show a bit better (which Walt would have), that is quite a value.

[DVC-Landbaron]

WOW!! I AM SORRY, MR. KIDDS!!

On Friday I replied to the Captian right after I got home from work. And copied Mr. Kidds (the longer post) onto Word for a response. After dinner I was formulating my answer and KA-PLOO-IE!! The computer CRASHED!!! BAD!!

Anyway, as you can see, it's up and running again. But today is picnic day (YUCK!!) with my wife's co-workers. So, until tonight or tomorrow....

[SnackyStacky]

I tried to make an HTML table out of this, but it was too confusing to look at, so I will just sum up:

Disney’s Value Resorts: (all offer the same amenities and includes Pop Century, All Star Movies, Music, and Sports)
Max. Occupancy in a Standard Room: 4
Food Court/Snack Bars
Lounges/Bars
Pools
Playgrounds
Fridge on request for a nominal fee
In room Safe
Price Range: $77 - $124

Disney’s Moderate Resorts: (all offer the same amenities except: Coronado Springs has a Health Club, and the Caribbean Beach has a beach. This category includes Coronado Springs, Caribbean Beach, Port Orleans Riverside, and Port Orleans French Quarter)
Max. Occupancy in a Standard Room: 4 (Riverside accommodates 5)
Limited Room Service
1 Table Service Restaurant
Food Court/Snack Bars
Lounges/Bars
Pools
Whirlpool
Playground
Fridge on request for a nominal fee
In-Room Safe
Marina
Water Sports
Biking
Price Range: $133 - $219

Disney’s Deluxe Resorts: (Because the amenities are more diverse I’ll list what all of them DO have:
*Max. Occupany in a Standard Room: 5 (WL: 4)
*Concierge
*Room Service
*At least 2 table service restaurants (BWI, CR, Poly: 3 Grand Floridian has 5)
*Food Court/Snack Bars
*Lounges/Bars
*Pools
*Whirlpool (Polynesian doesn’t have a whirlpool)
*Kid’s programs
*gym/health club (except the Polynesian)
*Fridge on request for a nominal fee (except at the Grand Floridian)
*In-Room Safe
*Jogging Trail (except Animal Kingdom)
*Monorail Access is offered at Contemporary, Polynesian, and the Grand Floridian
*Character Breakfasts are offered at WL, Contemporary,
Poly, Grand Floridian, and the BC
*Playgrounds are available at AKL, BWI, CR, and Poly
*Microwave on Request is available at the Grand Floridian, YC, and BC
*Mini-Bar is available at the Grand Floridian, YC, and BC, and WL on Request
*Beaches, Marina, and Watersports are at WL, CR, Poly, Grand Floridian, YC, BC
*Tennis is available at WL, BWI, CR, Grand Floridian, YC and BC
*Biking is available at WL, and BWI
*Water Pageant is available at WL, Grand Floridian, Poly, and CR
*Price Range:
AKL: $204 – 595
WL: $194 - $500
BWI: $289 – 650
CR: $234 - $650
Poly: $299 - $650
Grand Floridian: $329 - $815
YC & BC: $289 - $640

I’m not including the Home Away From Home resorts because my eyes are starting to numb from trying to transcribe this chart, and because those aren’t really comparable to hotel rooms anway.

[SnackyStacky]

And your comments about the theming , experience, or Magic not being worth it - boy, I couldn't disagree more

To each his own, I suppose. I would also like to reiterate that when I speak of prices, I speak of rack rate. The DIS represents a SMALL portion of those who go to Walt Disney World. And until I found the DIS, I never knew Disney had discount codes.

looking at it objectively, do you really believe they are not a value at all?

Yes, I do. And because of the Walt standard. I can pseudo-understand how more amenities cost more. I believe that all hotels should be the kind of show presented at the Deluxes, but at the cost of a moderate. And using your quote of $200 per room being inexpensive, that would fit that, since the moderates cost between $133 and $219. Forget the CY. Expand it and look at ANY off-property hotel. Why is it that I can get Disney’s deluxe amenities for that $75 - $100/night? Does the show REALLY cost that much? Does the show cost up to $800 to put on at the Grand Floridian? I suppose that if people want to have EVERYTHING done for them, $800 is reasonable. (However, I hear that the show at the Grand Floridian Royal Palm Concierge is severely lacking for what they’re charging) BUT, if I’m just looking for a plain old room is it reasonable for them to charge me $329 before taxes per NIGHT?! That’s a total of $365/night including the tax. Then multiply that by a stay of 5 nights. $1,825 for 5 nights, JUST for the hotel?!

but I have you thinking straight on AKL - I think I could get you on the others had I the time

Nope. The “show” isn’t worth that. The upkeep of the animals is. I suppose to some there isn’t a difference there. AND at that, I think that the discount code rates are reasonable. $595 is not. $204 is pushing it.

We look at it a little differently. We find ourselves spending more and more time at the resorts. We love the parks, but we go very often and don't have to spend all our time in the parks.

Which is why I think it’s GREAT that you’re a member of the DVC. For you, it’s worth it. But what about the REST of the world who doesn’t go once or twice every year? THOSE are the people who certainly aren’t going to know about the codes. Disney World’s draw is the parks. There is absolutely no way that that can be questioned. Once they find someone like you who will come back again and again, they can sell them the DVC because those people can spend time enjoying the resort. But other people, the non-repeats are spending more time in the parks.

Oh, and another note......Disney is not the first or only to charge more based on view. Ocean view (and some of those ocean views are a stretch), slopeside, etc. - all cost more at other resorts.

How right you are. But Disney’s resorts are not located near a cascading waterfall, nor in the middle of a snow-covered mountain ridge. The land is flat. Yeah, there’s some water around, but they should be charging standard view prices for their “water” view or “garden” view, and discounting for the rooms that look at a parking lot or a roof vent.

Not being flip here, but by this logic everythign is overpriced at Disney

Not being flip either, but DAMN SKIPPY! $2.50 for a bottle of water?! That’s not soaking someone? on!!

I doubt he'd roll over in his grave over $84 a night for POR
No, but $800 a night for the Grand Floridian? Think about that for a moment. $800. You could feed an orphanage in Rwanda for a month for that much!

In that regard, the Disney hotels might not be a value for you, but looking at it objectively, do you really believe they are not a value at all?
I think that I’m thinking more objectively, and realistically than you in this regard.
It seems to me that there are two problems with your argument that Disney resorts are a good value. 1.) Relatively few people know about those discount codes, and 2.) That the discount code rates are good deals… in comparison to what rack rates are. In comparison with other off-property hotels, that is not value.

Not to mention that Walt would not have taken down the level of show. As I said earlier it cannot be argued that there is more of a show, more of an ambience at the Grand Floridian than there is at an All-Star. He would have given All-Stars guests room service. Hairdryers and coffee makers would have been in those rooms.

EDIT: My point in all of this is simply that Disney has broken down their resorts by what you are willing to pay. The more money you'll spend, the more show you'll get. And some of that show shouldn't cost extra money. A concierge should not cost extra money. (Not the services that Disney offers like Sunrise Safari, or the lounges, but the actual person...the actual concierge). Room service should not cost extra money.

Also, as a last note, I know that I said I generally use the hotel for sleeping. That was a bit of an understatement. I generally go to a park, come to room, and stay there. If I want food, I want it delivered! So while some of the amenities may seem frivilous to someone who only sleeps there, I do like to make use of some of the services.

[DisneyKidds]

Snacky, Snacky, SnackyStacky......

Hmmm... a slight change of the ground rules. OK, if you insist. Most of my points regarding value have been made looking at 'discounted' rates. However, if you want to limit it to rack rate - the WDW hotels are not so hot. Guess what, neither is any hotel. Know what the rack rate is at the CY you are staying at. Check it out - it is no value either. You can go on about the $800 room at the GF, but it is not relevant to this discussion. That would be a concierge suite. We aren't talking about things like that. If you want to make a point at least stick to the GF at $329 - lets try to play a little bit fair and not muddy the waters, ok?

