Dear Eisner

[Mr D]

Here is an article worth reading from Motley Fool (http://www.fool.com/news/commentary/2003/commentary031205ram.htm?source=eptyholnk303100&logvisit=y&npu=y&bounce=y&bounce2=y)
It paraphrases a lot of sentiment of recent events.

[WEDWAY100]

From the article:
Money is something that's best squandered by tourists but spent smartly by the tourist attraction. Are you going to tell me that the same company that was able to dish out tens of millions to kiss off the likes of Michael Ovitz and Jeffrey Katzenberg doesn't have enough jingle in petty cash to keep Carousel of Progress open year round? If Disney is the world's premiere theme park company, why is The Amazing Adventures of Spider-Man sitting on Universal's lot?
Amen.

[wtg2000]

It's interesting to look at Eisner the creator vs. Eisner the marketeer. Let's look at what's happened under Eisner's tenure.

One of his big projects was EuroDisney which has been in constanty financial trouble since opening and even had rumours of closing recently. By contrast, Tokyo Disneyland, which was built before he took over, is a continuing success.

He opened the Disney Stores which are now rumoured to be closing or being sold off.

He started Hollywood Pictures which is pretty much defunct while Touchstone flourishes.

He opened and apparently brainchilded DCA which is flailing away.

He opened Go.com which got up and went to the dot.com trashbin. It still runs but it never did what it intended.

At WDW, he opened a sports complex and got sued for $200 million for allegedly stealing the idea.

One of his big things was fostering projects with bigwigs like Lucas and Spielberg, but the Star Tours redo fell through, as did the Tokyo Indy coaster project, and I doubt Eisner and Steven talk much anymore.

He hired Ovitz - well, we all know what happened there.

EPCOT - World Showcase added one new pavilion (Norway) which was already in planning when Eisner took over. Other pavilions were rumoured and even announced I believe (Swiss, Russian) but never happened. In Future World Eisner built one new pavilion, Wonders of Life (I think Living Seas was already in the works) which apparently is closing down and just recopied it's main ride from Star Tours anyway. He's built two new mega-attractions by gutting old and loved ones.

D-MGM has been a success but some would argue never the creative or beloved park that the MKs were, and some would say a pale comparison to what Universal achieved.

He built Animal Kingdom, but it has struggled to meet attendance projections despite being a beautiful park. The boat ride had to be shut down and the Beastly Kingdom never happened.

The Disney Channel has flourished but that was started before Eisner, although he can take credit for marketing it I suppose.

He started the Disney Cruise Line which seems to be a rousing success so far.

Disney's most successful animated movies are now being made by an outside company.

He started Hollywood Records - is it even still going? Why didn't they sign Britney, Christina or Justin? Weren't they Mousketeers?

He grew the company by buying things - namely Capital Cities, but he didn't create them.

His one big contribution to Disneyland was redoing Tomorrowland and that failed and rides like Rocket Rods were quickly pulled.

I'm sure I've missed tons of things - both positive and negative - but creatively Eisner's reign has left a lot to be desired. He's done a good job and marketing things that were already successful - like WDW - adding hotels, etc. but projects that he has initiated have proven less than stellar.

[hopemax]

another big Eisner idea was the Disney Institute.

[KNWVIKING]

Let's not forget failures like DVC, ESPN, Blizzard Beach, GF,WL and DTD.

[wtg2000]

>Let's not forget failures like DVC, ESPN, Blizzard Beach, GF,WL and DTD.

Right. Disney Institute was another failure. But DVC appears to be a big success. ESPN came as part of the Cap Cities buyout. Eisner didn't start it.

Water parks were already in the works before Eisner took over, however, he insisted they be themed to the hilt and not generic, so this is a creative plus on his side.

Grand Floridian was in the works before he took over, although he did continue the tradition of building nicely themed hotels like YC/BC, WL and AKL.

However, he did ruin the EPCOT skyline with the Swan and Dolphin.

[DancingBear]

Originally posted by wtg2000
However, he did ruin the EPCOT skyline with the Swan and Dolphin. My understanding is that this hotel was in the works pre-Disney, and would have been a bland mid-rise like the Downtown Disney hotels, until Eisner stepped in with Michael Graves. So, even accepting your presumption (and I must admit I've never noticed the S&D while in Epcot), the S&D is a big sightline improvement over what might have been.

[KNWVIKING]

**"However, he did ruin the EPCOT skyline with the Swan and Dolphin."**

From what I've read here, S & D were already in process when ME took over.

[raidermatt]

The issue is their height. Stand on the Norway side of WS and look over the countries on the other side of the lagoon. Can't miss the S/D.

If its true he turned bland into something that at least isn't bland, great, but that didn't mean it had to rise to a point where it interferes with the intended sightlines of Epcot.

If they were already in process, then he deserves neither the credit for "un-blanding" them, nor the blame for changing the Epcot sightlines.


Another way to look at Eisner's contributions on the whole is that he has greatly increased Disney's assets. The company is worth a great deal more than it was.

However, the company's income to asset ratio is much lower than it was as well. In other words, they do less with more.

I really don't want to get into the "is Eisner completely worthless" debate, or the "was he bad from day one" debate, because they are pointless as far as the future goes.

Whether he ever was the right guy for the job or not, the point is, he's not the right guy now. Since most of us agree on that point, we could probably accomplish a lot more by focusing on that.

[SnackyStacky]

I've never stayed at the GF, and am not in any way defending it; I'm legitimately curious:

How is it a failure? Is it just because it's outrageously priced, or is there something that I'm missing because I never stayed there?

[DVC-Landbaron]

Mr. Bear:
and I must admit I've never noticed the S&D while in EpcotI’m so sorry to hear about this. Tell me. Were you born blind, or did it just happen since those two monstrosities went up?




HEY AV!! Grand Floridian was in the works before he took over From what I've read here, S & D were already in process when ME took over. How about a little historic perspective!


SnackyStacky :
How is it a failure? Is it just because it's outrageously priced, or is there something that I'm missing because I never stayed there?Yes! It is VERY outrageously priced!!! But that’s only half of it.

I don’t know what you think of the moderates or the economies, but I think you know my take. They are NOT Disney! At least in the sense that the Poly or the Contemporary are. It is the exact same problem with the GF. But in reverse. It’s simply NOT Disney. It tries to be WAY to upscale. You can find that type of hotel anywhere in the country, for the cost. There’s no “Disney” personality, no “Disney” touch, no “Disney” magic and most important, no “Disney” VALUE!!

That’s just my opinion of course. There will be many who disagree. But heck!! There are many who actually like the All-Stars!?!?! Go figure!

[Galahad]

Right. Disney Institute was another failure

It was a failure, but we loved it! I think in this case he failed by over estimating his guests, not by having a "bad" idea.

[wtg2000]

[How about a little historic perspective! In 1984 Disney had a deal with Tishman development to build two hotels. They also were in talks with Marriott to build 20,000 hotel rooms. Eisner saw the good job they were doing running their own hotels and thought why let all that money flow to Marriott's bottom line, so he scrapped the deal. In fact, Tishman was suing them at the time because they thought they had an agreement to be the exclusive developer. Anyway, Eisner had to give Tishman their two hotels, but retained the rights for design. He hired architect Robert Stern to design the Swan and Dolphin. That's why Disney doesn't own those hotels.

So the hotels were in the plans but not the designs as they stand today. That was Eisner's baby.

[SnackyStacky]

Originally posted by DVC-Landbaron
I don’t know what you think of the moderates or the economies, but I think you know my take. They are NOT Disney!

Look who came out of hibernation. :)

I've stayed at only one Disney resort, and I was NOT impressed. It was at the French Quarter, and for what I payed, I was NOT pleased. ~$160 for what I got was NOT acceptable.

And as for the economies (I like how you refuse to call them values), I'd stay if I could get a discount rate, or if they had the cheapest rates on property. Usually though, I can find a better deal at one of the Downtown Disney hotels. I don't think that they are in ANY way any kind of Disney. Just my $.02

[wtg2000]

I don't know what you think of the moderates or the economies, but I think you know my take. They are NOT Disney! At least in the sense that the Poly or the Contemporary are. It is the exact same problem with the GF. I'm just curious. What makes the Contemporary, for example, Disney but the GF or moderates like the CBR not Disney? I'm not even sure myself what constitutes Disney/non Disney but I know what I like, and I've enjoyed staying at the moderates as well as Poly, YC/BC, WL and AKL.

[SnackyStacky]

What makes the Contemporary, for example, Disney but the GF or moderates like the CBR not Disney?

I can't speak for Baron, but for me, it's not really the actual property that is non-Disney. It's the theory, the thought-process, and the philosophy behind the moderates and economies (I really like that now!) that make them non-Disney.

When the Polynesian and the Contemporary opened, there was no resort caste system. You had one level of resort, and the beauty was the value. You had deluxe amenities at a moderate price. Picture the Polynesian, but paying rack rates at the CBR, or POR or CSR in peak season.

Eisner began to give less, and charging more for it. And as a result, it drove up the prices across the property; so much so that you end up with $400+ rack rates at the deluxes. And now, the way that Disney has shifted its marketing, you end up with package promotions that don't give any deals, and fewer and fewer discounts.

Truth be told, I thought the French Quarter was gorgeous! It was lovely! But for exterior corridors, cement walls, and a food court, I expect to pay a LOT less than $160/night in the middle of January, when it's deader than dead. And that's why I was so displeased.

And, quite frankly, the Grand Floridian has always confused me. I don't understand WHY it's so expensive. I don't care that it has a spa, and tons of restaurants. You have to pay extra for those! There is nothing I can see at that resort that would entice me to ever pay more than $160-$200 per night. But hey, that's just me! :)

[Peter Pirate]

Sorry Dan, but you sound like my old friend Landbaron to me and on this issue he not only has never made any sense, he was just wrong!:hyper:

A perfect example of this take has them constantly wailing about the Swan and Dolphin ruining Epcot's sightlines...Because they're "out of place"...Out of place? At Epcot? Isn't this the place that with one 360 degree turn you can see a Mexican pyramid, Japenese buildings, the Eifel Tower, a Canadian Mountain, An English street scene, a giant golf ball and a lake full of pyrotechnic equipment? How does a giant fish or bird way off in the distance negatively impact the schematic of that?

With the Resorts, some folks have the opinion that the Poly & Contemporary were a great value back in the day when I think it has been proven not to be the case. Further, some folks just want to be the arbitor of what Disney Magic means for all folks. As I recall Landbaron once called Pop Century generic but could never tell me where he had previously seen a hotel with a giant cell phone or goofy words before.:o Also, it seems fine to me that Disney try to employ magical standards to folks at all ends of the socioeconomic ladder, not only for economic reasons but for the social ones as well. I know there are MANY people uncomfortable with doormen, bellhops, tipping and fancy lobby's...Should these folks be excluded from staying at a magically themed Disney Resort because they come from a background where tipping for small assistances is not a part of their 'comfort zone?'

As for the Resort rate schedule, now this is just a two part scenerio, supply & demand for the company and what can be afforded by the guest...

pirate:

[DVC-Landbaron]

Sir Galahad:
It was a failure, but we loved it! I think in this case he failed by over estimating his guests, not by having a "bad" idea.
If it failed because the concept was flawed or it failed because he overestimated his guests, doesn’t really matter in the end. What matters is that it failed. And failed miserably!! Inherently – THAT – makes it a “BAD” idea!! Surely you can see that!

Mr. 2000
In fact, Tishman was suing them at the time because they thought they had an agreement…Yes. I know all that. He inherited the lawsuit and even the settlement. My question for AV was more toward the location. I believe I had heard (but I can’t swear to it) that Ei$ner chose the location as well as the architect. I think AV corroborated this some time ago. If that is true, he should have lost his job way back then for sheer stupidity!!



SnackyStacky
And as for the economies (I like how you refuse to call them values)They aren’t “values”. They are overpriced and over-decorated motel sixes. There’s nothing ‘value’ about them, except perhaps being the ‘cheapest’ on the property. Cheapest in cost. Cheapest in concept. Cheapest in theme. Cheapest in “Disney-Touch”. Cheapest in “MAGIC”. Cheapest in… Well, I think you get it.

It was at the French Quarter, and for what I payed, I was NOT pleased. ~$160 for what I got was NOT acceptable.See! Cost ratio. Paying for magic. It IS part of the equation. Now, of course, you can carry this out to the point of absurdity, and there is a point of diminishing returns, but…

Suppose you could get the same room for $80.00 a night. Does it then become a ‘VALUE”? And does that add a little ‘magic’? Or on the other hand, suppose the same price, but for Poly like accommodations. How’s that for a ‘VALUE’ resort? Pretty much magic in that equation isn’t there?

And that is what Disney is sadly lacking these days.

Believe it or not, the Poly and the Contemporay started their existence as “VALUE” resorts!! And my God!! They were!!! Today, unfortunately, they are “nice” resorts, even if they are a bit overpriced.

And that is part of the answer to Mr. 2000 on what separtes the Poly and the Contemporary from the rest of the resorts. The other things are items that could be called “Disney Resorts Standards”. Things that sometimes could be found at any hotel in the country and other things that were truly unique. And even some things that other resorts typically offered that you couldn’t get in Disney for all the money in the world!! Care of story. Theme NOT decorations. The list is endless, but maybe you can see the difference now. If not, ask. I’ll gladly discuss it. It is one of my favorite Disney subjects!!

Mr. Pirate!!
With the Resorts, some folks have the opinion that the Poly & Contemporary were a great value back in the day when I think it has been proven not to be the case.I hate to be so blunt but, THAT IS A LIE!! Ask Mr. Kidds. He KNOWS. He will back me up!

[wtg2000]

Theme NOT decorations. The list is endless, but maybe you can see the difference now. If not, ask. I?l gladly discuss it. It is one of my favorite Disney subjects!! I must admit, I am a little fuzzy on where you're going, but I find it interesting. Please explain further.

[SnackyStacky]

Originally posted by Peter Pirate
A perfect example of this take has them constantly wailing about the Swan and Dolphin ruining Epcot's sightlines...Because they're "out of place"...Out of place? At Epcot? Isn't this the place that with one 360 degree turn you can see a Mexican pyramid, Japenese buildings, the Eifel Tower, a Canadian Mountain, An English street scene, a giant golf ball and a lake full of pyrotechnic equipment? How does a giant fish or bird way off in the distance negatively impact the schematic of that?

I made no mention of the Epcot resorts. I personally find that they really don't work well within the "world" concept they have going, but that's my personal opinion. I don't think they ruin sightlines.

With the Resorts, some folks have the opinion that the Poly & Contemporary were a great value back in the day when I think it has been proven not to be the case. Further, some folks just want to be the arbitor of what Disney Magic means for all folks.

I'm not trying to be any kind of arbitor of Disney Magic. If someone finds magic at the moderates and economies, more power to them. Monotony is very boring.

As I recall Landbaron once called Pop Century generic but could never tell me where he had previously seen a hotel with a giant cell phone or goofy words before.:o

Since when did themeing come from what we find at Disneyland to a generic term thrown about to mean any group of décor that supposedly ties together? I don't buy your argument here. A giant cell phone and goofy words do not a Disney resort make.

Also, it seems fine to me that Disney try to employ magical standards to folks at all ends of the socioeconomic ladder, not only for economic reasons but for the social ones as well. I know there are MANY people uncomfortable with doormen, bellhops, tipping and fancy lobby's...Should these folks be excluded from staying at a magically themed Disney Resort because they come from a background where tipping for small assistances is not a part of their 'comfort zone?'

Once again, I don't buy your argument. Didn't Walt say "Give the people everything you can give them." ? If Pop Century is all that Disney can give people that are lower on the socioeconomic ladder, it's a pretty lame effort. And I'm an equal opportunity basher. The All Stars are also a pretty banal effort. I can understand you can't expect room service, bellhops, and valet parking, but when it comes to a cohesive theme that immerses you in another time and place, the All Stars and Pop Century fall WAY short as far as I'm concerned. And that's the pinnacle of a Disney theme park/resort experience. Cut the other services if you have to in order to cut cost, but don't skimp on the theme.

As for the Resort rate schedule, now this is just a two part scenerio, supply & demand for the company and what can be afforded by the guest...

And apparently the demand is quite down. Hasn't much affected the prices. Cha-ching, cha-ching, let that cash register RING!

[airlarry!]

Mr. Pirate:

I thought about you last week in Epcot, when I was walking with my family (who are not Disney 'geeks' like me -- that's what they call me of course) and as we looked out over the lake and could see the Swan and That Fish That Is Called a Dolphin, a bunch of them said (without me saying a word)...

"Now why would Disney put those hotels there...that just ruins the view."

And then my brother spoke up and said, "Yeah, the last time I came, I noticed that the hotels take the size perspective out of it. The Eiffel Tower doesn't look so big anymore cause there's this giant Swan sticking out the side."

Hmm....

And these are people that have never heard of a Land Baron.

[Peter Pirate]

Larry...Fair enough.
pirate:

[Another Voice]

Best line ever about it –

"It's not a dolphin.

It is a carp that has been dropped from a great height."

[King Triton]

Michael Eisner destroyed Epcot by removing Horizons, the original imagination ride and World of Motion. Epcot lost it's imagination and charm. That is one of many bad choices Michael made. Michael lost Walt's vision and lacks imagination. I agree with Roy 100%.


:happy1:

[TravelinGal]

Originally posted by airlarry!
... and That Fish That Is Called a Dolphin...

Just a side note - that IS a dolphin - or dolphin fish at least... it is what is commonly known as Mahi-Mahi -

Mahi-mahi is a Hawaiian word that means "strong-strong" for dolphin fish. This species is found in tropical and subtropical waters throughout the world.

Dolphin fish are not to be confused with porpoises, which at times are also called dolphin. Dolphin fish (mahi-mahi) are cold-blooded members of the fish family, while porpoises are mammals and are protected by law. The mahi-mahi is a beautiful fish also known as "dorado". The fish has green and gold flanks that light up with a rainbow of iridescent colors that fade with time. Many retailers will display whole mahi-mahi because they are so striking and to help dispel the myth that they are related to Flipper.


Here is an image of one - still kind of a stretch from what they have perched on top of the Dolphin, but...
http://www.landbigfish.com/images/fish/ACF149B.jpg

I've personally never noticed them when at EPCOT, but I'm sure I will notice them now. Sometimes ignorance IS bliss. ;)

RE: the Grand Floridian - I think that, although highly overpriced, it has a very classic Disney charm. If I had that kind of money, I'd stay there in a heartbeat! I love the turn of the century theme - everything is so graceful there. I did not know that was a ME creation though.

It seems that ME has done quite a bit right - but he has also really messed up some things. Sounds like he's - oh, say....human? I certainly won't be casting the first stone! :rolleyes:

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by King Triton
Michael Eisner destroyed Epcot by removing Horizons, the original imagination ride and World of Motion. Epcot lost it's imagination and charm. That is one of many bad choices Michael made. Michael lost Walt's vision and lacks imagination. I agree with Roy 100%.

:happy1:
I'll agree with you on the original Imagination ride, but not on the other two. World of Motion was fun and all, but really needed a change. I much prefer Test Track. Horizons was a favorite, but I'd have opted to put it into Tomorrowland, where they explore "the tomorrow of yesterday." There, it would have been at home. Mission : Space is a better fit, IMO, and it inches Future World closer to that edginess that they told us would be there. If they turned M:S into a full-out space pavilion, that would be even better.

:earsboy:

[Planogirl]

All right, another round of the resort discussion! I still stand firmly on the side of Port Orleans Riverside but that's just me. :crazy:

As for accomplishments, what about the Broadway shows? Where do they stack up?

[SnackyStacky]

As for accomplishments, what about the Broadway shows? Where do they stack up?

I'd have to say that they're definitely something that has been a wonderful thing for the Disney company.

I think that their Broadway division is in far better creative shape than any other division of the company. Beauty and the Beast is in it's...what? 9th year on Broadway? With Cats gone, I'd have to say that Disney now has a stronghold on the family audience for New York. Bringing in Julie Taymor for the Lion King was a stroke of sheer brilliance! (Although, visuals aside, they really need a lot more work on the book....it just doesn't work using the movie script almost verbatim...it gets boring, but that's just my opinion) And they branched out and created a production that is not based on a previously animated film.

It seems that ME has done quite a bit right - but he has also really messed up some things. Sounds like he's - oh, say....human? I certainly won't be casting the first stone!

The company was originally founded not to be a money-making machine, but as Walt's creative outlet. And even as the company grew and grew, he continued to insist upon the highest level of quality, both creatively, and in any final product.

That's what Roy was for. He took care of the bottom line, and Walt took care of the creative end.

Any good doing that Eisner has done was done when Wells was around. When he died, that's, in my opinon, when the company began to take a downward turn.

[All Aboard]

Landbaron,

First, I believe this is the first time in about a year that I have directed a post at you. Boy, how things have changed, eh?

$80, $160, whatever the maximum average rate that delivers the most total revenue is what Disney SHOULD be charging for their resorts. Under- or overpricing resorts (for the sake of adding or subtracting "Magic") just plain isn't part of the calculation.

As Pirate wrote, it's simply a matter of microeconomics - as it is with just about any pricing / supply decision.

I've asked you this before, and I know the response. You'd prefer a scenario that has fewer resorts, all deluxe in the Contemp/Poly ilk, priced at the CPI (not entertainment or accomodation CPI, just the general marketbasket CPI) equivalent of 1970's prices.

As we already know, that would create "pent-up" demand for the resorts out the wazzou. Help me understand why that makes for good economic decision making? Disney, essentially writing checks on a daily basis to the Days Inns and Marriotts of the world. Here, we don't want to earn it, you take it.

And, just to crack open the whole "What makes it a "Disney" resort argument." Tell me again why the Grand Floridian isn't "Disney", yet that nice looking retirement village / apartment complex themed nothing like the real Key West is?

[wtg2000]

One could argue that AS and PC are the only Disney resorts that are "Disney." The other resorts - WL, AKL, GF, Poly, YC/BC, etc. are just transplanted ideas - they exist somewhere else whether in the northwest or on a beach in San Diego. There's nothing distinctly Disney about them. Whereas the AS and PC, with giant replicas of Roger Rabbit and 101 Dalmations are unique and very Disney-ish. Where else can you experience giant Mickey's or walkmans? But you can experience something akin to the AKL if you went to Kenya.

The argument of course is not the choice of theme but the way in which the theme is carried out that makes it "Disney". As an uncultured wishing-to-be cultured adult I appreciate the premium hotels I've mentioned above, but if I were still a kid I would love the AS or PC. I think there's room for both.

[Another Voice]

"Whereas the AS and PC, with giant replicas of Roger Rabbit and 101 Dalmations are unique and very Disney-ish"

So if I take a brown cardboard box and write "Mickey Mouse" on it - that makes it Disney? The box suddenly becomes filled with all the magic®, joy®, and wonderment® that Disney® magically gathers®?

As much as the marketeers of the world would love for that to be true (and as much as it's Disney's only visible business plan) - putting a brand sticker on something doesn't "make" it anything.

The core concept of all things Disney - real Disney - is to use storytelling techniques to produce an emotional experience. That's the key difference between a Disney park and an amusement park. The old rides provided only a quick thrill; Disney attractions were mini-stories that thrilled the imagination.

That difference was carried over to the original WDW resorts as well. They were intentionally modeled on the lands of the Magic Kingdom and were meant to create the same kind of experience. Wandering through Tomorrowland felt like being in the future for a few hours; staying at the Contemporary was like being in the future for a few days. By using the techniques of stagecraft, movement through a scene and playing off people's preconceptions Disney was able to create resorts that offered a movie-like experience in real-life.

The All Stars/Pop Century aren't Disney because they lack the required number of Disney® stickers, they aren't because they attempt to be nothing more than well decorated motels. There is no storytelling, no set craft, no movie there. It's a Motel 6 with crimes against fiberglass.

It's not about money either. Port Orleans & Dixie Landings are very much in the "storytelling" mode and do impart a feeling of a river journey through the old South. The Grand Floridian, however, is crushed under the weight, size and density of its buildings and destroys a real sense of Victorian splendor and charm. It comes off as a "nice hotel" rather than "the Vanderbilts will be arriving by private rail coach at tea time". It's all because of storytelling.

Disney is a style, a technique and an attitude. It is not just a collection of copyrighted intellectual property.

[DC7800]

Originally posted by Another Voice
It's a Motel 6 with crimes against fiberglass.

Thanks AV. What a catchy way of so accurately describing these resorts. And absolutely right, of course.

[wtg2000]

It's a Motel 6 with crimes against fiberglass. How else do you construct a giant Pluto or whatever if not with fiberglass?! :)

So I guess we're arguing that Disney should not have built motels for this price target, or are we arguing that they should have made them better and with a greater eye to storytelling? I think it would be hard to sell a hotel with a giant Pluto as a deluxe even if Pluto had been sculpted by Michelangelo. Conversely, a budget hotel themed to a yacht club would seem incongruous. Perhaps the AS and PC are reflective of Fantasyland (as GF is to Main Street, Poly to Adventureland, Ft. W and WL to Frontierland, and Cont. to Tomorrowland). I bet Dumbo's made of fiberglass.

Most of the reviews I've read of the Pop Century are positive and many people seem to like the AS - for the price perhaps as much as any other factor. For me, they are to hotels what the Aladdin spinner is to theme park attractions. Someone argued to me recently that Aladdin was a very Disney-ish attraction that told a story. I don't see it at all.

The PC and AS are meant to jolt kids the way a toy store does. It's eye candy. They may not be what we'd like Disney to be, Disney as first-rate storyteller, but they are what Disney often is - assembly line trinkets, spinner rides and straight-to-video movies. There seems to be a market, and as that movie once said, "build it and they will come..."

[*Robin*]

Originally posted by wtg2000


The PC and AS are meant to jolt kids the way a toy store does. It's eye candy. They may not be what we'd like Disney to be, Disney as first-rate storyteller, but they are what Disney often is - assembly line trinkets, spinner rides and straight-to-video movies. There seems to be a market, and as that movie once said, "build it and they will come..." [/B]

I'd say jolt yes, but eye candy?

....well, are you considering those nasty candy covered crickets in the candy department?

I wish I could get excited about these places...

AV, I will forever more use and credit you with the line "It's a Motel 6 with crimes against fiberglass." So absolutely perfect.

We will be down there very soon and I'll see it for myself, but from what I can tell, it's so very sad for the resorts to have gone this way...

[Another Voice]

"…but they are what Disney often is - assembly line trinkets, spinner rides and straight-to-video movies"

And such is the tragedy of the last decade.

I'm of the opinion, however, that real Disney is not at the whims of a creativity-free, naked-emperor CEO's attempts to personally enrich himself by strip mining a company and turning it into a market gimmick.

Real Disney is not Disney®.

The Real Disney approach to the value hotels would have been "what's the best we can do for the resources we have". That was the traditional approach to everything in the theme parks - and look what was accomplished at Port Orleans/Dixie Landings using that method. The Disney® approach was "we're losing market share to International Drive and I don't want to compete on price - throw something together and brand the sucker so we can charge a premium and gouge the WalMart tourists".

The Polynesian is a Disney resort; the All Stars is a motel that happens to be owned by The Walt Disney Company.

Creativity and imagination are not dependent only on the money spent. Talent and effort can overcome a lack of funding, although sometimes an idea does require resources to become a reality.

'Aladdin' is a case in point. The concept is a good one - "take a ride on the Magic Carpet". It's a perfectly valid story line. However, the idea was executed using fifty-year-old technology and thinking. Is twirling around in circles the best Disney could do with a flying rug? The attraction's poor execution negates what story appeal it had - much like a bad movie can ruin a perfectly good idea.

The worst attitude, however the whole idea that "build it and they will come..."

Pop Century sat empty for a year because they couldn't convince enough people to move off International Drive. California Adventure begs and pleads for guests even when admission costs nothing. George of the Jungle 2 sits collecting dust on shelves right next to all those unsold copies of Treasure Planet.

There is nothing magic® about the Disney name.

Unless the company remembers that a brand name must be backed up by quality, Disney will join Pan Am, FAO Schwartz and other "great" brand names in the trash heap.


P.S. In the original master plan the Polynesian and the Asian represented Adventureland, the Contemporary was Tomorrowland, Ft. Wilderness was Fronteirland and the Persian was Fantasyland (as in '1001 Arabian Nights').

[crusader]

Originally posted by Another Voice
So if I take a brown cardboard box and write "Mickey Mouse" on it - that makes it Disney? The box suddenly becomes filled with all the magic®, joy®, and wonderment® that Disney® magically gathers®?

As much as the marketeers of the world would love for that to be true (and as much as it's Disney's only visible business plan) - putting a brand sticker on something doesn't "make" it anything.



This sounds great but it really misses the mark.

magic&reg - is a clever way to dismiss the quality aspect of a brand by applying it exclusively to the lower company offerings.

What you continually fail to mention is that there exists an enormous demographic of individuals who simply cannot afford anything beyond this tier.

The AS resorts exist for their benefit. They are given clean reliable accomodations at a very affordable price along with the opportunity to be on Disney property. By "slapping" the Disney sticker on it, the customer is granted assurance by the company that their room meets a standard which far outweighs other options within their budget.

The pool and transportation are a bonus.


Mr. Baron:

The Poly and Contemporary were values in their day?

I think not.

Otherwise I wouldn't have had to camp for all those years!

They were the "expensive" resorts reserved for the upper middle class families with 1.5 children - a small statistic for the times.

[DVC-Landbaron]

It's a Motel 6 with crimes against fiberglass.
Well! How can anyone possibly top that!!!

Sadly, you can’t! But what the heck… Greg asked me a direct question, so…

Landbaron,

First, I believe this is the first time in about a year that I have directed a post at you. Boy, how things have changed, eh?
Hi-a Greg!! It’s about time! Slow at work? Or has the urge to debate suddenly bitten you yet once again?

It kind of left me, but for old time’s sake…

$80, $160, whatever the maximum average rate that delivers the most total revenue is what Disney SHOULD be charging for their resorts.
Then kindly explain 32 bucks a night for the Poly in 1975 (I think it was ’75 at least). And…

Do you not think that price is part of the magic equation? I wish I had that much money!! But for me, the affordability of Disney was always part of the package. I never said it wasn’t slightly more expensive than most, but not outrageously so. It was definitely “middle-class’ affordable. Both the theme parks and the resorts. That, to me at least, was “MAGIC”!!!

As we already know, that would create "pent-up" demand for the resorts out the wazzou.
So? Learn to plan!! I never had any trouble, even in the most crowded of times, getting a reservation when Disney had only the MK! Yeah, you’d have to book two years out sometimes, but it was definitely worth it!!

And I really think it’s WAY better than leaving a resort empty or slashing prices with gimmicky “SPECIAL’ offers. It makes it sound cheap! And it smacks of ‘sharp-pencil-practices’.

Help me understand why that makes for good economic decision making?
I never said it was! It is a “MAGICAL” decision. That is the difference!!

Tell me again why the Grand Floridian isn't "Disney"
To tell you the truth, I really didn’t have the words formulated when I first read your question. I KNOW it! I feel it. But I really have a hard time articulating it. That is until AV said it for me!! Remember? The Grand Floridian, however, is crushed under the weight, size and density of its buildings and destroys a real sense of Victorian splendor and charm. It comes off as a "nice hotel" rather than "the Vanderbilts will be arriving by private rail coach at tea time". It's all because of storytelling. I would also add that it tries too hard. It is NOT relaxed. It is NOT comfortable. It IS stuffy. It IS pretentious. Again, they (He) tried to hard to become a five star resort (and missed the mark anyway). Disney was never about the “five-star” treatment. It was about elegance, story and theme. It was about sparing no expense, but not necessarily passing that expense on to the guest. It is NOT about opulence. Again, that is the difference!! (and after talking to you, I think you know it too!!)

yet that nice looking retirement village / apartment complex themed nothing like the real Key West is?
It isn’t either. But in a world of evils, it is the “lesser of”. In other words, it is more like Disney than the other offerings (with the exception of Riverside perhaps). And the price is right, if you own. (Funny how that price=magic equation rears its ugly head again!)


Mr. Baron:

The Poly and Contemporary were values in their day?

I think not.

Otherwise I wouldn't have had to camp for all those years!

They were the "expensive" resorts reserved for the upper middle class families with 1.5 children - a small statistic for the times. I think not, Mr. Crusader!! We’ve been down this road before. It was not “cheap” by any means. But it was nowhere near what it is today!! It was, in fact, very affordable. Hope has the numbers. Maybe she’ll post!

[Planogirl]

The idea that a resort being on property means so much has always interested me. What if the Allstars and PC were off property? Would they still be better than all of the other budget establishments in the area?

Or if Holiday Inn suddenly came to an agreement with Disney and built a typical Holiday Inn establishment right next to PC? How would that be to the smitten Disney fan?

In my opinion, AS and PC will only continue to lure a lot of Disney fans while those fans continue to exist. Being onsite is of utmost importance according to many people and not the resort itself.

[All Aboard]

Then kindly explain 32 bucks a night for the Poly in 1975 (I think it was ’75 at least). Sure. Disney was leaving money on the table, gobs of it in fact. Fast forward to 1982. Two huge theme parks and the business plan of the day called for the resort capacity they had at the low prices they were charging?? No wonder they ushered Miller and Walker out the door as they did.

[Another Voice]

"They are given clean reliable accommodations at a very affordable price along with the opportunity to be on Disney property."

You make it sound as if the All Stars were created as a charity for the teeming masses huddled in the cold rain outside the gates of WDW. How nice for the company to spend so much on alms for the retched poor.

One thinks not.

Magic® is when the company tries to pass off substandard work at premium prices. It's an attempt to con the public into saying "this is the Disney you remember" but giving them products that fall well, well short of those expectations.

As Ms. Planogirl suggests – put Pop Century on the Universal property and you'd be the screeching about its tackiness until you passed out. The only difference – "bonus" pool and all – would be the brand sticker stuck on it. By the same thought, transplant their Portofino Hotel to WDW property and you’d be screaming the high praises another brilliant Eisner hotel.

Disney® fails when it's relegated to nothing but a marketing gimmick – "granted assurance by the company that their room meets a standard which far outweighs other options within their budget" is an insult to everyone that tries hard to create something (which is what Disney used to do).

[crusader]

Originally posted by Another Voice
Magic® is when the company tries to pass off substandard work at premium prices. It's an attempt to con the public into saying "this is the Disney you remember" but giving them products that fall well, well short of those expectations.

Well if that is your implication, it certainly wasn't the context used within your previous post.

The Value resorts were being categorized as "non-Disney" cardboard boxes with stickers and magic&reg stamped all over them.

I would like to know how they are considered substandard work at premium prices? Last time I checked their prices were pretty darned economical. Is there some heavy philosophical inference I'm missing?


Disney® fails when it's relegated to nothing but a marketing gimmick – "granted assurance by the company that their room meets a standard which far outweighs other options within their budget" is an insult to everyone that tries hard to create something (which is what Disney used to do).
It is not an insult to develop and offer affordable on-site accomodations.

It is an insult to exclude guests by outpricing them simply because some design artist feels that all Disney construction projects mandate the properties be fully staffed or expensively ornate enough to meet that "quality" standard of excellence achieved with other product offerings.

[Michael623]

Wow, I'm feeling a lot less guilt about my post slamming Samantha Brown. I personally don't see a huge difference, other than price, between the Moderates and the all stars. I think CBR is still a glorified Motel 6 but with less fiberglass. Does having a sit down Restaurant justify the price difference or am I missing something? I also have to be up front and admit that I have never stayed at the All-Stars.

[SnackyStacky]

Magic® is when the company tries to pass off substandard work at premium prices. It's an attempt to con the public into saying "this is the Disney you remember" but giving them products that fall well, well short of those expectations.

Well if that is your implication, it certainly wasn't the context used within your previous post.