Fact of the matter is that currently you can call WDW reservations and get a discounted rate without a code. You might be able to get a better discount with a code. You don't have to be a Disney nut to know how to find a hotel discount, even for a WDW resort. So I don't buy your $800 GF concierge suite rack rate comparison (or even the $329 plain old room) to the CY at $87.69, or any other hotel for $75 to $100. Apples to oranges. You may feel you are being more objective, but I feel you are making invalid comparisons just to make a point. Furthermore, you are not getting Disney 'deluxe' amenities at any off-site resort for $75. I wish you were, I really do - but it's not happening. The CY at $25, or $87.69, or even $109 is great. It provides a decent hotel with some on-site benefits with a good location at a low cost. However, it is no GF (or CR, or WL, or BWI, or BC, or POR, or CSR, or CBR .... heck, it isn't even the Swan or Dolphin - I've stayed at them all) hotel, amenity, experience, or Magic wise. If you want to use a Marriott property that approaches the amenities you receive at the WDW hotels try the World Center (and that still doesn't get you there) - but the rates there wouldn't work for your arguments.

As to the whole 'Walt standard' issue I look at it like this. The original and second generation WDW hotels are all quality, safe hotels, with courteous staff, in a wonderfully themed environment (good Show) that do an efficient job of housing and entertaining guests. That is the Walt standard I go by - and I think it is done at a reasonable rate that provides value. That is as is today. Had Walt been around you'd have better show than the mods (or value) currently present, and general rack rates would be lower. However, you wouldn't be able to get a room at any of these hotels any cheaper than you would if you called tomorrow. I was going to ask for some logic or rationale as to why a WDW 'deluxe' should be $150 bucks or less, but last year I stayed in the CR for $129 and this year it isn't much more. I still haven't figured out the standard you are going by.

Just clarify one point....

And using your quote of $200 per room being inexpensive, that would fit
AND at that, I think that the discount code rates are reasonable.

Are you saying that a WDW resort at $200 is a good value or isn't?

DAMN SKIPPY! $2.50 for a bottle of water?!

Guess what Skip - Mobil on the Run charges almost the same. You want convenience you pay - that is another concept that Disney didn't invent.

A concierge should not cost extra money. (Not the services that Disney offers like Sunrise Safari, or the lounges, but the actual person...the actual concierge). Room service should not cost extra money.

It depends on how you view a concierge and what you think they should do for you. I would imagine that most of what you need you can get by calling the front desk. If you need someone to personally make priority seatings for you it does cost. A resort with 5,000 rooms, each one needing a PS. How many CM's do you think it would take to provide that? How much do you think they would cost? As for room service, that requires an on-site restaurant. AS doesn't have it - that is why you can get it for $79. BTW - how is the room service at Motel 6, oh - they don't have it. Off handed comments aside - the things you mention do cost money.

As I said earlier it cannot be argued that there is more of a show, more of an ambience at the Grand Floridian than there is at an All-Star.

And my final comment - you win. After reading this I am truely speechless.

[SnackyStacky]

Hmmm... a slight change of the ground rules.

Nope. Not changing anything. I said rack rate in an earlier post. Scroll back a few posts, and it should be there.

Know what the rack rate is at the CY you are staying at.

Yup. It's $79 off-season. I was looking at it when I first was planning my trip. The only reason I took POR was because it was the same rate.

You can go on about the $800 room at the GF, but it is not relevant to this discussion. That would be a concierge suite

See, but it is. Because that information came DIRECT FROM DISNEY'S ADVERTISING MATERIALS. It is off of the Birnbaum's resort chart, as well as Disney's OWN resort pamphlet that comes with the planning video. It doesn't state that that's what that's for, it simply states that you could pay up to $800.

Try booking a Grand Floridian room in peak season. $553.90 a night. For a STANDARD room, that's a reservation that came from Disney. "Value" season is $365.20, again, a rate that came direct from Disney. Point me towards the value in either one of those rates.

Perhaps you can get a better rate calling CRO? Maybe you can, but then again, maybe you can't. Hence the reason for calling CRO over and over again until you get the rate you want. Maybe you even got a postcard that advertises a certain rate! But then again, CRO may not honor that rate. Walt's standard? No.

That is the Walt standard I go by - and I think it is done at a reasonable rate that provides value.

The Walt standard I go by is a man who would NOT have seperated hotels and the amenities they offer by how much you were willing to pay. Pay $x more and you can have room service. Pay $x more and you can have a BETTER show. That's not Walt's standard. As I said, a man who didn't want to charge admission to the park would have allowed guests a better show for more money? More amenities for more money?

Are you saying that a WDW resort at $200 is a good value or isn't?

I was saying that a discount rate of $159 is reasonable for a savannah view at AKL. I'm sorry I didn't clarify that originally.

Guess what Skip - Mobil on the Run charges almost the same. You want convenience you pay - that is another concept that Disney didn't invent.

I suppose this is definitely an issue of where you come from. There is a Mobil on the Run within walking distance of my home, and a bottle of water costs $1.19. It costs $.89 at the grocery store. Either way, Disney is a HOT environment. Orlando's water is not the best in the country. So why do they charge $2.50? That's not a souvenir. You NEED water to keep healthy in the Florida, summer heat. Heat stroke, heat exhaustion and myriads of other problems can result from not keeping yourself hydrated. So buying water is not an issue of convenience. It's a matter of necessity. Even drinking fountains don't suffice because you need MORE than a few sips every now and again. You need to drink LOTS. And that's not soaking the guest? $2.50 for something that they HAVE to have?

If you need someone to personally make priority seatings for you it does cost.

Why?! Why does it cost Disney to do something that I can do myself for free? That doesn't make ANY sense to me!

AS doesn't have it - that is why you can get it for $79.

CY has one, and they've got non-discounted rates of $79 too.

BTW - how is the room service at Motel 6, oh - they don't have it.

This is true. But as I just pointed out there are places that you can order room service that charge what the All-Stars charge!

And my final comment - you win. After reading this I am truely speechless.

I have never said that these hotels don't provide magic or show. I'm simply saying that it's just not worth (to me) what Disney is charging for it. I'm not saying that they shouldn't charge their exorbitant rates either. If I've said contrary it's because I'm really not good at verbalizing what I'm thinking.

What I AM saying is that that is not the Walt standard. I'm saying that the Walt way is to find a median. Give everyone the same experience for moderate rates with deluxe amenities.

I do hope that this is being kept in a discussion vein. I'm not good at reading online tone, and you sounded upset. Hope not! :cool:

[DisneyKidds]

I do hope that this is being kept in a discussion vein. I'm not good at reading online tone, and you sounded upset. Hope not!

All just fun discussion - no worries ;).

I did notice a few edits in your eaqrlier posts and it seemed you had been saying earlier that discounted rates were unreasonable. Now you say rack is unreasonable and discounted rates may be of value. Maybe i was mistaken. Doesn't really matter - my position remains that readily available discount rates represent a good value.

Yup. It's $79 off-season.

Nope - September regular rate is $139. Summer is $159. I was actually surprised because last time we stayed there the regular rates were about $169/$199. Good to see Marriott adjusts there rack rates down. Makes discounted rates more plausible when they go from $139 to $87.69, instead of $199 to $87.69. Disney really should learn from this. The whole discount thing does turn many people off and can be tricky.

it simply states that you could pay up to $800.

I still don't see what relevance this has to a general value discussion. 99.9% of those staying at the GF won't be interested in the room that this rate applies to. That other .1% could care less about value.

The Walt standard I go by is a man who would NOT have seperated hotels and the amenities they offer by how much you were willing to pay. Pay $x more and you can have room service. Pay $x more and you can have a BETTER show. That's not Walt's standard. As I said, a man who didn't want to charge admission to the park would have allowed guests a better show for more money? More amenities for more money?

Walt would have looked at it differently, but I disagree with your statement. You are right, Walt wouldn't have said 'if someone is willing to pay this I will give them that.' He would have said 'I want to provide a good quality show for as many people as possible.' Roy says 'But Walt, we can't give people the CR for any less, and to make the rates cheaper we have to cut this out'. To which Walt says 'You can't do that, find a different way to make it cheaper'. Guess what, Walt would have found a way to make it cheaper. Sure the cheaper hotel would provide less of something, but Walt would have insured it didn't compromise quality, and that good show was always present. Perhaps eliminating a concierge who makes a call for you that you admit you can make yourself has no impact on show.

Something important to note, and I will elaborate when I learn more, but Walts sketch that outlined the Florida property and went on to become the Seventh Preliminary Master Plot Plan (the ultimate guide for what WDW was to become) included not only reference to Hotels, but Motels as well. Obviously Walt envisioned more than one type of lodging. He would have found a way to make each conform to his standard, but even Walt would recognize that a motel does not provide everything that a hotel does.

Why?! Why does it cost Disney to do something that I can do myself for free? That doesn't make ANY sense to me!

Did I miss something, or do people volunteer their time to WDW. I had the crazy idea that Disney paid their employees ;).

What I AM saying is that that is not the Walt standard. I'm saying that the Walt way is to find a median. Give everyone the same experience for moderate rates with deluxe amenities.

Help me out. I am endeavoring to learn as much as I can about Walt. I just finished the Thomas bio. I believe I have a decent feel for how Walt operated and what he wanted to provide in general terms. I didn't quite get what you present above. I am trying to figure out which book I should move on to next. Any suggestions?

[SnackyStacky]

I did notice a few edits in your eaqrlier posts

Because every time I'd start a post SOMETHING would happen that I couldn't finish it. I'd post, and go back and add a final thought later.

Now you say rack is unreasonable and discounted rates may be of value.

Sorry. Again, I'm not good at verbalizing what I'm thinking. When I say a discount rate is a "value", it depends. $129 seems reasonable to me for any of the deluxes, and I've seen that rate as a discount standard view at AKL.

Nope - September regular rate is $139.

That's not what I was quoted. I was given a quote of $79. I don't know what the reason was, but just asking for a regular rate, I got $79.

I still don't see what relevance this has to a general value discussion. 99.9% of those staying at the GF won't be interested in the room that this rate applies to. That other .1% could care less about value

By the by, I forgot to mention in my last post, that $800 is NOT for a suite. That is a room. Disney clearly states (actually not so clearly as it's in itty bitty type) that price ranges vary based on room type, and are NOT quotes for suites.

Personally, I get VERY turned off when I look at the price range. It's rather like a car ad that promises $2,000 cash back. That sounds a LOT better than a $25,000 car that is now just $23,000! It's all about the way you print it, and the way they print it turns me off.

He would have said 'I want to provide a good quality show for as many people as possible.'

But see, one of my points is: is the show REALLY good quality at the All-Stars? Or at Pop Century? You were earlier saying that perhaps I should check out these resorts before I form an opinion. What about all the people that are already bashing Pop Century? They haven't stayed there and are already trashing it. My point is just that it's not always possible not to have a pre-conceived notion of something. And Disney has not yet sold me that their hotel system is a fair one.

Perhaps eliminating a concierge who makes a call for you that you admit you can make yourself has no impact on show.

That's very true. But why does Disney feel the need to charge exorbitant amounts of money for that person to make that call that you yourself can make? THAT'S the meat of my argument! Disney takes you for every penny you are worth.

Did I miss something, or do people volunteer their time to WDW. I had the crazy idea that Disney paid their employees .

If they're going to provide a concierge, you shouldn't have to pay extra for him or her. He or she should be included in a regular room rate.

Help me out. I am endeavoring to learn as much as I can about Walt. I just finished the Thomas bio. I believe I have a decent feel for how Walt operated and what he wanted to provide in general terms. I didn't quite get what you present above. I am trying to figure out which book I should move on to next. Any suggestions?

I don't know if it's in print anymore. I believe it's called either the Magic of Disney, or the Art of Disney. There's a great opening section about him. The book is HUGE, but I haven't seen it on shelves lately.

Lastly, I still say the All-Stars are a glorified motel. Glorified simply meaning huge statues. If they're going to be motels, they need to charge motel prices. I've never meant that the All-Stars shouldn't have fewer amenities. They should have smaller cost. Compared to a deluxe hotel, $77 for a Disney motel is cheap. But there are FAR cheaper motels. I've seen Motel 6 and Econo Lodge for $40 in Orlando.

[DisneyKidds]

Because every time I'd start a post SOMETHING would happen that I couldn't finish it.

I know what you mean :crazy:.

That's not what I was quoted. I was given a quote of $79. I don't know what the reason was, but just asking for a regular rate, I got $79.

That is part of my point. You called and asked for a room and they said $79. That was the currently available rate, even though 'rack' rate is higher. Likewise, if I called Disney now and asked for a room at any particular resort for September I would be quoted less than that published range you keep referring to. When we got CSR last Nov for $89 we didn't need a code - we asked for a room and that is the rate they quoted us. Did you use a code for that $84 POR rate? The published range you keep referring to is irrelevant at this time - other than the fact that seeing it makes you uncomfortable ;).

By the by, I forgot to mention in my last post, that $800 is NOT for a suite. That is a room.

Suite, RPC Concierge, whatever....? :rolleyes: - does it really matter - you know what I am trying to say.

But see, one of my points is: is the show REALLY good quality at the All-Stars?

You may have missed my earlier comments regarding AS and PC. No, I don't believe they provide what Walt would have considered good show. He would have done something different with his motels. Remember - the real question of the whole thread was 'what would Walt have done?'. We moved into the hotel area. I think he would have had various types of lodging - all of it quality show.

If they're going to provide a concierge, you shouldn't have to pay extra for him or her. He or she should be included in a regular room rate.

:confused: But s/he is included in the regular room rate for the hotel which provides the service. Just because there is another hotel that doesn't provide the service and doesn't have the cost in the rate means that no hotel should? :confused: We are using concierge to represent a variety of amenities and services, right? Just want to make sure we're speaking the same language ;).

I've seen Motel 6 and Econo Lodge for $40 in Orlando.

There you go again, comparing apples and oranges. To be more accurate you should compare that $40 to $49 - because AS has been as cheap as $49. Remember - either 'rack to rack' or 'discount to discount' - talking in 'rack to discount' comparisons doesn't help the conversation :p.

[SnackyStacky]

You have a couple of points. (My eyes hurt so forgive my not copying quotes...)

There is a BIG difference between a suite, and a room. That pamphlet didn't say if those rates were for concierge. But there is a BIG difference between a suite and a room. $800 for a room is ludicrous.

We can throw rates back and forth (I'm not dismissing your points, I agree with some of them...see the opening line of this post), but my main problems with Disney are:

1.) They nickel and dime you for everything.
2.) They seperate their resorts and they DO take away from the show if you're not willing to spend as much money (you yourself even said the show at the AS lacks....so then why are they chargng Disney prices for no show?!? I don't understand)

My problem is even furthered by the fact that there are:
8 deluxe resorts
4 moderate resorts
3 cheap hotels (oops.....value resorts) :teeth: (yes, soon to be 4, but time will tell if the rumored 6/2003 opening will happen)

SO, if you spend more money, you'll have more choices! WHAT?! How is that the Walt way?

I will finalize this post with:

*I will pay Disney rates for the All-Stars when they give me the same show I'm getting at a moderate, or better yet, a deluxe. I can deal with the lack of amenities as long as there's Disney show. But as they stand, they're charging Disney prices when they are, in fact, a Motel 6 with a big statue of a Disney character.

*$84 for POR isn't bad. In fact, it's reasonable and a value! Why can't they advertise that rate and keep it at that rate instead of giving a $133 low-end quote in their advertising materials?

*Those figures that I got from Disney as price quotes were ridiculous for the deluxes.

[YoHo]

I apologize to those of you posting on page 2-5. I also notice that we have gotten off the original topic.

Par for the Course. I just got back from a wonderful non-Disney Vacation and have little time (Baron, I drove through Kohler Wisconsin imagining a Giant Urinal complete with Pink Cake.)

Anyway, as to the original Topic. All good companies that provide services like Disney does have standards that they meet (personal standards) Would you stay at the Hyatt if they suddenly adopted the standards of the Holliday Inn? Walt Disney Invented the Themepark and created out of his own mind everything that Walt Disney World is based on. he set the standard. the idea that this standard is too high is unthinkable. It is in the End what Disney Themeparks are about and there is nothing that I have seen that suggests that Walt's standards are not what the public wants. Ignoring the past 5 years, I would suggest that the only positive influence that the Eisner managment group really had was to re-energize the company, because the people involved in designing and building rides and making moves and what have you still folllowed the Disney standard.

[DVC-Landbaron]

After a nightmare weekend with a DEAD computer - I tentatively try to catch up with an ever-broadening thread. I will do my best to stay on topic, but that ain't always easy for me folks!!!