The Value resorts were being categorized as "non-Disney" cardboard boxes with stickers and magic® stamped all over them.

I would like to know how they are considered substandard work at premium prices? Last time I checked their prices were pretty darned economical. Is there some heavy philosophical inference I'm missing?

The things in bold aren't essentially the same idea phrased in two different ways?

Perhaps in the Disney scheme of pricing, $77 a night for what they give is economical. But off property, you can get a fully equipped suite. (That's right....not a 280 square foot room, but a SUITE....) That's not economy.

It is not an insult to develop and offer affordable on-site accomodations.

As long as those accomodations are done well. And I'm not entirely sure that they are done well. There's a not-so-fine line drawn between theming and a story. The deluxes have both. The All Stars barely have a theme.

[DisDuck]

Good to see my old friends, the Baron & the Pirate are at it again. I go away, come back, go away again and come back. Nothing changes.

I have stayed at AS, Coronado, Contemp and Off-site. My family has agreed that if we are not going to pay alot for accomodations then AS onsite is preferable over any off-site.

So I find nothing wrong with building for a specific market. Disney is in the business to make money. Why should they give up an economic segment to the 192 corridor.

On the other hand, maybe it is time for Eisner to look elsewhere but the world turns to the same old argument. Who is to replace him? Maybe with the economy turning money will be spent on projects long on the shelf and suddenly it will be 1980's again and singing the praises of Eisner. Who knows? Should we consult the crystal ball in the Haunted Mansion?

A note to Baron, Pirate, etc whom I have been 'debating' with for many years. In my last incarnation about 6 months or so ago, I was still out of work. Now glad to announce that I am back at work. But it has been only a few months so I will only be able to pop-in now and again.

Have a Happy New Year from the duck.

[DVC-Landbaron]

I just got home from work and checked the boards...

And lo & behold, what do I find?

MY FAVORITE DUCK!!!

HAPPY NEW YEAR Mr. DUCK!!

It's good to have you back!!



(I'll be back later with some more drivel about the resorts, but for now I just wanted to say hi to an old friend!)

[DVC-Landbaron]

Random thought #1:

No wonder they ushered Miller and Walker out the door as they did.
Now, I may be wrong, but somewhere in the back of my mind I wish they had stayed somehow. Their way of doing business may have been a bit stagnant at times, but I certainly would have preferred that quaint little road to the crumbling super-highway built by their predecessor. Wouldn't you? Or do you really like things the way they are now? Both brick and mortar and philosophical ideals!

[wtg2000]

Their way of doing business may have been a bit stagnant at times, but I certainly would have preferred that quaint little road to the crumbling super-highway built by their predecessor. The problem with that is that when Ron Miller was in charge, prior to Eisner taking over, plans were in the works for Marriott to build 20,000 hotel rooms on the property. Generic, non-themed hotels. Plans were also in the works for a water park - a plastic park bought from the same people who built WaterMania (or whatever it's called). There were also plans for industrial parks and housing developments.

Eisner scrapped the hotel deal and decided to build his own themed hotels. He insisted on a themed water park. He scrapped the industrial park and built D-MGM, AK, more golf courses, Pleasure Island, Blizzard Beach, etc.

And remember, it was the previous regime that built the non-themed Disney Village Resort, which Eisner apparently despised.

If the previous regime had stayed, it could have been much, much worse.

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by DVC-Landbaron
Random thought #1:


Now, I may be wrong, but somewhere in the back of my mind I wish they had stayed somehow. Their way of doing business may have been a bit stagnant at times, but I certainly would have preferred that quaint little road to the crumbling super-highway built by their predecessor. Wouldn't you? Or do you really like things the way they are now? Both brick and mortar and philosophical ideals!
You mean the crumbling super-highway built by their successor, don't you? Because ... well ... wasn't their predecessor Walt?

:earsboy:

[searlproudbottom]

I started reading this post because I really enjoyed reading all of your posts trashing the big cheese. Lets stay on topic shall we.

Searl Proudbottom

[WEDWAY100]

Originally posted by DisDuck
So I find nothing wrong with building for a specific market. Disney is in the business to make money. Why should they give up an economic segment to the 192 corridor.
I haven't seen anyone argue that Disney should ignore the low income market. What I have seen is that some of the posters think that PC and AS are not the best effort that Disney could have produced for the low income market. And I agree with that.

[wtg2000]

I haven't seen anyone argue that Disney should ignore the low income market. I think we need to be careful in classifying people as "low income" who stay at the PC or AS. There are many reasons people opt to stay in different categories of rooms. Maybe they have kids who love the theme. Maybe they're saving money for something else. Maybe they love the 70s! Any trip to Disney can be costly even staying at the PC or AS, so I wouldn't classify these guests as "low income."

This thread is getting a little too class conscious with someone referring to the 'Wal-Mart crowd'. I've heard of famous rich people who eat at McDonald's including a former president!

[Mr D]

I wonder what class is the folks that refuse to stay on-site but are spenders, like the ones that pay $100-200 a night to stay at a luxury vacation home?

Are we more prosperous nowadays? I average 40K a year and thats actually low compared to same jobs here in Alaska in the construction industry, I am literally paying as much per night in a vacation home as I would at the Grand Floridian.

But because I am so deadset to protest Eisner I will NEVER stay onsite at WDW.

I am leaving Alaska tonight and arriving in Orlando tommorow evening and I'l be staying at a really nice vacation rental home...
for FOUR weeks:wave:

And most like visit only Epcot (M;S) MK and possibly BB once, very minimal Disney this trip.

[DVC-Landbaron]

WDSearcher:
You mean the crumbling super-highway built by their successor, don't you? Because ... well ... wasn't their predecessor Walt? Yes!! Of course you’re right! That’s what I get for posting with only minutes between getting home from work and going out to a New Year’s Eve dinner!! SORRY!!

wtg2000
I think we need to be careful in classifying people as "low income" who stay at the PC or AS. I don’t think anyone is saying that specifically. I think it becomes easy shorthand because of the marketing and the price.

There are many reasons people opt to stay in different categories of rooms. Maybe they have kids who love the theme. Maybe they're saving money for something else. Maybe they love the 70s! Any trip to Disney can be costly even staying at the PC or AS, so I wouldn't classify these guests as "low income."
I am quite sure we all can agree with your take on this, however, by and large the main reason people stay there is price. The cost of the thing was utmost in the minds of the designers and the driving force behind the concept. So while, for a very select few, your postulation is no doubt true, for the vast majority it comes down to the cost of staying on Disney property.

The question is NOT what class of people stay there. Instead it is – should Disney be dabbling in that price range?

I say – NO!!!

[DisneyKidds]

Ask Mr. Kidds. He KNOWS. He will back me up!
I wouldn't bank on that my good Baron. I'm not going to get caught up again in rack vs. discount, whether the Poly had discounted back in the day, etc., etc., etc. I will only speak from personal experience. I have booked the Poly twice in the past year. Both times I paid less than the appropriately inflated 1972 Poly rate. So, I can only conclude that the Poly is an even better value to day than it was in 1972!!! And We're talking Baron-value ;). To be fair, rack rates today are in excess of inflated '72 rack rates, but who pays rack....................no need for that.

DisDuck......................welcome back. I know it may seem like things never change, but the DIS R&N Board is quite diffferent from the last time your ship headed out to sea. You just happened to pick an opportune time to come back.

[manning]

It was not “cheap” by any means. But it was nowhere near what it is today!! It was, in fact, very affordable. Hope has the numbers. Maybe she’ll post!

I can remember getting a lagoon view for $45 a night at the Poly. It may have been as low as $25 in '72, But I do definitely remember 45. I was making middle income wages at the time and didn't think twice about booking lagoon view. I showed today's rates to a relative in his 30's making much better than middle income wages and asked him if he would stay there. He said "you got to be crazy". And he is not a tight wad either.

[Another Voice]

"This thread is getting a little too class conscious with someone referring to the 'Wal-Mart crowd'."

That is a term many people have heard Michael Eisner use to describe theme park visitors. One the most infamous utterances was when he said California Adventure failed because the "WalMart shoppers don’t get it" – meaning the wonderful postmodern ironic delights found in the park. He had also described DCA as "finally a place" designed so that his "wife and her friends" could enjoy (implying that people of taste do not currently enjoy Disney theme parks).

The value resorts were not designed to give more people the "benefit of staying on property". They were not built as an "affordable alternative" to the other resorts. They were most definitely not built out of any sense of morals or obligation.

They exist because Eisner thought he could take more of your money.

[DVC-Landbaron]

Mr. Kidds.
To be fair, rack rates today are in excess of inflated '72 rack rates…
That is all that matters! Thanks for the back-up!!!

I can remember getting a lagoon view for $45 a night at the Poly. It may have been as low as $25 in '72, But I do definitely remember 45.
Absolutely!! Me too! It was a little high for a night’s stay at the time, but nowhere near the outrageous prices we have now! And after all, it was DISNEY!! Full Disney!! Not just huge icons painted with primary colors, but honest-to-goodness Dinsey style and theme!! WOW!!! What a VALUE!!!

I can’t understand why some people don’t see that!

[hopemax]

I see I am being paged. Numbers...

From the 1982 Birbaum's Guide to WDW:

$75 Garden/Woods (Golf Resort)
$85 Pool view (Poly, Golf Resort Only)
$95 Tower/Lagoon

Dutch Inn (now Grosvenor): $84 off-peak, $96 peak
Travelodge: (now ?) $76 off-peak, $88 peak
Royal Plaza: $80, $86 or $92 (only 1 season though)
HoJo's (now Courtyard by Marriot): $75-$85 off-peak, $85-$95 peak.

Using TIA's "other lodging" Travel Price Index if in 1982 you were paying ___ for your hotel it would approximately = ____ in early 2003:

$75 = $205
$85 = $230
$95 = $260

One point I would like to make is that "value" DOES NOT equal "affordable." Example: If you find a car with an MSEP of 120,000 at a dealership for $80,000 the dealership would have good VALUE although it's clearly not AFFORDABLE to most of us.

Do I think that the hotel rates pre-Eisner were good VALUE? YES
Do I think the hotel rates pre-Eisner were AFFORDABLE to the average non-Disney freak guest? NO

Do I think the All-stars and Pop Century are AFFORDABLE? YES
Do I think the ALL-Stars and Pop Century are good VALUE? NO
Do I think any of the WDW hotels are a good VALUE? NOT WITHOUT A GOOD DISCOUNT

What would I like to see Disney offer?

Hotels that are both a GOOD VALUE and AFFORDABLE and able to sustain a certain rate 365 days a year so that I as a guest don't have to play the "Guess the rate today" game which means lots of extra phone calls, rebooking and cancelling, lots of pieces of paper mailed around, possible lost reservations and all the other nonsense that happens now. It's easier for me, it's easier for Disney.

[KNWVIKING]

***"The question is NOT what class of people stay there. Instead it is – should Disney be dabbling in that price range? "***

A CM explained to me a few years ago that AS was built for the WWoS complex. There supposedly were tons of families going to WWoS for softball,baseball,soccer,etc tournaments who were staying off site because the Disney deluxe and mods were too expensive to stay at just to go watch your kid hit a ball. Fact or Fiction, I have no idea.

Baron: back in '72- or whatever date you posted- what was your weekly income then as compared to now ? Has rack rate far outrisen your income rate. My only point is that for the most part, over the years, price increases have pretty much stayed steady with incomes. In 1981, the shop labor rate for the dealership I work at was $13.00 per hour. Today it's $66.00. Guess what people said back in '81 ? Same thing they say today- "holy ***t, you're killing me".

[hopemax]

Has rack rate far outrisen your income rate.

Using department of labor statistics for average hourly wage in various sectors:

Ave hourly wage in 1982 / 2002 / In 1982 hours worked to afford $75-$95 rate at Poly / In 2002,hours worked to afford regular season rack rate at Poly ( $334-$420)

Construction: $11.32 / $18.81 / 6.6-8.4 hours/ 17.8-22.3 hours
Manufacturing: $8.49 / $15.55 / 8.8-11.5 / 21.5 - 27
Retail: $6.46 / $11.83 / 11.6-14.7 / 28.2-35.5
Education/Health Services: $7.19 / $15.52 / 10.4-13.2 / 21.5-27.1

Is this what you wanted?

[cristen]

I have also found this. It is a little older, but as you can see, our average Joe is not making much more than he was in the 70's.

"Most ordinary Americans have suffered stagnant or declining
incomes and wages for at least two decades. In 1972, the U.S.
median family income was $38,760 in 1993 dollars. In 1992, the
median family income had slipped to $38,266 in 1993 dollars. The
U.S. median individual income has fallen from the 1968 level of
$15,782 in 1993 dollars, to the 1992 level of $15,629 in 1993
dollars. The average hourly wage for a production and non-
supervisory worker in 1973 was $11.37 in 1991 dollars. By 1991,
the average hourly wage had fallen to $10.34 per hour in 1991
dollars. For males, in 1963, the median income was $21,492 in
1993 dollars. In 1993, median male income had dropped to $21,470
in 1993 dollars. There has been no growth in median male income
in the last 30 years, making this the first generation of sons in
the history of America who earn less than their fathers did."

[wtg2000]

Numbers are interesting but comparisons to past years don't always tell the story.

To stay at this hotel in Jamaica my friend and I stayed at a few years back would cost $5,500 Canadian for the two of us for a week. That's probably $4,000 U.S. We can stay at Disney for less, including airfare and food (as the Jamaica package includes). The Jam hotel is okay, four-stars, but not as nice as say the AKL or WL (which we just booked for March for $189 per night). It doesn't even include unlimited golf anymore as it once did. So if Disney hotels were a lot cheaper as people are suggesting, the value would be out of whack.

Even at $400 per night for say the Poly, that would be $2,800 for the week for two. Say $500 for flights. That leaves $2,200 for food and recreation to match the $5,500. I'd say the value of the Jamaican place doesn't match Disney.

Value is what people feel they get out of a product. Judging from the number of people willing to stay at Disney and pay those prices indicates they find value in the outlay.

[SCDizFan]

Good lord! I can afford to pay $500 in season peak rates for a club room at one of the better resorts on property but will I? Heck no, I'm not insane.

I'm going to pay the discounted rate of $49 to stay at one of the All Stars. Do I think they are a great value? Yes.

I get Disney 24/7, I can park my car upon arrival not getting back into it until I leave, stay on property, and see the happiness on my husbands face on being in Disney.

[DVC-Landbaron]

I get Disney 24/7
I don’t mean to be contrary, but what type of Disney is it? I mean the type you’re getting 24/7? Other than a rather smelly and sometimes infrequent bus, what else do you get in your “Disney 24/7”?

[SCDizFan]

I have not encounted smelly nor infrequent buses.

What I mean by Disney 24/7 is Disney all the time. That is what I get when I stay on property. If I'm going to Disney, I'm staying on property and unless someone else is paying, I'm staying at the All Stars. I think they provide excellent value for money.

[KNWVIKING]

.... but statistics weren't exactly what I was thinking about. Back in '81, it would have been impossible for me to afford a nite at the Poly at $75.00. However, 23 years later, the $334.00 is very do-able, (and understand, DW and I have simple blue collar jobs in one of the poorer counties in South Jersey). Statistical annual inflation rates don't tell the whole story all the time.

Maybe I'm looking at this all wrong, but for what Poly is offering in the location it is offering it, todays price does not seem unreasonable or of less value then in the past.

[DVC-Landbaron]

What I mean by Disney 24/7 is Disney all the time Well… That doesn’t quite answer the question, does it? I mean it restates your position about “Disney 24/7” or “Disney all the time”, but it really doesn’t further it. I’m trying to find out what makes it Disney. Specifically. Is it the view? Is it the theme? Is it the amenities? Is it the… Well… Just what it is that makes it “Disney”?

I think they provide excellent value for money. Again, such as? I mean what do you get that cannot be gotten from the hotel down the street that doesn’t happen to be on Disney property?

I don’t mean to be obtuse. I really want to know, because I’ve never seen the difference. I KNOW the difference between the best the outside world has to offer and the Poly. I KNOW and can articulate if I’m forced to just what that difference is. I can even do that with Riverside (although I may have to stretch a point to get my argument across). But I have never seen it with the All-Stars. And it becomes more puzzling to me in Pop Century. So, maybe you can clear it up for me. Just what is the difference!?

[KNWVIKING]

I have never stayed at the Poly but have visited the resort many times. I think it is a great,unique resort. I'm going to assume that it is just as great today as it was for you back in the '70's. So it seems to me that two things have changed since then. One, the price and as I've esplained previously I don't believe it to be unreasonable. Second, and probably more important, is that the quality of the off property resorts have increased tremendously. Yes I can stay at an off property resort that comparing bricks, boards, pools and landscaping match up very well with the Poly, for less money. BUT.... IMO, there is no comparison between off property and on. That's where the Poly is worth the extra.

[BibbidyBobbidyBoo]

I'm not sure how *I* stand on the resorts- I haven't stayed at all of them. I can't even speak of the past- because although I wanted to go to WDW for practically my entire life- my first trip was Christmas 2002.

But for the sake of example- let's look at where I've stayed and why.

Our first trip we stayed offsite- it was cheaper and spur of the moment and I really did not know what all staying onsite included, plus I'd never been before to know that staying onsite was any different in ANY way than staying offsite. We stayed in a 2 story condo for about $129 a night (2br, 2 bath, full kitchen, washer/dryer, the works.

2nd trip was solo- I'd since found this board and many other websites about Disney and wanted to stay onsite. Where did I stay? ASMu- why? Because it was a solo trip and I wanted cheapest onsite. I used AP discount -and it seemed worth the price to me.

3rd trip was solo again- and the trip was a little Disney, MNNSHP, and many nights at US/IOA for halloween nights- I stayed offsite trying to go cheaper... big mistake. Cost me more in taxi's than it would have to rent a car- and if I'd stayed onsite at Disney and used their transportation for all the things I did at Disney.

4th trip was with family- we stayed at ASSp because we could make our trip longer (12 nights) and mostly for the KIDS. Son was thrilled with touchdown building with football field right outside our 1st floor room... kids loved the "crimes against fiberglass" (as it was described) We also had to make a trip to ASMo because they had to see the "crimes against fiberglass" there also.

Our next trip? It will be a short 2-3 night stay at WDW before the cruise on DCL. We'll be staying at GF- probably concierge... mostly for myself. I just want to stay there- I've seen it, ate there, went to the spa, etc- and I want to stay there.... but it's expensive- so we'll only stay there on such a short trip to WDW. What does that say about me?

I can also sit here and say that we will most likely have our next trip after that- where? At Pop Century... it will be another longer trip and we prefer to spend the extra money saved on enjoying ourselves the entire trip. We're not rich- so staying at a more expensive resort would limit our budget BIGTIME for everything else (food, activities, etc.)

I think I would also like to stay at BC- mostly because we like the short walk to Epcot, Beaches & cream- and the kids would love stormalong bay. I can see us someday staying at Poly (but not contemporary) and maybe POR.

But so far we've either stayed offsite, or onsite at the very resorts that are considered "not-Disney". And the only ones that interest me in the future are either considered "not-Disney" or Poly... I wonder what that means... anyone care to analyze that? LOL

[SCDizFan]

I will explain Disney 24/7 to you as it applies to me.

Firstly, anytime I get a hotel room for under $50 anywhere, that is excellent. I know that it costs Disney at least $18 to turn that room (labor, electricity, security, etc).

The All Stars are an excellent value. When I stay at a Disney property, there is a certain 'feel' of being in Disneyworld. The piped in music, the decor, the CMs, the food (excellent yet expensive), the merchandise, the service, Mickey Mouse ears covering everything, and so on. That 'Disney feel' has a price and therefore adds value to my stay. So on top of getting my accommodations, in addition, I get the 'Disney Magic.

Try staying onsight at Universal and you will see the difference. Universal does rides but Disney does the magic.

When you stay on Disney property, you get transportation provided. You don't need a car. Some may argue that it is slow, smelly, whatever, it is still provided for free. Deduct the cost of renting a car and now the savings are really going up.

So now for $49 dollars a night, I'm getting cheap accommodations, the Disney magic, and free transportation.

If you still can't get what I'm talking about maybe it's time for a return trip?

[SCDizFan]

I don't think you are being obtuse. I understand what you are asking.

I don't understand the reference to Disney accommodations being non-Disney. Would someone explain that to me?

[DisneyKidds]

That is all that matters!
Nope.
$85 = $230
That is all that matters. You don't have to work any harder today to get the Poly for less than the pre-Eisner inflated rate than you had to work back in the day to plan your trips two years in advance just to get a room.

Rack rates........................we don't need no stinking rack rates ;).

Yeah, yeah, yeah.....................but you can't always get a discount and they never needed discounts back in the day.

Well, no............................since 1991 we've stayed in all the deluxe hotels and never paid more than $199 a night. We also never resolved whether or not there were discounts back in the day. I think Hope's archives may have indicated they did..............................

Ultimately the World isn't that different than it was back in the day. With a bit of work and advance planning you can plan a somewhat expensive vacation that provides great value at one of the premier destinations on the planet.

[DVC-Landbaron]

I don't understand the reference to Disney accommodations being non-Disney. Would someone explain that to me?
I think I may be able to shed some light on this one. The response to your fourth quote might answer a part of it.

Firstly, anytime I get a hotel room for under $50 anywhere, that is excellentI agree. But… well… That doesn’t make it “Disney”. Does it?

I know that it costs Disney at least $18 to turn that room (labor, electricity, security, etc). I don’t know how you know that, but I will accept it as true.

When I stay at a Disney property, there is a certain 'feel' of being in Disneyworld. See. This is where we start to part company. I will agree that the higher end resorts display a certain amount of Disney charm. And there are some (the Poly and Riverside and even the Contemporary, although it’s very dated) that simply ooze that Disney magic I think you’re referring to.

But I simply don’t see it at the All-Stars. And I certainly don’t see it at Pop Century.

The piped in music, the decor, the CMs, the food (excellent yet expensive), the merchandise, the service, Mickey Mouse ears covering everything, and so on. Ah! And that’s why I don’t see it!! If you take “the CMs” out of the above sentence there is NOTHING Disney about it! To me at least. There is no theme. There is no story. There is no painstaking attention to trivial details. There is no grandeur for ‘value’ prices (i.e. real crystal chandeliers in a hamburger joint). There simply isn’t that old “Disney Touch”. Instead there are huge decorations painted in primary colors.

I don’t know about you, but that is certainly not Disney to me. And that goes to your question regarding “Disney accommodations being non-Disney”. Disney does NOT mean piped in music. Now, don’t get me wrong. That doesn’t mean that piped in music isn’t part of the equation, it’s just that piped in music is such a small part it becomes ancillary in nature.

And Mickey Mouse ears covering everything is the antithesis of a Disney resort. Where is the theme? What is the theme? How is this ‘like’ a movie? How does this sweep you away to another place or time? How is this ‘excruciatingly and exquisitely’ detailed? You see, these motels are simply decorated. They are not themed.

AV gave a great explanation about this. If I draw some Mickey Mouse ears on a cardboard box and plop it outside my house, does that make my house a “Disney” house? No!! Of course not!! I’ll even go further than that. I really do have Mickey Mouse wall paper in my kitchen. And everything in it is either Black or White or Red! PRIMARY RED!!! IN THE KITCHEN!!! And when you walk into that kitchen you can’t help noticing that some very disturbed people, obsessed with Disney, have “DECORATED” it. But that’s all it is. Decorations. NOT themes!! Good enough for my kitchen – in my house. But certainly not good enough to be considered “Disney”.

Well, the same goes for a motel on Disney property. Just because the art work is of high caliber (as opposed to my drawing on a cardboard box, or my wall papered kitchen) and really, really BIG, does not change the fact that it is merely a decoration and NOT a theme. It becomes a matter of degree only.

Now, if you really want to see a true Disney resort I suggest that you fully explore the Poly. Or perhaps the Contemporary or even riverside. And I’d also check out Fort Wilderness. Of course you can’t put price into the equation any longer, as the current regime has milked every dime out of it. But for the sake of argument knock off about a third of the price (maybe even a little more). Now, how does that grab you for real “Disney” magic!!!???

If you still can't get what I'm talking about maybe it's time for a return trip?
Yes! It’s always time for a return trip!!

[DVC-Landbaron]

We also never resolved whether or not there were discounts back in the day. I think Hope's archives may have indicated they did Wrong again!!

I cannot state absolutely, without a doubt, that there were NO discounts, ever. There may have been some obscure ‘something’ somewhere that no one is really aware of, but it has NEVER been shown that any discounts were ever offered! And especially not on a regular basis as it is today! With all the discounts Disney has become the ‘used car salesmen’ of vacation packages!! Back then they took a little pride in their product and their pricing. Heck, Mr. Kidds!! They didn’t even have different seasons. It was one price all year long! So let’s keep it straight. Rack rate to rack rate. OK?

[wtg2000]

If I draw some Mickey Mouse ears on a cardboard box and plop it outside my house, does that make my house a ?Disney·house? If I stick a palm tree in my living room does it make it the Polynesian? :)

You're trying to push this concept of story. Well, agreed, the story of the Polynesian is that it relates to Adventureland and gives the impression of being on a south seas island, as the WL makes you feel like you're in the Northwest, or the AKL makes you feel like you're in Kenya. Or at least they all try to.

The AS and PC don't have the luxury of a sense of place, but that doesn't mean they can't have a theme or story. They just don't transport you to a specific place because they are not about place. The PC is about decades and the AS about concepts that are not spatially related. Think of an abstract painting for instance. If people walk through the PC and it evokes memories of the 70s or gives them a craving to hunt for the complete Partridge Family on DVD then it's done as much a resort that transports people to a resort based on place - which I think is much easier to emulate.

Go to a Disney review site and read reviews of the PC. People seem to like it. Maybe that will help you understand the points of view that are different from yours.

[SCDizFan]

DVCLandbaron, this is where we can agree we disagree. I totally get immersed in the Disney Magic at The All Stars. I've also gotten immersed at the other upscale resorts. Granted, it has been since October of 2001 since I've been to the All Stars (last year was Universal) but it grabbed hold of me then.

Could it possibly have changed that much since then?

As far as the $18 to turn a room, that is about the national average in a non-union resort area destination.

[SnackyStacky]

Originally posted by DisneyKidds
Rack rates........................we don't need no stinking rack rates ;).

Yeah, yeah, yeah.....................but you can't always get a discount and they never needed discounts back in the day.

Well, no............................since 1991 we've stayed in all the deluxe hotels and never paid more than $199 a night.

Kidds, what sort of view do you book, and HOW did you do that?!?!?!!

I'm finally breaking down and staying at Deluxe hotels for my honeymoon. The Beach Club, and the Polynesian. The cheapest rate I can get is $245 (That's $274 after taxes) at the Beach Club for a Standard View, and $254 (That's $284 after taxes) at the Polynesian for a Garden View. Those are AAA rates, and the only thing I can get right now. We'll have an annual pass, but this past September (which is when I'm honeymooning...) no AP rates were offered.

You can say that "we don't need no stinkin' rack rates", but isn't that a bit exorbitant, and quite obnoxious that I have to sit and wait for Disney to make me feel like I'm getting a value? Sure, I booked what I can afford, but I would love to have a Polynesian Lagoon View!

Anyway, I still stand on the opinion that Disney hotels are no value. They're simply over-priced.

[Another Voice]

"If people walk through the PC and it evokes memories of the 70s or gives them a craving to hunt for the complete Partridge Family on DVD…"

There's a difference between "storytelling" and "making people remember". The fact that you mention the place giving people to sudden urge to buy something is very telling.

"Storytelling" is about giving people new experiences. The Contemporary is about making people feel they are in the future; the Polynesian is about making feel they are in the South Pacific. Good movies make you feel you are watching real events unfold before. Good stories about new experiences happening to you in the hear-and-now.

"Ironic Nostalgia" is about triggering memories that people already have. It's not about creating anything new, it's about taking what someone already has and using it. When it's down cleverly only good memories are triggered – that's why it can be an enjoyable experience. But the "irony" is that past is distorted by the exclusion of the not-so-wonderful parts. The Pop Century is designed not to create anything new, just simply to have people go "I remember how much fun a Rubick's Cube was".

Personally, I see no reason to pay someone to trigger my own memories to induce me to buy their products. But that's the trend in all things Disney for a decade now. Frankly, getting "immersed in Disney Magic" is a marketing gimmick. All the characters, all the hidden Mickey's, all the bed linen in corporate colors exists to remind you about Disney without actually having to be anything uniquely Disney.

It's to remind you all that was accomplished in the past rather than making the effort to make something new.

[DVC-Landbaron]

Kidds, what sort of view do you book, and HOW did you do that?!?!?!! Mr. Kidds always says that rack rates don’t matter. I contend that it is the only thing that matters. The whole system sucks!! On every level and from every viewpoint. From the guest’s perspective it is one of uncertainty. Never are you sure. Never are you completely satisfied. You feel like you’re buying a used car from a guy in a very loud plaid blazer!! Or worse yet, you blindly book a rack rate and then find out that much, much better deals could have been if only… Or there is a huge difference in price by a matter of weeks, or worse by days. Of course the time you want to go is the higher. So you are forced to change your plans to the less desirable time. In any of these scenarios (and countless others) no matter how you slice it, the guest feels inconvenienced at best and most of the time, downright ripped off by sharp pencil kind of guys!!

That doesn’t build up very good relationships between the company and the customer. There’s always a bad taste in your mouth, even if you get a substantially reduced rate. Because there is always doubt. Uncertainty. Or worse, alienation from not being in the select crowd. The ones with the numbers. The ones with the preferred rates. That stinks!!

And from a corporate aspect, to me at least, it gives the impression that Disney is doing its absolute best to squeeze every last dime out of their clientele but at the same time admitting that their prices are so ridiculously high that the only way to pacify the masses and insure that they don’t have to shutter any more resorts than they already do is to opt for cheap sales gimmicks, taking on the persona of a cheap carnival huckster. Is that the image they want?

“Back in the day” they had one, fair, reasonable price throughout the year. No specials. No quickie deals. No cheap tricks. Just a set price that they thought their resorts were worth. It said that the product was worth a price. And the price was worth the product. It smacked of quality and value. Pretty neat concept, eh?
Anyway, I still stand on the opinion that Disney hotels are no value. They're simply over-priced. I couldn’t agree more.

It's to remind you all that was accomplished in the past rather than making the effort to make something new.
Maybe the current regime are really Elves and it is high time for them to forsake their rings of power and take the last ship over the unbending seas to the utmost West.

[crusader]

The whole system sucks!!

Sure does.

Unfortunately, it isn't going to change so there's really no sense in belaboring over what once was.

Vacations are structured much differently today. They are market driven and variably price oriented.

We understand this. We deal with it at every turn from the moment we decide to travel.......... and we plan and spend accordingly.

What you want does still exist - at the "park properties" in Hershey, Pa. The rack rate is the rate. There are two hotels and a campground - sound familiar? And lo and behold, if you want to stay at the "lodge" it'll cost you $189 + tax/night off peak. (more than 2 adults are extra)

Sounds pretty high doesn't it? Now that place differs substantially from the Poly. No view. Smaller standard rooms with a 4 person max. capacity. No rollaways are permitted. There is a shuttle but you certainly aren't "on property" and there is no boat or monorail. The pool is a basic motel swimming hole. There is no immersion - just boatloads of chocolate and every fathomable type of merchandised object available for purchase at just about every turn.

In other words, the lodge is to Hershey less than what the moderates are to Disney at a fixed price of $189.00 +tax. So what do you honestly think the rates for Disney's deluxe resorts should be set at in today's market considering the added amenities?

Another similarity I found with Hershey was in trying to book a cheaper room with a competitor. Here, you can play the rate game, but they are inflated in direct relation to the park properties and there is very little flexibility.

That's exactly what Disney was back in the day when the "big 2" were it. Look closely at Hope's numbers and you'll see a proportionate comparison between the on-site and the off-site rates. In other words, the competition was capitalizing on the overflow.

That shouldn't be ok with any company that owns as much land as this one.

[DVC-Landbaron]

Vacations are structured much differently today. They are market driven and variably price oriented.What a crock!! I totally disagree! “Market driven”??? “Variable price oriented”??? What kind of double-speak is this!?!?
We understand this. We deal with it at every turn from the moment we decide to travel.......... and we plan and spend accordingly. Who’s we? Certainly not me!
What you want does still exist - at the "park properties" in Hershey, Pa. First you tell me that this mode of business went the way of the dinosaur and now you say it is alive and well. Make up your mind!! Either it is dead or it isn’t!
Sounds pretty high doesn't it? Yes. It does.
Now that place differs substantially from the Poly. Then why are we discussing it and why are you bringing it up? What does it have to do with Disney!?
In other words, the lodge is to Hershey less than what the moderates are to Disney at a fixed price of $189.00 +tax. So what do you honestly think the rates for Disney's deluxe resorts should be set at in today's market considering the added amenities? Are you seriously trying to compare Hershey to Dinsey!!?? Have you lost all sense!? Again! What has Hershey got to do with Disney??!!

Look. Just because this place boasts year round prices (although that even sounds unlikely given the “peak season” you mentioned) it is no reason why it should be compared to Disney. It doesn’t make sense and it isn’t logical. It’s the old “There is a man named Sam. He is blind. Therefore all blind people are named Sam.” Or is it, “Therefore all people named Sam will go blind.”

The point is one example of a third rate park does not prove a bloody thing!!

Lastly, what added amenities!? What have they added that wasn’t there when the Poly was built?
That's exactly what Disney was back in the day when the "big 2" were it. Look closely at Hope's numbers and you'll see a proportionate comparison between the on-site and the off-site rates. In other words, the competition was capitalizing on the overflow. Did it ever occur to you that Disney was keeping the competition’s prices down!? Look close at the numbers. They didn’t dare raise their prices above Disney’s. You see, without all the evidence, the numbers can say anything you like. And my version is just as valid as yours. Heck more so, if you believe the so called incompetence of Miller/Walker and their pricing structure!

Don’t you see that every other company in the world was doing business as you suggest even in the early seventies. I don’t know how to break this to you but this isn’t new. The ancient Greeks probably did it to all them sightseeing barbarians! Everyone was doing it! Absolutely everyone! Except Disney, that is! They decided not to! Hmmmm. I wonder why!?

[crusader]

Mr. Baron:

Obviously you are not familiar with the philosophy and business practices of Milton S. Hershey but I can assure you he is cut from the same mold your beloved Walt is.

So exceptional was this man, an entire economic empire runs today on the foundation he set. It's right up your alley - quality/craftsmanship/dedication/commitment/drive/ambition/risk/guts/talent/etc............etc............etc..............

Who’s we? Certainly not me!

Really. Do you drive to Florida? Otherwise, you're bartering every step of the way beginning with the airline industry.

First you tell me that this mode of business went the way of the dinosaur and now you say it is alive and well. Either it is dead or it isn’t!


It's alive in a town with no competitors. It's dead everywhere else. Sorry for not making that point perfectly clear.

Are you seriously trying to compare Hershey to Dinsey!!?? Have you lost all sense!? Again! What has Hershey got to do with Disney??!!

Have I lost all sense? Man that's a loaded question for yourself as well. What is this comparison you say?

Very simple. There exists two geniuses from the same generation who built resorts around a park. Both operated with a fixed resort pricing structure so long as no competition cropped up. Now only one remains isolated enough to continue that practice and they get away with charging the consumer an inflated premium for accomodations because they can with limited capacity.

The point is one example of a third rate park does not prove a bloody thing!!

Hershey is not a third rate park. It never was.

BTW - the "added" amenities was in comparing resorts not simply in reference to the Poly. One has "added" amenities over the other. Relax.

Everyone was doing it! Absolutely everyone! Except Disney, that is! They decided not to! Hmmmm. I wonder why!?
What are you talking about?

Did it ever occur to you that Disney was keeping the competition’s prices down!? Look close at the numbers. They didn’t dare raise their prices above Disney’s.

I doubt it. Sure smells like price fixing to me.

[wtg2000]

"Storytelling" is about giving people new experiences.Not really. It's about packaging universal themes in a cloak of familiar plot situations to trigger certain responses in the audience. Why do you think Pirates (the movie) was such an instant hit.

The Polynesian works because people already have an idea of what the south seas looks like. The Contemporary works because people already know what the future will look like.

Winnie the Pooh ride- re-live scenes from the movies.
Main Street USA - a "recreation" of a typical turn of the century town that most people have at least a sense of how it should look.
Frontierland - a "recreation" of the old west we've all seen in movies.

I think you're overstating the concept of storytelling at these hotels. They are recreations of hotels that exist in other parts of the world in excellent detail (except I guess the Contemporary which is trying to exact the future). The AS and PC don't recreate something that already exisits. They take a theme, a historical era, and try to recreate it. Judging from the reviews, it's making people feel something. That's the point.

Or worse yet, you blindly book a rack rate and then find out that much, much better deals could have been if only I don't know about you but I find this is pretty typical of all hotels. There are tons of differrent rates. It's not just Disney. And how are you blindly booking a rack rate? There is tons of information out there about other rates, and I'm sure the typical traveller is savy enough these days to know that different rates exist for all hotels, not to mention flights and last minute vacation packages. We book at Disney a lot and I never feel ripped off. Besides, you can change rates if you find a better one (within a time frame). Try looking at other hotel chains. Varying rates, special deals and discounts is the norm.

Trying to say that Disney and only Disney is trying to stick to their customers is getting bizarre.

[DisneyKidds]

Kidds, what sort of view do you book, and HOW did you do that?!?!?!!
Standard view, lots of different ways. Our first trip (Honeymoon at GF) took advantage of a great Amex package, after that I had access to Shades of Green (and overflow rates) for a few years, but other codes were available, then just codes, then AP rates...................but ALWAYS a discount. Check that, I may have paid rack at a moderate once at Easter. But beyond that, be it school vacations (DW is a teacher), summers, Memorial Day, December................ALWAYS a discount.

Yes, you may have to book, and wait, and change, and work. To some that may be annoying, and that's fair enough. To me it would be annoying to call 20 months in advance of a vacation and not be able to get a room at all, as they did back in the day.

So Baron says booking two years in advance is not difficult or limiting, bit navigating and working available discounts today is? Sorry, I don't agree.

Personally, I'd rather deal with the discounts than have to book two years in advance. We plan way in advance, but two years? No way. What's that Baron? You say that that is just what you had to do if you wanted a room? Well, how's that so different from saying you have to work the discounts if you want a room? It isn't. There has always been some kind of limitation or requirement placed upon the guest in order to get a room. Back in the day it was advance planning. Nowadays it is knowing the discounts, but now if you don't them or they aren't available at least you can still get a room.

[SnackyStacky]

Kidds,

Sure, it's only once, but it only takes once to set a precedent. This past September, there was not a single discount to be had, the Fairytale Package notwithstanding.

My rooms are booked, the annual passes are purchased, and now it's a matter of waiting. But it really concerns me that this past September there were no room only codes, no annual pass rates, no nothing. I can afford what I booked, so I don't say that because I'm depending on codes, but it certainly would be great to take some savings and book the Illuminations cruise that my fiancée wants, or the keys to the kingdom tour that we both want.

I don't think I really have a point in the scheme of this thread, I was actually curious as to how you've always managed to secure a discount.

[hopemax]

Standard view, lots of different ways.

DK, then what the heck were you doing comparing your rate to the $85/$230 thing in an earlier post?

The standard view, "back in the day" was $75 which is more or less equivalent to $205.

And why does this discussion always go to: "It's either the current way, or the Landbaron way?" Isn't there a whole spectrum of alternatives in between that will lead to a more magical vacation?

The primary thing the Landbaron way shows is that it used to be done differently, meaning alternatives exist. Why not consider them?

[DisneyKidds]

DK, then what the heck were you doing comparing your rate to the $85/$230 thing in an earlier post?
Sorry Hope, I should have said "Garden". You see, "Standard" view really doesn't exist now. No need to bite my head off :duck:.

Perhaps this is just another example of how things were done differently back in the day. As it stands now you have one of two choices at the Poly. Garden view, which would be a garden or pool view room, or Lagoon View. No "Standard" view exists. Last month I spent two wonderful nights in a Garden view room overlooking the pool at the Poly for $189 a night icluding tax. That is why I chose the $85/$230 combo, as I paid for a pool view room. That is why the heck I did that ;). $75/$206? I still came in under.
And why does this discussion always go to: "It's either the current way, or the Landbaron way?"
Good question...............althought that isn't my position. Certainly things could have been done differently, even better. I've said it before and I think there were lots of ways things could have gone. Perhaps Baron needs to answer why the old way is the ONLY way he will accept as being Magical or Disney.
The primary thing the Landbaron way shows is that it used to be done differently, meaning alternatives exist. Why not consider them?
I have no problem considering alternatives. I do think you misunderstand Baron's points. What he is trying to show isn't that alternatives exist that should be considered. He apparently is trying to show exactly how it was done back in the day, that being the only "alternative" that could produce a Disney result. Again, I accept and am willing to consider that there were dozens of ways in which WDW resorts could have developed...............all of which could have been good. Me thinks that Baron considers that there was one, and only one, way in which the could have developed in an acceptable manner.

[cristen]

"Yes, you may have to book, and wait, and change, and work. To some that may be annoying, and that's fair enough. To me it would be annoying to call 20 months in advance of a vacation and not be able to get a room at all, as they did back in the day."

Yes, but we can agree that it wouldn't be one or the other now. There were only the two big hotels and WDW was still new. Of course they were going to be sold out all the time. Now we have how many rooms in the entire resort? It would be much harder to sell out ALL the rooms ALL the time, even if they were to lower the rates to where they didn't have to give out codes all the time. If you look at Linda's thread about the parks, it says that the resorts have a 51.9% occupancy rate, so I think they would be able to handle the flood of people coming if they were to lower their rates, which they should do. I agree with Baron, they are playing games, and I don't like like it. I am patiently waiting for the AP's to come out so that my 323.00 a night room at the WL will go down. My room will be the highest expense on this trip. And I don't want to get an AP, I don't plan on going back this year, and I feel like I am cheating. But I also agree with Hope, that there has to be an alternative, SOMETHING, that has to be better than what they are doing now.

Cristen

[raidermatt]

Me thinks that Baron considers that there was one, and only one, way in which the could have developed in an acceptable manner. Your literal interpretation requires Baron to have said that capacity should have remained at a point that resulted in rooms being booked to 100% of that capacity two years in advance.

I don't remember ever reading that from him. Yes, he would rather "un-Disney" resorts not be built, but that does not mean "Disney" resorts could not have been built in their place.

An increase in capacity, combined with the consistent pricing structure he espouses, would not necessarily result in no availability 20 months in advance. Consistent does not equal cheap.


So Baron says booking two years in advance is not difficult or limiting, bit navigating and working available discounts today is? Again, who said capacity couldn't be increased?

I don't know about you but I find this is pretty typical of all hotels. There are tons of differrent rates. It's not just Disney. If Disney had always done things as everybody else did, there wouldn't be fan sites like this one. The "different" way worked, so the more pressing question is why does Disney feel the need to change from what made them special (and more successful) to what everybody else does? .

Trying to say that Disney and only Disney is trying to stick to their customers is getting bizarre. Admittedly, I skimmed over portions of the thread, but I didn't see anyone say that.

We understand this. We deal with it at every turn from the moment we decide to travel.......... and we plan and spend accordingly. Some more willingly than others. That aside, as in every case, there can be benefits to a company that bucks the trend
I doubt it. Sure smells like price fixing to me. Perhaps the 'ole honker is in need of a check-up...

[wtg2000]

If Disney had always done things as everybody else did, there wouldn't be fan sites like this one. The "different" way worked, so the more pressing question is why does Disney feel the need to change from what made them special (and more successful) to what everybody else does? . Everyone has changed. The plethora of hotel rates is endemic across the industry with the internet, and the multitude of credit cards offering bonuses, plus things like AARP, AAA and a bunch of other letters which now have greater programs of rates. Besides, back in the day Disney offered different rates for shareholders (I once got 40 percent off at the Poly) and Magic Kingdom Club. So the entire industry has changed and Disney has changed with it.

Remember, Disney never used to advertise on TV or allow travel agents to book their rooms. They can't live in a time warp.

[Another Voice]

Of course things have changed.

You overbuild by thousands and thousands of rooms, you blow your "premium brand" status by hocking motel accommodations at hotel prices so you can gouge more money out of people you don't like anyway, you spend on slick but questionable advertising* instead of real additions & improvement to bring people in, you screw up the finances of the place to pay off network TV fiascoes…yea a lot has to change.

As for the shareholders rates - that was back in the day when shareholders mattered. Today, there's only one shareholder that matters and he's keeping all the goodies for himself.


* - you ever notice that a lot of WDW advertising is on networks and cable channels get a cut of? An interesting way of transferring cash from WDW to other areas of the business, ain't it?

[wtg2000]

You overbuild by thousands and thousands of rooms, It would be interesting to know their occupancy rates year round. There have been two occasions in the past five years or so where we haven't been able to get a room on the entire property - once in April and once in February.

you blow your "premium brand" status by hocking motel accommodations at hotel prices so you can gouge more money out of people you don't like anyway, It's interesting but Air Canada Vacation rates to spend a week at All-Stars is slightly more than their packages for 192 at Holiday Inns and Comfort Inns. You could argue that Disney are giving people a more affordable way of staying on property and not appearing elitist by having only premium brand hotels. The difference between Disney hotels and non-Disney hotels is that Disney hotels are on the property and for that you pay more. It's just the way the world works. Deal with it.

I'm sure if you're right people will despise the AS and PC so much that they won't return and eventually the numbers will dwindle and they'll be forced to close!

Disney doesn't like its guests? Are they the only corporation like this? I imagine every other hotel chain and corporation in the world does? Sorry, but there's that Disney and only Disney are out to get us paranoia again.

[DVC-Landbaron]

Really. Do you drive to Florida? Yep! Every blessed time!!
It's alive in a town with no competitors. It's dead everywhere else. Sorry for not making that point perfectly clear. No! You did make it perfectly clear! I was simply pointing out how on the one hand you are telling me that Hershey and Disney are near enough to be compared and on the other you seem to be saying that there’s no comparison! Which is it!? Are they (were they) the same? Or are they (were they) so dissimilar that no valid comparisons can be drawn? I’m afraid I really don’t understand what you’re trying to tell us here.
An increase in capacity, combined with the consistent pricing structure he espouses, would not necessarily result in no availability 20 months in advance. Consistent does not equal cheap.
Yep!! So well put. Unfortunately that little aspect always seems to get lost. There’s usually a lot of disinformation about past practices that need correcting and little ‘exaggerations’ about inflation and relative costs (always higher in the past than actual or lower today than even the most tenacious among us could consistently achieve!) always seem to overshadow this very salient point.

That was one of my MAJOR complaints in the late seventies!! I kept waiting for that promised “Asian” and it never happened! I would have gladly welcomed it. I gladly welcomed the Floridian at first. And I welcomed and even stayed at the Caribbean when it was first built. That is, until I understood that these two very structures, and the concept behind them, were undermining the very philosophy which I had grown to love and sadly, had take for granted.

The two tiered price structure was introduced. It was a very short jump to three categories and further refinement even created sub-categories, all geared to enter the guests pocketbook as painlessly as possible. But that wasn’t the most grievous of deeds. NO! It was the very basic philosophical change that naturally occurred in order to support this “sharp-pencil” practice. They began ‘selling’ Disney® magic as a commodity instead of providing a “Disney SHOW”. You pay less. You get less “Disney”. You pay more. You get more “Disney”. How sad.
If Disney had always done things as everybody else did, there wouldn't be fan sites like this one. The "different" way worked, so the more pressing question is why does Disney feel the need to change from what made them special (and more successful) to what everybody else does? . OH!! Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you!!! You said that BEAUTIFULLY!!!
Remember, Disney never used to advertise on TV or allow travel agents to book their rooms. They can't live in a time warp.
Yeah! Unfortunately a whole other topic! AV dealt with it pretty well. I yearn for those days. Every commercial Disney runs, every special they espouse, every secret code they offer, cheapens them. Both the perception of the public and the brand they represent. I know this isn’t a very popular belief, but I really think the company was much better off before the “marketing” concept took hold.

I’ll gladly talk more on the subject. Start another thread. I’m sure AV will join in too!
It would be interesting to know their occupancy rates year round. There have been two occasions in the past five years or so where we haven't been able to get a room on the entire property - once in April and once in February. How far out? Two weeks? Two years? Somewhere in the middle? In either case I think most people (even Disney management) thinks they overbuilt the resorts. I thought that it was a given at this point.
It's interesting but Air Canada Vacation rates to spend a week at All-Stars is slightly more than their packages for 192 at Holiday Inns and Comfort Inns. Two points. First: What in the world does this have to do with Disney!?!?! I understand you’re trying to draw some sort of parallel, but NOTHING can compare to Disney. Or at least that’s the way it should be. It used to be. They were not only head and shoulders above the fray; they were light years ahead (a mixed metaphor (I know), but I couldn’t get out of it!!) But they have allowed themselves to become so like their competition that the above example actually makes sense on certain levels!! HOW SAD!!!

Point two: How do you think those other resorts reach their pricing structure? Do you think they just pull up and number, never giving any thought at all about what Disney is charging? Or could it be that they are purposely just ‘slightly’ less than Disney? If Disney suddenly, but consistently, dropped their prices by twenty bucks a night, those ‘other’ resorts would STILL be ‘slightly’ less. You have the tail wagging the dog. I’m afraid that it is the other way around.
I'm sure if you're right people will despise the AS and PC so much that they won't return and eventually the numbers will dwindle and they'll be forced to close! You make a common mistake. And one made all too often on this board. You are confusing ‘popularity’ for Disney! Worked one way it is certainly advantageous for Disney to be popular. But just because something is ‘popular’ doesn’t necessarily mean it’s good for Disney. And advertising on TV, capricious and unpredictable resort rates, three tiered (or more) pricing structure in order to sell “magic” as a commodity, and just about every other philosophical change brought on by this administration is simply not good for Disney! No matter how popular it may SEEM to be.
Disney doesn't like its guests? Are they the only corporation like this? I imagine every other hotel chain and corporation in the world does? Sorry, but there's that Disney and only Disney are out to get us paranoia again.
And because other companies do it, that makes it all right? Hmmmm. Sounds like you’ve been listening to my kids!! That’s the line they always use. “But gee dad! Everyone else is doing it!!”

Sorry. Again, it may be popular, but it ain’t good for Disney!!

[wtg2000]

They were not only head and shoulders above the fray; they were light years ahead Your entire argument seems based on the notion that Disney used to be some utopian company that did everthing for the benefit of their customers and that no other corporation in the world (and they were a corporation before Eisner took over) could touch them for quality. Sorry, but this just isn't true. There are tons of other hotels, big and small, chains and private that provide excellent quality and service. This goes for other companies. I think people who think that Disney was the be all and end all are looking at the past with rose coloured glasses. I don't think Disney was that much different, people just developed a sentimentality about them. Believe me, if the Internet had been around in Walt's time there would be people on this board slamming him.

Original resorts - When the Poly and Cont. first opened people complained that the rooms were too small, that they had been built like business hotels and not for families.

Two tiers? - remember they built Fort Wilderness in an era when people tented but now with it filled with expensive motor homes, they built the AS and PC for people who previously may have braved mother nature.

Advertising on TV? What do you think Walt was doing everytime he appeared on the tube pushing his product?

This is a cronic case where people build up the past to knock down the present. I'm not saying that things weren't better, but the degree is certainly debatable. I imagine you would rather have had Ron Miller allow Marriott to build 20,000 non-themed hotel rooms.

How far out? Two weeks? Two years? Somewhere in the middle? In either case I think most people (even Disney management) thinks they overbuilt the resorts. I thought that it was a given at this point. What difference does it make? If they were full they were full. Obviously they didn't overbuild in the Wal-Mart category or they wouldn't have bothered with PC.

[SnackyStacky]

Originally posted by wtg2000
[B]Your entire argument seems based on the notion that Disney used to be some utopian company that did everthing for the benefit of their customers and that no other corporation in the world (and they were a corporation before Eisner took over) could touch them for quality. Sorry, but this just isn't true. There are tons of other hotels, big and small, chains and private that provide excellent quality and service.

I could very easily be wrong, but it seems to me that this wasn't Disney's primary goal in building his hotel properties. Sure he wanted them to be of the utmost quality and service, but that came AFTER the thing was built. First and foremost in the planning of any hotel was the story that the property was to tell.

This goes for other companies. I think people who think that Disney was the be all and end all are looking at the past with rose coloured glasses.

Who invented animated motion picture? Who invented the theme park? Who invented the dozens of progressions in animation (things like the multi-plane camera....)? Disney set the trend and everyone else followed.

Original resorts - When the Poly and Cont. first opened people complained that the rooms were too small, that they had been built like business hotels and not for families.

And when Disneyland was built, people complained that tacky restaurants and cheap motels were springing up on Harbor Blvd. Because of that, Disney WORLD came to be. When you're busy creating new things, you tend to make mistakes. And you learn from those mistakes. I don't think anybody is saying that Walt was perfect. I think what's being contended is the philosophy that was behind each and every decision the company made.

Advertising on TV? What do you think Walt was doing everytime he appeared on the tube pushing his product?

Do you see Eisner on TV selling a product that he believes in strongly enough to get in front of people and explain his plans? i don't. I see people that are paid to say they're having a great time at Disney World. There's a difference between someone who believes in his product so strongly that he himself will get on TV and sell it, and a marketing department deciding what's the best way to capture a market segment.

This is a cronic case where people build up the past to knock down the present. I'm not saying that things weren't better, but the degree is certainly debatable. I imagine you would rather have had Ron Miller allow Marriott to build 20,000 non-themed hotel rooms.

I don't think Baron has ever supported Miller in anything. As a matter of fact, I think he's said that they were more inept than Eisner. (I may be remembering wrong, but I thought he said that....)

What difference does it make? If they were full they were full. Obviously they didn't overbuild in the Wal-Mart category or they wouldn't have bothered with PC.

The WHAT category?!?!

[wtg2000]

Who invented animated motion picture? Who invented the theme park? Who invented the dozens of progressions in animation (things like the multi-plane camera....)? Disney set the trend and everyone else followed.Here I agree with you. But we're talking Walt here. This is typical. A man with a vision founds a company but after he dies the company is taken over by bean counters and the original vision dies. I guess my point has been that we can't expect things to be done the way Walt did them. I was really comparing the current management to the post-Walt era. (It would be interesting to know what Walt would have thought of EPCOT. My guess is he wouldn't have liked it in the form he took). Many people call World Showcase a glorified shopping mall and that was built pre-Eisner, and they scaled back and cut plans to build more attactions just what we criticize Eisner for today (ie AK). And they scaled back on building PoftheC, something we would be raking Eisner over the coals for doing today.

The company wasn't agressive in its marketing plans or in its development of WDW because they had lost their leader and were floundering. (Remember, Roy died shortly after WDW opened). Thus, profits were dropping as was the stock and the company was in danger of being taken over and split apart. The way it was being done (not advertising, etc) wasn't working. Thus, I don't think it's fair to compare today with 1975 or whenever.

Also, yes Walt Disney did lots of wonderful things and was a visionary when it came to animation and theme park entertainment, but there were other people who did great things in other fields as well. Many of those companies floundered after their founder died. I never expected Eisner to be Walt, but it seems that some people do.

[DisneyKidds]

There’s usually a lot of disinformation about past practices that need correcting and little ‘exaggerations’ about inflation and relative costs (always higher in the past than actual or lower today than even the most tenacious among us could consistently achieve!) always seem to overshadow this very salient point.
Pish!! That's right, I said pish!!! ;) :tongue:. I could talk about people being blind to reality or the truth, but I won't (ooops, I just did :eek: ).

I know that LB isn't advocating zeo growth, and we've had that discussion in the past. What I believe he is advocating is that all growth would have been a differently themed resort on par with the Poly or CR. I don't recall if he ever difinitively answered how many "deluxe" Poly like resorts priced at $200 to $250 a night he thinks there should be. (I do think in the past he stated that the resorts should have been priced around $189? But even his corrections to exaggerated price claims couldn't get him that low. Hope put that to rest.) I don't think that 12 to 15 of that type of hotel would have necessarily been best for Disney's growth.

Hey, I'm not a big fan of the values and I do think that Disney overbuilt in the hotel category, but I think that the "caste system" as LB calls it has worked well for Disney.....................and Disney guests. I do disagree with Baron's view of "pay less, get less - pay more, get more". We've stayed with the surfs at the AS, mingled with the commoners at all the mods, and lived it up with the royalty in almost all of the deluxes...............and never once was our Disney experience anything close to "less". If Disney to Baron is all about the size of his hotel room and whether or not he can spy a parking lot or get to his room via interior hallways then he truely has missed something. Different does not mean less...............unless you have drawn a line in the sand and are only willing to consider one thing, one kind of experience, Disney.

I'm glad the "caste system" exists. Disney is glad. Stockholders should be glad. The DKidds clan is what Disney wants to create. Disney loving, DVC owning, multiple trip making Disney nuts dropping copious amounts of green annually. AV can put us down as the "ignorant audience" willing to "accept the brand" all he wants, but he (or was that she?) would be dead wrong to do so. We wouldn't be the knowledgeable Disney fans/consumers we are without the "caste system". Without the opportunity to experience and grow with Disney from humble beginnings to the blessings we are fortunate to have now we probably wouldn't have gotten to know Disney. No, I think the system as it stands now, while not perfect, is pretty darn good. Just think how much better it would be with a few less hotels in each category, all operating at 90+ percent occupancy. That would be sweet for everybody involved..............except those who believe that the experience they first had at WDW in 1972 is the ONLY one that can represent a Disney experience. That belief is what is sad.

[Another Voice]

"When the Poly and Cont. first opened people complained that the rooms were too small, that they had been built like business hotels and not for families. "

I would be extremely interested to see if you could possibly back-up this statement.

Go back and check the room sizes at the Poly and the Contemporary against the Disney® Magic® of the Winderness and the Animal Kingdom Lodge.

You can argue your case without making stuff up.

Unless, of course, it's simply more of the "Walt was a moron, today is paradise" brand blindless again.

The issue is that some people like the place the way it used to be, some people like the place the way it is now. Neither side is going to convince the other they are wrong.

The point, however, is about the long term survival of WDW. The place built a fantastic reputation by following a specific business model which was unique to Disney. That model has been trashed and new model - based on "standard" business concepts - has been put in its place.

The question is whether the new model will work at all, as well as the previous one, or better.

[wtg2000]

I would be extremely interested to see if you could possibly back-up this statement. Me too. I've read so much on Disney over the years I can't remember the source for that. I wonder if subsequent buildings at the Poly and wings at the Cont. were built bigger. Go back and check the room sizes at the Poly and the Contemporary against the Disney® Magic® of the Winderness and the Animal Kingdom Lodge. Current low season rack rates: Poly $299, Cont - Tower $335, Wings $239, WL $199, AKL $199. Why would you expect WL rooms to be as big as Poly for $100 less?You can argue your case without making stuff up. Thanks for accusing me of lying. Unless, of course, it's simply more of the "Walt was a moron, today is paradise" brand blindless again. Who in the world is saying that? I can't believe anyone would think that Walt was a moron. Amazing.

[DC7800]

Originally posted by wtg2000
Me too. I've read so much on Disney over the years I can't remember the source for that. I wonder if subsequent buildings at the Poly and wings at the Cont. were built bigger

What subsequent buildings at the Contemporary??? The tower and wing rooms both date from the beginning, and were identical (no wing balconies, etc.) in size.

The Polynesian has had some additions, and the rooms were indeed slightly larger than the original (by about 50 square feet). However, the more expensive rooms over at the Grand Floridian are only 400 square feet - same as the older Polynesian rooms. People might well complain an All-Star room was rather small, expecially if their point of comparison in the Contemporary, but to make such a statement about the Polynesian or Contemporary just doesn't hold water. These must be the same people who "complain" there's not enough food at Chef Mickey's buffet or that there are too many attractions at Animal Kingdom.

[cristen]

Originally posted by DisneyKidds
If Disney to Baron is all about the size of his hotel room and whether or not he can spy a parking lot or get to his room via interior hallways then he truely has missed something. Different does not mean less...............unless you have drawn a line in the sand and are only willing to consider one thing, one kind of experience, Disney."

I don't think that is what he means. You have talked with him enough, I think you know that is not what he means exactly. It's the thought process that goes into making these hotels. Different does not mean less, you can have different and still have something of quality, of value. PO is different, but I think it still is of quality, much more than the values.

"We wouldn't be the knowledgeable Disney fans/consumers we are without the "caste system". Without the opportunity to experience and grow with Disney from humble beginnings to the blessings we are fortunate to have now we probably wouldn't have gotten to know Disney. "

Why couldn't they build a group of hotels that are comparable to PO and make it valuable? There really is no place for the values in WDW. They are not themed, they do not tell a story.

My question is, if Disney sits down and says, OK, we can afford to give rooms for X amount with the AP discount, then why can't they just price them that way all the time? I have heard of people getting PO for 88.00 a night! That is quite a value to me. The resort looks beautiful, and it is on-site, for only 88.00 a night. WOW! The room I am getting at WL is 290.00 a night, but with AP discount it will be 154.00. Why such the discrepency? If they can "afford" to give these rooms at 154.00, (I know there is only a certain amount of rooms they give at this price) then price the rooms at a bit more. 200.00 a night all the time.

[wtg2000]

My question is, if Disney sits down and says, OK, we can afford to give rooms for X amount with the AP discount, then why can't they just price them that way all the time? Probably because they can't afford to sell all the rooms at that price. Why would they give away all the rooms at reduced rates when they can sell them at rack rates? It's bad business. Why don't companies put products on sale all the time? The limited number of AP rooms encourages people to buy APs and helps fill up empty rooms at certain times of the year. I'm not sure how many AP rooms there are but there can't be many. We called first day to get rooms for Feb-Mar and there was hardly anything available on AP rates.

Other chains do this as well. There are all kinds of special rates. Companies put things on sale to move products, or fill rooms. It's not unique to Disney at all.
What subsequent buildings at the Contemporary??? I've read that some wing rooms were built later. I guess that's wrong. I guess only the Poly expanded.

[cristen]

Originally posted by wtg2000
Probably because they can't afford to sell all the rooms at that price. Why would they give away all the rooms at reduced rates when they can sell them at rack rates? It's bad business.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that they probably could afford it. And they can't sell them at rack rates. On another thread, it said that they have a 51.9 hotel occupancy rate there last year. Half of the rooms are going empty. It wouldn't be that way if it were a bit more affordable to go.

And charging 200.00 a night is hardly "giving it away".

[DisneyKidds]

I think you know that is not what he means exactly.
Oh, but it really is. He loathes the whole structure of differeing price levels. As he says, the "pay less and get less" idea is not "Disney". As he views it, when you stay at a mod or a value not only are you getting less hotel room, you are getting less of a Disney experience. I sincerely doubt that pricing the mods at $88 would rectify that situation for Baron. Would it LB? Sure, they would be more of a value, but I doubt that Baron will fess up to the mods being just as wonderful a Disney experience as the Poly but for the price. So that is exactly what he means...................whether he will admit it or not ;).
PO is different, but I think it still is of quality
Hey, Baron might even agree that there is some quality there.....................just not full Disney quality. He has said often in this forum that the mods are not "Disney", and not just for price. In another forum he did say that Dixie Landings came close, but wasn't quite there..................and again, I don't believe that assessment was dependent upon price and price alone. So what do yo think? Put the price of POR aside, do you consider the experience you get there to be a "Disney" experience? Baron sure doesn't.

I actually agree with you. I think Dixie Landings was an incredible resort. Great story, fully immersive, and quite "Disney". That is why I think there is a place for the differeing levels of hotels at WDW. Perhaps they could have been priced differently, but the concept itself is a good one. You'll never get Baron to agree to that.

I know full well about Baron's belief in the motives behind the implementation, but that is a pointless discussion. Whether the mods were developed out of a altruistic desire to truely make a Disney experience affordable to a wider range of people, or if the motivation was to simply strip mine wallets, it doesn't change the fact that the system, had it been held in check, was a good one for the business and for guests.

$88 or $188 for a mod shouldn't matter to Baron based on all his arguments. Sure, $88 would make a bad thing more palatable, but it would still be a bad thing. I disagree and I think you do too.

[wtg2000]

On another thread, it said that they have a 51.9 hotel occupancy rate there last yearThat was actually for the month of December, up until Christmas. I would imagine at peak times the occupancy rate is much higher. It would be interesting to know for sure and how the rate has been affected since 9/11. As I said AP rates for late-Feb, early March were very hard to come by. Of the deluxes the WL (or AKL) was all we could get.

I read that the national occupancy rate is just under 50 per cent. So do all hotels discount all their rooms all the time to try and fill them?

Disney wants to get guests on the property to buy theme park tickets and buy food and merchandise so it's to their advantage to get as many people into the rooms as possible. Thus, I would imagine they've set a price structure that attempts to maximize revenue.
And they can't sell them at rack rates.Well, they can't sell them all at rack rates but then as I indicated above neither do other hotel chains. Nor to businesses selling other products which is why we have post-Christmas blowout sales.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that they probably could afford it.Again, I would imagine they've set a price structure that attempts to maximize revenues. This is what all companies do I would imagine.

[cristen]

Originally posted by DisneyKidds
the "pay less and get less" idea is not "Disney".




I agree.

"when you stay at a mod or a value not only are you getting less hotel room, you are getting less of a Disney experience."

I also agree with the values. The mods, I would have to think about. In theory, they would work. Only if they did it up right. Not half-a$$ed, the values are definately that. I am sure there is some way for Disney to make hotels that are more affordable for some without making it look like they are. I know we all have faith in the Disney people that they could come up with some awesome ideas that would be full of Disney Magic, but still be considered a "mod". PO is a good example.

"I know full well about Baron's belief in the motives behind the implementation, but that is a pointless discussion. Whether the mods were developed out of a altruistic desire to truely make a Disney experience affordable to a wider range of people, or if the motivation was to simply strip mine wallets, it doesn't change the fact that the system, had it been held in check, was a good one for the business and for guests."

I disagree. I think that the whole resoning behind the resorts matter a lot.

I posted this on a seperate thread, but I think it relates to this discussion, and hits the nail on the head for me.

"I knew if this business was ever to get anywhere, if this business was ever to grow, it could never do it by having to answer to someone unsympathetic to its possibilities, by having to answer to someone with only one thought or interest, namely profits. For my idea of how to make profits has differed greatly from those who generally control businesses such as ours. I have blind faith in the policy that quality, tempered with good judgment and showmanship, will win against all odds." - - Walt Disney



"We have no obligation to make history. We have no obligation to make art. We have no obligation to make a statement. To make money is our only objective." - Michael Eisner


And you can tell.

[crusader]

There's a difference between someone who believes in his product so strongly that he himself will get on TV and sell it, and a marketing department deciding what's the best way to capture a market segment.

Not all founders have the unique ability to get in front of the cameras and promote thier products and most CEO's run the risk of looking desperate. That's why we have so many talented, well educated and gainfully employed individuals in the marketing field today.

I doubt you really believe having Disney lay off an entire department of employees and appointing Eisner to be the PR guy is "the best way to capture a market segment".

And charging 200.00 a night is hardly "giving it away".

I don't think this would be the bar on the deluxe lodging. Ten years ago Disney was able to collect around $250.00/night for these resorts.

The problem with fixed pricing is that there is a psychological limit a consumer is willing to pay for something and that has become a variable target in today's market. As the demand fluctuates, so too does our perceived value.

It isn't simply a matter of pure quality anymore. We have been willing to pay three times as much for the exact same room depending on certain events and conditions. (just look at the rates charged during the olympics or the millennium or new year's at Times Square)

We also expect the resorts to lower the prices when demand is low and will take advantage of those opportunities.

I don't see how Disney can go back to a fixed pricing structure when they no longer have complete dominance and control over this market. They should charge the absolute maximum the consumer is willing to spend for their products and offer targeted incentives as an added benefit.

[DisneyKidds]

I am sure there is some way for Disney to make hotels that are more affordable for some without making it look like they are.
OK, so you agree that, while some of the WDW resorts could have been done differently or better, a tiered system of hotels could be a good thing. You would have stopped at two tiers. Hey, I agree. The system ain't perfect, but it was a step in a good direction and was good for the business. Baron ain't gonna join us in that camp ;). Your need to think about the mods means you may also agree that "pay less" does not necessarily mean "get less". "Pay less, get different" absolutely, but Baron doesn't believe that that different represents Disney. Too bad.
I think that the whole resoning behind the resorts matter a lot.
Lets look at one of those 'if pigs could fly' hypotheticals.........................the kind LB loves.

Let's just say that Walt lived to a ripe 'ole age of 100. Things developed a little differently around his World, but they did grow. Walt saw it. Walt also saw another thing. Families. Kids. People..................lots of them who just couldn't affort his beloved Poly. So he thinks, and he thinks....................................and a solution develops. By golly, Walt in his heart wants more people to be able to experience the Magic that his genius has produced. So Walt, out of this altruistic desire to open the experience to more people, builds...............................a resort just like Dixie Landings (which almost all of us, almost even Baron, would call worthy of Disney.) Walt doesn't do this for market share. Sure, he has to build resorts to support the growth, but he does it for the people and not the money. While he's at it he also builds the Asian and the Venetian, along with a couple other Walt-worthy, Dixie Landings-ish "moderates". So would that Dixie Landings resort, no different today under Walts motives for the people vs. ME motives for the almightly $$$, be any better?

[SnackyStacky]

Originally posted by crusader
Not all founders have the unique ability to get in front of the cameras and promote thier products and most CEO's run the risk of looking desperate. That's why we have so many talented, well educated and gainfully employed individuals in the marketing field today.

I doubt you really believe having Disney lay off an entire department of employees and appointing Eisner to be the PR guy is "the best way to capture a market segment".

I used market segment really tongue in cheek, meaning that Walt didn't advertise to a market segment. He advertised to everybody.

And I would have no problem seeing Eisner in a Disney commercial. Just because he's there doesn't mean that the marketing department would need to be gone. But if the marketing department asked Eisner to get in front of the cameras for an ad campaign, would he? Based on things he's said, I'd have to say that no....he wouldn't, but that's a completely random guess.

[cristen]

Yes, DK, there is a HUGE difference in your hypothetical.

Walt would have wanted as many people to enjoy it as possible. We know that from DL. He was trying to give everyone everything he could. The problem with what you are saying, is that I don;t think Walt would have them so highly priced that only a select could afford them. So if he would have created a "mod", you would not have noticed as much. Price differences would not be so drastic. It wouldn't stink of elitism vs. third class. There is also a huge difference in the way the two think. Walt would have done it genuinely and with heart, with truely wanting to please the guest and to make for GREAT show. Michael does not care, he is only looking at the bottom line. He could care less about show, or what the people might like. And it reflects in their work. You can not deny that. Yes, Walt had misses, and Michael has had hits, but overall, nothing Michael has done has even come close to what Walt has brought to life. It shows, and I know that if Walt was running things over there, you would definately see a huge difference. Because of the motive behind it.

That is why I put that quote from Walt there. Everything he said pertains to this argument, how different he was, and how different he ran things. He didn't care about how other businesses were running things, he cared about quality and making great things. He knew that if you give people great things, the bottom line would show.