BTW - where is that bunko squad? That essay of those last posts of mine and not one debunking?Right here, SIR!! Reporting for duty, SIR!!

A compromise if you will - Oh, wait Walt wouldn't do that! - Well, yes he would, and did! Well, of course Walt would compromise. He did it all the time. He had to compromise when Disneyland was built. Remember? Tomorrowland or the rest of the park done right? Toilets or drinking fountains? Everyone compromises somewhat. He probably thought it was a compromise to hide his bourbon and donut habit from the general public. Walt was a showman. He wasn't stupid. And he was even practical at times.

So we have to look at HOW he compromised. Not that he was forced into it at times. Desperate times calls for desperate measures. But I didn't think that was the premise of your question. The way I read the question was, "What would Walt do, given the same circumstances that Ei$ner had?" Is that wrong? Did I misunderstand?

So I'll give you that Walt issued compilations. But what were the motivating factors behind the decision? Was it to reach a wider audience? NO!! Was it to pull one over on the public? NO!! Was it to make a fast buck? YES!! But why did he feel he needed to make a fast buck? Was it to line his own pockets? NO!! Was it to raise the bottom line on the quarterly report? NO!! Was it to acquire some mismatched company, boasting his own ego? NO!! Or could it be that maybe he needed a little quick cash to finance a "QUALITY" production? Perhaps he needed some funding to keep from going out of business completely? Yeah! I think you might reasonably assume that was the motivation. Especially given that after the financial crisis had passed, we saw no more of these things. Can we say the same of the motivating factors for the current regime? Sadly, NO!!

But guess what? The well had run dry. And tough choices have to be made.
I do love when you help me make my points (if I actually have one .) But what is to say that Walt would not have faced more of these choices in the future.Well, that's an entirely different question than the one that was originally asked. Isn't it? You're now throwing things into the mix that may force him to compromise. And Yes!! He just may have done it. But that's not what I thought you were asking. I thought we were supposed to work off the same premise that Ei$ner has had. If that's NOT the case, then I'm answering the wrong question.

Of course he would have done whatever was necessary to 'stay afloat'. I suppose there may be a line he wouldn't cross, a watermark he wouldn't sink below, no matter what, but we never really saw him have to make that choice. So, I guess, given your "if pigs had wings" scenario, that yes, he would have considered building moderates. Or he may have said, "Nope!! Not for me!! Time to retire!!"

Given his track record I'm sure he would have found ways to put himself in more pickles that required him to make tough choices.Nah! I kind of doubt it. Disneyland alone was making more money than he knew what to do with. He never took a salary more than $100,000.00 a year in his life. The ONLY thing that may have caused this kind of heartache would be EPCOT. His EPCOT. But we excised that from the equation because it destroys the very foundation of your premise and question. And if (and it's a mighty tenuous 'if') but IF EPCOT started to fail, I don't think he would still put Moderates into the existing "Vacation Kingdom" simply because it would have already been built up to the level that would automatically make profits like a money machine. And all that was to take place BEFORE the first shovel hit the ground for EPCOT. It would be a mature "Vacation Destination" that was fully built and 100% operational. All this in accordance with the master plan, which, by the way, has no mention at all of moderates!! They weren't even considered. As AV said. If you wanted a moderate, on the grounds, Hotel Plaza Drive was the place for you!!
Of course. The 'package' pictures were still quality, still 'Disney' - they were just something different - and that was ok. So, too, could a second type of hotel if that is what Walt felt was prudent at some point - and he would have done it with quality. I do love when you help me make my points (and I actually have one . ;) )

The quick answer is that he would have NEVER felt the need. In fact, that's not only the 'quick' answer. It's the only answer. You can tell that in a glance, just by looking at the master plan. NO DISNEY MODERATES!! The moderates were left to the hotel chains in the Hotel Strip.

The record speaks for itself if you choose to see it. So had the need or opportunity arisen Walt could have done a 'package' hotel.You slip that word "opportunity" in as if it has some weight. IT DOES NOT!! He had the 'opportunity' when the concept of WDW came up in the first place and deliberately decided against it, making provision elsewhere and NOT under the Disney banner.

And the "need" bit! Well, I see that as nothing other than some more "IF pigs had wings" stuff? I suppose you could "What if" the premise to the point that I would have to agree that he would have possibly, maybe, instead of going out of business entirely, built something less than he would have desired. IF the market crashed, IF the vacationing public deserted him, IF his EPCOT failed beyond belief, IF we were suddenly invaded by space aliens, IF the Cubs won the World Series ... IF... IF... IF...!!!

But given the same set of circumstances that Ei$ner has had, would he have built moderates? Just because he could? Just to capture a different market segment? Just to make money? The answer has to be NO!!

(BTW, you can say the same thing about the Floridian as well.)

When Walt did his new or different hotels that could be equated with the second generation hotels (read: 'moderates') of today, his motivation would not to have been to commoditize the hotels, but to make his dream available to more people (or save the company - he had to do that once or twice).Again you're working with a poor premise. If he had 'wanted' to make his dream available to more people, the master plan, and Disneyland itself, would have addressed that issue. He chose not to. And the 'save the company' bit is more of the "what if" game. And one that I'm not very good at, because I simple don't see a feasible or possible scenario of that ever happening. To me, there are way too many "IFs" involved.

I don't think Walt would have built the All Stars as they are. I'll give you that Walt wouldn't have considered them good Show. But that doesn't preclude a third generation (read: 'value') hotel from being built. You know, I talk and explain and reason, and you don't seem to comprehend. HE ONLY BUILT "VALUE" HOTELS!! The Poly and Contemporary WERE the value hotels. The price was ridiculously low. Which bring us to the next little bit in this thread. Cost.
Case in point. We just returned from Cape May, NJ. For an EXTREMELY basic room across the street from the beach, with no amenities and ants in the bathroom, we paid $229 a night. Other hotels (they are really motels) with a parking lot view go for more. There are some that are less - but for good reason. The Seaview Marriott, a rather lovely resort that is comparable to say the GF runs about the same as the GF. We are going up to Cape Cod next weekend - the Courtyard in Hyannis - and the room goes for about the same as the GF. I defy the bunko squad to find any resort destination that has a hotel like the GF (or any hotel - moderates included) that is any cheaper than the Disney hotels.What in the world does any of this rhetoric have to do with Disney? SO WHAT!!

Look. The Disney "experience" is just that. An "EXPERIENCE". It's either there, or it isn't there. If you want to 'Maintain Walt's Standards" you have to crystallize what that standard represents. So it's decided that a resort is to be built on the grounds of what will become WDW. They have played with various themes and have settle on two out of the seven possibilities (the remaining 5 will be built within the next five years). They're going with a Contemporary "A" frame (mainly because by this time the author of the plan realizes that EPCOT ain't going to happen and he wants to leave a little taste of it on the grounds anyway) and the South Seas Resort, better known as the Poly.

Now! How do we instill in these "hotels" a "Disney Experience"? You start with theme. Then add a lot of WOW!! A monorail running through the resort. Real flames in the Tonga Torches. Lush vegetation. Sweeping concrete walkways and topiaries. Polynesian music playing underwater in the swimming pool and rock & roll playing underwater in the Contemporary. And then you decide what type of amenities. Is there to be a free news paper delivered every day? Do you give away a free continental breakfast? Should each room have a coffee maker? Those type things. And, if you're Disney, doing it the Disney way, you pay very little attention to what the rest of the "Industry" is doing and concentrate on what you like and don't like when you're traveling. And when you have your list you find out what it costs to put on a SHOW like that. Cause we're not talking about running a hotel here. That's just the nuts and bolts stuff you have to do in order to get to where you really want to be. And that's producing a SHOW. A resort SHOW. A "Disney" resort SHOW.

And when you finally cost it all out, you find where your comfortable profit margin is and price it accordingly. Then, and only then, do you look at the market to see if anyone will actually show up for what you HAVE to ask. And you find, much to your delight, that your price is SUBSTANTIALLY under the current industry standard for what you are offering. And that doesn't even put a price tag on that wonderful intangible commodity known as the SHOW!