[DisneyKidds]

cristen - you missed the essence of the question in my hypothetical. For arguments sake lets agree on the differences in motives. However, seeing that Dixie Landings is highly regarded by many, almost even Baron, as a Walt-worthy moderate, assume that Dixie Landing as Walt would have developed it is no different from the POR we have today. Same exact resort in every detail, just born of a different motives. Does that make it any better or worse than what ME put forth?

I agree that the difference in motives is very apparent in a lot of other areas..................but not necessarily resorts. Whether the mods were developed for the people or to fleece the people they could still be good for the business and the guest. ME just didn't know when to stop, but that doesn't mean the concept was bad.

[DVC-Landbaron]

However, seeing that Dixie Landings is highly regarded by many, almost even Baron, as a Walt-worthy moderate, assume that Dixie Landing as Walt would have developed it is no different from the POR we have today. Mr. Kidds. Don’t you see that this is a foolish supposition? Do you really think, in you’re wildest dreams, that Walt would have built Dixie Landings as it stands today? With none of the “Walt” touches? Come on, Mr. Kidds.

And even if we were to strain our brains and think for a moment that Walt would build such a place your argument falls apart rather quickly. “Highly regarded by many”. “Almost even Baron”. Pretty lame.

And once we move away from the one lucky stroke that was built in spite of Ei$ner, where do we go? To his first abomination, the Caribbean? Or perhaps to… ah… well… there’s always… now just give me a minute… I know we can think of one… there has to be… I guess I’ll have to think on it a bit… I might try back later… or not…

[cristen]

No, I understood your case, and what you were trying to get at. So OK, for sake of your arguement, no it wouldn't be any better. Because it would be the same resort, you can't say it's good for one but bad because the other did it.

But I think what I was trying to get at, is what Baron said better. Walt would probably have done a much better job. Because he loved what he did, we would have gotten a better product.

And I would have to agree that the arguement is a bit foolish. If Walt were alive, we wouldn't have the need for a tiered system, I think he would have managed to make everyone afford what he had to offer. I don't think he would have intentionally excluded anyone.

[wtg2000]

If Walt were alive, we wouldn't have the need for a tiered system, I think he would have managed to make everyone afford what he had to offer. I don't think he would have intentionally excluded anyone. Are you saying the current management is? Haven't they included everyone by building value, moderates and deluxes? I don't think there's a tiered system, there's simply something for everyone (well, not everyone as many people can't afford a trip to Florida at all).

You've got deluxes, moderates, values, standard rooms, conceirge, honeymoon suites, presidential suites, campsites, cabins, timeshare, there were even houses for rent at one point.

You say Walt would have found a way to make everyone afford it. Well, I think that's what they've tried to do by building values. We'll never know what Walt would have come up with as he didn't build any hotels at DL (I think he got his friend Jack Wrather to build the Disneyland Hotel) but as for the current hotels it's a matter or opinion I suppose. I like the CBR and many people like the AS and PC.

[DisneyKidds]

Mr. Kidds. Don’t you see that this is a foolish supposition?
Maybe................maybe not. Curious as to the "Walt-touches" that you think Dixie Landings could have had. I bet once you add those "Walt-touches" you pretty much be back to a resort on par with the Poly and CR. I know we'll never agree whether having a mix of higher and lower priced resorts is a good or bad thing...........but I know how you like to talk about your favorite subject ;).
And once we move away from the one lucky stroke that was built in spite of Ei$ner........
I agree that the implementation could have been better in some cases, but I still maintain that the concept was good for Disney and it's guests. Another item we will never agree on, but that's ok.
If Walt were alive, we wouldn't have the need for a tiered system, I think he would have managed to make everyone afford what he had to offer.
Boy cristen, talk about your foolish arguments and rediculous suppositions!!!!!!!

I assume by "what he had to offer" you mean the Poly and CR...........and eventually the Asian and Venetian or whatever else he might have envisioned on Preliminary Plot Plan #5? I'd love to see you produce a scenario that would have Walt pricing the Poly today at $77 a night..................either that or giving rooms away for free to those that couldn't afford the inflation adjusted 1972 rate of at least $200 - $230 a night. If not that you must mean that what Walt had to offer would have included something different that could be made more affordable to the masses. What might that have been if not something along the lines of a "moderate" resort, or a second tier, even if implemented differently? Please indulge me.....................

[cristen]

Originally posted by wtg2000
Are you saying the current management is?

Well, I think that's what they've tried to do by building values.

No, that is not what I am saying. And we know all about the values, that is what we are talking about.

What I am trying to say is that with Walt, he never would have done something like the values. NEVER. He hated things done on the cheap, and the values, whether people like them or not, are cheap. You can not argue with that.

DK,

I am not very good at typing what I am saying, forgive me. No, of course the "deluxes" would be more expensive, and no he would not price them at 77.00, that's crazy. But I don't believe they would have been priced at over 400.00 a night for a standard either. (Going by Poly's prices, since that is one of the original. WL is cheaper, but I am going by the originals and what might have been with Walt.) I also feel that he would have created something like a moderate that was a bit cheaper for others. What I mean by not having a tiered system is that you would never have known with Walt that it was cheaper. You obviously can look at the difference between the values and the mods or the deluxes right? You can SEE that these are the cheap ones. We know that there are people that can afford the deluxes and still stay at the values, so I am not saying that only the "poor" people stay there. But I feel like they are saying, "oh, you don't want to spend almost ALL your vacation money on a nice resort, here you will stay at this one with a big dog in the front. But if you are willing to be gauged, here we have the one's that have better views and are closer." Walt would never have made it so obvious, he would have given you the most he could for the amount you could afford. So there might have been a tiered system, but we have never have known about it.

[wtg2000]

What I am trying to say is that with Walt, he never would have done something like the values. NEVER. He hated things done on the cheap, and the values, whether people like them or not, are cheap. You can not argue with that.I really don't know what Walt would have done. As for being cheap, that's a relative term. If you mean they are cheaply or shoddily constructed I can't really say. What I mean by not having a tiered system is that you would never have known with Walt that it was cheaper. You obviously can look at the difference between the values and the mods or the deluxes right?...So there might have been a tiered system, but we have never have known about it. I'm sorry, but this is a bizarre statement. Are you really saying that Walt would be able to build budget hotels that look and feel as nice as a deluxe hotel? Then what would be the difference between them? Walt may have had genius but I doubt even he could pull this off. Why don't $15,000 cars look like Ferraris?

Again, we'll never know what Walt would have done, but it's a major stretch to say that he could build hotels so that you couldn't tell the difference on a posh-ness scale. Are you saying he wouldn't even advertise them as such? You call up and say we'd like to stay at Hotel A - that'll be $300. Oh, how about Hotel B? - well, that's only $70. But they look the same. What's the difference? - oh, nothing. Then why the price difference? - you'd have to ask Walt on that one!
here you will stay at this one with a big dog in the front. Judging from the reviews, people like the big dog, and the piano shaped pool and the giant tennis ball cans. Doesn't that matter at all?

[DisneyKidds]

Sorry cristen, I just don't see how even Walt could have.....................
created something like a moderate that was a bit cheaper for others
....................while having them be, for all intents and purposes, no different than the deluxe resorts. I'll let you respond to wtg on that one ;).

My fear is that you have fallen into a Baron trap. Idealistic thought without any realistic approach to be found :crazy: ;) :tongue:. I suppose that Baron will now jump to the Ft. Wilderness/Poly comparison. One being significantly cheaper than and not anything like the other, but both being a unique Disney experience. However, to point that one out and not recognize that a moderate-like resort (or even a value) can also be a "different experience" seems to me to be double talk. Heck, by "different experience" standard even the values (which I'm not crazy about) make the grade. People can call them nothing more than a Motel 6 all they want, but that isn't true. At least I've never seen a Motel 6 remotely like the AS or PC. They truely are a unique Disney take on an existing concept......................much like Ft. Wilderness was back in the day.

[raidermatt]

Heck, by "different experience" standard even the values (which I'm not crazy about) make the grade. We all know "different/unique" is only one aspect of "Disney".

First off, none of us can really say what Walt would have done. If we could, we'd be out building our own innovative, imaginative and immensely successful company.

However, I firmly believe that his business philosophies would never allow the building of the values, or even moderates. Those profits would be left to those who are better suited to provide those more limited experiences.

Yes, the "deluxes" as we now know them, would have been expanded, but not nearly to the kind of capacity we see overall in WDW today.

That does NOT mean Disney would be passing up on $$$, it just means they would have invested in something else that more closely fit their business model.

[DVC-Landbaron]

That does NOT mean Disney would be passing up on $$$, it just means they would have invested in something else that more closely fit their business model.
Thank you for a wonderful post, Matt! I would have taken seven or eight times the words and still have missed the mark! Maybe they’ll finally “get it”!!

Anyway, here’s to hoping they will!!

[Another Voice]

"At least I've never seen a Motel 6 remotely like the AS or PC."

Even Motel 6 has standards.

[wtg2000]

However, I firmly believe that his business philosophies would never allow the building of the values, or even moderates. Those profits would be left to those who are better suited to provide those more limited experiences. Who are better suited to provide those more limited experiences? Whose to say that the moderates or values provide a more limited experience, that certain people won't enjoy them as much or perhaps find them less stuffy than say the GF or YC/BC. I don't feel my experiences staying the CBR or DXL were limited in any way. I've certainly never found anything on I-Drive or 192 that compared. And who is better suited than Disney to provide themed hotels at decent prices.

And as for profits, since when does any corporation say, "let's leave those profits for someone else?" Disney restaurants range from V&As at 100 bucks a pop to the $9 buffet at Ft. W. I think that's the great thing about WDW and adding this touch of budget flexibility to the hotels adds to it.

I'm not sure if you guys object to the pricing or to the fact that you just don't like the PC and AS.
That does NOT mean Disney would be passing up on $$$, it just means they would have invested in something else that more closely fit their business model.I'm curious what their business model is. I really have no idea. And of course they'd be passing up on revenues. That's why they built hotels (which have 60 % profit margins), to increase revenues and profits.

I've thoroughly enjoyed my stays at the CBR and DXL and judging from reviews many people are loving the PC. Isn't that the bottom line? Even Motel 6 has standards.Really?

[DVC-Landbaron]

OK! There always seems to be a point in these debates when the subject changes from Walt’s ‘philosophy’ to walt’s specific plans. And they drag out the secret weapon, designed to utterly obliterate “The Element”. E.P.C.O.T. Yep! Not “Epcot” (in fancy primary colored script). Not even EPCOT Center. No! E.P.C.O.T. The whole acronym.

But that misses the point. It is a given that Walt would not have built EPCOT Center. He would have built (or at least tried to build) his city. Period. We surrender! We give up! We ‘stipulate’! Yes! He would not have gone in that direction.

But again, we are talking about a ‘philosophy’. A way of doing things. A guide that can be applied to all aspects of the company. Philosophical ideals by which all things in the company should be funneled and compared to. Is this really so hard to understand?

And how do we find out what this philosophy is? By carefully examining how Walt did business. Not to copy it exactly. Not to emulate every move, down to the type of bourbon he dipped his donut in. But instead as a guidepost of “HOW” something should be handled or implemented. Some of it comes from his personal life (careful or I’ll start story time again. Hmmmm. It’s been a while since I told the backyard railroad story) and some of it comes from the way he did business (ah! The chandelier story hasn’t been told in quite a while)!!

Anyway, with this thought in mind, and centering on only one aspect of THE PHILOSOPHY, I offer the following:

When the DIS was very young we got to talking about Walt’s ‘philosophy’. Some of the posters didn’t quite grasp what I was trying to say. So I posted the following (cleaned up a bit and some parenthetical phrases have been added to keep it current):

Something which I came across - might be applicable here. It is from the 1965 Disney corporate annual report. Roy Disney had a letter to the shareholders in it. Now remember, this is right around the time that they purchased the Florida Property. The report states that the total profit for 1965, after taxes were $11,378,778. So in round numbers approximately $11 million. I will grant you that this does seems like a drop in the bucket compared to what Disney earns now - but of course this is in 1965 dollars (Mr. Kidds can get the inflation calculator out, I’m not, it is not what the post is about). Anyway - the reason that I mention this here was because after reading this - I came across the following quote (again from the 65 report): The Company expended $8,026,384 for capital additions during the past year. Installation of new attractions at Disneyland park .... along with the acquisition of certain WED assets comprise the major portion of these disbursementsSo - in the same year that the whole company earned $11 million – well over $8 million was spent on capital additions!! (I’ll pause a second or two to let that sink in!) Think about it!! At a level which was 70% of after tax profit - mostly at Disneyland!!!

What is the current after tax profit for Disney in say 1999 (the year it was written)?? $1,300,000,000 .. That’s right - $1.3 Billion. So what would 70% of 1.3 Billion be? Hmmmmm. Let’s see. I know!! $910,000,000!! Well, well, well!! I would guess that $910 million HAS NOT been spent on new attractions! We’re not talking about fixing the old stuff here either - this would be money spent strictly on NEW STUFF. I mean - you could almost build a whole new theme park a year for that. Wait!! There’s more! Much more!!

The 65 annual report goes on to say: Due to public acceptance evidenced by increasing annual attendance at Disneyland Park and our confidence that such trends will continue, the company, commencing in 1966, will embark upon the largest capital expansion and improvement program in the history of Disneyland. This program calls for approximately $45,000,000 to be spent over the next five years.$45 Million. $45 Million!! $45 Million!!!

That’s almost $9 million a year for five years. At a time in Disney history (1965) when the company's profit was only $11 million.. Can you Imagine Eisner dumping oh... $900 Million a year in New Attractions today?? It’s almost a joke. Yet that was the standard and level that Disney used to operate at. Think things haven’t changed at Disney folks??? I beg to differ!

That $45 million .. by the way - bought the Tommorrowland redesign of 1967 - among other things.. Also - to give an example of just how much money $45 million was back in the late 60's - about $400 million built ALL of WDW back in 68-71. This included a whole theme park – draining the land (which was quite expensive in it's own right), building roads, support facilities, a fleet of boats, installing a monorail system, building a couple of hotels - and so on.

********* End of old post *********

And that is part of the difference! Now do you begin to understand the ‘philosophy’? At least a little bit?

[Mr D]

And now for a totally off-the-wall comment,

5 days into a 28 day vacation in Orlando, been to Universal three times already and no plans in the future to visit WDW.

Why?

because .....;)

[crusader]

So - in the same year that the whole company earned $11 million – well over $8 million was spent on capital additions!! (I’ll pause a second or two to let that sink in!) Think about it!! At a level which was 70% of after tax profit - mostly at Disneyland!!!

I'll agree with this if you can tell me that there was no cash used from debt financing, equity investment or some other non-revenue source that year.

Otherwise, your 70% profit application is not accurate.

[SnackyStacky]

Originally posted by wtg2000
Who are better suited to provide those more limited experiences? Whose to say that the moderates or values provide a more limited experience, that certain people won't enjoy them as much or perhaps find them less stuffy than say the GF or YC/BC. I don't feel my experiences staying the CBR or DXL were limited in any way. I've certainly never found anything on I-Drive or 192 that compared. And who is better suited than Disney to provide themed hotels at decent prices.

A couple of random thoughts:

1.) You mention the Grand Floridian and Yacht & Beach Club as examples of stuffy. Aren't those properties that Eisner built? You mention neither the Polynesian, nor the Contemporary as stuffy. Things that make you go hmmmm.......

2.) Themed hotels exist all over the place. If I want incredible theme, I could just as easily go to Vegas and probably find something even better than Disney can provide. But I'm looking for something more out of Disney than just a dang theme.

Continue with your regularly scheduled debate. :)

[wtg2000]

I would guess that $910 million HAS NOT been spent on new attractions! We?e not talking about fixing the old stuff here either - this would be money spent strictly on NEW STUFF. I mean - you could almost build a whole new theme park a year for that. After WDW opened in 1971, the property didn't appear to change much until EPCOT opened in 1982. Yes, they built Pirates, Space and BTM, and I guess the Village Resort but I doubt they were spending 70 percent of the profits a year on new stuff. They certainly weren't building a new theme park every year. And keep in mind - this was the regime that had plans to allow Marriott to build 20,000 generic hotel rooms, plus were planning to build an industrial park and a plastic water park.

Do you really think Eisner is going to take the profits from the entire company and spend them all or most in one division? If you look at the 2002 report, Disney did spend $636 million on parks and resorts after dropping $1.278 billion in 2001. I just don't believe the economies work the way you say they do. Numbers can be misleading. Remember, in 1965 Disney was gearing up to build WDW - a major project, at the time the largest private construction company in the country. Plus, they were expanding DL. Look at the outlay Eisner made in late 1980s with the building of D-MGM, water parks, Downtown Disney, all the hotels. Companies do have periods of major expansion, then times when they calm down. So it makes sense that in the 1960s they were spending lots on capital development and infrastructure. As I wrote above, I can point to 2001 (over a billion dollars) and say that exceeds your $970 million, but it would be misleading to say that spend this much every year. Look at the outlay the Oriental Land Company must have had leading up to the opening of Tokyo Disney Seas. I bet it was much more than their yearly profits. But it would be misleading to use that one year (or couple of years) as an example.

And what were Disney's revenues in 1965? Companies can lose money and still expand and have large capital outlays in comparison to profits, especially if they are expanding.

I'll concede happily that Eisner is not Walt, and the business philosophy of the company has probably changed although I'm not convinced. Most companies want to expand and make money. That's what Walt did. That's what Ron Miller did. That's what Eisner has done. But I don't think you can pull out numbers and make comparisons. Walt opened Disneyland in 1955. Did he build a new park every year? Of course not. And it would be silly for Eisner to do that.

[wtg2000]

You mention the Grand Floridian and Yacht & Beach Club as examples of stuffy. Aren't those properties that Eisner built? You mention neither the Polynesian, nor the Contemporary as stuffy. Things that make you go hmmmm....... It doesn't make me go hmmmm. By the way, GF was in the plans before Eisner took over. I've never stayed at the Cont. because it doesn't appeal to me, and walking through it a couple times didn't change my mind. But yes, some people find the GF too formal and upscale and feel uncomfortable and probably the YC/BC as well. Aren't Yachts only for rich people? Well, you don't have to own a yacht to stay there and you don't have to wear an ascot. Get it? Eisner also built the WL and the AKL which are not stuffy. Neither are the moderates or values. So now we're criticizing the actual theme of the deluxe hotels? It sounds like a veiled attempt to criticize Eisner for building "stuffy" or rich-people themed hotels but not giving him credit for building "non-stuffy" themes like the wilderness or the boardwalk.

I'd really love to hear what is acceptable for Eisner to build.

In an ironic twist, I read a review of the Poly at epinions. The guy called it a horribly laid out motel. To each their own.

[crusader]

2.) Themed hotels exist all over the place. If I want incredible theme, I could just as easily go to Vegas and probably find something even better than Disney can provide. But I'm looking for something more out of Disney than just a dang theme.

What is it your looking for? Besides quality. Considering the fact that Walt's plan didn't involve building anymore themeparks. He copied Disneyland's blueprint and built the Magic Kingdom. The main difference this time was that he incorporated greatly themed resort properties to accomodate the guests.

There would have been a "city" equipped with a prototype economic development package for you to visit with a big old entertainment component to spend your money. (like a surreal shopping/eating/show extravaganza) No different than a Vegas experience except of course for the gambling.

Honestly, without the theme park options, would your entertainment budget be equally invested in Walt's original plan today?

I know I'd be hanging out at Universal with Mr.D and spending lots more money at SeaWorld.

[DisneyKidds]

But again, we are talking about a ‘philosophy’. A way of doing things. A guide that can be applied to all aspects of the company. Philosophical ideals by which all things in the company should be funneled and compared to. Is this really so hard to understand?
It's not hard to understand at all......and you get no disagreement that Walt's philosophy and Eisner's are different. However, what you seem to fail to understand is that you look at Walt's philosophy in a vacuum. We have the benefit of knowing what he did up to a certain point, but things changed from there quite a bit. I think it is foolish to believe that Walt wouldn't have change with the times as well. Yes, attention to detail and quality would ALWAYS be part of what he did, but that can be applied to a lot of things.........................even a "moderate" resort.

"Give the people everything you can give them." That is one of LB's fave quotes, no? Had Walt lived, seeing how the Florida project expanded and grew, seeing the demand for the ability to stay in a fabulous WDW hotel, seeing the effect economics and inflation were having on people's purchasing power, would he have changed this quote to "Give the people who can afford the Poly, CR, and Venetian everything you can.............and the rest be damned" ? Or would he have found a way to apply his quality principles and philosophies to new and different resorts that would allow him to give more of the people everything he could? Is that concept so hard to understand?

We can even talk about Walt and markets. Did Walt get into animation purely for the love of it without regard to whether there was a market for it? I don't think so. So Walt very much was into bringing quality and innovation to something for which he saw or believed would have a market. Why on earth could he have not done the same with resort hotels................(assuming he even gave a lick for WDW a few years after it opened, we all know how he liked to move on to new things)?

Walt was such a visionary that there is no doubt he would have found ways to apply his Philosophy to more things, rather than having his Philosophy limit the things that he could develope. So yes, the body of evidence shows that Walt didn't build a "moderate" resort. However, that body of evidence does not indicate that such a thing could never fit within Walt's Philosophy.

[SnackyStacky]

Originally posted by wtg2000
So now we're criticizing the actual theme of the deluxe hotels? It sounds like a veiled attempt to criticize Eisner for building "stuffy" or rich-people themed hotels but not giving him credit for building "non-stuffy" themes like the wilderness or the boardwalk.

Funny.....I didn't say any of that. All I did was make mention that Eisner built the properties that you mentioned as stuffy. I neither agreed nor disagreed with you regarding their stuffiness factor. Nor did I criticize any particular theme. I really would love to know where I stated all of that in the words of mine that you quoted.

Originally posted by crusader
What is it your looking for?

Immersion. I'm not looking to have a few decorations thrown about, and calling it a "theme". And just we're entirely clear, my original random thoughts were specifically regarding this quote from wtg:

And who is better suited than Disney to provide themed hotels at decent prices.

I'm speaking in terms of the "value" properties. (Although, if we're talking about decent prices, I'd have to say that the moderates and deluxes fall FAR short of that assessment, but that's a topic that's already been addressed.....at length)

[wtg2000]

I really would love to know where I stated all of that in the words of mine that you quoted. It seemed implied to me, but you're right. I was a bit harsh.

I understand that some of you don't like the AS and PC but I still don't get the talk of the alleged "caste" or "tier" system. WDW has hotels to fit various budgets. Originally, just taking into account the Poly and Cont. and not Ft.W, they had rooms to fit one budget. I'd like to know why that was better. I can't argue the notion that they were deluxe hotels at moderate prices because I didn't stay on property in those days, but I truly wonder if any more people could afford them than can afford the deluxes today.

I know that in 1986, just after Eisner had taken over, they were too expensive for me to afford. It wasn't until the CBR opened in 1988 that we stayed on Disney property. The building of this moderate allowed me to stay on site and drastically increased my enjoyment of trips to WDW - after staying on ultra-bland 192! Please tell me how this bad! Please tell me why all the people staying at the AS and PC should be escorted off WDW property and back to I-drive where they belong!

To suggest that all the hotels should have similar price structures just doesn't make sense to me. Even cruise ships know enough to build the Admiralty Suite and the lower deck boom-boom room to allow guests a choice in their cash outlay. I think this debate has turned into a broken record but I just don't see this scenario playing out in reality. And you're completely overlooking the fact that people like the AS and PC, and the moderates, and it's given them an alternative to staying on I-Drive and 192. That's right. An alternative. They aren't forced to. The comment that Eisner is trying to find ways to seperate people from their money implies that they don't have a choice. Now, they have more choice than ever.

[DVC-Landbaron]

wtg2000
After WDW opened in 1971, the property didn't appear to change much until EPCOT opened in 1982.And then you go on to say a lot more gibberish! I don’t mean to be cantankerous, but this is the second time you’ve used Walker/Miller as an example when we were all talking about Walt! Please stop this!! It does nothing but confuse the issue! If you want to talk about Walker/Miller, that’s fine. I’ll talk about nearly anything. But I have a very addled brain. And it is very easily confused. So please – help me stay on track!!!

Walt opened Disneyland in 1955. Did he build a new park every year? Of course not. And it would be silly for Eisner to do that.I would like to think that your statement is simply hyperbole, but to tell you the truth, I’m not at all certain. In either case, just to be sure, I don’t know of anyone who ever advocated that Ei$ner add a new park every year. Especially me!! I’m the one in car three that doesn’t necessarily even want a new E-ticket every couple of years! All I advocate is having the old ‘philosophy’ reinstated! Evidently you disagree with that philos…. OH MY GOD!! I just realized what your first sentence in that paragraph really said! I must have skimmed over it the first time! I'll concede happily that Eisner is not Walt, and the business philosophy of the company has probably changed although I'm not convinced. HOLD IT!!! STOP THE PRESSES!!! You’re not convinced that it changed!!!??? Changed from Walt to Ei$ner!?!? You actually are not convinced that they have different business philosophies!?!?! You really think that the business model and corporate philosophy of Disney is no different today that in Walt’s day??!! WOW!! I’ve NEVER heard that before!! Not on this board or any of the other sites I’ve frequented. Even on RADP (and you hear some crazy stuff over there)!!! This is indeed a first!

Now I can see you saying that the change made no difference. Or even that the change was good! But to not be convinced there was a change at all!?!? I’m afraid we’re talking in wholly separate universes! And I’m afraid that I really don’t understand your space time continuum in the least!!


DisneyKidds:
It's not hard to understand at all......and you get no disagreement that Walt's philosophy and Eisner's are different.
Well!! I’m glad some will stipulate to that at least!! ;)

Mr. Kidds, we’ve had this talk before. But I think we’re not so far apart as you may think. Please consider: I think it is foolish to believe that Walt wouldn't have change with the times as well.And I think it is foolish to accept what the current administration has done (that you admit isn’t up to snuff, with the exception of Dixie (maybe!!)) is anywhere close to what Walt would have done. And to tell you the truth, I don’t think it can be done. BUT…

But, I am willing to concede that if such a thing were possible, Walt would have done it!! But you are defending the current system based on some vague and wholly imagined “What If”. Doesn’t that seem a little silly to you? I will agree with you that it may have existed in some, much greater form than today, if Walt had had a mind to do it. But he didn’t. And Ei$ner did. And so today we have a caste system of resorts that suck!! And other than a possibility of Riverside and a belief that “Walt-would-have” we seem to agree! I think! And I’m even willing to meet you half way with the Dixie Landings bit. But at a much reduced price!! (Rack rate of course)!!

[KNWVIKING]

It seems that this thread and another have boiled down to a comparison of Walt and ME , (I guess technically every thread beyond three pages become a Walt vs ME). I think it would have been very interesting to know what would have happened had ME had the opportunity to come up thru the ranks at Disney under Walts tutaledge (sp). If I understand my history, ME was basically brought in as a gunslinger type expected to rescue Disney from the Hostile Takeover Wolves. I don't think Roy was looking for someone who "got it" or understood the "philosophy". He wanted someone to bail them out, which ME did. So doing things ME's way saved the company, made Disney grow billions beyond what it ever was, and now when things don't go well and bad decisions are made he's expected to - or at least some want him to- suddenly "get it". I think that is a little much to expect. And honestly, does anyone think the next CEO will "get it" ?

[DVC-Landbaron]

If I might….

Since I was the one who first postulated this notion...
-----------------------------

In the beginning there was a concept. And this concept was all important. All encompassing. Absolutely everything!!

Budgets didn’t matter. Tearing down half built (but ill conceived) things at great expense, didn’t matter. Market segment didn’t matter. Cost ratios didn’t matter. Nothing, absolutely NOTHING(!) mattered at all – except: THE CONCEPT!!

After the concept was achieved, as richly and quality laden as possible, a reasonable (and I stress the word ‘reasonable’) price was placed on it in order to increase the bottom line (or at least maintain the status quo) so that the next concept could be started!!

And THIS, more than anything else, is a major part of the Disney PHILOSOPHY!!
-----------------------------

Now the above is a bit overblown. But it is not hyperbole run amuck!! The concept was always more important than almost anything else. Now, of course they still had to make a profit and try to keep it in the realm of ‘middle class’, but other than that, nothing else mattered. Remember it’s the concept – not the market segment or profit margin that is the driving force.

Enter Ei$ner! He threw away the concept impetus and instead instituted the typical and mundane – every old business in the world thinks this way – “target marketing and profit motivation”. And he built the Grand Floridian and the Caribbean, NOT because a sterling concept begged to be hatched, but instead to capture a different market segment. To increase profit. With little regard (if any) to the long standing ‘philosophy’ upon which the company was founded and built.

I know this is hard to understand, but I firmly believe it. Pirates didn’t come about for the pursuit of the almighty buck! Haunted Mansion wasn’t built to maximize a market share! They didn’t put in a scaled back version of EPCOT, for those who couldn’t afford the “Disney” version. And in keeping with this…

Originally, just taking into account the Poly and Cont. and not Ft.W, they had rooms to fit one budget.You see! Right from the start you’re looking at it backwards. For Disney that is. It has nothing to do with “budget”. It has to do with providing guests with “Disney” 24/7. Something that Walt was always sorry he couldn’t do at Disneyland. This time the “berm” was ALL the property.

but I truly wonder if any more people could afford them than can afford the deluxes today. I can assure you they were!! I did stay there then. I can’t afford to now!

And you're completely overlooking the fact that people like the AS and PC, and the moderates,People also like strip shows and gambling joints. Does that make them OK for Disney too?

[wtg2000]

And then you go on to say a lot more gibberish!It's not gibberish, you just don't have an answer for it so you slag it. Your $11 million and $8 million numbers don't mean anything. You can't make simple comparisons like that from decades past. Besides, look at the capital expenditures on Disney theme parks and resorts over the past few years. They've been substantial I would say.
I don? mean to be cantankerous, but this is the second time you?e used Walker/Miller as an example when we were all talking about Walt! Eisner is not Walt. Everyone gets that. He reigns in a different time in a different economic climate, over a far different company. Perhaps you don't want to mention Miller because you don't want to give Eisner the credit for doing things like scraping the Marriott and platic water park deals. All people want to do his shun him for not being Walt. How many Walt's have there been in American business history? It's not a fair standard to lay on Eisner. You actually are not convinced that they have different business philosophies!?!?! You really think that the business model and corporate philosophy of Disney is no different today that in Walt痴 day??!! As I mentioned before, in so far that companies wish to grow and make money. Walt did. Eisner does. Walt was a visionary and artist who started a company. Eisner is a glorified bean-counter who was brought in to rescue a company. Just look at how corporate culture has changed - buyouts, mergers, outsourcing. Eisner has to live in this climate, and as much as we'd love him to be insulated from it and become Walt Incarnate it's unreasonable to expect that.

You're assuming that Walt's business philosophy would never have changed. Perhaps you're right, and who knows, he may havev flourished or been buried in the avalanche. I believe he would have adapted and survived, but who knows.
And I? afraid that I really don? understand your space time continuum in the least!! Simple. Eisner is not Walt. He didn't inherit the company from Walt, but from Ron Miller (oops, sorry!). The basis of the thread has been whether or not Disney should build hotels for varying budgets. I think they should. You say you could afford to stay at Polynesian and now you can't. I can't attest to that. However, many, many people can, and many people who couldn't afford the Polynesian before (or now) can stay at the moderates or values - as was the case with me in 1988 when the CBR opened. I still don't understand your problem with the alleged caste system.
Budgets didn? matter.Are you saying budgets didn't matter with Walt? If you are, I don't understand. I'm willing to bet Walt was very budget conscious. Any smart businessman is, and Walt and his brother were smart. Beside, Walt could barely scrap together enough money to finish the park so I'm sure budget mattered a great deal. Still, foremost to Walt was the show. No question there. Market segment didn? matter. Cost ratios didn? matter. Nothing, absolutely NOTHING(!) mattered at all ·except: THE CONCEPT!! Walt built Disneyland for a market segment - families. He added the Matterhorn to appeal to teenagers. I'm sorry, but as much as I love Walt you have a utopian view of him that is beyond idolatry. Enter Ei$ner! He threw away the concept impetus and instead instituted the typical and mundane ·every old business in the world thinks this way ·?arget marketing and profit motivation· And he built the Grand Floridian and the Caribbean, These are wonderfully themed and immersive hotels that are far better than the generic Marriotts we would have gotten were it not for Eisner. Eisner understood and understands the importance of storytelling the Disney concept. To increase profit. That's why Eisner was hired. To increase profits and build the company. That's what a CEO does. To expect him not to is bizarre thinking to me. With little regard (if any) to the long standing ?hilosophy·upon which the company was founded and built. Eisner was very aware of the philosophy. That's why he built immersive, themed hotels. That's why he built Typhoon Lagoon instead of a plastic park. That's why he had them change the Disney Village Resort because it wasn't themed. You see! Right from the start you?e looking at it backwards. For Disney that is. It has nothing to do with ?udget· It has to do with providing guests with ?isney·24/7. Eisner is doing that to, but allowing more people of various income levels to do so. I couldn't afford to stay at the Poly in 1986, but I could afford the CBR in 1988. Thanks Michael!People also like strip shows and gambling joints. Does that make them OK for Disney too? You're comparing them to strip shows? So if thousands or millions of people love staying at these resorts (including me) and say things like "the Disney magic was all there" (a review of the PC), or "we stayed at the GF but my DH prefers the AS" (another review), then that's not okay because you object? And if thousands and thousands of people stay on Disney property at moderates and values and enjoy themselves and return year after year that's not okay because Walt probably would not have built it? I'm sorry, but you've completely lost me.

If you go back to the first page of this thread, you'll see that I laid out a litany of things that Eisner has done that I think failed. I was very critical of him. However, I recognize the good things he has done and can't carry my criticism to the extreme lengths that subsequent posts have, especially expecting him to be Walt, and this talk about a caste system.

[DVC-Landbaron]

Well. It seems I’m back to my old form. A four pager lies in front of you. Have fun!!!!

It's not gibberish, you just don't have an answer for it so you slag it. I’m sorry, Mr. 2000 but when I cite a stockholder’s report from 1965, when Walt was in charge, and compare that to the current regime, and your only rejoinder is some lame walk though the Walker/Miller era, well, to me at least, that’s gibberish!!
You can't make simple comparisons like that from decades past.Can’t!?!? I just did!! Tell me where I’m wrong!
Besides, look at the capital expenditures on Disney theme parks and resorts over the past few years. They've been substantial I would say. I would say they have NOT been substantial! Further, where’s the back up? What expenditures? How much in relation to revenues? And most importantly, of what value? Are you counting Pop Century? Is that really “value”? Are you counting Dinorama? Is that value? And are you counting DCA? Yeah! Well, you got me there. Value, through and through, eh? (he said with tongue planted firmly in cheek, in case anyone might miss the sarcasm!
Perhaps you don't want to mention Miller because you don't want to give Eisner the credit for doing things like scraping the Marriott and platic water park deals. Oh my goodness! How many balls do you want to keep up in the air? Why are you constantly bring in Walker/Miller, when EVERYONE else is talking Walt vs. the “bonehead”?

“OK!” he said, throwing up his hands in utter frustration! You want Walker/Miller talk? You got Walker/Miller talk! (Note to everyone else. PAGE DOWN BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE! This is for Mr. 2000 who seems to want a little Walker/Miller discussion!)

Walker/Miller
Far be it from me to defend Ron Miller, but I gotta tell you, sometimes he really is picked upon and vilified unfairly.

As most of you know, Ron was Walt’s hand picked choice to run the Disney Company. Ron, as so far as I know, never went to Walt wanting to take control of the corporation. Rather it was Walt - on numerous occasions - who went to Ron trying to get him to see that Playing football had no future(at least not as Walt saw it). It was Walt who pushed Ron into movie making - at which he had no prior experience.

And why? Well, it’s simply because, at the time, it was felt that Disney was still a "movie" company - and the leadership of the corporation still had to come from the movie side of the house.

Again, I’m sure everyone is aware that Walt and Lilly only had 2 daughters; one adopted and one natural. However they had no sons. And please remember the times. In the 1960's it wasn’t accepted that a daughter should run the corporation (that’s not my opinion, of course, it’s just a statement of historical fact).

So who could Walt turn to? If you think about it, Walt really had only two choices - Roy Jr. or Ron, his son in law. Walt picked Ron. I really believe that this was due, in large part, to the fact that there was some lingering bad blood between Roy Jr. and Walt from some comments made years prior about how much of a business risk Disneyland was going to be. (I’m sure you know the story. Roy Jr. wasn’t really convinced that they could make a go of it with Disneyland. I’m convinced that this is, at least in part, a major reason why he takes such a hand’s off approach to the theme parks even to this day? Well, up to a couple weeks ago, at least!!) In any event, after Walt died - it was up to Roy Sr. to pick a leader for the company - and he ALSO picked Ron over his own son.

I think Ron did his best with what he had to work with, and what he knew. Really Ron was the first person to follow Walt in leading the company. And that HAD to be a tough position for anyone to be in. The whole company practically grieved for years after Walt died. I mean can you imagine how hard must it have been to get creativity out of people, especially the animators?

Remember too - Ron didn’t have complete control - as Card Walker was also there. And Card took a far, far more active role in the theme parks then Ron ever did. Ron also came up with Touchstone - which has made quite a bit of money over the years for Disney - and was perhaps in my mind, the greatest legacy that Ron left the company.

I have never felt that the Disney Company was in all that bad of a shape when Ron ran it - at least it wasn’t on its death bed - which is what the standard Disney histories all state and evidently you, believe. While it is true that the company was under a lot of pressure from Wall Street, it was not from a lack of success! In fact it is quite the opposite.

Most of that pressure came from the fact that their real estate holdings had skyrocketed in recent years and were grossly underdeveloped. And where was all this ‘undeveloped land that had soared in value? Yep! WDW!!! They caused, by their very presence, the crisis they were facing.

Also their film assets were ridiculously underutilized. Yes, sir!! They were very, very ripe for a take over and major breakup!!

So, because WDW was SO successful, the value of the land became so much - in some instances well in excess of $100,000 - $250,000 an acre - that it started to make sense from a "Wall Street" point of view to buy up the company and sell off the land and film libraries to make a killing. The value of those alone was so much more than what the stock price was selling for. Also you have to keep in mind that we had a few gas crunches during his reign and stagflation as well! Add to this that the Company had also dumped over a billion dollars into Epcot which was one HECK of a lot of money back then. (Heck! It’s even a lot now)!!!.

SO really was it totally Ron's fault? I don't know – but I would suspect that it wasn’t. Sometimes the way Ron is portrayed (typical of your portrayal), it is almost like a character in some of the screwball comedies that were made under his administration. And that’s not really fair.

I do know this much for sure. Under his leadership Walt's ideals and philosophies were very well maintained. The parks were run, as they always had been. EPCOT was built. Plans were in the works for another major resort on Seven Seas Lagoon (NOT specifically the Floridian as you have alluded to several times). The Little Mermaid came into being under his care (and it should be remembered that your great Michael (the one to whom you give thanks!) wanted to ax it over the Great Mouse Detective. Now that would have been a sterling move!!) Several additional attractions were added to WDW. Touchstone Pictures was conceived. And lest we forget, EPCOT was built!! Not a bad run, I’d say!!

Should they (Walker/Miller) have been a little bolder? Should they have developed the WDW real estate? Should they have unlocked the film vault earlier? Yes! Of course they should have. That answer is very easy in retrospect. And I admit they were a little like deer caught in the headlights. But it wasn’t really a dire as you make it out to be.

It is their very tenure that many Disney experts consider the “Golden Age” of Disney (at least for the parks). I really wish that Mr. Peabody would lend me his “Way-Back” and I could take you there for just a day! If that were possible, we’d have no further need to talk! You’d simply “get it”!


As an aside, Ei$ner deserves no credit! Perhaps Wells does. But NOT the “Inept One”


End Walker/Miller
How many Walt's have there been in American business history? It's not a fair standard to lay on Eisner. Sorry! I don’t buy that for a moment! He could at least try. He placed that mantle on his head when he assumed the role. The very least I expect of a CEO of Disney is that they “get it”!
Simple. Eisner is not Walt. Eureka!! At last!! Something on which we can agree!
I still don't understand your problem with the alleged caste system.It was the first step (and the most obvious step) away from the Disney philosophy. It was the first time, in the history of the company when quality was sacrificed for a buck. When “concept” was disregarded and “profit” took its place, becoming all encompassing. When the “Disney experience” became a commodity, to b sold in portions, based on market and cost, to the highest bidder, instead of an “experience”!!
Beside, Walt could barely scrap together enough money to finish the park so I'm sure budget mattered a great deal. Go on! One more time and it’s the chandelier story for sure!! :)
That's why Eisner was hired. To increase profits and build the company. Not quite, sir!! Profits were just fine. He was hired to be the puppet of Wells. And he was expected to keep things together under Disney’s roof. Unfortunately Wells died and your hero started to believe his own press!
You're comparing them to strip shows? Not at all! Are you trying to be obtuse?

I was saying that not all things popular are necessarily good for Disney. Surely you can see that! You may disagree, but at least give me credit for the point!

[DisneyKidds]

So here you have it Baron............I'll readily admit to the difference in philosophies AS WELL AS faulty IMPLEMENTATION of the concept of "affordable" resorts IF you will admit (which it seems you already have but I just want to hear you say it) that "affordable" resorts most certainly could have (heck, very well may have) been possible under Walt's philosophy and the only thing that the fact that he hadn't done them before his death proves is that the need most likely hadn't been apparent at the time (heck, the genius couldn't anticipate everything up front).

Deal?

[crusader]

Mr Baron:

What an inciteful reflective post! Wonderful read.

Thank you.

(ahhh...........but not so fast my friend!)

I’m sorry, Mr. 2000 but when I cite a stockholder’s report from 1965,

Hey, where can I get a copy of that report? You still haven't answered my question regarding debt and equity financing arrangements from 1965 though.

Can’t!?!? I just did!! Tell me where I’m wrong!

I believe wtg2000 was specifically talking about the capital improvements numbers when he remarked about simple comparisons. It appears you may have brushed over this relevant fact so let me point you back to what was being referenced in that remark.
Your $11 million and $8 million numbers don't mean anything. You can't make simple comparisons like that from decades past. Besides, look at the capital expenditures on Disney theme parks and resorts over the past few years. They've been substantial I would say
Please, feel free to respond.

I think Ron did his best with what he had to work with, and what he knew. Really Ron was the first person to follow Walt in leading the company. And that HAD to be a tough position for anyone to be in. The whole company practically grieved for years after Walt died. I mean can you imagine how hard must it have been to get creativity out of people, especially the animators?
Well said, and most certainly right on. They lost thier maestro so to speak but they knew his expectations and were very experienced in their craft which was one saving grace entirely attributable to Walt.

Your comments about the company pre-Eisner were very important. Things like.............

While it is true that the company was under a lot of pressure from Wall Street, it was not from a lack of success! In fact it is quite the opposite.

Most of that pressure came from the fact that their real estate holdings had skyrocketed in recent years and were grossly underdeveloped. And where was all this ‘undeveloped land that had soared in value? Yep! WDW!!! They caused, by their very presence, the crisis they were facing.

It's not that simple. In order for a hostile takeover, there had to be a major stock purchase at play or a leveraged buyout issue. Land will typically entice such a suitor, but there had to be an achilles' heel. So my guess is they had depleted their resources, drained all the cash, needed more financing and didn't have the means to buyback thier stock.

That's where creative genius fails and financial genius kicks in to effectively run your company.

Who over there post-Walt possessed this quality before they recruited Eisner?

[wtg2000]

I would say they have NOT been substantial! Further, where? the back up? What expenditures? How much in relation to revenues? From the annual reports. Capital investments in parks and resort:

2002 - $636 million
2001 - $1,278 billion
2000 - $1,523 billion
1999- $1,699 billion
1998 - $1,624 billion

Hey, it's beats me where all that money goes.

It seems like a lot to me, but maybe not. And most importantly, of what value? Are you counting Pop Century? Is that really ?alue· Are you counting Dinorama? Is that value? And are you counting DCA? I'm just reading the numbers. Are you saying they did or did not spend this money, or that they just didn't spend on things that you like? Can?!?!? I just did!! Tell me where I? wrong! I'm saying you can't just throw out a few numbers from one year and compare it to situations forty years later. It has not context and no relevance. Even my numbers above don't speak to quality or good management but they rather show that numbers on their own don't mean anything. Why are you constantly bring in Walker/Miller, when EVERYONE else is talking Walt vs. the ?onehead This topic of this thread is Dear Eisner. It didn't start as a Walt vs. Eisner thread and I don't know who or how it ended up that way. It seems like a pointless comparison to me. SO really was it totally Ron's fault? I don't know. I was simply pointing out that Eisner took over the reigns from Ron, not from Walt, and that he was faced with a certainly reality at the time that he had to deal with. By calling him a puppet and the inept one you make your disdain for him obvious. Then what about the GF and CBR? Who gets the blame for them, Eisner or Wells? How can you blame Eisner if he's just a puppet?I have never felt that the Disney Company was in all that bad of a shape when Ron ran it - at least it wasn? on its death bed - which is what the standard Disney histories all state and evidently you, believe. The books do indicate that Disney was in danger of being dismantled and Roy Jr. seemed to agree. If you don't think so that's fine. I don't have any inside information to make a qualified opinion, but only what I read from the standard Disney historians. Not quite, sir!! Profits were just fine. Again, the standard Disney historians disagree. In 1983, the movie studio lost $33.3 million (there's a one year stat for you!). I couldn't find theme park profits but the indication is that they were so-so, although they were wasting opportunities with WDW property. The stock was cut it half from 1983 to 1984. (which is perhaps why Roy wants to get rid of Eisner now for the same thing - just like he did with Ron).(and it should be remembered that your great Michael (the one to whom you give thanks!) As I said earlier, on the first page of this post I criticized him quite heavily. I was just saying that by building the moderates I was able to stay on the property for the first time and have a far more enjoyable experience then when I stayed on 192. It was the first step (and the most obvious step) away from the Disney philosophy. It was the first time, in the history of the company when quality was sacrificed for a buck.I'm not sure that providing affordable accomodation goes against Disney philosophy, or that quality has been sacrificed. Yes, they are less extravagant resorts and don't provide the ammenities, but I think they have the Disney experience and magic. Unfortunately Wells died and your hero started to believe his own press! Again, I've never called him my hero and criticized him on the first page of this thread. I'm just looking at it realistically. Eisner was hired to be CEO of Disney in 1984, not to be Walt Incarnate. I can't understand why you can't understand that. The situations presenting him were vastly different than those presenting Walt, and yes, Eisner has a different background and a different philosophy. Still, I believe he did retain the Disney philosophy with regards to storytelling and theme.

DVC Landbaron - I'm curious. Are you a DVC member?

If so - is that part of the caste system, having some people be part owners? Was DVC a good move by Eisner? Is it Disney-ish? Do they DVC resorts tell a story? I would have liked to join but it was too expensive for me.

[DC7800]

Originally posted by thedscoop
The trend toward a new approach to WDW lodging did not begin with the Grand Floridian or Caribbean Beach Resort. It started with the garden wings located at the Contemporary Resort

How can the Contemporary Garden Wings represent a "a new approach to WDW lodging" when they were part of the orignal WDW resorts? There's no prior approach to compare! This resort, together with the Polynesian, established the concept of a WDW "hotel". The same philosophy which built the Polynesian and the Magic Kingdom also included the overall design for the Contemporary; whethor it has stood the test of time well may be another debate, although I'd argue the Contemporary fared much better than it's commonly given credit for.

[KNWVIKING]

***"How can the Contemporary Garden Wings represent a "a new approach to WDW lodging" when they were part of the orignal WDW resorts?"***

If I'm not mistaken the wings were added long after the Cont was built, they were not part of the original WDW resort.

[KNWVIKING]

.... I've always been under the impression those ugly wings were an add-on attempting to cash in on the monorail location. It seems incredible that something so "Eisner" would have been done at the very beginning.

[Another Voice]

Yes Mr. Scoop, you're right. You found the secret. You've let the cat out of the bag, the cow out of the barn and the chicken out of the pot.

The resort expansion proves that Walt Was A Moron (WWAM for short) and that all of Disney prior to Eisner is nothing a vast myth made to cover our shame.

We knew at the time that the only true road to success was to build cheap motels, make cheap movies, and cheap trinkets. But hey, we were foolish. We wasted all that time on quality and making movies people wanted to see, parks people wanted to visit and stuff people wanted to buy.

Walt and his people were so stupid. We tried, but since we were all chained to our desks we had to follow their lead. Walt was an evil person afterall. And I still remember that day when Eisner showed up and tore open the gates with his bare hands. Sunlight - for the first time in decades - poured into the studio. At last someone to free us from the evil we were forced to spread! I still get misty eyed remembering the day my shackles were unlocked...

When the idea came up of expanding the Contemporary we really wanted "to get it right". Naturally, those Old Walt People (otherwise known as The Fools) of course got it completely wrong. Their idea was to build lower costs accommodations (because that's what the demand was for) at the same resort. That would allow those guests to experience the same magic (as if they even knew the proper use of the word) of a Disney resort and let them pick how much they wanted to spend. And a price difference based on something real - like location - rather than a fancy term meaning "you can't see much of the parking lot from your room". Of course, the new rooms would have to follow the same design and architecture of the resort. Like I said, these people were stupid.

No - had we just known at the time the proper way to do things.

Like different rooms at the same resort. How stupid!!! Let the huddled poor into an upscale resort? It's bad enough those people are allowed to share the monorail (instead of staying on the busses where they belong) - but to have them share the same pool? That was simply beyond the pale. Poor people deserve less and it's Disney's obligation to uphold that ideal. By allowing families large rooms and a lower price - while allowing them the same access to amenities that better people had - WDW did much to contribute to social ills of the age. The entire nation must be grateful that Michael Eisner stepped forward and put everyone back in their proper places.

And this idea that the buildings should fit with the existing site. We were so dumb. No one wants a resort that's coherently designed. If we had only known the people wanted nothing but tilt wall construction and massive fiberglass signs screaming DO THE FUNKY CHICKEN then Walt Disney World would have been a financial success off the bat instead of the cesspool it was until the Disney/MGM Studios opened. How stupid we were back then. All that money wasted. All that time wasted.

I mean really, who cares about building a hotel people want to stay at. The correct way of doing things is to always compete on price and brand image. Overprice the high end ('cause nothing says "elite" like paying too much) so the rabble thinks a hundred bucks a night for a drive-in motel is "value". If we had only been such cleaver marketers (sigh). And when people come to think that's too much still, offer "discounts" to make them think their smart and getting a deal (even though we really think they're just stupid and gullible).

The highest form of human experience is to say "this is cheap!" instead of "this is amazing!". Hell, Motel 6 can build really nice resort, but it takes Disney to go that extra measure of tackiness. But, you know, WWAM.

Looking back on those days it's hard to imagine that anyone at all even came to WDW. It truly is amazing. Why would anyone want a two-day park filled with new attractions when a half-day carnival is just as Magical® (all rights reserved, this term is used with the expressed written permission of The Michael Eisner Company and may not be copied, transcribed, duplicated, transmitted and/or broadcast with proper payment to said company. No other organization, group, animal, vegetable, mineral or noun may be refereed to using this term without proper filing, payment of fees and sufficient notice that all good things in life are available for purchase solely out of the kind and generous heart of Michael Eisner).

It feels so good to get that off my chest. The past is nothing but garbage. The present is a paradise of wonder and virtue. And the future will be gloriously profitable for generations yet to come.

[Another Voice]

At what point are the Gardern Wings not part of the Contemporary Resort. I don't remember a line painted on the ground that says "the future ends here - beyond if just a hotel"). Seems to me that the entire property fits together nicely (and the Garden Wings are closer to the pool and marina if you want to talk amenities). The Garden Wings follow the same lines as the Tower - so much so that people don't even they were added after.

Or is that you hold the only "true" expansion would have been additing more floors to the Tower? You now, set the requirements of the past so high the shortfallings of today don't seem too bad.

And it seems like you're stretching the logic in an attempt keep the "but they did that before so that means we have a free hand to drag out the fifty Buzz Lightyear scupture where ever we want". They added new buildings to the Poly as well. Are they "unthemed grabs for cash" so Eisner's actions are justified as well.

Life is very, very easy if all the mistakes and sins of the part serve to excuse current mistakes (especially if you interupt the past to meet whatever the current needs are).

The years may change, but basic demands don't. When The Old Walt Guys wanted to expand, they chose themed additions to existing resorts so they could continue to uphold the standards they had set. The current management (know as The Saint That Walks Among Us) choose to lower standards instead of figure out a better way of running the business.

The issue isn't whether there should be "affordable" rooms at WDW - the issue is how you create them.

[KNWVIKING]

***" (geez, lady, haven't we agreed on that one already?). "***

AV... male or female ?

***"so much so that people don't even (know) they were added after."***

Were the wings add ons or original construction ?

[DVC-Landbaron]

Mr. 2000:

Still, I believe he did retain the Disney philosophy with regards to storytelling and theme.This is where you and I part company. I totally disagree. And no where more strongly than with the resorts. What you consider “theme and story” in the economies, I consider huge decorations and primary colors gone wild!! I can see no ‘story’. I can see ‘theme’. Maybe you can point them out.

DVC Landbaron - I'm curious. Are you a DVC member?
Yes! However, if I knew in 1993 what I know now, I don’t think I would have bought in.

That said, I have NEVER been disappointed. In fact I would even go so far as to say that it is extremely reminiscent of Disney in the ‘70s. It is truly packed with WOW!

As far as being in the “Official LandBaron Caste System” – well, no. It is a separate animal. However, the DVC is quickly going in that direction. Instead of costing more money for the newer establishments, it costs more points. I am starting to feel like a second class citizen having my “home” points at Old Key West. But I’ve seen it coming for years. And it is getting worse. But I’m not surprised. It’s just typical!


So here you have it Baron…

…Deal?

DEAL!!!

And welcome to Car #3!!! With that acknowledgement you just bought yourself a first class ticket!! Come to think of it “first-class” is the only ticket we offer!! (we do have to maintain out standards, you know!!)

But what really pushed it over the edge was AV’s post! WOW!!! Did you read it? If not find it and study it! The one that starts “Yes Mr. Scoop, you're right. You found the secret.”

It is by far the best post he ever wrote! (so much so that Scoop’s response seemed like a non-response - response!) Very good indeed! And it went a long way to saying what you’re always on about. Providing a better price. And what I’ always on about, not lowing the standards! Kinda sounds like Garden Wings and additional out buildings fit the bill nicely! THAT is something worthy of WALT!!!



Ah, Scoop! It is so good to engage you again. Just to know that I alone have the power to make you hurriedly and violently push (or is that throw?) aside… yada yada yada…

Hmmmmm… Now that I think about it, I don’t have anything to say to you… Sorry!

AV, my lord, I kneel before you! The entire post was… well… The years may change, but basic demands don't. When The Old Walt Guys wanted to expand, they chose themed additions to existing resorts so they could continue to uphold the standards they had set. The current management (know as The Saint That Walks Among Us) choose to lower standards instead of figure out a better way of running the business.

The issue isn't whether there should be "affordable" rooms at WDW - the issue is how you create them.
… WOW!!!






Hey Scoop!! BTW, I thought you were gone for good!? A CameoDoes that mean you are going to go away again? ;)

[wtg2000]

The resort expansion proves that Walt Was A Moron (WWAM for short) and that all of Disney prior to Eisner is nothing a vast myth made to cover our shame.(in the voice of Cordelia) Overreact much?!


What about the original Golf Resort/Disney Inn and Disney Village Resort? Do they meet the standards of Disney theme, storytelling and magic?

And what about the WL, AKL, YC/BC and BW. Surely they tell a story?

Frankly, I'm not sure what the story at any of the resorts are. For the Poly you said it makes you feel like you're in the South Pacific. Agreed. It's wonderful. But I don't see that as a story. A story has characters and plot lines. Same for the Cont.

The WL appears to be an excellent recreation of a northwest lodge but I don't know if that's a story.

I know the fictional stories behind Typhoon Lagoon and Blizzard Beach. Are there fictional stories that explain the existence of the Poly and Cont. as well?

What's the WOW factor in DVC? Do the resorts tell a story? I've never stayed in any of them.

I'm surprised you don't consider it another feather in the caste system. It seems to me it would be the defining moment, having some people actually own part of WDW while the rest of us are just humble renters.

[BRERALEX]

11 pages? 152 responses? is it.........2001 again?

[DVC-Landbaron]

11 pages? 152 responses? is it.........2001 again?Yes!! The only thing we’re missing is that lovable duck and my favorite pirate!! Actually I think I first started this nonsense even earlier. So, we’ve all had a lot of practice with the subject. And with that in mind…
What about the original Golf Resort/Disney Inn and Disney Village Resort? Do they meet the standards of Disney theme, storytelling and magic? Well. I thought we’d get around to this. Come into my parlor… Mr. Fly…

Yes! They do! They do indeed! They never became popular (hey! You can’t win them all, or be right every single time), but they were Disney, through and through. They simply oozed WALT!!

[DisneyKidds]

And welcome to Car #3!!!
Now, now...........let's not start that nonsense again ;).
DEAL!!!
Now that we have agreed that different, more affordable resorts built at a lower cost and sold at a lower price (without this they wouldn't be more affordable would they?) fit within Walt's philosophy, can you tell me how (even if implemented in better fashion by Walt himself) that wouldn't represent a tiered or "caste" system? How would it be so different? Yes, there would be more quality and attention to the kind of detail that was important to Walt, but to be more affordable they would have to be "less" in some fashion. For so long I thought you were against the concept of any resort on Disney property being "less" than what existed in '72. I guess I was wrong. For so long I thought you were adamant about the fact that "moderate" resorts had no place in Disney, being "Disney". I guess I was wrong. I guess it was just the "moderate" resorts as done by ME. I have to say, I'm glad we agree on something but your lines just got fuzzier. But don't let it be said that I never endeavoured to REALLY understand you........so that process has to continue it seems.
And it went a long way to saying what you’re always on about. Providing a better price. And what I’ always on about, not lowing the standards! Kinda sounds like Garden Wings and additional out buildings fit the bill nicely! THAT is something worthy of WALT!!!
(DK shakes head and wonders if there aren't those who won't go to any length to deify that which was done back in the day.)

Sorry Baron.............but the Garden Wings just completely and totally SUCK. They do. They really, really do. Scoop is right and AV is all wet...........and you confound me even more.

Forget the new longhouses at the Poly. Those were great. Not only a true continuation of the original but an improvement. Not "less" than the original in any way. Can you honestly say the same for those Garden Wings?

Without a doubt, they most certainly are "less" than the tower. They are also cheaper than the tower. Resort rooms that are less than the tower and cheaper than the tower.............sounds a lot like building something less just to increase capacity that can be sold cheaper. I just don't see how you can view that as a good thing. OK, so you admitted that something "less" and more affordable could be Disney..............but you want to defend those unoriginal, bland, "could be a room anywhere" Garden Wings? We've stayed there. Yes, they are on the grounds of the CR so you get the proximity to the MK and the monorail...........and you do get to see how the better half lives it up in the Tower, but other than that they SUCK.

Tell me.........honestly. Would you rather stay in the CR Garden Wings or at POR? I'll take POR hands down as it is much more Disney. It is an immersive resort that takes you to a time and place.....rich in detail and bursting with theme. So you can see a parking lot. Guess what. Half the Garden Wing rooms are RIGHT ON TOP OF A PARKING LOT. Not even the worst of moderates can say that. The CR Garden wings don't take you anywhere...........other than close to where the REAL Disney Magic is in the Tower.

(Ahh.........that few seconds of agreement was nice, but alas.....................;).)

[wtg2000]

(DK shakes head and wonders if there aren't those who won't go to any length to deify that which was done back in the day.) You mean you just figured that out?!

[airlarry!]

Not to actually infuse this topic with common sense and reality, 'cause Lord knows there's a lot of WWAM going on here, but ...Without a doubt, they most certainly are "less" than the tower. They are also cheaper than the tower. Resort rooms that are less than the tower and cheaper than the tower.............sounds a lot like building something less just to increase capacity that can be sold cheaper. I just don't see how you can view that as a good thing.

Well....no....it sounds *nothing* like building Poop Century.

Common sense would tell you that there are only so many rooms that can be added to a tower or added to the monorail...that is unless you want the A-Frame to stretch from the train station all the way to the TTC.

I mean, it's really that simple. The Garden Wings may not have been the perfect way to expand the A-Frame, but could you really think of something better without "hindsight is 20/20" stuff?

Just when you think that you've read every argument on the DIS that could ever be typed, out pops an idea I had never read before (course I could have just missed it).

The thought that instead of spreading hotels all over the freakin' resort, with its concommitant increase in roads, buses, traffic, and strain on the resort, that the Big E$ could have added cheaper priced rooms to existing resorts instead seems brilliant, and makes me a little mad.

Imagine The Grand Floridian, with $$$$ rooms right on the monorail, and $$$ between the monorail and boats, and $$ rooms near the water transport, and $ rooms near the pools. Same resort. Same amenities. Same wonderful transportation.

Just four sets of people paying for bigger rooms and more convenience. Course having your Avg Jeaux mingle with Cou$in Mike's elite would pi$$ him off, I am sure. Instead, Mikey makes him and his friends happy by shipping us off to Purple Poopland.

Baron may remember that I've been a slow, slow learner on this caste system...some of our discussions on the Golf resort and DxL go back 3-4 years now, and I haven't always agreed.

But between Baron's comment, and AV's brilliant post....

I get it.

[DVC-Landbaron]

Now that we have agreed that different, more affordable resorts built at a lower cost and sold at a lower price (without this they wouldn't be more affordable would they?) fit within Walt's philosophy, can you tell me how (even if implemented in better fashion by Walt himself) that wouldn't represent a tiered or "caste" system? Because it would be so subtly done that very few (if any) would even notice, and those that did wouldn’t mind because the “downsizing’ would be minimal. Take your garden wings for instance. Or the newer longhouses. In each case, these could have been the Mods. And each other ‘deluxe’ could have had the same concept.

It is an absolute stroke of genius! You have the same resort, same transportation, same amenities and the same ‘everything else’. The only difference is a further walk to the main building, (perhaps) smaller rooms, double beds instead of queen size, perhaps (and only perhaps) no indoor corridor. Are you seriously going to tell me that this implementation, just as His Airness so adroitly pointed out, wouldn’t be preferable to Pop Century? Or even any of the Mods. Even Riverside?

Yes, even Riverside!! Picture Riverside done up as a ‘deluxe’! Pretty neat, eh? Now picture a section of Riverside done the way it is, for Mod prices. Not a bad concept is it? In fact, the Deluxe portion of the resort (i.e. gift shop, restaurants, lobby, front desk, pools, and “magical” transportation) would benefit the “Mod” section and make caste distinction barely noticeable. Sure you’ve got quite a hike to the “Magical” transportation and perhaps the interior lobby disappeared for this building, and maybe it has only double beds instead queen size, but come on Mr. Kidds!! Is that not preferable to the system they have now!?!?! Are you so enamored with the concept of ‘separate’ pricing structures within totally separates resorts that you cannot give this idea a little room to grow? I’m tellin’ ya!! It’s brilliant!!

Look, Mr. Kidds. We’ve already stipulated that there really isn’t place at all in the grand scheme of things for the ‘economies’. At least I think that’s what we’ve said. Please correct me if I’m wrong. So what we’re really talking about is how to do Mods. And we’ve both pretty much said that the way they have done the mods is NOT the right way. It comes close at times, very close (i.e. Riverside) but it is still not as good as it could get. That is the very reason we could never agree. I look at what is and say it STINKS!! You look at what is and say they concept is sound, but the implementation STINKS!! And for the past year and half (I think) you’ve been trying to convince me that “Mods” can work. It just takes some out-of-the-box thinking and some Walt-like “MAGIC”. But you haven’t, in all that time, come up with a concept that has been acceptable to my way of (admittedly convoluted and very hard-line) thinking!

Well here it is!! This is as out-of-the-box as you can get!! It is simply dripping with Walt-like “MAGIC”. Just look at how magical it is!! For the first time since the Caribbean was built – this concept has actually gotten your friendly neighborhood LandBaron to admit – as publicly as possible – that the concept of Moderate accommodations within Walt Disney World can indeed exist! If that ain’t magic, I don’t know what is!!

So pick up the marbles!! Say, “thanks for a good battle”. Be a gracious winner! You have me convinced!! FINALLY!! Yes, Mr. Kidds! Mods can exist in WDW if implemented right! What else do you want me to say? Do I really have to cry “UNCLE’!?!?! Or perhaps say, “I’m a codfish!!”

[cristen]

Originally posted by DVC-Landbaron
Because it would be so subtly done that very few (if any) would even notice, and those that did wouldn’t mind because the “downsizing’ would be minimal.
In fact, the Deluxe portion of the resort (i.e. gift shop, restaurants, lobby, front desk, pools, and “magical” transportation) would benefit the “Mod” section and make caste distinction barely noticeable.


This is exactly what I was trying to say. You wouldn't notice. How come I can't make my points like this?:confused:

[crusader]

Am I understanding this correctly? The solution to the caste system is construct only full service lavishly themed resorts with lower priced, less ornate and smaller accommodations somewhere away from the more desirable and accessible areas of the complex.

But

Nobody gets a room for less than $120/night.

So all you’ve done is dug up the mods and cleverly camouflaged them on the crap sections of the deluxe properties.

Sounds great. Count me in. I'm sure only a handful of these lucky guests in the primitive units will be complaining to management for free upgrades.

[DVC-Landbaron]

Nobody gets a room for less than $120/night.

Yep! ---- and ---- Nope!

You see, you’re missing a key element. And I suppose I can’t blame you. Your only experience with Disney has been with the “overpriced” version. But I’ve always maintained that price (or cost, if you will) plays an extremely vital role in the Disney “experience”. Anyone, and I mean anyone (you, me and even the current regime) can produce the current Disney “experience” for an outrageous and exorbitant price! The true “MAGIC” comes from the concept AND the pricing of the ‘thing’. Can’t you see that?

So depending on the pricing structure, which in my plan HAS to less than today, it could go substantially downward from that $120.00 a night pricetag you arbitrarily put on it!! In either case, it’s pretty much been stipulated that there is no place within the Disney “concept” or “philosophy” for the economies. So what we’re really talking about is the Mods. And even 120 a night ain’t too shabby for the Mods!! So all you’ve done is dug up the mods and cleverly camouflaged them on the crap sections of the deluxe properties. Yes! Yes! Yes!!!!

You finally “GET IT”!!! Congratulations!!! Sounds great. Count me in. I'm sure only a handful of these lucky guests in the primitive units will be complaining to management for free upgrades. Well, I wouldn’t call them “primitive”. You surely cannot be devoid of all imagination to picture them as at least as good as the Mods are now.

And sure they will ask for an upgrade! I sure would. And sometimes they’ll get, and sometimes they won’t! But if they don’t, they still don’t feel like a second class citizen! THAT’S THE BEAUTY OF THIS SYSTEM!!! Everyone has the same “RESORT” amenities!! You are staying at the Floridian (or Wilderness or Beach or whatever deluxe you care to name), for God’s sake!! At a very, very, very low rate!! I’d be ecstatic!!

[crusader]

Alright, before I engage that reply I need you to answer something for me.

Believe me, I'm listening.

Besides the resort facility itself, what are the other mandatory requirements of every deluxe Disney property in Florida according to your standards?

[All Aboard]

Baron... won't work. Variable cost structure still applies to the "mod" rooms in your model. The only difference is the size of the room and the size of the bed. Initial capital costs that are part of the equation. But, the staffing and all the other amenities must accomodate the entire guest population of the resort - including the steerage in the "crap section." So, your costs will be just as high as a "completely deluxe" resort with the same number of guest rooms. Unless they are, your "true deluxe" guests won't really be getting deluxe service.

Anyhow, you'll have an upside down model of demand. Think about it - the best rooms at a resort are in the fewest supply - suites at the Poly, King rooms at CBR. Your resort has a large number of rooms where guests essentially have to pay more to get the same level of service - but simply have a bigger room. Demand will gravitate toward the smaller rooms, where more value is perceived. Same pool, same restaurants, same beach, same transportation, same grounds, lower price - I'll take that one.

In my opinion, this is a far more overt caste system. Highly visible within the resort. "Yes, they are staying here at the Polynesian, but they are over there in THAT section."

[DVC-Landbaron]

Believe me, I'm listening Thank you.

Besides the resort facility itself, what are the other mandatory requirements of every deluxe Disney property in Florida according to your standards? I’m not quite sure. The first thing that comes to mind is “Theme”. If it is the same resort (even if it’s a hike to the lobby) you’ve still got that.

And transportation!!! It has to be creative, different and unique. That is imperative. You can have a bus as well, but there needs to be alternative transportation.

Other than that… I have always maintained that it is the little things that separate Disney from the others. It was being able to eat off the floors, right after a parade, with nary a vacuum cleaner in sight. Now that’s magic!! Or knowing that the MK was opened until two in the morning, and yet arriving there at 8:00 am the next day and finding EVERYTHING absolutely pristine!! ALL the light bulbs working and NO chipped paint anywhere. Again, that was MAGIC!!! It was all those torch lined walkways in the Poly, when streetlights would have been easier and cheaper (BTW they don’t have those anymore. That is very sad!!).

So, I really don’t know how to answer your question, especially in light of the fact that we’re all in virgin territory. I had NEVER considered anything less than what they had built. And when we had this first go around, I contended that certain standards needed to be maintained in order to qualify as Disney. Sometimes just little things. Like bellhops (carhops) at the front entrance. The Mods don’t have that. Electric (automatic) doors for the lobby. Today I would count “zero depth” pools. Sometimes it’s seemingly silly things (but very, very Disney!!), like NOT being able to see the parking lot from ANY room (it goes to that “berm” idea that I happen to wholeheartedly agree with!)!!

In the past I had maintained that indoor corridors were necessary. Patios and/or balconies. A sink INSIDE the bathroom!! Double beds. That sort of thing. But…

… Today, in light of this earth shattering revelation, I don’t know. (The LandBaron is caught speechless!!!) I suppose something has to give. So I’m open. I suppose that some things I could stomach and others I’d cry foul!!! And you would probably have a different list! I think it is highly individual and highly arbitrary. Very subjective. More of a ‘feeling’ than logic could ever explain. But overall, I really believe that this system is light-years ahead of the current concept!! Heck!! Nearly ANYTHING is better than what we have!!

So, I’m open to ideas! As you know I don’t usually play “What If” games. I think they are lame and pointless. But this new concept of “Mods-within-STANDARD-Disney-resorts” is sooooooo intriguing to me – I find that I’d actually LOVE to play!!!

So… What’d ya say? Wanna play for a while? Do you have any ideas? And as you so aptly said…

Believe me, I'm listening

[airlarry!]

Greg, I hate to disagree with you, but every resort already has this in some for m or another. When we stayed at the Grand Floridian, we knew that we would not be in the main building. We knew we would be in one of the further out rooms (which really weren't that far away). We knew that other people were staying only a short hop out of their room to the monorail. We knew that there was a concierge services somewhere with giant rooms that cost 10 times what I was paying.