So you come away with a totally different resort experience. Some things that are considered standard in the so-called "Deluxe" accommodations are not offered at the "Disney- experience" resort. And some things that cost you extra in any other hotel in the world are indeed included for the same low price. Is that pricing higher than a motel-6? Yes!!! Quite a bit more!! Indeed!! So, if you're vacationing on a budget, you may not be able to afford a Disney resort. But on the other hand, is the price lower that what you'd expect to pay in New York, Chicago or L.A for similar hotels? YES!!! Quite a bit less!! It's almost a steal!! It is certainly a "VALUE"!!!
You make Baronesque use of !!!!! regarding AKL savannah view. What do you think would be a reasonable charge for a nice sized room in an incredibly themed resort with lots of amenities and a giraffe right off your balcony? Awe, come on!! That's easy!! If you decide that it should be part of the magic, it is done right or not at all!! In other words if you're not going to lose your shirt, it is priced EXACTLY the same as the rest of your resorts!! If you find you will lose your shirt, you have to forgo the concept!! It's just that simple!! Why? Because PRICE is part of the magic!! And a Standard is a standard!! Plain and simple!!
Again I ask - have you actually seen the All Stars and the AKL? Please - go look if you haven't. I assure you, if you spend any time at your resort there is a world of difference in the 'experience', as well as the hotels themselves. I do love when you help me make my points (and I actually have one . ;) ) My point precisely!! Just where exactly, in this mish-mosh of resorts, is thee definitive standard? I'll tell you where it is. Out the window!! Ei$ner threw it away when he started lining his pockets with all the cash his Caste system was raking in!! (And as an aside, an issue we haven't talked about yet. In the process of throwing that standard out he randomly (YES!! I SAID RANDOMLY) plopped resorts all over the property and overbuilt it in the process!!) (how's that for a new thread topic!! ;))
I guess Baron is with you in thinking that the AKL should only cost $99. Of course, Baron probably doesn't approve of AKL - but it is probably harder to find a better Show when it comes to a hotel. An actual savannah as part of a resort, with wild animals from across the world right outside your door. Rather unique if you ask me, innovative in the hotel world - something Mr. Disney might have thought of.Ahhh! How little you know me. I think it's just fine!! It doesn't quite go far enough, but it goes a lot further than I thought Ei$ner & crew would go. It's just terribly overpriced!!
I have a question. I know Baron mentioned an analysis that showed WDW hotels grew 10x inflation since 1972. I bet that is based on peak rack at GF.No it is not!! It's based off the Poly, regular room rate, for regular room rate. There were no discounts in 1972. And we based it off (I think) 1979 costs. Factored in inflation and found that an ordinary Poly room had more that doubled the inflation rate!! So when you think about the room rates in Disney, please keep in mind that the most upscale you could possible get was the Poly (or the Contemporary). And the most downscaled you could get was... well.. I know!! The Poly (or the Contemporary)!! And it was given to you at a little (not much but a little) BELOW the current Moderate rates!! I'd call that value. Wouldn't you?
I believe, based on what Baron has taught me , that Walt's standard would be Quality, Safety, Courtesy, Show and Efficiency. Well... I don't want to quibble... but... Quality would be inherent in the SHOW aspect!! You wouldn't want a quality item put before safety. "It killed 45 people!! But boy oh boy!! Was it a Quality Kill!!!"
If the original hotels grew too expensive through inflation, he would have found a way to make more hotels to give everyone a chance. That's not possible!! Inflation is inflation!!
I doubt he'd roll over in his grave over $84 a night for POR. Even if they could have made the Show a bit better (which Walt would have), that is quite a value.NO!!!!! You still don't get it! He didn't care about VALUE, for value's sake!! He only cared about 'value' AFTER the SHOW or how it related to the SHOW!! But NEVER value alone!! Remember? Safety, Courtesy, Show and Efficiency! SHOW first. Efficiency (cost, price, demographics, marketing, etc.) later!!

Ahhhh! It's good to back!!! :bounce:

[DVC-Landbaron]

Oh! And one more thing (actually two ;))

Guess what Skip - Mobil on the Run charges almost the same. You want convenience you pay - that is another concept that Disney didn't invent.Now don't get me wrong. Magic does cost. But once you meet the minimum threshold, it used to be like a buffet. All the magic you could soak up at one low price!! Ei$ner has done away with this philosophy. Instead he offers it ala carte! Each piece of magic passed out with an individual price-tag. A very hefty price-tag!! Pretty sad, isn't it?

What I AM saying is that that is not the Walt standard. I'm saying that the Walt way is to find a median. Give everyone the same experience for moderate rates with deluxe amenities.WOW!!!! I wish I would have said that!!!

Look closely at this concept, folks!! This is the very foundation upon which Walt built his empire!! It is the founding principle of Disneyland!! And the philisophical cornerstone of the Walt standard!!

It points to crystal in a hamburger joint! Every little detail examined and themed. Live steam for the train. Real horses to pull the trolley. Painting on the off hours. The entire 'original' concept of the Poly. The 'original' price of the Poly. Etc.!!!

It explains perfectly the "Disney" experience!! The Disney "Quality"!

Thanks for posting it!! Great insight!!

[DisneyKidds]

Sorry Baron, but I couldn't let you get away unscathed. Just a few thoughts on my part and hopefully something new to think about. I wouldn't want to take six pages to just say the same old thing ;).

more of the "what if" game. And one that I'm not very good at, because I simple don't see a feasible or possible scenario of that ever happening. To me, there are way too many "IFs" involved.

Hate to say it my good Baron.... you have as many pork bellies flying out your sphincter as anyone else around here. As you had agreed earlier, all this is speculation - even what you take as a given. IF Walt never deviated from or added to the Master Plan, IF Walt never had another original thought, idea, or concept for the parks business, IF we excise Epcot from the equation (which I never agreed to - it would have driven things in very different directions as Walt would have tirelessly pursued an Epcot that is nothing like what we have today). IF nothing came into the picture to 'force' him to compromise. IF the cubs, aliens, Mars, whatever........IF IF IF. See, my friend - you are just as good at the "what if" game as anyone else.

Walt was a showman. He wasn't stupid. And he was even practical at times.

I agree. After learning more about Walt I don't think he was as much the anti-business man that he is viewed as. Sure, he didn't handle the day to day finances, but most of his decisions were very good for the business. That would include the 'package' pictures which I think were more about good business than desperation. I think Walt would have been capable of making other such good business decisions had he been around.

Can we say the same of the motivating factors for the current regime? Sadly, NO!!

Get off it pal ;). This has nothing to do with what the current regime has done - why does it always turn into that?

So, I guess, given your "if pigs had wings" scenario, that yes, he would have considered building moderates. Or he may have said, "Nope!! Not for me!! Time to retire!!"

Baron the Ostrich. Hate to say it, any 'pigs with wings' scenario is much more likely than your 'world without pigs at all'. The world is a changing place. Walt was always coming up with a new idea. Just because he had a Master Plan that would have stopped? Chew on this. After the acquisition of the Florida Property was complete and Walt visited central Florida and surveyed what would become DW he commented that it was beautiful (even though he was looking at a swamp) and made the comment that it was so expansive that they could build their own Sea World and Knotts Berry Farm if they wanted to. These types of parks weren't in any Master Plan. Who knows if he would have done other parks (which you have said he wouldn't) but he did have such thoughts go through his head.

My next book to read will be one that deals more with the planning and realization of WDW (any suggestions?). I do want to get more familiar with the Master Plan. However, it did reference Motels in more than one place. Assuming Hotel Plaza Blvd was one, where might more Motels have been - and who would have built them? I hope to learn the answers to such questions. I do find your concrete interpretation of the Master Plan very interesting. Sure, maybe Walt would not have deviated from the plan - but would it have been realistic to think that he never would have added anything after it was finished? I think you hide behind the Master Plan and use it as your only ammunition in saying 'Walt wouldn't have" ;).

You know, I talk and explain and reason, and you don't seem to comprehend. HE ONLY BUILT "VALUE" HOTELS!! The Poly and Contemporary WERE the value hotels. The price was ridiculously low. Which bring us to the next little bit in this thread. Cost.

No comprehension problems here. I know what you are saying. When I include the word 'value' in reference to a hotel I am just trying to make sure that folks realize I am talking about the third iteration of hotel that currently exists. You are so d**n literal. I know that Walts hotels were value hotels - I think they are today. Comprehend that, mi amigo?;) Which brings us to the next little bit..... please tell me how much a room at the Contemporary cost in 1972. I would like to do some math of my own.