Didn't matter. We were still *on* or should I say *near* the monorail...couldn't see a parking lot from our room...had a beautiful view of the castle as I walked over to see the pool.

On a side note, we stayed there on a super AP rate--otherwise I would never *before* have blown the money to stay on the monorail--course all week I was walking around to myself thinking how the heck could I ever go back to staying at the Mods or below--I'd rather go to Disney every third or fourth year to stay on the monorail then to come back every year and stay at the PoopCentury.

And, yes, I used to be one of those 'its just a hotel room, you only sleep there.' Sure...that is until I actually stayed on a monorail line hotel.

It doesn't amaze me that Baron would return to the World every year. What amazes me is that he doesn't regret giving up his beloved Poly experiences. ;)

[DisneyKidds]

Holy Moley!!! True progress for the first time in a long time...................perhaps ever!!!!! Unfortunately, as I sit here in the office on a Sunday I am supposed to be doing work so I better not get going. I do have the train ride home to explore my feelings regarding Baron's revelation. At first glance I have to agree and disagree with Greg. It seems a more covert caste system when you look at it property wide, cleverly hidden and such, but within the resorts themselves it would be a much more visible "caste" system. Heck, I think the Garden Wings already reek of second class CR citizen, imagine if there were yet another grouping of cheaper rooms beyond that. I'm also surprised that Baron has gotten past the "slippery slope" concept and agreed that something could give, be "less", with respect to resorts and still have them be "Disney". But I am encouraged and I'll play along in the latest incarnation of this old game. I'll be back...................

[DisneyKidds]

Question. Back in the day, did the Poly and CR have concierge level rooms and suites, or were ALL rooms equal. I don't think I'm buying what Larry is selling (re: his GF example and how it equates to the concept we are exploring), but I need some more facts and research.

[crusader]

I just finished catching up here and wanted to quickly say that I'll be back later (yes, Baron the wheels are spinning on this end as well)

but.................

Today's game day.

Go Eagles!

[DVC-Landbaron]

Question. Back in the day, did the Poly and CR have concierge level rooms and suites,I do not believe so, but I couldn't swear to it. You see the stripping away of the "Disney Experience" (i.e. the economies and to a lesser extent the Mods) is only half of the problem. The other half is the up-scaling (for an obscene rise in cost). Without the double (up-down) spread, the caste system would hardly be noticeable.

If you eliminate the very, very high end (the Ei$ner elite). And you eliminate the low end (All-stars, Pop Century). You are left with a much more manageable scope. Now all you have to do is bring those prices back into the 'reasonable' range (maybe somewhere between rack rate and the “bargain-basement-secret-code-in-conjunction-with-Florida-residency-and-AP-rate" (not good with any other promotional offer)!!) and you've got yourself one heck of a Disney "MAGICAL" resort!!!! And with Mods included!!!

WOW!!! Now that’s a Disney “EXPERIENCE”!!!!

[Another Voice]

Let's bring some facts and some history into this.

The oldest rendering of the Contemporary that I have is an overview of the entire (now called ) Magic Kingdom area from a brochure copyrighted 1969 (A Complete Edition About Walt Disney World, © 1969 Walt Disney World Co.). The brochure is not a tourist "come visit us!" piece of advertising, but appears to be aimed at local governments, "public interest" groups, convention planners and corporations. It describes the concept of the project in some detail; but it is much more about business than about luring visitors to WDW.

The cover of the pamphlet shows the entire Seven Seas Lagoon, complete with the Magic Kingdom, the Contemporary and Polynesian resorts – but also the Persian, Venetian and Asian resorts as well. It is very similar to the concept painting of the same area that's published on page 25 of Since the World Began (&copy 1996 by Disney Enterprises, ISBN 0-7868-8219-0, paperback version).

The drawing clearly show the Contemporary Tower surrounded by a cluster of three low rise building courtyards. The cluster in what is now the parking lot even has a swimming pool and tennis courts. Inside is a photograph of a model looking at the resort from Bay Lake. It too clearly shows a pair of two-story buildings in exactly the same location as the current Garden Wings. It also shows a very large boating pavilion over the lake where the current pools are located.

The text reads as follows:

"Flagship and major convention hotel in Walt Disney World will be the streamlined 'Contemporary' theme resort. Its main building[emphasis added] is a 10-story high rise, featuring a spectacular open-mall lobby longer than a football field, with an 80-foot high ceiling. Walt Disney World-Alweg Monorail trains on the way to the theme park and other hotels will travel directly through the lobby to the station located inside. Shops, boutiques, cafes and restaurants will ring the open mall."

So clearly the non-tower accommodations have been part of the hotel since the very first stages of planning. The idea that the Garden Wings are an after-the-fact, cheap addition to gouge the public is wrong.

It should also be noted that the "high raise" and "lower raise" concept was extremely common for vacation hotels of the era. The old Vegas resorts were built like that, the old Hawaiian resorts were built like that. And even the Polynesian started out life like that. Again, quoting from the brochure, "The atmosphere of Pacific Islands will be created in a graceful high-raise structure and two-story "out-buildings" of the 700 room Polynesian-style hotel."*

My memory is that the Contemporary has always had suites (essentially rooms with separate bedrooms), but the concierge level is the product of the mid 1990's "the rich deserve more" mentality. The same applies to the Polynesian as well. WDW never catered to the monied-elite clientele looking for all the special perks that other hotels provided (since WDW was never seen as an up-scale destination). Before, price difference were always based on the room itself – the thought of different levels of service wasn't even considered. The Grand Floridian was the first hotel to attempt complete segregation between the "haves" and the "have nots" – even in the same resort complex.

And let me state again my position – non-deluxe accommodations have always been part of the master plan for WDW. But I think they were intended to be created with the same talent and care as everything else on property. The current manifestations (Stars and Pop), however, are not created that way – nor was there any attempt to do so. They are cheaply thrown together without thought or effort. That's why they're not "Disney", not because they cost less.

[donald@home]

I have not read this entire thread, but after reading AVs above response it appears that some people are under the false impression that the Garden Wings were added to the Contemporary after the Tower was designed and built. The Garden Wings were built at the same time as the Tower. In the book "The Story of Walt Disney Wold" (the book that is shaped like a capital letter D) is shows the Contemporary under construction, and it shows the Garden Wings under construction at the same time. They have been there since "the world began".

[Another Voice]

Ah Mr. Scoop – such a lawyer way to twist meanings…

"I'll buy into Another Voice's argument that they were intentionally "unthemed" for the guest that wanted an unthemed lodging experience."

I never said they were unthemed; in fact I've said they are an explicit extension of the futuristic theme of the entire resort. Granted, it was "futuristic" as designed in the late 1960's and that's probably causing your "confusion".

Since you made me delve in to the achieves, here a quote from Designing Disney's Theme Parks: The Archeitecture of Reassurance (edited by Karal Ann Marling, ©1997, ISBN 2-08013-639-9), page 154-156:

"The hotels were, in a way, the last vestige of Walt's plan for a true residential community. Families stayed for days at a time in environments designed to foster a collective fantasy of being shipwrecked on a sunny Polynesian island, for instance. Or a fantasy of stopping for the night in a city that looked exactly like up-to-the-minute cities ought to look — clean, fresh, brightly lit, and perky, decorated in brilliant, modern primaries set off against stark white surfaces — and hopping off a monorail in the soaring atrium lobby of one's hotel."

I'm sure there are a lot of people who remember the hotel's "perky" turquoise and pink chairs in the rooms, or the abundance of bright oranges that can tell you this was "the future" at the time. The clean, smooth white concrete, the slope of the exterior "struts" that mimic the structural elements of the tower – the Garden Wings were as "themed" to the Tower. Just because the monorail didn't swing by each and every room of the resort doesn't make then "unthemed" – anymore than those rooms not facing the water are less "Polyneasian" than the others.

The thing about the future is that it's always different than you thought it would be. Because a place isn't "futuristic" forty years after it was designed doesn't diminish the intent of the original architects (although it says volumes about the recent owner's efforts to keep things "bright and fresh". Trust me, you own children are going to look back on your tastes with same utter and complete contempt you show this place.

Some things do change.

The garden wings were necessary simply to build a resort the size required by WDW. The early renderings completely contradict your friend's claims. There was only one Tower and in the 1969 plan it was four stories smaller than the one shown. In fact the same Designing Disney Theme Parks book contains a full page reproduction of "Monorail emerging from the lobby of the Contemporary Hotel" also from 1969. It looks all but identical to the same view you can see in real life today – there were no "extensions through which the monorail would also travel."

There was also the engineering aspect of it. The open air "A" frame design of the hotel was extremely new at the time and no one thought it would be possible to put 1,000 rooms in the same building (especially on built on Florida swampland). All of the rooms were also built using a prefabrication method (again, unique for the time) which required the units to be lifted into place using cranes. Ten stories could have simply been the highest they could reach at the time.

The only question remaining is why do people feel that the Garden Wings justify Pop Century?

Even if one was to say "The Garden Wings are a blight upon all mankind and we this world is a lessor place for there existence" – it's still a massive jump to claim that a twenty foot fiberglass Yo-Yo glued onto the side of the crappest backroads Interstate rent-by-the-hour motel is "a wonder example of Disney spreading charitable magic® to those of lesser means".

Rationally, it doesn't. The All Stars and Pop are defended only because they are cheap places for the frequent Disney set. Put either hotel on I-Drive and you'd be using then as the exact reason why Disney is so magical® and off property is a tacky tourist cesspool.

Those motels are the ultimate example of "branding". They have no value beyond the sticker slapped on the overpriced hotel bill. They are counter to everything that WDW is supposed to be – but are brilliant symbols of everything that Disney has become:

A marketing gimmick.

Please forgive us old foggies who remember when Disney actually built things worth seeing, rather than something we had to tolerate for the price.

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by Another Voice
Please forgive us old foggies who remember when Disney actually built things worth seeing, rather than something we had to tolerate for the price.
Yes, the Contemporary and Poly were "worth seeing," but my middle-middle class family could never afford to stay there. We regularly stayed on 192 during the 1970s and 1980s because both of the Disney resorts were out of our league, price-wise. We would go to the Contemporary to see the "Grand Canyon Concourse" and then stop by the Poly to look at the theming, but we never ate or stayed in either one. It was one of my mom's dreams to stay at the Poly, but we could never manage it.

However, had a Caribbean Beach or a Port Orleans been around -- with the appropriate price point based on how much the Contemp and Poly cost at the time -- we'd have probably been able to talk dad into one of those. I'm not sure about the All-Star or Pop Century level resorts. My dad would have probably considered them to have too MUCH theming. We'd have visited them, though, and taken our pictures next to the big footballs and the giant musical notes.

:earsboy:

[crusader]

WDSearcher's points are very relevant to several of the subtopics in this thread and here's why:

It's being argued that the values have no place on-site because they are glorified motels with a cheap brainless design and obscene, gargantuan fiberglass icons glued all over the exterior of the properties.

and

That under the Walt philosophy we can't possibly accomodate this tier in any caste scenario under any circumstances. (which I'm absolutely not convinced of)

So who are the guests we're talking about?

They're what my family from 1970 would be today.
They're also many school groups and other youth organizations travelling in large volumes.

Back then, the median household size was over 3 children. That means the average family (particularly ours) could not afford to fly or be accomodated in a single hotel room and had to travel accordingly. In my case, we drove and camped.

Here are some stats:

Household size in the 70's

http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/tabHH-4.pdf (http://)

But that only tells us half the story, you also need to consider the affordability factor.

Household income in 1971

http://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/P60-84.pdf

Now fast forward to today and what I'm seeing is that the average family size has dropped almost twice as fast as the median household income has risen over the past 30 years. That means we still need to travel economically but our families are small enough to share one room.

This is the group we are considering dropping off on I-4 under our proposed resort design because they aren't going to pay the minimum rates we're charging - which won't be able to be offered below $125.00/night according to my visual.

So in posing my question to Baron, what I am trying to establish is two-fold:

What is this idea actually going to encompass? (costs/infrastructure/size vs rate recoveries)

and

Will it have the ability to incorporate the guests who typically stay in the value resorts today?

[Another Voice]

Yes, and when my family went to Disneyland we always wanted to eat in the Blue Bayou, the fancy restaurant inside the 'Pirates of the Caribbean'. But we simply couldn't afford the price of a sit down restaurant for everyone.

So - is the only solution an unthemed McDonalds? Is the only soultion to plop a massive Del Taco inplace of Tomorrowland. How much neon should the Burger King string down Main Street?

The "All Stars are charity for the poor vs. Walt and his evil money-grubbling elite scam" line is rather a fraud. Even Walt himself used term "motel hotels" to indicate that a wide variety of accomidations would be built.

The question remains are Stars and Pop in the "Disney" spirit of imgination, quality and workmanship - or are they just half brained money grabs made to maximize the profit margin from those blinded by branding?

Disney already showed with Dixie Landings/Port Orleans that it was capable of building a Disney style resort with a modest price tag. Why did they stop?

And far from gracing those of limited means the honor of staying on property - the vast majority of people around here say they stay at the "Values" becasue it allows them to afford several trips to WDW every year. It allows them to escape the company's "your wallet or your life" attitude toward pricing at the other resorts.

And there sure hasn't been a major movement of people off US 192 or I-Drive into the magical® on property resorts. If the huddled masses yearn for to breathe Disney - why was Pop closed more than a year for lack of business?

Perhaps even the "values" are overpriced.

[DisneyKidds]

Just a few miscellaneous items before we explore the latest “concept”…………….
It was all those torch lined walkways in the Poly, when streetlights would have been easier and cheaper (BTW they don’t have those anymore. That is very sad!!).
When is the last time you stayed at the Poly my friend? There are indeed torch lined walkways throughout the Poly. Not sure if they were different in the past (they are gas now, but real fire I assure you) but the torches are burning today. Actually, our 2 yo commented on them every time we walked the grounds at night on our trip in December.
The idea that the Garden Wings are an after-the-fact, cheap addition to gouge the public is wrong.
Thanks for clearing that up AV. I can dispense with the response I was going to give Sir Larry about better ways to add to the CR A-Frame (which was DON”T add to the resort if you can’t keep with the original plans/style). You provide further evidence to make Baron feel better about accepting his latest revelation. He doesn’t have to feel bad about abandoning his requirement for no parking lot views and access to rooms via interior corridors because the CR Garden Wings didn’t deliver on those counts (they were situated right on the parking lot and you had to go outside to access them). Indeed, it seems (Hope – can you dig out any evidence of Tower vs. GW pricing from the early days?) from the very beginning that a “pay less and get less” situation existed (because I assure you, while we paid much less for the GW when we stayed there, the GW just seemed lacking when you left the tower to get to your room). Although, as Baron points out the distinction didn’t slap you in the face. Of course the “pay less and get less” concept isn’t a bad thing, as I’ve been saying all along, the GW being a case on point. Baron is right in that even the lesser Garden Wings share the same proximity to parks, Magical transportation, and full service amenities as the Tower. That does make a difference. My better half agrees with me that the idea that “moderate” accommodation don’t belong in “Disney” is ridiculous. She also agrees with me that POR is much nicer in the way of themeing and aesthetics than the Garden Wings. However, the location and the transportation would make her take the GW over POR (I’ll still take POR thank you as I want to be immersed and not just “close” to the main event).

concierge level is the product of the mid 1990's "the rich deserve more" mentality. The same applies to the Polynesian as well. WDW never catered to the monied-elite clientele looking for all the special perks that other hotels provided.
I’m glad you didn’t try to pawn the concierge concept off as an Ei$ner invention to grab cash. Yes, most other hotels were offering this level of service even though Disney may not have. I’m not sure it was unreasonable for Disney to offer something that had become standard in the industry – actually it was wise to do so. Doing so didn’t “exclude” anybody, it just offered those with money to burn something to burn it on. As for the GF being the first hotel to separate the “haves” and “have nots” by virtue of the main building being all suites and concierge, without knowing more about the resort the GF was modeled after I can’t really comment.
We’ve already stipulated that there really isn’t place at all in the grand scheme of things for the ‘economies’. At least I think that’s what we’ve said.
I wouldn’t exactly say we agree on that. I readily admit that I don’t care for the “values”. I try not to talk about them much (and on the flip side that is all Larry and AV can talk about when we are on the resort subject ;)). In my mind they are the black sheep……………………but no place for economy accommodations? Nah…………I’m sure we could find a place and a way*.

And now onto the new “concept”……………………………….(oh, and thanks for the good battle my good Baron, no codfish necessary ;))

So, Disney “moderate” accommodations as extensions to “deluxe” resorts? Disney “moderate” (or even value) accommodations being extensions of “deluxe” resorts. Hmmmm………………………..Yes, Baron, on the surface that would seem to be preferable to the current setup. I’m still thinking on it though and my train ride is almost over. I would imagine there would be some logistical issues given the size the resorts would have to grow to with the varying accommodations in one complex. How much can you tax the transportation system in one area, would amenities be stretched too thin, etc. You also may have issues with having the adequate land mass in close proximity to parks and Magical transportation required for such resorts. While I know a lot of us aren’t big on nuts and bolts business stuff, there could be concern with how this new resort structure translated into occupancy rates for the varying room types within the resort and how that would play out on the financial end. Yes, there are things that could be stumbling blocks, or real barriers, but it’s definitely a concept worthy of exploring.

* ie. The Medievil Resort where the prime accomodations go to the Land Baron, you have mid level accomodations for the commoners, and value type accomodations for the surfs. Everyone can play out a role in this fully emmersive themed resort.

Or perhaps the Gone With the Wind Resort (as un-PC as it would be ;)). The prime accomodations are Tara, mid level accomodations for all the everyday Yanks and Johnny Rebs, and the value type accomodations for the servants.

[Another Voice]

Because, Mr. Scoop, with your return you seem to have fallen into the old "yesterday bad, today good" syndrome.

You know the one. The one where you said a monorail crusiing past the Polynesian Resort so destroys the atmosphere and themeing of the place that the entire resort is nothing but a fraud, a shame, and you wanted it shut --- while clean, pristine white busses pulling up in front of the Animal Kingdom Lodge was such impecable themeing that you thought you need a malaria shot because smellig the deseil fumes conjured thoughts of Kenya.

Everything in life outside of the courtroom requires compromise. While you are eager to justify today's sorry motels through any means possible - you refuse to grant the better resorts even a hint of the same latitude to "the old dead guy's places". Not because you want to maintain a consistent position, but simply to bash the past the make the present seem better.

So, building a forty story A-frame tower was impractical back in 1970. But the Garden Wings were themed to the rest of the resort - they fit. They continued the story. They were part. No one said "we need rooms, lets build a box and we'll decorate it somehow." Yet that's the exact approach taken with the "value" resorts.

If you want to try and argue that just as much care and effort went into Pop Century as the original resorts, or that "living the fantasy of being shipwrecked on a South Seas island" is the same level of ambition as "shiny objects for toddlers" - please so.

It should be very amusing.

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by Another Voice
So, building a forty story A-frame tower was impractical back in 1970. But the Garden Wings were themed to the rest of the resort - they fit. They continued the story. They were part. No one said "we need rooms, lets build a box and we'll decorate it somehow." Yet that's the exact approach taken with the "value" resorts.
But HOW -- for the unenlightened among us -- do the garden wings "continue the story?" If the story of the Contemporary is that it is a modern A-frame building that is the 1960s version of contemporary, then how do the garden wings showcase that? They are neither modern nor A-frame. If the story of the Contemporary is that there is an architecturally remarkable building with a monorail going through it (which is, of course, the big hook to how contemporary the resort is), then how do the garden wings showcase that? They are not architecturally remarkable in any way, really. The garden wings have none of the modern sensibilities of the tower -- they don't have monorail access, there are no other elements of this modern space. They are simply rooms in wings that are attached to a main structure. They don't even have carry-over elements from the Grand Canyon Concourse murals or any of the artistic "wow" of the tower. How do they "continue the story?"

Originally posted by Another Voice If you want to try and argue that just as much care and effort went into Pop Century as the original resorts, or that "living the fantasy of being shipwrecked on a South Seas island" is the same level of ambition as "shiny objects for toddlers" - please so.

It should be very amusing.
Of course more time had to go into the Contemporary and the Poly -- they were the first of their kind. People didn't do stuff like that anywhere, except on Route 66, with its tee-pee hotels and dinosaur gift shops. But it's not like the Imagineering staff who were charged to come up with the icons, landscaping and other themed elements for Pop Centrury just sat around for a couple of days and tossed some ideas down on paper and > poof! < a resort was designed. They were given a task -- to theme a new resort to decades of the century and to do it for X amount of dollars -- and that's what they did. The fact that the parameters they got weren't the same blue sky ones afforded to the folks who developed the Poly isn't their fault. The budgets and the amount of theme affordable via the budgets were different for the Poly than the Pop, but I would argue that the "care and effort" afforded them by the people who designed them was the same.

:earsboy:

[DisneyKidds]

Because, Mr. Scoop, with your return you seem to have fallen into the old "yesterday bad, today good" syndrome.
Boy AV, the only people who communicate worse with one another than you and Scoop are me and that Jewell guy ;).

I don't think Scoop is saying that the Garden Wings "justify" the values. Scoop made an observation, perhaps in response to a comment. That observation was that.........................including rooms at a Disney resort that are cheaper than the true "deluxe" rooms and are "less" than the Poly and CR (Tower, which everyone thinks of when they think CR), primarily for the purpose of increasing resort capacity, is NOT a concept that was born of 1984. That's all. Is that true or false? I say it's true. Scoop doesn't go on to say that that is justification for the values. You imply that that is what he is trying to say..........an implication born of thinking that any comment Scoop makes is aimed at proving...
the old "yesterday bad, today good" syndrome.

That's quite a barrier you guys have when you both make pretty good points. If you'd stop making it about that you might be able to communicate better.

Just so as things are clear though, please answer the following:

Do (and did) the GW rooms cost "less" than the Tower rooms?
Are the GW rooms "less" convenient than the Tower rooms?
Is the experience of staying in a GW room somehow "less" than staying in a Tower room?

Any reasonable person discussing this stuff objectively would have to answer "yes" to all three. So yes, the GW rooms are "less", they are cheaper, and (as you say) they were put there to provide required capacity. It is what it is..............and Scoop is right on his point. However, that doesn't mean the GWs are no better than the Values, or that the values are justified as they are. I'll give you that the GWs extend the theme by being modern structures with similar lines to the Tower. While they are "less" than the Tower, I agree they "fit" the resort (but you have to admit - they are nothing special. Come on, you can admit it ;)). That is the potential beauty that Baron has seen with his latest epiphany. You can have "less" within a deluxe resort so long as it "fits"..................................but how far can you extend that concept, and can you even extend it to the point of value priced rooms within the same resort?

You seem to be agreeing that resort rooms at varying price levels is not only a good concept, but one that was always anticipated. Heck, I think you said that Dixie Landings proved that they could do it and do it well. If all the mods and the values were done with Dixie Landings type care would we even have an issue?

[DVC-Landbaron]

Crusader:

So who are the guests we're talking about? I guess it comes down to where you draw the line. I really think that it has to be drawn somewhere. Don’t you? I mean Disney is NOT a communistic endeavor. They have to maintain at least a modicum of a profit, if for no other reason than to stay solvent. With that in mind, the only question remaining is how far can the standards be stretched while still maintaining a Disney “EXPERIENCE”?

It is indeed sad that our society is built on the concept of ‘money’. It takes bucks to build things and it takes bucks to see or “experience” those things. Not everyone in the world has the means to do it all, all the time. Heck, there are some that cannot even make it down to Florida in the first place, never mind our esoteric talk about the “value” of the All-Stars!! Even that is ‘pie-in-the-sky’ for some. And to others a three week stay at a Floridian suite comes out of their pocket change. Being ‘exclusionary’ is NOT under discussion. The minute we stipulate that Disney MUST charge something, we begin to exclude.

Now. Once we agree to that, the only question that remains is where we draw the line. I contend that economics (of the public) has very, very little to do with that decision. A passing glance at most, just to be sure you are not being overly elitist. I also maintain that market share, revenues and potential profits has very little to do with the question at hand. Again, only a quick look to insure some degree of profitability. Therefore, the only remaining and highly relevant question is one of quality, concept and Disney standards (or philosophy, if you prefer).
They're what my family from 1970 would be today.
I’m sorry for you. But, hey! I was in the same boat! We spent my formative years in Disney frequenting Fort Wilderness. But it turns out that it wasn’t so out of reach as you might have thought. You linked a site to a 1972 index. I can’t make heads or tails of it (but to tell the truth I really didn’t study it much. I have a day off today and I really don’t want to think much.)

But I do know that I was surprised at the time that I was able to easily afford a four night stay at the poly in their Lagoon View room (the most expensive at the time) for my honeymoon! This was in 1979 and the most expensive room on the entire property only cost about 70 buck a night (I believe tax was included)!! I will admit that as a young married guy, making fairly good money (even with most trades I suppose) and no other commitments other than my Trans Am (no kids, mortgage, etc.) it may have been a little easier for me than a guy with six kids and a house he could barely afford. But I don’t think it was that far out of line. In other words, nothing even close to today’s prices.

A little retrospective research led to the discovery that a Poly room, in 1972, cost only 32 bucks a night! (Now I’m not sure what category that fell under, so there’s probably a five buck swing either way.) But that doesn’t seem all that outrageous, does it?
This is the group we are considering dropping off on I-4 under our proposed resort design because they aren't going to pay the minimum rates we're charging - which won't be able to be offered below $125.00/night according to my visual.You’re still too worried about COST!! And you’re still thinking in terms of demographics. They have very little place in this discussion. Cursory at best!! If this type of thinking was carried out to the next level you could actually argue that a scaled down version of the MK be built, in order to ‘capture’ the market that can’t really afford the $50.00 + cost of a ticket!! It is a road that goes nowhere, in the Disney concept. Either the “Something” is built to Disney standards, and most people will come and see it (and be able and willing to pay for it thereby making it ‘profitable’) or the “Something”, while still a good concept, is simply too extravagant to be Disney and therefore should NOT be built. (It is the only time that cost, market and profit is even considered within the “Disney philosophy”.)
What is this idea actually going to encompass? (costs/infrastructure/size vs rate recoveries) I’m afraid I don’t quite understand what you’re asking here. Please elaborate!
Will it have the ability to incorporate the guests who typically stay in the value resorts today? It may not! It depends on where you put the price. I could certainly see a concept where those folks would be taken into account, but given the current thinking, I doubt it.

But even in the current set-up, what about all those people who just can’t seem to make the cut for the All-Stars? My sister-in-law falls into that category. She is as big a Disney nut as there is. She would LOVE to accompany her sister Disney every year. Or at least every other year. But sadly, she cannot! She is only able to afford the trip every five to seven years, even staying in the All-Stars. What do we say to her? Now, if Disney could only drop the price by ten or fifteen bucks a night… Well, who knows… It would certainly go a long way to making the trip more affordable for her. Should Disney build a resort to capture that market as well? Say a true Motel 6, with only one Giant Icon!! Or maybe just Mickey Mouse sheets on the twin beds!

In other words, where do you draw the line on what is “Disney” and what is not!?

[DVC-Landbaron]

Mr. Kidds:

When is the last time you stayed at the Poly my friend? There are indeed torch lined walkways throughout the Poly. Not sure if they were different in the past

Oh!! They were very much different!! In the original version EVERY walkway was lined with these torches. It was a thing of beauty! Now, there is just a couple left. Sad!
Yes, most other hotels were offering this level of service even though Disney may not have. I’m not sure it was unreasonable for Disney to offer something that had become standard in the industry – actually it was wise to do so. I disagree. I strongly disagree!! That was part of the simplicity of a Disney resort. It was also part of the charm. As much as I detest the ‘take-aways’, the ‘downsizing’ of the experience, I hate the other end just as much. Case in point: the Floridian!!

It was what set Disney apart form all other resorts. By doing it ‘their way’ with no special interest to the rest of the industry, they set themselves apart. They didn’t advertise. They didn’t use travel agents. They didn’t promote specials. They didn’t have varying prices for varying ‘seasons’.

What they did was set up a resort that they considered affordable AND luxurious! With Disney standards. Nothing too outrageous. And nothing skimpy. Just Disney. The themes may be different. The lay out may be different. But the service and the treatment was the same. If you were able to acquire the minimum price of admission (a night’s stay) you were treated the same as Disney treated all its guests. Just like a VIP. You couldn’t get special treatment because that was the treatment you were getting already. I think, at the end o\f the day that is bothers me the most about the “other” accommodations Disney has come up with lately. It is not only different, but it is decidedly ‘less’. You are NOT a VIP. You are a ‘guest’ at best, but most of the time, only a customer. The room size and giant icons only illustrates that point in brick a mortar.
As for the GF being the first hotel to separate the “haves” and “have nots” by virtue of the main building being all suites and concierge, without knowing more about the resort the GF was modeled after I can’t really comment. What does that have to do with Disney!!?!?! What possible difference does it make if the original resort did things that way. The question is: Should Disney??!!
Doing so didn’t “exclude” anybody, it just offered those with money to burn something to burn it on. Yes!! It did!! Now the treatment, that VIP treatment that EVERYONE received would be even more VIPish, if you put down some extra bucks! That STINKS!!!
I readily admit that I don’t care for the “values”. I try not to talk about them much (and on the flip side that is all Larry and AV can talk about when we are on the resort subject ;) ) It is because on that slippery slope they are as low as you can go. And nearly everyone can see that Disney didn’t do it right. It’s an easy argument to win. All you need to do is point your finger in their general direction and you’ve won!! It is far harder trying to raise that bar and argue that the Floridian is NOT Disney. Or worse (gasp!) Riverside is NOT Disney! And I could certainly see the merits of that argument. As I told Crusader, it all depends on where you draw the line.
In my mind they are the black sheep……………………but no place for economy accommodations? Nah…………I’m sure we could find a place and a way Then show me how it could possibly work!! No one has done it so far, least of all Disney!!!

[Another Voice]

The argument is going that since the Garden Wings are just unthemed additions to increase capacity, that such a practice is "Disney" - therefore adding unthemed resorts like "All Stars" at a lower price just to increase capacity is just as Disney.

In other words - shut up about "the good old days" and stop complaining about today's practices.

But think about what the "unthemed" Garden Wings for a second. Forty years ago some guy set out to build a place that represented the future. So he built sleek, white buildings filled with bright colors. And the press of the day maverelled over the futuristic aspects of the hotel.

Now, forty years later, in the 21st Century, in the future - you're complaining that the buildings are commonplace and without theme.

My answer - you're kicking a guy for getting it right.

At the same time you have to wonder about a company that we sit on its cash and let a thirty year old building represent "the future". They gleefully bash the people who made it yet are unwilling to either fix the problem or come up with something better.

As for the monorail - so any room not on the beach at the Poly isn't really part of the Polyneisan? Any room not directly under the butt of a twenty foot Buzz Lightyear isn't part of the All Stars Movie'? Any room not overlooking the animals isn't part of the Animal Kingdom Lodge?

But back to the Garden Wings and Mr Scoop's claim I haven't discussed them. Funny, but I've sighted several sources that say the Gardern Wings were original parts of the resort. Designed from the very beginning in almost exactly the same way they appear today. I wrote out the names of the books and even the page numbers of the illustartions - all so Mr. Scoop could see for himself.

Yet all the response is " save possibly the garden wings which were simply added for extra capacity".

Mr. Scoop - if you would care to sight your sources and your reference points for saying those elements were unthemed addtions added simply for extra capacity I would gladly look them up and read them for my education.

[DVC-Landbaron]

I’ve tried to stay out of the fray…

… But Scoop!! You are unbelievable!!

Let me remind the masses just who said what and where.

wtg2000 and I (with some commentary from Mr. Kidds and Crusader) were talking about the “LandBaron Caste System of Resorts”. I was on about how lousy the economies were and I believe it was wtg2000 that wanted to compare Walker/Miller with the current administration. That led to my post (rather eloquent, if I do say so myself) regarding all the good thing that went on during Walker/Miller. Within my post I said:
I do know this much for sure. Under [Ron's] leadership Walt's ideals and philosophies were very well maintained.You chose that line to quote in your first post in this thread, indeed your first post in a good long time. In fact you named it “A Cameo”.

It was in this first post of yours that those darn Garden Wings (a favorite subject of yours) was first mention in this thread and probably the first time since you mentioned them in our last discussion. Do you remember the post? No? Well, here it is. It’s on page ten, in case you want to research it yourself.

I've never heard someone ever take this position beyond suggesting that a few particular items (such as the ones listed) were well done.

The trend toward a new approach to WDW lodging did not begin with the Grand Floridian or Caribbean Beach Resort. It started with the garden wings located at the Contemporary Resort--where more than a few families were sadly surprised to find that their stay at the Contemporary Resort was not at the "resort with the monorail going through" but at either Appendix A or Appendix B to the same.

Please, let's not act as if the Grand Floridian or Caribbean Beach Resort represented a dramatic change in philosophy. At worst, they were the continuation of the philosophy which decided to build the two garden wings.And from this we are to assume what? Please explain. Because to me (and I would assume AV) you are justifying the existence of the Caribbean and Floridian (and by extension the economies) because of what you consider to be a chink in the Walt philosophy. If there is another explanation please tell it!! I’d LOVE to know where I misinterpreted your post. (and every other post that you harp on the garden wings!!)

it sure sounds to me as though:

The argument is going that since the Garden Wings are just unthemed additions to increase capacity, that such a practice is "Disney" - therefore adding unthemed resorts like "All Stars" at a lower price just to increase capacity is just as Disney.I really don't see how AV is very far off the mark!!

[DVC-Landbaron]

As I stated (and you cleverly omitted) You know, I tried to be as kind as possible in the last post and then you go and pull something like this.

I DIDN’T OMIT ANYTHING!!!

Stating it as such, positioned where you placed it makes it seem as though I edited your post or left out some key statement to further my argument.

HOW DARE YOU INFER THAT I’M NOT PLAYING FAIR!!!

That is the reason I quoted your entire first part and NOT just a sentence or a paragraph. Stop doing this Scoop!! It just gets under my skin and makes you look like a whiny weasel. STOP IT!!!
No substandard garden wing resort justifies a terrible Disney resort today.

I agree with that. FINALLY!! So, let’s get back on track. Before you sidetracked us with those Garden Wings in that “cameo” post of yours we were talking about how rotten the All-Stars and Pop Century are.

Now, since we don’t need to discuss Garden Wings, they should have no bearing whatsoever on the answer to the following:

Is there a place, within the Disney Philosophy, for the All-Stars or Pop Century, as they are today?

[DVC-Landbaron]

Scoop, you seem to have a harder time with the truth in this tread than usual. Most of the time we can surely expect a twist from you somewhere along the line, every several posts or so, but in this thread it seems to be every single post!! First you accuse me of omitting “something”. And now you’re rewriting the history of the thread to suit your needs.

Where shall we start?

Well, lets start with the omissions: So, whether it was intentional or not, you certainly omitted a whole bunch of my statements on this issue for the sake of trying to make a point. Just before this scintillating sentence you quoted yourself SIX (6) times!! Good Lord, man!! Did you really expect me to include all six quotes!?!? Do I have to include every word you write, in every post within the thread, in order to avoid being accused of “omitting” something? How outrageous is that?!

Why not just admit you tried a sly, cheap shot, in innuendo style, and leave it at that! You tried to infer that I purposely omitted something and I pointed out (in bold print) that I did not! What can possible be served by citing yourself 6 times, without any relevance at all to what I posted!? Are you that insecure? Is the internet “point” and fame really that important to you? You tried to slip it in, and I called you. Leave it alone!!

Such is apparently the case here, because, quicker than you can take your finger off the Control Tab button...you've decided that this thread needs a changed subject No! Again you’re rewriting history. I was trying to get back on track. You are the only one hung up on the garden wing. Quite frankly I was tired of your hijacking my conversation with Crusader, Mr. Kidds and Mr. 2000. We were talking about the Caste System. YOU are the one who changed the subject. I was trying to get it back.