What in the world does any of this rhetoric have to do with Disney? SO WHAT!!

Just to clarify - that Snacky fellow :wave: began discussing WDW hotels vs the CY and how one was a better value. Discussion took a detour into relative value of resort destination hotels. While I agree the rhetoric has nothing to do with Disney per se, it is on point regarding relative value of WDW hotels vs others. I agree that a WDW resort vacation is an experience. Your whole diatribe on what makes that experience is rather superfluous - I am well aware of what makes the experience. The way subsequent hotels were done at WDW, the current second generation hotels get half way there - the third generation hotels don't get that far. However, Walt could have done them with the full experience.

So, if you're vacationing on a budget, you may not be able to afford a Disney resort.

Oh, how casually you slip this in. And talk about your caste systems. Do you really think that Walt would have accepted this. 'Screw em if they can't afford it'. I could never see Walt saying that. If Walt saw that a significant portion of the population would never get to experience his experience he would have found a way to fix it - plain and simple - there is no other answer.

If you find you will lose your shirt, you have to forgo the concept!!

WHAT!!! Walt lost his shirt on color in animation, but he didn't forgo that. Walt lost his shirt on sound in animation - but he didn't forgo that. Walt invested $1.5 in Snow White with not one guaranteed penny of return and could have really lost his shirt - but he didn't forgo the animated feature. Where did he ever think like that?

Your turn................................;)

[YoHo]

Just to help you out with the Math, I believe that in 1981 a standard room at the Polynesian was about $75 a night.

Using the Inflation Calculator located at
http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

That translates to
$154.71 in 2001.

What was the Rack rate at the Poly last year? CLose to $300 a night.

oh and that $75 was profitable too.

[DisneyKidds]

Yoho - thanks for the info.

Maybe someone else is paying rack rate - but myself and many others have gotten/are getting the Contemporary for less than that $154. I would still like to know what the Contemporary was going for in 1972. Anyone know?

Just for yucks - if the Contemporary cost $50 in 1972 it would be $210 in 2001. Tools like this are interesting but they need to be used carefully.

[YoHo]

True, there are other variables to look at. I don't have the price in 1972, but one thing to think about is that in 1981 there were no discounts. you paid $75 or $75 bucks. Imagine 2002 and everyone paid rack rate.

The neat thing about that tool is that you can use it the other way too. $75 in 1981 would translate to $36.79

I doubt that's what the poly cost in 1972. IF I'm right and the Poly in fact cost more, in 72 then $37, then that's even more interesting, because that means they grew the price at a rate lower then inflation. which opens up a whole new can of worms, cause Eisner and company 3 times in the 80's raised single day addmission prices at a rate higher then inflation, because they claimed prices were not at market value.

perhaps the same was done with the hotels. of course, to me, pricing a hotel below market value SCREAMS value.

[DisneyKidds]

I doubt that's what the poly cost in 1972. IF I'm right and the Poly in fact cost more, in 72 then $37, then that's even more interesting, because that means they grew the price at a rate lower then inflation. which opens up a whole new can of worms

Sure does. However, I would imagine there are more variables involved than we could ever imagine. Another thing to note, most models out there use the general CPI. However, different industries and sectors might have widely differing inflation rates. I do know for a fact that there were years that the lodging rate of inflation was higher than the general CPI. How much higher over the course of 30 years I don't know.

[hopemax]

I did a search on the internet for Polynesian price 1972 and I found a site that is selling a rate card which listed prices for the Contemporary, Polynesian and the "affiliated" hotels which were Howard Johnson (now Courtyard by Marriot), Royal Inn, Dutch Inn (now the Grosvenor) and the Travelodge.

In the description it says "rates listed at $32, $38 or $46."

http://www.geocities.com/paperdisney/cat10.htm

The scan isn't clear enough to read, but it may be a starting point.

[hopemax]

And I searched the newsgroups side, and someone from RADP a few years back, that his pack-rat mom saved their receipts from 1972 and they paid $38 a night for the Polnesian.

[DVC-Landbaron]

Mr. Kidds. You are interesting. And tenacious. But you are also wrong! Or it could be we are talking about two separate things (and maybe as many as a half of dozen different things!). From my perspective, I keep trying to clarify the question, define it and work it into something we both can live with, and you seem to muddy the works. You probably see things differently.

So, maybe I haven't done a good job defining things. I think that, as Scoop and I do sometimes, we need to stipulate. We need to be talking about the same things. And because this is pure conjecture, we need to define the boundaries of the "what if" scenarios in order to stave off the wild tangents on both parts. Fair enough? So, first a couple of questions, if you don't mind.

In your very first post you wrote: There is so much talk of the failure to maintain the Walt Disney 'standards' having led to the erosion of the Disney Magic and the ungluing of the Disney empire. Failure to put the Show above all else. Failure to 'do it right or not do it at all'. Failure to 'give the guest everything you can'. Now to me, you are saying that the current regime is in question because of these alleged failures. And you want to know, through supposition, reasoning and conjecture if this is indeed the case. You ask further, in an implied effort to draw a comparison, "Failure to ask the question 'what would Walt do'?"

So your very first paragraph postulates the so-called failures of the current administration and begins to ask the question about how Walt would have done things. Furthermore, although secondary and somewhat implied in this context, is the issue of comparing what we have with what Walt would do. At least that's the way I read it. But then, in your most recent post, in response to my allegations regarding motivations and the comparison between Walt and Ei$ner, you write: Get off it pal . This has nothing to do with what the current regime has done - why does it always turn into that?I thought that was the basic premise of the issue at hand. Seeing IF there has been a "Failure" that has led to the current erosion of Disney Magic. Sort of, "What would Walt do" DIFFERENTLY than EI$ner has done? So, the first question:

1- Are we to draw comparisons between Walt's Philosophy and EI$ner's Philosophy?

I'll play it anyway you want. I just want to be clear on the ground rules so I don't get another, "Get off it pal!" ;).

Next! We need to clarify your intent. Walt was good at giving people what they wanted even before they knew they wanted it. Almost everything he did had some of that in it, and his greatest accomplishments were almost completely made up of that element. Now, if you want me to crawl inside that frozen head, and innovate on his level, stating categorically what "Walt would do", then the game is over and you win. I cannot play. No one can. That is exactly the type of "what if" games in which I will not participate. I'm not good enough. I'm not Walt!!

But if you want to talk about his philosophy and his "business" approach. Well!! Then deal me in partner and anti up!! I'll play that game all day long!! You see, I DO understand his way of thinking. I DO understand his methodology. And while I cannot even come close to creating, dreaming or innovating anywhere near his level, I DO know how he would implement it. And it's all based on past performance. We simply look at the record. And you know what? It's pretty darn consistent!! Yeah, I'll grant you that there were a few anomalies. A few bumps on the chart. But you have to take that for what they are. Anomalies!! Plain and simple. And that's what I meant by playing a "What If" game. Sure, you could build a set of circumstances that would guarantee that the moderates get built! You could "What If" the philosophy until you successfully beat it into submission and form it into anything you want!! Is this what this exercise is supposed to do? Is that the answer you want?

It's like a guy that's 60 years old. And he never, ever exceeded the speed limit by even one mile an hour. He is the 'car pool' joke. No one wants to drive with him!! And one day the other guys are talking about good old "Slow-Joe" and one of them says that Joe would NEVER go faster that the speed limit!!! But the other guys offer scenarios where he'd be forced into it. "He's going so slow that a guy in the mustang pulls a gun and flashes it. Bet that'd get Slow-Joe moving past the limit!!" The other chimes in with, "You're right!! Remember when his daughter went into labor six miles from the hospital!! He sure found the gas pedal that day!!" Do you see what I mean by, "if pigs had wings"? There's always an exception to the rule. But I really thought we were trying to define the rule. Not the exception to it!

So that's the next question:

2- Are we going to go with one scenario, as in "the same set of circumstances that Ei$ner had? Or are we going to pull any wild and hair-brained supposition into the mix in order to force the conclusion you'd like achieve?