Anyways. Please don't act as if you decide where this discussion goes and doesn't go. Oh no!! Of course not!! That power is reserved for the almighty Scoop! I’m soooooo sorry, Mr. Scoop! I won’t let it happen again!! Whatever YOU want to talk about must be what everyone wants to talk about!! I should have known better!

Get off it Scoop! If nothing else I’ve earned some modicum of respect by longevity alone. Remember, I’ve been here since the beginning. You are still a relative upstart!! Don’t tell me what I can talk about and what I can’t talk about!!
Just because you don't want to answer the question I keep asking, doesn't mean that it isn't worthy of discussion in this thread.

Is there a place, within the Disney Philosophy, for the Garden Wings? Now that’s funny!! Too funny!!! LOL and all that laughing stuff!! I could have sworn I just asked you a similar question in my last post! Why wasn’t it answered?

Oh! That’s right! I forgot! You used your response to quote yourself 6 times, tell me I can’t change my own topic back to where it once was and bring up those nasty Garden Wings (which apparently no one else wants to talk about)!!

Keep plugging along, Scoop old man!! If nothing else you’re amusing!

[SnackyStacky]

It's been a heck of a long time since ALL of the big guys have had a debate, that it's really silenced me! :)

BUT, I do have a few thoughts to share, and I hope my intrusion isn't unwelcome.

Is there a place, within the Disney Philosophy, for the All-Stars or Pop Century, as they are today?

No, no, no, and no. I HAD to get that off my chest!!!

Is there a place, within the Disney Philosophy, for the Garden Wings?

If so, where, how, why?

My opinion on this is a whole bunch of maybe.

Before I explain further, I would take a moment to say that I personally hate those Garden Wings. I will NOT stay there at current prices, because it's too much money for not enough wow.

Anyway.... I think they could very easily fit into the philosophy, but it would depend on the way the company was moving. If it was moving in the direction that a few people alluded to earlier (I don't remember who....I think it might have been airlarry!...) whereby they were building different level accomodations, and would charge less within the same resort. I could see them fitting into the philosophy. I WOULD pay current moderate level prices to stay in the wings.

HOWEVER, if they were built, full well knowing that all new resorts were going to be built and would be delineated as moderate and economy, then no. There is no place in the Disney philosophy for them.

Sorry for the interruption!

[DVC-Landbaron]

Mr. Stacky:

DITTO!!

Hey Scoop! I think I just answered your question. Now how about giving mine a whirl!!??

[Mr D]

Excuse while I make an off the wall comment about some good points I do see at WDW particularly Blizzard Beach that I purchased an annual pass for, just BB/Disney Quest no other part of WDW is in my itiniary for my 4 week stay here in Orlando.
My son and I have been going there for the last couple of days that were warmer except for sat and sunday which were DQ days.

BB is very comfortable, absolutely no ECVs, or strollers bumping into me, no nasty foreigners shoving my kid around and absolutely NO gift shops that I need to navigate diagonally through after my ride;)
The CMs are great, as we exited yesterday afternoon at the main entrance gate the CM was asking my son (he is 9) if he thought the Summit plummet actually launched people into the air, her demeanor was peaceful condescending and very motherly. We laughed together as my son thought it really did, she didn't have to even say goodbye or anything but she did and more.

Personally if I was CEO I would build several smaller parks the size of BB, have a limited amount of guests allowed period, and make it more personal. In a way BB reminded me of DL, small and friendly even though its just a water park...I bet the accountants have discussed reasons why they possibly see BB or TL (which I have never been to) as "minmal guest profiting" because by their very nature its hard to have gift shops all around that the guests have to navigate through like a maze.

Perhaps thats what should be the next project....after Eisner leaves...build the best Disney themed waterpark in the world...on par in quality to Tokyo DisneySea.






I just love jumping in the middle of a thread and posting something totally different :p

[DC7800]

Originally posted by thedscoop
I have still not heard a single argument that the garden wings were needed for "Show" reasons rather than capacity or financial reasons

Without the garden wings the Contemporary would be nothing but a hotel tower. The "show" found at the resort is not isolated to the A-Frame structure - rather, look at the property as a whole. Consider, perhaps, how Disney builds - or rather used to build - it's theme parks. Tommorrowland doesn't consist of just the Space Mountain structure; there's more to Frontierland than just the building and landscaping which contain Splash Mountain. Deprived of the architectural context in which they are presented, neither could possibly convey a feeling of the frontier or the future. Remove the Contemporary's wings and you undermine the story.

Further, the wing experience is identical to the tower with few exceptions: basically the view, monorail, lack of a full balcony, and Grand Canyon Concourse. The monorail is part of the "story" to be certain, but hardly the most important factor, and the mere prescence - or absence - of the monorail does not dictate whethor a hotel building is Contemporary (futuristic) or not (if it did, the Polynesian and GF would be just as comfortable in Tommorrowland). Maybe deluxe resorts should have balconies, but it's not central to the theme here. You can get a similar "atrium" experience over at the old Howard Johnson's in Hotel Plaza; this doesn't mean that hotel has a theme at all. Finally, the actual rooms in the wings are identical to those in the tower. Only when you open the curtains in the morning do you notice a difference, and there is something to be said both for an upper floor view of the Magic Kingdom and a ground floor view across the courtyard at the Contemporary Tower itself.

To be fair to the Contemporary, you have to remember that it is about a 35 year old design. In the 1970's the resort provided a fitting backdrop to the Magic Kingdom - as intended. The "story" and theme were (obviously) more apparent back then. As noted previously (I think it was AV), the place started out suggesting the future; that it looks almost "typical" today is yet more evidence the design was a success. Though it remains a wonderful WDW resort with a definite story to present, something of an exterior facelift for the entire Contemporary property is long overdue.

You just cannot judge the Contemporary bv viewing the wings in isolation.

[Mr D]

Well it would have been neat to watch the "room changing" thats for the newbies here was the origional design that the rooms were modular and could be "swapped" out for a style or theme change, however the plan did not work, everything settled into place, got jammed and the modules could not be removed.

[airlarry!]

You know, Scoop, you give out as much as you receive. Personally, I don't mind it, because that's what we've been doing for years here, debating every nuance of every rumor and every bit of news. But, just as frustrated as you seem to be with AV, I am frustrated that you use your considerable powers for the dark side.

I have seen many lawyers in cross-examination use a small flaw (they argue it is the 'fatal flaw') to undo an entirely valid hypothesis.

That's okay for the courtroom, but here in Disney's world, is it really that relevant to tear down this great examination we have made about Baron's beloved caste system argument, with the ridiculous supposition that the 'addition' (even though you must now concede that they really never were additions) of the Garden Wings is an example from yesteryear of the same thought that gives us the Poop Century motels. Please do not say that is not your intent--what else could we infer from your questions?

Your main thrust has shifted, but now the question you have asked is "Does the GW fit Disney show and philosophy?"

Holy subjective, Batman! Some will say yes, and some will say no. If AV and Baron agree that they don't (just play along here), does that give you ammunition to make a slippery slope argument in favor of the Poop Century motels as a continuation of Walt's rich tradition of settling for money making enterprises instead of creating unique entertainment?

I think not.

The GWs may not be the perfect example of Disney show--although how two hotels that look like miniature add-ons to the big A-frame do not, I really can't tell--but the bigger picture is that stupid convention center that is added (I don't even know who did it...but it looks terrible next to the shiny white of the A-frame), and the tacky motels that we only stay in to save money, and the resorts without magical transportation, and a monorail line out to Epcot without resorts on it, all are just dumb decisions and are a lot more worthy of condescending debate than the GWs.

:) Just my humble opinion.

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by DVC-Landbaron
Hey Scoop! I think I just answered your question. Now how about giving mine a whirl!!??

Well, actually, you didn't answer it ... you merely agreed with someone who did.

Point to scoop.

But carry on ....

:earsboy:

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by Mr D
Excuse while I make an off the wall comment about some good points I do see at WDW particularly Blizzard Beach that I purchased an annual pass for, just BB/Disney Quest no other part of WDW is in my itiniary for my 4 week stay here in Orlando.
My son and I have been going there for the last couple of days that were warmer except for sat and sunday which were DQ days.

I thought you were making it a point to not visit Disney at all on your trip. Didn't you say that somewhere? You do know that even if you go to just Blizzard Beach and Disney Quest that the money goes back to the company, right?

:confused:

But ... we digress ...

[DisneyKidds]

As noted previously (I think it was AV), the place started out suggesting the future; that it looks almost "typical" today is yet more evidence the design was a success.
Nope.............I've been thinking about this comment some since AV made it, and I was going to leave well enough alone, but since you restate it I have to say I'm not buying this observation as testiment to the CR GWs design success. IF the GWs represented something new, different, and futuristic back in 1972, only to go on and become common as viewed today, I would agree. But I don't think that is the case, and I also think the Tower disproves the idea.

As AV said, back in the day the concept of a central tower hotel with flanking lower rise units was rather common. As AV said, the GWs were part of the plan from before the CR was built, plans that made use of that common idea of flanking units. Yes, the GWs used the cold concrete look the tower had. Yes, the GW used some similar lines. However, I submit that the GWs themselves were nothing special back in 1972. They were reflective of a common approach to hotel construction of the time. The reason they seem common today isn't because they have grown into that 1972 vision of the future. They seem common today because they were common back then, they have always been common. The GWs, other than being part of a larger resort with a theme carried through, have never been anything but common........................and that is my problem with them.

As I said, the Tower is a striking contrast. While a tower concept may have been common in 1972, an A frame with a monorail running through it certainly wasn't. That was different, that was new, that was way futuristic. And you know what, the CR Tower doesn't seem common today. It is still a unique piece of architecture. THAT is a testament to design success.....................not the GWs.
Remove the Contemporary's wings and you undermine the story.
Sorry DC..............I just don't agree. How would one's Tower/CR experience be diminished if the GWs didn't exist?
Further, the wing experience is identical to the tower with few exceptions: basically the view, monorail, lack of a full balcony, and Grand Canyon Concourse.
Once again, I very much disagree. Those "few exceptions" you casually dismiss are what makes a stay at the CR special, they are what makes the CR unique. Following your logic the CR could consist of nothing more than Garden Wings and it would be just as special. That is ludicrous. I assume you have stayed in the Garden Wings. Perhaps your experience was different than ours. While we enjoyed the location of the CR, our stay in the GW was just so-so. I'd never recommend staying in the Garden Wings as they just aren't very special. The Tower is a different story.
Maybe if I spend a couple nights there (rather than just visiting friends staying there), the Show of the wings will become apparent to me. I'll try and give it a shot in May and report back.
If you've never done it then maybe you should. I doubt you'd do it a second time.

[Another Voice]

"I don't have a problem with Walt's philosophy not being adhered to in this case based upon the practical benefits they provide."

At last the heart of the matter.

Disney is a brand name that means "quality" - but it no longer a style.

That's very sad. You are no longer looking for a unique, imaginative experiences. Instead you're looking for something 1) cheap and 2) to distract the toddlers.

Because of marketing and past associations, you see Disney as providing that to you. Much like people look to Evian for "best" in bottled water.

Most of the discussion in the massive thread has nothing to do whether something is right or not. It's whether today's brand has meaning. The "Pop is the same trend as the Garden Wing" thoughtline is simply an attempt to spread the Disney&reg; brand to the current offerings. It’s just like the saying "made with the same recipe brought by Grandmother from the Old Country" on the industrially produced food items churned out by the millions.

It's a way to give the new stuff the same warm-and-fuzzies the old, legitimate products had. No one likes to believe they're getting second-rate merchandise.

As I've said before, the real Disney is dead. In its place we've got Disney&reg;. Resorts don't need to do anything now, they just have to carry the right name and have the right association with past glories. Disney&reg; doesn't make new movies, just sequels and spin-offs of pervious ones. The characters don't have to shown as appealing, just placed on enough merchandise so they are perceived as "popular".

This Brand Imagine Justification Game&trade; is amusing, but ultimately pointless. You hate the Garden Wings, but see in them a reason why not to hate today's offering. That's fine. I see today's creation as the exact opposite of the forces that made Disney successful in the first place and have watched as The Company has imploded.

[DisneyKidds]

You hate the Garden Wings, but see in them a reason why not to hate today's offering.
Sorry AV, you are reading between the lines way too much........................or perhaps you aren't reading at all :(. That hasn't been anyones point. You keep trying to make that people's point.
Disney® doesn't make new movies
Yes, Disney has put out sequels and spin-offs. However, to allow those to lead you to make statements like this shows that you really aren't looking objectively or with an open mind at the other things that Disney is putting forward. We finally saw Brother Bear this past weekend. If you can't recognize that this film had not only quality animation, but incredible story and depth then you are way too jaded to ever productively discuss Disney in any meaningful fashion. The depth of the original story in Brother Bear eclipses the likes of Lion King and Litlle Mermaid.

[SnackyStacky]

Originally posted by DisneyKidds
If you can't recognize that this film had not only quality animation, but incredible story and depth then you are way too jaded to ever productively discuss Disney in any meaningful fashion. The depth of the original story in Brother Bear eclipses the likes of Lion King and Litlle Mermaid.

Methinks I feel the winds of change for this thread. :)

Just had to jump in and say that I really enjoyed Brother Bear, and the quality is definitely up there. BUT, two things immediately come to mind for me:

1.) Yes, Brother Bear represents quality, but as of Monday, the Florida feature animation department is gone. Personally, I think that says a whole lot about the company's stance on traditional, in-house animation. You don't just shut down a studio that's turned out quality products.

2.) I don't remember specifically why I thought this way, I'd have to see the movie again, but I just didn't see in this the same quality that was there with the Little Mermaid and Lion King, at least story wise. I THINK it had something to do with the ending. It felt kind of like "We've got to wrap this up....it's taking too long!" I'm not at all knocking it, nor am I saying that it's bad. In fact, I'm very excited for it to come out on DVD, but I still don't see that same spark that I saw in the movies released between the Little Mermaid and the Lion King.

[Another Voice]

"Because it's much more important to me that a trip to Disney World make Owen happy that it strictly adhere to a "philosophy"."

You're looking at the world through the veiwpoint as a consumer of Disney products.

I'm looking at the world as Disney the business would (or at should).

You're position as absolutely valid - do what's best for your situation. A two year old will be just a happy at Pop as at the Contemporary - or just as happy in your living room as at the Magic Kingdom. Every visitor and consumer has their own particular requirements, needs and desires.

But Disney's problem are different. Their requirement is to the meet the needs of enough people well enough to maintain the business. You look out for you need - but Disney needs to figure out what others need.

For a long time Disney had an amazingly successful ability to do just that. They not only met the needs and expectations of a lot of people, but they far exceed those expectations. Old Disney has an understanding of its customers and could anticipate their wishes.

The issue I have is that today's company seems to have lost that understanding. They see their customer's only desires as being "cheap" and "Disney&reg; Magic&trade;". And that's the kind of products they are making - those items that can be sold for less (like WalMart merchandise), made for less (like the cheapquels) that overemphasize traditional Disney icons over the quality of the products themselves (like plastering Disney characters on cereal boxes). This may result in some short term gains - but I believe it will lead to long term ruin.

So back to the hotels - sure they are lots of people looking for a good deal to be "part of the magic". The lo end resorts fit that requirement. But I see that those resorts contradict all the aspects that made WDW "magical" to being with and will quickly erode those aspects that made Disney unique.

[Another Voice]

"Animal Kingdom's is being increasingly visited."

Because it's a convinent second tier attraction that's close to the places people came to Orlando to see. Plop AK out in Tampa and it would draw less than Busch does.\

Mr. Scoop really what you're arguing is that Disney has built Anaheim on its property in Orlando - the cheap low cost motels, the second tier attractions, the recreation (like mini golf) and t-shirt shops that surround Disneyland. It's just at WDW it's kept out of sight better.

I guess the evil wasn't that the blight surrounding Disneyland was that it wasn't owned by Disney. Eisner took all that buffer land which Walt bought and is using it to recreate the same exact urban tourist slum area (with fresher paint) which Disney tried to get away from.

Once again, the triumuph of money over quality.


P.S. - Yes, from experience, a two-year old has much more fun at home than at the Magic Kingdom.

[hopemax]

Scoop,

If All-Stars were priced the same as the Deluxes, or even the moderates do you think they would have the same high return rate?

The reason why I'm asking is that a part of the reason DCA's numbers are where they are is because DL is right outside and available for the SAME PRICE. Like you said, some things can't be wrapped up so tidily.

Or is it your position that people are returning to the All-Stars because of the theme/decoration and not the price?

A better example, perhaps, would be the opening of the Animal Kingdom Lodge, with its many similarities to WL. Only in that case there were so many discounts being offered that one would have to wonder if people were rejecting it for the reasons discussed more times than we can count, and I'm REALLY hope we don't have to go through them here again.

[DisneyKidds]

Originally posted by Another Voice
"Animal Kingdom's is being increasingly visited."

Because it's a convinent second tier attraction that's close to the places people came to Orlando to see. Plop AK out in Tampa and it would draw less than Busch does.\

Mr. Scoop really what you're arguing is that Disney has built Anaheim on its property in Orlando - the cheap low cost motels, the second tier attractions, the recreation (like mini golf) and t-shirt shops that surround Disneyland. It's just at WDW it's kept out of sight better.

I guess the evil wasn't that the blight surrounding Disneyland was that it wasn't owned by Disney. Eisner took all that buffer land which Walt bought and is using it to recreate the same exact urban tourist slum area (with fresher paint) which Disney tried to get away from.

Once again, the triumuph of money over quality.


P.S. - Yes, from experience, a two-year old has much more fun at home than at the Magic Kingdom.
AV, did you get into the Pirate's private stash of Captain Morgan?

[DisneyKidds]

Or is it your position that people are returning to the All-Stars because of the theme/decoration and not the price?
As LB often points out, a combination of theme (in this case decoration) AND price it what made/makes resorts successful (however successful you think they are). So it seems it would be ok to have price be an important contributing factor.

The thing is............there are lots of people who do like the values, and not just because of the price. For those not so hung up on the history and philosophy we throw around here in our (for the most part) isolated "been to the original resorts and know the difference" eWorld, the Disney resorts they spend their time in are just wonderful and a vast improvement over the Motel 6's on I Drive. All our arrogant, elitist "but this is what a Disney resort/experience is and you ain't getting it" debate doesn't mean squat to them.

[crusader]

Mr. Baron -

Thank you for that reply to my post (several pages back).

I guess it comes down to where you draw the line.

Absolutely. That was my first consideration. Drawing the line is critical to this discussion on every single level. I merely touched upon one aspect when mentioning the guests.

I contend that economics (of the public) has very, very little to do with that decision.

I disagree. Those stats I gave you show what a particular 1970 demographic looked like to the planners of that day. Naturally once an idea presents itself, the next step is to gain a visual layout. However, it is equally important to determine who that average joe is that's checking in.

So it is imperative to size him or her up before we can draw the line on who gets to stay onsite.

But given where you wish to place the significance of census in this discussion and in consideration of this next statement…………

I also maintain that market share, revenues and potential profits has very little to do with the question at hand. Again, only a quick look to insure some degree of profitability. Therefore, the only remaining and highly relevant question is one of quality, concept and Disney standards (or philosophy, if you prefer).

I’ll politely place joe on the back burner for now. But I must warn you, joe’s style and habits are of extreme importance, particularly the one gcurling touched upon which basically demonstrates an acute ability to size up a resort in terms of its' offerings and apply a strict cost/benefit measurement stick with respect to accomodations, which could adversely affect capacity at greater pricing levels.

So, we'll have to digress at some point in order to bring our concept to reality.

With that in mind, where do we begin?

[Mr D]

Its true I said I was boycotting the parks but to me the water park is exempt because it does not have the "trappings" of the theme parks, no guest shops holding you in a maze to exit all the while dodging families and telling your kids to "don't look, its too expensive, I'm not buying that for you", not having the mobs of parents at the meet and greets, no geriatrics pretending they are at Daytona in their ECVs, and currently NON-existing lines, no FASTPASS worries (like getting across the park in time to use it, or finding something to do while waiting), I get to lie down and sleep, can't do that in any other park as far as I know. Besides I bought an AP for the water park and DQ only, out of four weeks I may be there way more than a dozen times, thats pretty inexpensive on my part compared to the purchase of a PAP which is somewhere around $500.

In essense Blizzard Beach offers quality at an exceptional value with no cheap frills that may entice me to part with my money, heck my money is in a locker!, no plush, no churro carts every 25 feet (yes they do sell them but up near the entrance) so my stand on it stays, I seriously doubt I'll spend any additional funds to go see M:S or Philharmagic like a park hopper, I'll wait till my next vacation when Everest is open, even if thats two years from now.

[airlarry!]

Mr. D:

I understand now the reasons why you are not visiting Disney establishments.

While you are not going to Disney places, please make sure that you don't go to The Adventurer's Club over on Pleasure Island.

That place is, IMO, the one place in downtown Disney that is just dripping with Disney magic. If you like comedy, and especially musical improvisational comedy, don't check it out! I hear if you don't buy an AP for Pleasure Island, you won't save a lot of money with repeated non-visits.

If you don't go, make sure not to tell us all about it. Good luck with the continued boycott, and Kungaloosh!

(psst-if you do go, I won't tell anybody...)

[raidermatt]

Let's assume you are right-handed and are not an experienced dart thrower. Now, stand 10 feet from a dart board and throw 10 darts with your right hand. Then 10 darts with your left hand.

Sure, a few of the lefty darts will be better than some of the righty darts.

That doesn't change the fact that going lefty isn't the best choice.

Yet every time the "new" Disney is criticized, the minions of Sauron, Gozer, or whatever other name we give the dark one running Disney, pull out something that was done in the past that seems comparable.

I don't think Walt would have built these type of resorts but I also think they serve a valuable purpose for alot of guests. Their only purpose is to make money. Period. We've established many times that this alone is not a justification for Disney.

Certainly a company of Disney's capabilities could come up with more 'Disney-like' ways to make money.

Of course, when the process begins with how can we make more money, those other ways rarely see the light of day.

If you can't recognize that this film had not only quality animation, but incredible story and depth then you are way too jaded to ever productively discuss Disney in any meaningful fashion. The depth of the original story in Brother Bear eclipses the likes of Lion King and Litlle Mermaid.
1. Why is this statement ok, but a statement like "If you can't see the problems with (fill in the blank)..." is not ok?

2. Brother Bear was a quality movie, but it was "safe". The plot was similar to Ice Age, but it was done in a more formulaic fashion. For example, there wasn't even a real attempt to work the comedic relief into the story... (Maybe I'm nuts.... ok, I am nuts, but that's not the point... but I don't think that opinion disqualifies me from being able to discuss Disney in a productive fashion.)

3. Depth of story... I can see where you could make that point with respect to TLM, but that's a tough sell on TLK. Regardless, depth of story is tricksy to define, and even so, depth is only one factor. To me, depth does not equal quality, particulary with respect to the way the story is conveyed. There are lots of incredible stories that get messed up in the translation to film.

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by Mr D I am just one voice. one person and with MY free will have decided to boycott Disney in any way possible, coincidentally I leave in just a few hours for a 5200 mile trip from Alaska to Orlando.
Originally posted by Mr D ... particularly Blizzard Beach that I purchased an annual pass for, just BB/Disney Quest no other part of WDW is in my itiniary for my 4 week stay here in Orlando. My son and I have been going there for the last couple of days ... .
Originally posted by Mr D Its true I said I was boycotting the parks but to me the water park is exempt ... Besides I bought an AP for the water park and DQ only, out of four weeks I may be there way more than a dozen times ...
Originally posted by Mr D I seriously doubt I'll spend any additional funds to go see M:S or Philharmagic like a park hopper, I'll wait till my next vacation when Everest is open, even if thats two years from now.

Now THAT's the way to boycott. State that you are boycotting IN ANY WAY POSSIBLE. Then ... to show your resolve, purchase an annual pass for a water park and Disney Quest (the two together are about $200) and visit often. Justify that purchase because of the great value. And then leave yourself an out for further WDW touring by saying you "seriously doubt" that you'll go elsewhere on property. All while still actually putting money into the coffers of the company you're boycotting AND planning your next trip.

Yup ... that's definitely going to have Disney shaking in their boots!

:earsboy:

[Another Voice]

Showmanship is the ability to get people to spend money when they had no intention to so in the first place. Back in the dead guy's day people had no intention of spending an entire vacation around an amusement park. But through the showmanship of "wow - look at the hotels! There ain't no place like them on earth!!! You gotta see this!!!!" - Disney convinced millions and millions of people to consider something they never had before (I mean, who'd go to Florida an not go to the beach?)

Marketing is the ability to get someone to spend money on your products over the exact same products offered by your compeditors. It's marketing to get people to visit Blizzard Beach instead of Wet 'n Wild; it's marketing to get people to go to Pleasure Island over Church Street Station; it's marketing to get people to stay in the Pop Century instead of Elmer's Big YoYo Motor Lodge.

Disney used to be about creating places so new and different people wanted to travel to see them. Today, Disney is simply trying to redirect people already there (lured by the dead guy's stuff).

No one goes to Orlando to see Animal Kingdom, they go becasue of the Magic Kingdom. There's nothing different operationally different between AK and any of the 'gator farms, Mystery Houses or Boardwalk and Baseballs - they survive as "something else to do" when the main draw has been seen. Again, sit AK out on US 192 and it would be as empty as Great China.

As for California Adventure, when you build a place sooooo bad that it can't even siphon guests from a hundred yards away - you've really done something wrong.

[raidermatt]

I don't buy this argument because, if you apply the same rationale to DCA, then DCA's PAID admission should be growing too. Perhaps you have info on AK's attendance you haven't shared... if so, give it up. Otherwise, we only have the Amusement Business numbers which show attendance falling each full year since AK opened. Hardly much in the way of acceptance.

However, I will grant that DCA is much worse.

If All-Stars were priced the same as the Deluxes, or even the moderates do you think they would have the same high return rate?

Moderates, Caribbean Beach Resort and Coronado Springs, yes because the pools and transportation are not that much better. C'mon... if they could price them higher they would.

You may not believe it, but the stats show that there are guests who--even though they have the capacity to stay elsewhere--still choose to go back to All Stars or try Pop Century. I know because I've been told the info and because I fall within that info. Of course there are. There are also folks who would prefer to go to DCA than Disneyland. However that doesn't prove your point.

Personally, I don't see that with the All Stars though (Pop Century hasn't been open long enough yet for me to make a call). Why don't I see that with the All Stars? Because they have some of the highest occupancy numbers on property. And they have a high returning guest number. And based on your last post, we've determined that its because they are cheaper.... So if Hope's responses were off, what exactly was the point you were trying to make, other than the AS's can justify their cheaper price? If that's it, I'm sure we can concede it, but I'm not seeing the relevance.

I'm sure a lesser resort, say a "sub-value" resort, priced lower than the Values, could also acheive such numbers. Nobody has questioned that. But what does it prove.

To go back to DCA, if it had been priced and marketed as a lesser-value option/complement to Disneyland, I'm sure its numbers would have been better. But that wouldn't make it the right way to go would it?

[hopemax]

However, for being one who just found my DCA analogy flawed, this type of question is even more flawed.

You know Airlarry's post about lawyer cross-examinations, here's an example. Was it really that unclear that I was trying to determine what you thought the primary reason people were choosing the All-Stars, price or theme? Of course, there are more than one reason. I think that it's so obvious that there is more than one reason for choosing anything that any discussion about reasons would be to determine between primary and secondary reasons, which is why I didn't add, "Do you believe the primary reason for such is..."

You may not believe it, but the stats show that there are guests who--even though they have the capacity to stay elsewhere--still choose to go back to All Stars or try Pop Century

Now here I do think you are misunderstanding. I'm not disagreeing with this at all. I'm watching Oprah right now, and the subject is financial freedom. Oprah just got done talking about how Stedmond makes fun of her for brown bagging lunch, and even though she's a multi-millionare and could eat out every meal forever, she's still a product of her upbringing and she tends to pinch pennies, even now.

So even though the stats say that people with the ability to stay elsewhere still choose the All-Stars, does it clarify how many people are doing so for the same reasons Oprah takes her lunch to work? Do *YOU* agree that those people exist and could also be described as "many people," like DK used to describe the people who stay because they like it?

IMO, the All-Stars received a benefit in their rate-of-return by being the lowest priced hotel on Disney property. A benefit that is not received by DCA, since DCA isn't the lowest priced option at the DL Resort. I did not see any consideration of that difference and the effect it would have on rate-of-return in your post. And thus I felt the need to point it out.

[KNWVIKING]

***"No one goes to Orlando to see Animal Kingdom, they go becasue of the Magic Kingdom."***

You're right, people go to Orlando because of MK. The first time, maybe even the 2nd. But the 3rd,4th,5th or umpteenth time is because of AK,Epcot,MGM,BB,TL,PI,DTD,golf,resorts,DVC and all else that is WDW. Things not built by the dead guy.

[raidermatt]

You're right, people go to Orlando because of MK. The first time, maybe even the 2nd. But the 3rd,4th,5th or umpteenth time is because of AK,Epcot,MGM,BB,TL,PI,DTD,golf,resorts,DVC and all else that is WDW. Things not built by the dead guy.

Your point advocates a strategy of complementing what the dead guy started, as opposed to attempting to continue it. (No, I don't mean building Epcot City.)

Certainly a sound business strategy from many points of view, if executed properly.

However, its not the business strategy that the dead guy used to give them something to complement.

Again, its not whether or not WDW as a whole is "good".

Its whether an alternative strategy, one already in place at one time, would have produced something even "better", and more successful.

[hopemax]

So, it can't be all "price" because if it was

Again, I never said or even implied that people stay at the All-Stars because it's all about price.

Again, I was trying to point out that the All-Stars enjoy a pricing advantage that DCA does not have, and that shows up in their respective rates-of-return.

That's the discussion I was having.

If you want to turn this discussion into why people stay at the All-Stars instead of off-property, that isn't a discussion I feel like participating in again. The quick version is price, location and Disney ownership vs. not.

I did not include location and ownership in my earlier post because the All-Stars and DCA both share that same benefit in that regard, and I wasn't trying to start a "why people stay at the all-stars vs offsite" discussion again.

[hopemax]

But, that doesn't make any sense if you take the approach that the AllStars are no better themed than nearby off-site properties but cost MORE.

But that is not my position.

And I find it interesting that you find an implication about my position in my question to you. I was not trying to make a statement about my theory on price vs theme. I was trying to find out more about yours.

Only it seems I should have added an additional qualifier. And at the risk of being accused of moving the target again, here's a revised question, since you did not answer the one I was intending to ask. And the most frustrating thing is I suspect that you know that.

Of the people who choose to stay at the All-Stars, do you believe their choice was motivated more by theme or by price? Yes, there are other factors, but I am interested only in what you believe was the bigger factor: theme or price.

[DVC-Landbaron]

Theme. If it was price, they would have stayed off-site at a less expensive motel/hotel.
Wrong!! It cannot be theme. It isn’t themed. It is merely decorated!! I thought we had already stipulated to that.

And Hope. It isn't price either (although, contrary to Mr. Contrary, it goes a lot further than primary colored, giant decorations).

It is BRAND. Plain and simple. Haven’t the two of you been listening to AV at all!!??


And that's why it's sooooooo sad! :(

[Mr D]

The Adventurers Club? Don't go because its dripping with Disney magic? is that why Trish has such gorgeous shapely legs in her maids outfit?;)

That place is a hoot! The aviatrix was attractive, I didn't get her name, I've always liked tall woman.

[hopemax]

Landbaron,

Like I told Scoop,
I was not trying to make a statement about my theory on price vs theme. I was trying to find out more about yours.
I wasn't interested in knowing what role he felt brand played, I only wanted to know about theme and price concerning only the All-Stars and the people who stay there.

To which I FINALLY I got an answer!

BTW: Not that I care, but you suspect wrong.

This is good to know, because then I feel more comfortable asking additional questions, only I hope that it will not be this difficult to get an answer in the future.

[airlarry!]

Did I read that right? Did someone say that the All-stars are chosen more on the basis of theme not price?

No way, Scoopay. Besides the fact that there is no way to actually prove your theory, it just don't make no common sense.

There are two arguments here:

One. Do people chose the All-stars over the rest of Disney's resorts motivated more by theme or price? Price, of course. If the Poly and the All-stars were the same price, would people really chose the Allstars theme, smaller rooms, lack of restaurants, lack of magical transportation, lack of featured pools, etc etc yada yada yada? Give...me...a...break.

Two. Do people choose the All-stars (or heaven forbid the Poop Century) over the 192 motels motivated more by theme or price? Neither and both. People see the Allstars as being in the park...henced they are in the themed resort...and the price is just a bit more than the strip motels.

No way is there anything more than a very minor, minor group who says...."I want to stay offsite, and I can save money offsite.....but gosh darn it...I will sacrifice my love of staying offsite and money *strictly or for the most part* because there are foam and polyeurethene bowling pins stapled to the side of the building."

No way. I've stayed at the Allstars, heck in my old Ei$ner loving days, I applauded the fact that they brought 192 onto the property. They were cheap, had Disney transportation, Disney refillable mugs, and ostensibly were located within a 30 minute bus ride from the Magic Kingdom.

But give me a break, I had never stayed on site before! Once we stayed at the DxL, and saw what Disney could do, there was no way I was going back. (I was forced to do so one holiday trip for one night...and ugh was it an eyeopener).

Then to see Poop Century developed every day I stayed at the Caribbean. Man, you can complain all you want, Baron, about the Caribb, but wait till you see the Poop.


Anyway, that dog won't hunt.

[hopemax]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of the people who choose to stay at the All-Stars, do you believe their choice was motivated more by theme or by price?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Theme. If it was price, they would have stayed off-site at a less expensive motel/hotel.


Okay, then I have another question now.

Since you believe that theme not price is the greater motivator for why people stay at the All-Stars, you don't expect the All-Stars to experience a sustained (allowing for people to try the new hotel, because it's new) drop off in bookings, now that a lower priced, Disney owned, on property hotel exists, correct? And if the All-Stars do experience a sustained drop off in bookings, we can expect you to take the position that it is because Pop Century is better themed than the All-Stars?

[DVC-Landbaron]

Yet, as great as Port Orleans is generally agreed to be around here, its occupancy is still way down compared to the AllStars even when the available rates are less than $39 per night difference in some cases. Sure, $39 dollars is $39 dollars but that's hardly a huge amount to pay for such a purported dramatic level of difference between staying at Port Orleans and the AllStars.
OK scoop!! Enough of this tripe!! BACK IT UP!! You’re throwing around numbers and stats as if they were gospel. Where’s your back up. How do you KNOW it’s “occupancy is still way down compared to the AllStars”? How far down. Two guests? Or Five hundred? A night? A week? A ‘season’? And when is it only a $39.00 difference? All of the time? The blue light special? With a code? AP rates? Rack rate?

Please offer some sort of documentation!!

Guests are not just picking between the Polynesian and the AllStars and Port Orleans when evaluating the best place to stay. They are also considering some serious rock bottom rates at the very same nearby non-Disney properties which some of you all are claiming are basically identical to the AllStars.Again, I disagree. For a great many (I would even guess the greater majority) once they have it in their heads that Disney is within their budget, the “price” search stops right there.

It’s like a flow chart:

GOING TO DISNEY
|
|
Can we do a Disney Resort? --- Yes! Book it! {END}!!
|
|
|
|
NO (Look Outside Disney)
{continue resort search}


As for it simply being "Brand", well, that doesn't really say anything other than that maybe guests are just too brainwashed to make logical choices and see that the AllStars are allegedly no different than the half the price Motel 6 just a few miles away.