Now, I think you know which way I'd like to play it. We have to have some clear rules if we want to play the game fairly. So if you want to define your circumstances to one, and only one, crystal clear scenario, then I'll play. If not, find yourself another sucker!! Cause that's a losin' proposition! I'll only play if the "All things being equal" rule is applied to both of us. And if I break it, please call me on it. You know I won't hesitate to call you on it!! ;)

That is why I pulled the EPCOT thing out of the mix. Who knows how it would go? I don't, that's for sure. It may have led to the utter destruction of the company. It may have led to the revitalization of urban areas across the globe with so much money pouring in it would make Bill Gates look like a pauper!! I don't know! That's way too big a "What If" to bring into a conversation regarding Walt's philosophy regarding moderate and economy hotel accommodations!! You want to do some speculation about that, that's fine. Just count me out! I haven't a clue!!!

Next! I'm afraid more of the same but I need to be sure you understand. And from the sound of the next paragraph you don't. So let's be very clear on it. You said: Hate to say it my good Baron.... you have as many pork bellies flying out your sphincter as anyone else around here. As you had agreed earlier, all this is speculation - even what you take as a given. IF Walt never deviated from or added to the Master Plan, IF Walt never had another original thought, idea, or concept for the parks business, IF we excise Epcot from the equation (which I never agreed to - it would have driven things in very different directions as Walt would have tirelessly pursued an Epcot that is nothing like what we have today). IF nothing came into the picture to 'force' him to compromise. IF the cubs, aliens, Mars, whatever........IF IF IF. See, my friend - you are just as good at the "what if" game as anyone else. I'm afraid you have it backwards, my friend!! I don't want any "ifs". You are the one bringing them into the question. For example, I said that he approved the master plan. They did not include moderates! His plan for moderates was striking a deal with hotel chains, allowing them on the grounds and providing limited "Disney" services. This insured that the DISNEY resorts retained all the magic he could give them and it provided the masses with semi-Disney 'moderates' under someone else's brand in order to strictly maintain his STANDARD in his resorts!!! AV also said the same thing.

That didn't seem to please you. So you added a couple of "What Ifs". Such as,IF Walt never deviated from or added to the Master Plan", IF Walt never had another original thought, idea, or concept for the parks business, IF we excise Epcot from the equation (which I never agreed to - it would have driven things in very different directions as Walt would have tirelessly pursued an Epcot that is nothing like what we have today). IF nothing came into the picture to 'force' him to compromise. That doesn't make any sense to me. Again, sure we could speculate and find reasons WHY he would be FORCED to do it. And I might even agree with some (although to be honest, I can't think of a single reason off hand). But that's not what we were trying to find out, was it? So that leads us to question number 3:

3- Did we want to come up with outlandish scenarios that would have forced Walt to build moderates? Or did we want to explore his Philosophy and decide if moderates fit anywhere within it?

I think that's all for now. A whole bunch of explaining, but really only three simple questions. Answer those and hopefully we can continue talking.

Your turn... :crazy:




PS: You asked for book recommendations. When I first became involved with Disney I asked the same question to a person very much like AV on another site. His reply follows (keep in mind that this was a couple or three years ago. There may be newer ones I'm not aware of:I might be able to shed some light on this... Because I have a tremendous amount of original documentation - I always enjoy reading some of these biographies written about Disney.. and I love to pick out the things which are wrong :) In some instances I can actually see where an author pulled a story from another biography.. (which often was wrong in the first place..) But I will submit my list:

First - The two biographies written Bob Thomas - are legend among Disney historians.. They stand as a guidepost to all of us who come after, and I have yet to find anything "wrong" in them. Thomas knew both Walt and Roy - Interviewed them - and was asked by the Disney Company to do the official biography on Walt. His works are well worth owning.

Second - for a very warm biography try Katherine & Richard Greene's "The man behind the magic". They had a lot of access to the family, and it shows.. Although the book is too short.

Third - Amy & Howard Green - who worked on "Remembering Walt" - It is an excellent book - filled with memories of those who knew Walt.

Fourth - Although this is currently out of print - "The Magic Kingdom" by Stephen Watts - does deal in quite a bit of detail about Disney, and Walt.. (Some of his opinions are a little ??? but then he did a GREAT job of documenting his sources.. YAY!! )

Fifth - Try - Hollywood Hoosier - which is actually not a biography of Walt - but rather gives a great insider view of the studio in the 1950's.. (By Charles R. Grizzle)

Sixth - Walt's Time - by the Sherman Brothers

Seventh - Walt's Railroad Story - by Michael Broggie

Eighth - If you can find a copy - try Walt Disney and Europe - for an interesting analysis of the influence of European Culture on Walt Disney.

Ninth - Another EXCELLENT book on Walt's Early years is "Walt in Wonderland.." by Russell Merritt and J.B. Kaufman, Great Stuff on the very early Films.. and some neat pics and letters from Walt.

Tenth - For theme park history - you can't beat Bruce Gordon & David Mumford's - The nickel tour.. Great history in there - currently on it's second printing..

I would add "Windows on Main Street". Informative and insightful, but a little fluffy.

Hope this helps!!!




ps: Mr. Kidds? Comments?In the description it says "rates listed at $32, $38 or $46."Thanks Hopemax!!! This seems pretty much the way I remember it as well. In 1978 (I think, it may have been 1977) I paid $45.00 (give or take a dollar or two) for a room at the Poly. Pool view (which is the middle)!

:bounce:

[DisneyKidds]

No.

No.

Maybe.

Irrelevant.

Nuff said ;).

[DVC-Landbaron]

Nuff said Ahhhh! How sad! :(

I always hate it when a good thread comes to an end! But when everyone agrees with the LandBaron (and Walt) take on things, what more is there to say!!!

Thanks for the conversation!


Take care, Mr. Kidds!!

DVC-LandBaron

[DisneyKidds]

I love the conversation, too - but I fear we can't talk about this subject any further, can we? After all, as far as you are concerned, anything that was not in the Master Plan represents a pork with flight certification, right? To say that represents the biggest 'IF' of all if youask me ;).

I guess I really am getting at 'What was Walt capable of doing while still maintaining his standards?' You don't want to go there and that is ok. You want to look at things in a vacuum and that is ok. However, the world does not exist in a vacuum :rolleyes:.

BTW - I was GIVING YOU the mistakes and shortfalls of the current regime, so there is no need to compare philosophies. I just want to look at what possibilities existed under Walts philosophy alone. However, you limit the discussion because all we can talk about is what was in the Master Plan and we are forbidden from asking what Walt might have done from there. What fun is that? How realistic is it to assume he would have done nothing from there?

Oh, and then you cavalierly throw such things as this around....

So, if you're vacationing on a budget, you may not be able to afford a Disney resort.

and......

If you find you will lose your shirt, you have to forgo the concept!!

saying that that is how Walt viewed things, without any rationale or anecdotal evidence to show that Walt was even capable of such thoughts...............:mad:

So, the answer to question number 1 is no. Forget ME's philosophy. Assume Walt would have completed the Master Plan. Assume that an Epcot would exist. Those aren't flying pigs. Well, where did Walt go from there? You seem to be telling me we can't ask that because all we could do from there is watch the porker dogfight. So the discussion ends, does it not? I hope the answer is no, it doesn't - but that is up to you.

The answer to number 2 - I really don't know. What are the 'circumstances Ei$ner had'? Furthermore - once a single decision is made that is contrary to ME, the rest of the ME circumsatnces go out the window, do they not? So how do we handle that. I would suggest we do this. We may not be able to crawl inside that head. However, we do know a bit about the consumer. As you point out - you completely understand Walts business philosophy and way of thinking. Well, how would you - I mean Walt - apply that way of thinking to the consumer. But you see - to do that requires tossing a few pigs in the air. To not do that - well, that ends the discussion, does it not? I hope the answer is no, but......

So if you want to define your circumstances to one, and only one, crystal clear scenario

If only the world were that simple my friend ;).

The answer to number 3 - well, yes - I want to see where the moderates fit within Walts philosophy. However, to you that philosophy ends at the Master Plan. Well, Walts standards may have been static, but his philosophy wasn't. I guess that is something you and I have to agree to disagree on. I believe that as things changed Walt would have examined things that went beyond his Master Plan, and I think his original philosophy, applied to conditions that would have been likely to exist would, have made the moderates fit within his philosophy, or his evolving philosophies that would hold true to his standards. But we can't discuss that because there are already enough pigs in the clouds.

As to the whole WDW hotel cost/value thing - there are way too many variables to say that the rate you would pay tomorrow for a WDW resort is overpriced and 10x inflation. I think they still represent a great value, you don't. Another agree to disagree item.