I really don't buy this argument that there are simply a bunch of Disney brand mesmerized junkies walking off the cliff with the rest of the herd.Good God, Scoop!! This is EXACTLY what we’ve been saying!! Maybe if you take out the “I really don’t buy the argument” and write the rest of the paragraph 1,000 times, maybe it will finally sink in!!

[Planogirl]

It's quite apparent what the DISers say about the Allstars and now, Pop Century. If you spend much time on the Resorts Board, you see over and over again "I would never stay offsite because I want to be part of the magic" or some variation thereof. I believe that this desire to be part of the "magic" takes priority over everything else for many people. Then finally comes price and of course, Junior loves the icons.

But it's really mostly about what people perceive as magic.

[DVC-Landbaron]

But it's really mostly about what people perceive as magic. Or could it be that it is the perception that Disney = Magic. No matter what! The kind of perception that the old Disney spent all its long years building up. And the new Disney® has spent a lot of time “marketing” and cashing in on.

Or in other words – Branding!

[DisneyKidds]

You posed the question Hopemax. It seems to imply that you think people return to the AllStars because of their price rather than their theme/decoration.
Sorry Hope...............I thought the same thing. Furthermore, your revised question........................
Of the people who choose to stay at the All-Stars, do you believe their choice was motivated more by theme or by price? Yes, there are other factors, but I am interested only in what you believe was the bigger factor: theme or price.
.......................doesn't seem to change my impression. You want to know if theme (decoration) or price is the primary reason people stay at AS/PC. I missed (and am having a hard time seeing) how this question related to DCA. Anywho..............to answer your revised question you can see my last answer. I think it is equal parts both theme (decoration..........maybe a little bit o' brand - but the brand is the decoration, no?) and price. It is BRAND. Plain and simple.
Good God, Scoop!! This (there are simply a bunch of Disney brand mesmerized junkies walking off the cliff with the rest of the herd) is EXACTLY what we’ve been saying!! Or could it be that it is the perception that Disney = Magic. No matter what!
Geez Baron, you really don't think much of the American public, do you? If only everyone could be a fraction as enlightened as you..............just think how much better off the world would be. I have a little different view of the American public, especially in todays economic times. They are a little more savvy than you give them credit for. Listen, most of us seem to agree that the Disney of today isn't the same as Walt's Disney. Philosophies, motivations, etc., etc. are somewhat different. Disney isn't producing Magic with the same consistency as in the past. However...........
For a great many (I would even guess the greater majority) once they have it in their heads that Disney is within their budget, the “price” search stops right there.
.................why is this? It is because they know that a stay on Disney property is going to be a better experience than a stay off property. As they say, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. But I suspect a great many who stay at AS and PC will come back. That's because the position that AS is no better than the Motel 6 down the road is flat out wrong. I know, I know.........Disney is not just about being better than the other guy. Disney should be a unique experience...........and the AS are in their own way. So what if it is just branding driven decoration that causes that. For that segment of society who enjoys the experience it is wonderful for them to have the option and I don't understand why you'd take that away.

Another question for you. Obviously you think that the AS is not a "Disney" experience. Does the lack of "Disney experience" they receive while at their resort detract from their experience at the MK or other parks and attractions?

[SnackyStacky]

Originally posted by DisneyKidds
Geez Baron, you really don't think much of the American public, do you? If only everyone could be a fraction as enlightened as you..............just think how much better off the world would be. I have a little different view of the American public, especially in todays economic times. They are a little more savvy than you give them credit for. Listen, most of us seem to agree that the Disney of today isn't the same as Walt's Disney. Philosophies, motivations, etc., etc. are somewhat different. Disney isn't producing Magic with the same consistency as in the past. However...........

.................why is this? It is because they know that a stay on Disney property is going to be a better experience than a stay off property. As they say, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. But I suspect a great many who stay at AS and PC will come back. That's because the position that AS is no better than the Motel 6 down the road is flat out wrong. I know, I know.........Disney is not just about being better than the other guy. Disney should be a unique experience...........and the AS are in their own way. So what if it is just branding driven decoration that causes that. For that segment of society who enjoys the experience it is wonderful for them to have the option and I don't understand why you'd take that away.

Another question for you. Obviously you think that the AS is not a "Disney" experience. Does the lack of "Disney experience" they receive while at their resort detract from their experience at the MK or other parks and attractions?

I can't really speak definitvely for Baron, whom you were addressing, but I can say that my argument is not so much that there's anything wrong with people actually enjoying the All Stars, and Pop Century, or that anybody is LESS enlightened than anybody else, but rather that it's really frustrating to think that Disney is charging money for a lesser experience, and that these people think that it's the best that Disney can do. They're paying a premium price for an experience that could be so much more.

The problem then becomes that people support it. They LIKE the All Stars, so they DO come back, which perpetuates the cycle of Disney churning out second-rate items that the crowds eat up. That doesn't bode well for Disney ever returning to creating first-rate, quality, truly magical products and services; not the magical® products that are Pop Century and the All Stars.

[DisneyKidds]

I can say that my argument is not so much that there's anything wrong with people actually enjoying the All Stars, and Pop Century, or that anybody is LESS enlightened than anybody else, but rather that it's really frustrating to think that Disney is charging money for a lesser experience, and that these people think that it's the best that Disney can do.
Who's to say that these people think that the AS are the best that Disney can do? Sounds like you do think they are rather ignorant. How did we come to possess what level of Disney knowledge we have? How can you assume that anyone who stays at the AS doesn't possess similar knowledge. This ain't rocket science. We aren't PhD's. The info isn't hard to come by. In fact, some of the people I know who stay at the AS ARE PhD's and have Master's degrees. They possess as much Disney knowledge as I do (ok, some think that isn't much - but they can take a long walk of a short pier ;)). Anyone who stays at the AS knows darn well that Disney has a better resort down the street. Could the value resorts themselves been better? Maybe.......or maybe not. I haven't seen any proposals for different value resorts, built more to the old Philosophy, that could be sold for about $100 a night or less. I know that most of the anti-value crowd around here doesn't like the idea of price points in the Disney equation, but I can live with it. Just because I don't like them doesn't mean I'll outright condemn them. Actually, as you point out.................
[people] LIKE the All Stars, so they DO come back
I don't agree that that.......
perpetuates the cycle of Disney churning out second-rate items that the crowds eat up. That doesn't bode well for Disney ever returning to creating first-rate, quality, truly magical products and services; not the magical® products that are Pop Century and the All Stars.
................as the Caribbean Beach and AS didn't prevent Disney from building new and wonderful resorts such as the Boardwalk, Wilderness Lodge and AKL.

[DVC-Landbaron]

I composed this from last night’s discussion at work today. I have not included the new posts from Mr. kids or Scoop, but from a glance I have already formulated part of my response. But it’s going to have to wait a bit.

Right now, a little catch-up and an assortment of thoughts, ideas and concepts…

First, in this post, we’ll tackle Scoop:




Finally we’ve gotten off those garden wings which, as it turns out, were NOT added as you’ve been espousing since your arrival here, but were a fundamental and intrinsic part of the original design. And it seems that many people CAN see the ‘SHOW’ of them, even if you can’t. Oh well! If nothing else, I’m glad we cleared that up!!

So, after all the banter, after all the positioning, after all the would-be traps were laid and carefully avoided, you finally answered my question. Answer: Within Walt's philosophy as you've described it: No.

Within how WDW has become a wider scale family resort today: Yes.

Very good! Thank you! It took a while, but it was worth it!
I don't think Walt would have built these type of resorts but I also think they serve a valuable purpose for alot of guests. How do you rectify the two, philosophically? I mean, you say that you don’t think Walt would have built them, right? And I quite agree. But have you ever asked yourself why? Why wouldn’t he have built them? What, in his philosophical outlook for all things Disney, is inherently wrong with them?

And once you have the answer to that, there is only one other question remaining. And it is NOT if they serve a valuable purpose. It is NOT about budgets, costs and profit motives. And it is NOT about class distinction or exclusion of market segments. It is simply:

What makes them OK today, philosophically, when you clearly acknowledge that they were WRONG in Walt’s time and within his philosophy?

I’m dying to hear the answer to that one!!

NEXT: And, considering their locations, I don't think they disrupt the overall WDW show.
Don’t you see that ANYTHING the Disney company puts out, whether it be a shirt, plush toy, attraction or a Resort, must, ABSOLUTELY MUST(!) be of the highest quality imaginable? If not, it undermines the entire concept of what Disney is. Of what it stands for. And even if the vast majority doesn’t see the aberration, it is still an albatross around the neck of the company and the perception they are trying to give to the public. It seriously tarnishes the brand!! And worse yet, it is the beginning of that slippery slope that ultimately leads to the likes of a Dinorama or DCA!!

I don’t know about you, but I’ve seen rather spotty quality over the past ten years or so in almost everything Disney puts out. We don’t talk about it much, because they are such small items in the grand scheme of things. But the quality for theirs shirts for instance really sucks sometimes!! After two wash cycles you leave it in the closet for a year and then throw it away! Yet I have some that are years old and wear like brand new! Seems to me the resorts are the same way. And it points to the lowering of the standards and ignoring a chief aspect of the Disney philosophy that dictates that quality = Disney. Today, it is sold as a “you get what you pay for”, so Disney does NOT automatically mean quality!! There are different levels of “Disney”. And that taints the brand, their reputation and the relationship that they have built up with their guests and customers over the years.

If capacity was really that big of an issue in 1972 that they really needed the capacity provided by the garden wings then I believe the "Walt philosophy" solution would have been to go ahead and build the Venetian or Persian or Asian from the beginning (well actually not the Venetian...have you seen the original concept art? ghastly...:) ) from day one to increase capacity rather than build the garden wings which are obviously inferior to the Tower lodging. Before we cast stones, I think we better turn to some experts on the subject. I believe that those other resorts were stopped because of some bureaucratic and/or political appeasement to the Orlando area, Florida and the world outside of Disney in general. I was led to believe back then that Disney was trying to placate local businesses and politicians. That’s why the Poly was expanded instead of a new resort constructed.

Now, I’m not sure if that was just spin or it was a fact, but that was what the buzz was around that time. We didn’t have the internet or any other communications other than a face to face with cast members. But I got that story from many of them over a period of several years. You see, I was always a bit disappointed that the Asian never went in as planned, so every chance I got, I asked about it. And this was what I was told.

AV, what’s your take?

Next: Because it's much more important to me that a trip to Disney World make Owen happy that it strictly adhere to a "philosophy". and
I'm telling you. Seeing my 2 year old screaming "Mickey, Mickey, Mickey" melts me to the point that I'm willing to let a little philosophy slide--even if that exposes a slippery slope.
Good God!! He’s turned into the Captain!! Which is fine. More power to you. Enjoy! Have fun at Disney with your kids! I do! All the time!!

But don’t base your position regarding the philosophical doctrines and long term goals of the company on personal enjoyment! That road goes no where. And it seriously undermines your credibility.

It reminds me of the bickering mothers involved in my kid’s school. They sit on the Local School Council with me and swear up and down that they have the entire school in their hearts. Yet, every issue they bring up, every problem that they turn into a crisis, centers around the grade their child happens to be in at the time. Strange isn’t it? Only so much money to go around and yet the intermediate grades desperately need the funding, at the expense of the other grades! Hmmmm. Last year the crisis was the primary grades. I wonder what changed? Ah! Their child is no longer in the 3rd grade and moved to the 4th!! And sure enough, two years later the funding and ALL problem solving is directed to the upper grades! Coincidence?

The point is, to effectively manage and direct the philosophy of a company like Disney, you have to, YOU MUST, take your personal feelings out of it!! It doesn’t matter if Owen LOVES the giant Yo-yo or not. The question is still; does it fit in the philosophy of Disney? Is it good for the long term? Is it quality?
But, I just don't see the "sadness" of the fact that there is an alternative at WDW. Because of the standards they lost along the way. It really is that simple. They used to be all about QUALITY!! They’re not anymore. And that IS sad.
I am not suggesting at all that showmanship should completely surrender to affordability factors or age factors. Lower income families with toddlers certainly should not absolutely and finally dictate a philosophy. Ah! Then it comes down to a question of where you draw the line. I happen to like where Walt drew it. Evidently you don’t. So, just where would you draw the line?
Mr. Voice, I too am grieved by things like Dinorama which I believe--unlike Pop Century and the All Stars--is placed in such a way that it distracts from the rest of the Show. Anything that is of lesser quality detracts from the show and…
I too am grieved at what this regime has allowed to happen to Disneyland and the mere fact that DCA was built (not created...that's too good of a word). … naturally leads to these examples. It is the unintended consequences of abandoning the ‘philosophy’. And that’s sad too!!
But, at some point, I'm perfectly comfortable taking off my critical thinker/connoiseur of true showmanship hat and putting on my daddy of a 2 year old hat. Me too! But I save that for when I’m there. On these discussion boards it is an entirely different matter. We are discussing what’s good for the company and the philosophy within. We are NOT discussing Owen’s personal likes and dislikes!!
Why don't I see that with the All Stars? Because they have some of the highest occupancy numbers on property. And they have a high returning guest number. You are confusing popularity with Disney quality and philosophy. Come on, Scoop!! That is a rookie mistake!! You should know better. One has NOTHING to do with the other!! Do I really have to bring up strip clubs again!?!
You may not believe it, but the stats show that there are guests who--even though they have the capacity to stay elsewhere--still choose to go back to All Stars or try Pop Century. I know because I've been told the info and because I fall within that info. I think someone else called for it before me, but I will too. BACK IT UP!!

I’m looking forward to your thoughtful response!







PS: I think you are a very dishonest person. You think I am too. No. I do not think you are ‘dishonest’. I think you are wrong. Wrong in your thinking. Wrong in your understanding of Disney. And wrong philosophically. And I think you cannot concede a point easily. Neither can I. But I do NOT think you are dishonest.
I think you are a very dishonest person. Not just dishonest, but VERY dishonest. How so?

(Moderators!! Please be lenient. I am very curious!)

[DVC-Landbaron]

Mr. Kidds!
The thing is............there are lots of people who do like the values, and not just because of the price. For those not so hung up on the history and philosophy we throw around here in our (for the most part) isolated "been to the original resorts and know the difference" eWorld, the Disney resorts they spend their time in are just wonderful and a vast improvement over the Motel 6's on I Drive. All our arrogant, elitist "but this is what a Disney resort/experience is and you ain't getting it" debate doesn't mean squat to them. It doesn’t have to, nor should it. It should only matter to the current administration of Disney and those who care about the long term good of the company. And of course it matters greatly to the ‘philosophy’!!

Surely you can understand that?

[DVC-Landbaron]

Crusader:
So it is imperative to size him or her up before we can draw the line on who gets to stay onsite. I agree. Surprised? So am I!! But I want to tell you that I understand, inherently, what you’re talking about. But (and here’s where it gets sticky) I think that the questions you are asking is more or less ‘felt’ when the original concept is floated. One ‘knows’ if it fits within the public’s perception. And one ‘knows’ (or at least hopes) that they will pay for it. Now, I will grant you that some are better than others at this game. Walt was particularly good at it. Ei$ner STINKS at it (the Institute, DCA, etc.). It’s all part of “Getting It”!!

So at a certain point in the process a reality check may be required. I understand that. But I firmly believe that the target marketing, and demographics should play a very small role (if any) in the grand scheme of things.
I’ll politely place joe on the back burner for now. I really think that in the formative stages, that is where he belongs. We may get to him later or we may find that we simply ‘know’ it’ll work, because the concept demands nothing less!!

With that in mind, where do we begin? I don’t know!! I’m not very good at “What If” games. I think the first thing we have to do is move this subject out of this thread. Only the diehards are here now and we need some brainstorming. So…

… Minimize this one and open the thread that reads

Making the Caste System work within the Disney philosophy – A “What If” game

[DVC-Landbaron]

Geez Baron, you really don't think much of the American public, do you?My opinion of the American public has nothing to do with the conversation at hand.

If only everyone could be a fraction as enlightened as you..............just think how much better off the world would be. Is it just me or was this sentence totally uncalled and just dripping with sarcasm, disdain and acrimony? It may be just me, but I really think this type of thing stinks.

Hey Mr. Kidds!! Do you think you can refrain from this sort of thing in the future?

Now, to continue…

.................why is this? It is because they know that a stay on Disney property is going to be a better experience than a stay off property. I take it from your response that you agree with my flow chart. In that case you disagree with Scoop who seems to think that most of the people who have a propensity to stay on Disney property really look elsewhere. I say they do not. Evidently you agree! That’s nice!! :)

It is because they know that a stay on Disney property is going to be a better experience than a stay off property. How do they know that? Especially the first timers? Could it possibly be that the Disney reputation, which has been carefully built on quality and creativity since Walt’s train ride after having Oswald stolen from him, has told the public that they can trust Disney?

Are they trading off their reputation and brand name? (Hmmmm. Where have I heard this argument before?) And Don’t just take AV’s word for it! You are talking to the original “Brand-Monkey”!!

Remember? I was the guy who laughed at my uncle when he spent four thousand dollars on a timeshare in Hawaii! I was the guy who refused to own a summer home in the North Woods because I refused to be tied down and “married-to-the-place”. Yet!! I was the guy who plopped down over ten grand for the DVC just because it was Disney, Sight-Unseen!!! No questions asked!! No visit. No tour. No free ice cream!! Just wrote a check and said thank you!! I remember telling my wife at the time, “What’s to worry over? It’s Disney!! How bad can it be??”

No, my friend! I come to you as a reformed drunk – SHOUTING the evils of John Barleycorn!!

I’ve been there. I KNOW how they think!!!

[DVC-Landbaron]

OK! I’ll try it again. Every time the questions get tough, Scoop bails! Most of the time with feigned exasperation. Just like this time. So, how about we give him a chance to redeem himself?

One more go around with the offending passage excised.

----------------------------

So, after all the banter, after all the positioning, after all the would-be traps were laid and carefully avoided, you finally answered my question. Answer: Within Walt's philosophy as you've described it: No.

Within how WDW has become a wider scale family resort today: Yes.

Very good! Thank you! It took a while, but it was worth it!
I don't think Walt would have built these type of resorts but I also think they serve a valuable purpose for alot of guests. How do you rectify the two, philosophically? I mean, you say that you don’t think Walt would have built them, right? And I quite agree. But have you ever asked yourself why? Why wouldn’t he have built them? What, in his philosophical outlook for all things Disney, is inherently wrong with them?

And once you have the answer to that, there is only one other question remaining. And it is NOT if they serve a valuable purpose. It is NOT about budgets, costs and profit motives. And it is NOT about class distinction or exclusion of market segments. It is simply:

What makes them OK today, philosophically, when you clearly acknowledge that they were WRONG in Walt’s time and within his philosophy?

I’m dying to hear the answer to that one!!

NEXT: And, considering their locations, I don't think they disrupt the overall WDW show.
Don’t you see that ANYTHING the Disney company puts out, whether it be a shirt, plush toy, attraction or a Resort, must, ABSOLUTELY MUST(!) be of the highest quality imaginable? If not, it undermines the entire concept of what Disney is. Of what it stands for. And even if the vast majority doesn’t see the aberration, it is still an albatross around the neck of the company and the perception they are trying to give to the public. It seriously tarnishes the brand!! And worse yet, it is the beginning of that slippery slope that ultimately leads to the likes of a Dinorama or DCA!!

I don’t know about you, but I’ve seen rather spotty quality over the past ten years or so in almost everything Disney puts out. We don’t talk about it much, because they are such small items in the grand scheme of things. But the quality for theirs shirts for instance really sucks sometimes!! After two wash cycles you leave it in the closet for a year and then throw it away! Yet I have some that are years old and wear like brand new! Seems to me the resorts are the same way. And it points to the lowering of the standards and ignoring a chief aspect of the Disney philosophy that dictates that quality = Disney. Today, it is sold as a “you get what you pay for”, so Disney does NOT automatically mean quality!! There are different levels of “Disney”. And that taints the brand, their reputation and the relationship that they have built up with their guests and customers over the years.

If capacity was really that big of an issue in 1972 that they really needed the capacity provided by the garden wings then I believe the "Walt philosophy" solution would have been to go ahead and build the Venetian or Persian or Asian from the beginning (well actually not the Venetian...have you seen the original concept art? ghastly...:) ) from day one to increase capacity rather than build the garden wings which are obviously inferior to the Tower lodging. Before we cast stones, I think we better turn to some experts on the subject. I believe that those other resorts were stopped because of some bureaucratic and/or political appeasement to the Orlando area, Florida and the world outside of Disney in general. I was led to believe back then that Disney was trying to placate local businesses and politicians. That’s why the Poly was expanded instead of a new resort constructed.

Now, I’m not sure if that was just spin or it was a fact, but that was what the buzz was around that time. We didn’t have the internet or any other communications other than a face to face with cast members. But I got that story from many of them over a period of several years. You see, I was always a bit disappointed that the Asian never went in as planned, so every chance I got, I asked about it. And this was what I was told.

AV, what’s your take?

Next: Because it's much more important to me that a trip to Disney World make Owen happy that it strictly adhere to a "philosophy". and
I'm telling you. Seeing my 2 year old screaming "Mickey, Mickey, Mickey" melts me to the point that I'm willing to let a little philosophy slide--even if that exposes a slippery slope.
Good God!! He’s turned into the Captain!! Which is fine. More power to you. Enjoy! Have fun at Disney with your kids! I do! All the time!!

But don’t base your position regarding the philosophical doctrines and long term goals of the company on personal enjoyment! That road goes no where. And it seriously undermines your credibility.

It reminds me of the bickering mothers involved in my kid’s school. They sit on the Local School Council with me and swear up and down that they have the entire school in their hearts. Yet, every issue they bring up, every problem that they turn into a crisis, centers around the grade their child happens to be in at the time. Strange isn’t it? Only so much money to go around and yet the intermediate grades desperately need the funding, at the expense of the other grades! Hmmmm. Last year the crisis was the primary grades. I wonder what changed? Ah! Their child is no longer in the 3rd grade and moved to the 4th!! And sure enough, two years later the funding and ALL problem solving is directed to the upper grades! Coincidence?

The point is, to effectively manage and direct the philosophy of a company like Disney, you have to, YOU MUST, take your personal feelings out of it!! It doesn’t matter if Owen LOVES the giant Yo-yo or not. The question is still; does it fit in the philosophy of Disney? Is it good for the long term? Is it quality?
But, I just don't see the "sadness" of the fact that there is an alternative at WDW. Because of the standards they lost along the way. It really is that simple. They used to be all about QUALITY!! They’re not anymore. And that IS sad.
I am not suggesting at all that showmanship should completely surrender to affordability factors or age factors. Lower income families with toddlers certainly should not absolutely and finally dictate a philosophy. Ah! Then it comes down to a question of where you draw the line. I happen to like where Walt drew it. Evidently you don’t. So, just where would you draw the line?
Mr. Voice, I too am grieved by things like Dinorama which I believe--unlike Pop Century and the All Stars--is placed in such a way that it distracts from the rest of the Show. Anything that is of lesser quality detracts from the show and…
I too am grieved at what this regime has allowed to happen to Disneyland and the mere fact that DCA was built (not created...that's too good of a word). … naturally leads to these examples. It is the unintended consequences of abandoning the ‘philosophy’. And that’s sad too!!
But, at some point, I'm perfectly comfortable taking off my critical thinker/connoiseur of true showmanship hat and putting on my daddy of a 2 year old hat. Me too! But I save that for when I’m there. On these discussion boards it is an entirely different matter. We are discussing what’s good for the company and the philosophy within. We are NOT discussing Owen’s personal likes and dislikes!!
Why don't I see that with the All Stars? Because they have some of the highest occupancy numbers on property. And they have a high returning guest number. You are confusing popularity with Disney quality and philosophy. Come on, Scoop!! That is a rookie mistake!! You should know better. One has NOTHING to do with the other!! Do I really have to bring up strip clubs again!?!
You may not believe it, but the stats show that there are guests who--even though they have the capacity to stay elsewhere--still choose to go back to All Stars or try Pop Century. I know because I've been told the info and because I fall within that info. I think someone else called for it before me, but I will too. BACK IT UP!!

I’m looking forward to your thoughtful response!







PS: I think you are a very dishonest person. You think I am too. No. I do not think you are ‘dishonest’. I think you are wrong. Wrong in your thinking. Wrong in your understanding of Disney. And wrong philosophically. And I think you cannot concede a point easily. Neither can I. But I do NOT think you are dishonest.
I think you are a very dishonest person. Not just dishonest, but VERY dishonest. How so?

(Moderators!! Please be lenient. I am very curious!)

[DVC-Landbaron]

Oh, this is getting almost comical. Replace one ridiculous quote with another one and then say let's move on.
Well, well, well. Look what I found just a couple pages ago, from your rapier wit:
Hmmm....Chill out DVC-Landbaron. Don't act as if I just defrocked your neighbor's wife. Generally, I've found that you resort to the Large Font Bold text of indignation when you've run across a point that you don't really have an answer to within your dogma. Such is apparently the case here, because, quicker than you can take your finger off the Control Tab button...you've decided that this thread needs a changed subject (as if we don't eeevvvveerrrrr change topics in mid-thread....)How do you do, Mr. Pot? I’m Mr. Kettle. What color did you say I was?

Get a grip Scoop! Why not just admit that you don’t HAVE any answers for me. Even Mr. Kidds abandoned you on the last issue. It’s why you like (heck almost worship, toady style) AV. He counters your points and then lets it go. The frozen one never did that. Sir Matt doesn’t do that. His Airness doesn’t do it! And neither do I. (Hmmm. Funny how you happen to have a problem with all four of us at one time or another. Nothing to do with you, of course!! It MUST be us!!!)

So don’t act all high and mighty. You’re an expert name caller and a master of innuendo. You make sure that you always score points for you’re imagined internet audience. But you do that with utter disregard for the subject at hand and at the expense of worthwhile communication. In other words you make a lousy debater.


Adios Scoop! Is the cameo finally over?

[DisneyKidds]

Hey Mr. Kidds!! Do you think you can refrain from this sort of thing in the future?
I apologize...........but you do come off as having a bit of a superiority complex sometimes. Hope that doesn't offend you..........friend to friend. So, I'll refrain from pointing out my opinion on that front if you stop writing off positive response to anything recent as the uninformed lunacy of a brand blinded public. I think people deserve a bit more credit than that. 'Nuff said?
Even Mr. Kidds abandoned you on the last issue.
Well, no. I like to think I...............
counter your points and then let it go.
However, given that you have returned to true Baron form I seem to have lost somewhere in your lengthy retorts the issue you think I abandoned. If you care to remind me I'll let you know if I did abandon anything or if I have answered and moved on. Other than that, I'll see you around the new thread.

[WDSearcher]

Y'know ... I don't blame scoop at all for not answering, based on how no answer is ever quite enough, but what the heck ... let me enter the fray.

Originally posted by DVC-Landbaron Finally we’ve gotten off those garden wings which, as it turns out, were NOT added as you’ve been espousing since your arrival here, but were a fundamental and intrinsic part of the original design. And it seems that many people CAN see the ‘SHOW’ of them, even if you can’t. Oh well! If nothing else, I’m glad we cleared that up!!

I'm with scoop in that I didn't see "many" peole seeing the 'SHOW' of the garden wings. I saw two. Maybe three. Which is at least as many as said they didn't. I will continue to go on record as being someone who doesn't see the show there. No one has ever adequately, IMO, explained how they DO add to the show. What specific elements of the GW add to the show that the Contemporary is. Never an answer.

So, after all the banter, after all the positioning, after all the would-be traps were laid and carefully avoided, you finally answered my question.

Why wouldn’t he have built them? What, in his philosophical outlook for all things Disney, is inherently wrong with them?

Walt wouldn't have built them because he probably would have wanted to let the "value level" resorts be outsourced to a partnership with Holiday Inn or someone similar. I think he'd have concentrated on moderate-to-high-end resorts and not built anything on-property for those who couldn't afford that level. He would have seen it as more economical to have the "Disney partner resorts" offer the lower-level accomodations, because he could make more money and more impact with something more higher end.

What makes them OK today, philosophically, when you clearly acknowledge that they were WRONG in Walt’s time and within his philosophy?

I’m dying to hear the answer to that one!!!!

This is a trick question. Time is measurable; philosophy is not.

They're OK today even though they were wrong in Walt's TIME simply because it's not Walt's time any more. Lots of things are done today and seen as being OK even though the folks of the 1950s wouldn't have even considered them. If Walt were, indeed, still alive, I think there are a lot of things he would bend to as a businessman that would absolutely apall the purists. As competition grew and other theme and amusement parks sprung up around the country and around the globe, and he had to keep money coming in to satisfy Roy and to give himself funds to create with, I have no doubt that he would have done everything he could to maintain Disney's share of the market and stay ahead of the curve. And if that meant having Disney-branded lower-priced resorts, I think he'd have eventually gone that way.

Would he have built the Pop Century or All-Stars specifically? That's where the PHILOSOPHY comes in. I don't see the ideas themselves -- sports, music, movies, centuries -- being something Walt wouldn't embrace, although he may have approached them differently. I imagine they'd be less about the icons and more about the internal theming. More theme, less decoration.

Don’t you see that ANYTHING the Disney company puts out, whether it be a shirt, plush toy, attraction or a Resort, must, ABSOLUTELY MUST(!) be of the highest quality imaginable? If not, it undermines the entire concept of what Disney is. Of what it stands for. And even if the vast majority doesn’t see the aberration, it is still an albatross around the neck of the company and the perception they are trying to give to the public. It seriously tarnishes the brand!! And worse yet, it is the beginning of that slippery slope that ultimately leads to the likes of a Dinorama or DCA!!?

Yes, but quality is in the eye of the beholder. It's a subjective term. If I have a company in Mexico that is asked to spit out 300,000 $2 Disney souvenirs a year and make them to exact specifications, and I do that, then I am making a "quality" product. I have followed the specs exactly, and I have met my quota, and each piece is exactly as it should be. Yet, you may look at them and call them low-quality crap. Just because something is inexpensive, doesn't mean it's cheap. And, just because 50% of the people don't like something doesn't mean it's not a quality thing, because there are 50% of the people who DO like it. The 50% who think it's cheap, think it's an albatross around Disney's neck. The 50% who like it, think it's swell.

The Disney purists who know every in and out of the company and who first spent days in the parks as children and are forever trying to get back to that childlike place obviously have a much different idea of how they define 'quality' than does someone who just goes to the parks to have a good time with their kids.

Quality also depends on what you're used to. If you've stayed in generic Ramada Inns for your last three vacations, and this time you save up and stay in a Garden Wing, that's going to be of higher quality to you based on what you have to compare it to. However, if you've always stayed in a tower room and you end up in a Garden Wing because of availability or budget, you're going to find it to be of a lower quality. (I know that what we're really talking about here is value, but most people equate the two. Something "high quality" is more expensive; "low quality" is cheaper. I don't agree with that.)

The point is, to effectively manage and direct the philosophy of a company like Disney, you have to, YOU MUST, take your personal feelings out of it!!

I agree. But no one here has been able to do that so far, so why is scoop the only one who has to? You've got people who hate Michael Eisner to such a degree that they can't be objective on anything he says or does. You've got people who believe that the happiness of their families is more important than a business philosophy. They don't care whether Walt would have or wouldn't have built it, as long as their kids have fun. And then other people who deride them for that. If we're going to take emotion and personal feeling out of it, then we have to take all the emotions out, including sarcasm and condescension. You don't just get to take the warm and fuzzy feelings away. No one here is discussing this with no personal feelings.

:earsboy:

[DisneyKidds]

Time is measurable; philosophy is not.

They're OK today even though they were wrong in Walt's TIME simply because it's not Walt's time any more. Lots of things are done today and seen as being OK even though the folks of the 1950s wouldn't have even considered them. If Walt were, indeed, still alive, I think there are a lot of things he would bend to as a businessman that would absolutely apall the purists. As competition grew and other theme and amusement parks sprung up around the country and around the globe, and he had to keep money coming in to satisfy Roy and to give himself funds to create with, I have no doubt that he would have done everything he could to maintain Disney's share of the market and stay ahead of the curve. And if that meant having Disney-branded lower-priced resorts, I think he'd have eventually gone that way.

Would he have built the Pop Century or All-Stars specifically? That's where the PHILOSOPHY comes in. I don't see the ideas themselves -- sports, music, movies, centuries -- being something Walt wouldn't embrace, although he may have approached them differently. I imagine they'd be less about the icons and more about the internal theming. More theme, less decoration.
Sorry, but that was worth repeating.
Time is measurable; philosophy is not.

They're OK today even though they were wrong in Walt's TIME simply because it's not Walt's time any more. Lots of things are done today and seen as being OK even though the folks of the 1950s wouldn't have even considered them. If Walt were, indeed, still alive, I think there are a lot of things he would bend to as a businessman that would absolutely apall the purists. As competition grew and other theme and amusement parks sprung up around the country and around the globe, and he had to keep money coming in to satisfy Roy and to give himself funds to create with, I have no doubt that he would have done everything he could to maintain Disney's share of the market and stay ahead of the curve. And if that meant having Disney-branded lower-priced resorts, I think he'd have eventually gone that way.

Would he have built the Pop Century or All-Stars specifically? That's where the PHILOSOPHY comes in. I don't see the ideas themselves -- sports, music, movies, centuries -- being something Walt wouldn't embrace, although he may have approached them differently. I imagine they'd be less about the icons and more about the internal theming. More theme, less decoration.
Sorry, but that was worth repeating in bold.

Perfect. DITTO. Quote of the day. (Somebody stop me...................I've turned into Baron ;)) I hope you can all see it now. Baron has seen it and agreed to everything Searcher just said regarding the moderates.................if someone wants to champion the values it could be a long one, but it might be a winable fight.

Excellent post Searcher

[raidermatt]

C'mon DK, you can do better than this.

Walt ok'd the MK so he could build his one of a kind resort and his Epcot CITY.

What equivalent goal was Eisner reaching for when he "buckled" under pressure and approved Pop Century?

[DisneyKidds]

What equivalent goal was Eisner reaching for when he "buckled" under pressure and approved Pop Century?
Before I start, let me say that I think there are too many value resorts/rooms. Even if we could find a way to justify the existence, I don't think we could justify the size. So I have no idea why ME went forward with PC. Let's talk about the original values........the All Stars. OK?

I suppose the pressure that ME "buckled" under was growth. I think Walt would have resisted growth longer than ME, and would have limited the growth, but The Florida Project took on a life of it's own and changed the face of the vacation world. That was probably beyond even Walts expectations. Demand required growth. ME's desire to bolster assets and stock prices fed that growth.

In the end ME grew many things the wrong way, most of us agree on that. What we don't seem to agree on is that growth was needed, was a good thing....................especially if done the right way.

Plus, you never know what kind of new and completely unthought of thing Walt would have dreamt up that he would have needed to fund. So all in all I very much could see WDW growing in many directions under Walt's continued leadership.

[DVC-Landbaron]

Originally posted by thedscoop
:( :( Great input, Scoop old pal!! Thanks and keep it up!!

[raidermatt]

I don't dispute that WDW had to grow.

I'm not even convinced that it would have grown any slower under Walt. Much differently I'm sure, but not necessarily any slower.

What I have a problem with is the idea that the need to grow justifies the Values. Growth was necessary in order to utilize idle assets and avoid takeover and possibly a break-up. But there seems to be this idea that the only way to grow adequately was to compromise the "Disney" way and build Moderates and Values.

That's just not a realisitic justification. ANYTHING that utilized the land and generated income would have satisfied the financial growth requirements. I just believe that it was possible without compromising the philosophy.

What would that have been? I don't know... Certainly some "deluxe" resorts... maybe other different types of parks...who knows? But I truly believe the company had the ability to achieve the growth requirements in a much more "Disney" fashion.