So, what cha think my good Baron?

[DVC-Landbaron]

Mr. Kidds!! You had me worried! All those words and hardly a response. Anyway, welcome back. And let's see where we stand.

After all, as far as you are concerned, anything that was not in the Master Plan represents a "pork with flight certification", right?No! I really think you are misunderstanding. The way I interpret Walt's philosophy on things "Disney" is really pretty simple. I look at what he did while he was alive. In animation it's pretty easy. He made a TON of them. We can pretty much pick any film he made and look at the process. See the way he built a team. And then badgered the team into producing greatness. We can look at the way he used technology. Cutting edge stuff. Most of the time he was leading the pack. Then you look at other films he made. Was this one you examined just a fluke? Or did he, by and large, use the same techniques and methods throughout all of his films? And you know what? He did!!!

But then you discover those compilations! So you examine them, in context with the rest of his life, and you find that it turns out they were mere shadows on the radar screen. True anomalies that were absolutely the exception to the rule.

And you find, after looking at his life's work in animation that you are fairly comfortable knowing Walt's thinking or better yet, you can answer the famous question here, "What would Walt do?" So that when the Captain or the Pirate starts raising issues with the Pixar fare or slamming Shrek-like films, I can comfortably say that Walt would have loved it!!! New technology!! A new way to tell a story!! Innovative methods of putting on a SHOW!! Cause that's what I think he's all about!! His record backs me up!!

Is it for sure? Can anyone argue the counterpoint? Sure they could!! (And Lord knows they do!! ;) ) And for all I know they may be right. Walt might have HATED the new stuff. But somehow, given his track record, I kinda doubt it! And I would ask for some backup if that argument was posed, other that a few, very minor, bumps in the road.

The same process can be used when we discuss the "What would Walt do?" pertaining to theme parks and resorts. We look at the record. We examine what he actually did, so we can draw a reasonable conclusion as to what he may have done in the future or at least how things should be maintained. He has a record and set a pretty good precedent in this area. Heck!! He invented it!!

So, Where can we find a reasonable answer? Well, I'm kinda thinkin' that Disneyland would be a good place to start, followed by the ole Master Plan for WDW. How did he build his park and how was he planning to do WDW? Wouldn't that seem logical? Doesn't that make sense?

And I find, regarding 'moderates' that, lo and behold, he did indeed address that issue!! He deliberately chose NOT to include them under his brand! He provided for them. But made sure, categorically, that they were NOT Disney!! Very telling stuff, in and of itself, wouldn't you say?

So it seems to me that if the "all things being equal' rule is invoked, Walt would NEVER have allowed the moderates to be built under his brand and he would not have ever even considered the economy motels, no matter how big the icons were or how gaudy the decorations. It's just that simple. You look at what he did in the past, how he built things and the way he thought and it's not too much of a jump, and hardly any speculation at all, to reach a reasonable conclusion.

Now, if you want to set up some scenario that would force him to include highly decorated Motel 6 type accommodations, I'm sure we can dream up some set of circumstances that would work. Unfortunately, that's where I leave the game. Because you're looking for the exception. The abnormality. In essence you're asking, "What would Walt not normally do, but would have to do, as a deviation from his regular way of operating, if he was given no other alternative?" Is that what you want to do? I don't.

I guess I really am getting at 'What was Walt capable of doing while still maintaining his standards?'I don't know. Really!! I'm not being flip. I really don't know!! Great things I imagine, given his track record. But I really couldn't begin to guess!!!

So let's separate the question and really dive in. What was he capable of? Anything he wanted, I suppose. He proved that time and time again. "While still maintaining his standards?" Well, on this I can be reasonably sure that he would maintain his standards absolutely to the letter unless, on that very, very rare occasion he was forced, against every fiber in his being, to deviate from them, due to fate, miscalculation or the planets not aligning quite right. I can reasonably speculate that he would not willingly or capriciously stray from those standards. And I think we can all be sure that, even if it cost him a ton, those standards would be reinstated as soon as possible! Do you agree with that?

How realistic is it to assume he would have done nothing from there?Not realistic at all! But I'm really at a loss here. I haven't the slightest idea what he would have done. I couldn't begin to speculate as to what marvels he would have experimented with. But I do know how he would implement them. With his standards! Using his philosophy!! PERIOD!!

So bring it on. Speculate away. You come up with the proposals and I'll tell you how I think they would be implemented. A theme park on the moon? Fine!! Sounds in keeping with Walt. And if any private enterprise could have done that it would have been his company. It fits perfectly with the way that Walt thought. But would he have built the All-"STARS" (pardon the pun) there? Or even the moderates (Spaceport Orleans)? NO!! ABSOLUTELY NOT!! Why? Because they would have deviated from the standard!! That's why! It really is that simple.

Oh, and then you cavalierly throw such things as this around....So, if you're vacationing on a budget, you may not be able to afford a Disney resort.
Nothing cavalier about it. It's a fact! It still is! Do you really think that EVERYONE in the country can afford a Disney vacation? That's a little naive. Or if you believe they should it's a little communistic!! ;) Did you know, and I know you'll find it hard to believe, that there are some folks in America right now, TODAY, that cannot afford the luxurious accommodations provided by the All-Stars Resort? And they have to save their pennies for FIVE YEARS in order to stay at the campgrounds? My sister-in-law is just such a person. Last trip: 1998. Next trip: 2003. (If everything goes right!!) And you call my statement cavalier!?!?!

All that has changed is where you draw the line. Walt drew it at about 35 bucks a night (probably closer to $32.00) for accommodations in a full-fledged "Magical Experience", overflowing with the "Disney Standard" resort, back in 1972. Where is that line today? And how far have they deviated from that standard to achieve that outrageous price? And you think it's still a good "value"??!!?? Man, oh man!! Maybe we have to start back further than I thought. Forget Walt. Forget Ei$ner. Forget philosophy. And forget Standards! Maybe we need to discuss the definition of "value" in order to have any meaningful dialogue!!

If you find you will lose your shirt, you have to forgo the concept!!We were specifically talking about AKL and the price the guest would reasonably be expected to pay under the Walt Standard. In my mind there could be no difference. So, the Roy side would have to take over for a moment. If it cost a $100 an hour to keep the animals and you were only making fifty dollars an hour off the resort. YOU CAN'T DO IT WALT!! Go back to the drawing board and come up with a different plan (which he probably would have done. Mind blowing, isn't it?). But Roy would have to win that one. (He did win some you know.) However, if it cost $100 an hour and you were making $100 an hour off the resort, it's a no brainer (and a giver of ulcers to Roy). You do it!! Period!! Cause it's a good SHOW!!

OK!! So my prelude is over and some ground rules are now in place. Now, to the meat of the discussion!! Fire away!! You want to talk accommodations!! Fine! Let's talk. Deluxe, moderate, Motel 6. Anything you want. How does it fit in the philosophy? Or do we have to start down that slippery slope of changing the philosophy in order to adjust to the "new" notions? You want to talk EPCOT? Walt's EPCOT? Fine again!! Shoot! Let's have the concepts! And we'll see how those ideas, when implemented, fit into the standard!

You see, it's really simple. The philosophy, which created the Standard, is resolute, unyielding and indomitable! You can bend, twist, expand and broaden the concepts to fit the philosophy. You cannot (YOU MUST NOT) bend the philosophy (and thereby standard) to fit the concept! The tail must NEVER wag the dog! Especially for the sake of a couple of bucks!!


Your turn... ;)

[DisneyKidds]

Baron, you have a way with words and you do know a lot about what Walt did in his time - I'll give you that ;). I still disagree with you regarding what Walt would have deemed appropriate and acceptable, within the confines of his philosophies and standards, as WDW grew beyond anything he ever could have imagined.

We will discuss this more, be assured of that. However, I have layed before the court most of my evidence at this point. I will scour my notes for more on point indicators. However, if there is a period of silence regarding this particular thread, read it as nothing more than me taking the time to read up more and develop more evidence. I'm asking the court for a continuance, if you will.

I told you I would take the time to read up and become more Disney educated - I have not, and will not let you down in that regard. However, as I do I will become more tenacious ;).

I'll be back...............................

[DVC-Landbaron]

Fair enough, my friend!!I'll be back...............................I'll be here waiting!! :bounce: :crazy: :bounce: