Pop Century: Yea or Nay?

[All Aboard]

Hope, good point about spending. You are right. So, maybe I should have stopped at income. So, assuming the the numbers were right, it would have cost an average family about 2.6% of their annual income to spend a week a the Poly. Now, it would cost about 3.2%. Yes, that's a decrease in affordability.

But, (and I wish I could find AV's post where he said it) pricing is all market driven. Lowering the price at the Poly to $205 - just "because" makes little sense if the market is willing to pay $300.

And, the 1971 comparison takes a logic leap that $39 a night was the "right" price to charge then. Had they opened by charging a nickel a night, would we be arguing that they should be charging $0.75 now?

[YoHo]

First, crusader, the Poly and Contemp rooms are bigger then just about every other resort on property, 5 guests per room. doesn't that mitigate the family size issue a little?

secondly, Greg I have to assume that Disney had a profit margin target when they chose those rates.

Further, the rampant discounting needed to keep those rooms filled (supposedly) suggests that $300 a night isn't really what the market will bear. Finally, what the market will bear for the Poly is directly influenced by the lower cost and lower caliber resorts that Disney has since built up. It is not in any way a coincidence that the market will bear rate for the Polynesian took a jump up as the mods and Values were built. What price would the market bear if Disney had 35,000 Poly rooms and no Values or Mods?

[raidermatt]

But, (and I wish I could find AV's post where he said it) pricing is all market driven. Lowering the price at the Poly to $205 - just "because" makes little sense if the market is willing to pay $300.

The board finally picks up and now I find myself lacking the time to keep up... ah well.

But on this point, I have to say something.

Its not just "because". Its part of a strategy that accepts a little less margin today in exchange for long term loyalty, and all of the benefits that go along with it. (There's also the point that the resort pricing structure should be considered in the context of the entire WDW structure, but that's opening another can of worms, and there's enough of those open right now...)

The problem of course, is going back to that strategy once you abandon it, as it takes time for the benefits of that strategy to overtake the short term margin sacrifice.

Nonetheless, its a viable business strategy, not a benevolent act.

[KNWVIKING]

..... consider yourself SHOT.

[SnackyStacky]

Originally posted by crusader
What I want to add is that while the disposable income/spending issue is vital to these stats, why isn't there any mention of the household size?

The average household was much larger 30 yrs ago and had two key issues affecting the affordability of a vacation: meals and beds. They typically needed more than one room and couldn't afford to feed their entire family dining out all the time.

So I say, take those '72 rates and double 'em before you move them forward to today because it took two rooms to fit those families in back then.

Take that and post it on the resorts board. To all the families with 3 kids, and not just 2. Who now can't stay at any of the budget hotels, or the moderates (with the exception of Riverside, which still charges an extra $15 per night to use the trundle bed) or need to book two rooms. Still the same situation. Disney doesn't make it easy for families of more than 4.

[crusader]

Originally posted by YoHo
First, crusader, the Poly and Contemp rooms are bigger then just about every other resort on property, 5 guests per room. doesn't that mitigate the family size issue a little?



Somewhat but a family of 5 is tight in a hotel for a weeklong vacation. This chart says it all to me - (from one of the links Demonstheses provided):

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

Look very carefully at the size of the households as sorted by the age of the head of the households on page 17:

particularly:

25-34 vs.
34-44 vs.
45-54

You will see that close to half of the 35-44 yr old couples in 1971 had 3 or more kids on average.

When I first visited Disney in '72 my father was 35 and our family size was 7. We're right in line with the average and probably one of Disney's more targeted demographics at the time, and we could not fit in one room at the Contemporary or the Poly.

The only option for us was the campground because the wilderness homes the treehouses and other LBV accomodations were strategically priced as the equivalent cost of two rooms at one of the Magic Kingdom resorts. In other words, any on-site option beyond camping was far too expensive.

Take that and post it on the resorts board. To all the families with 3 kids, and not just 2. Who now can't stay at any of the budget hotels, or the moderates (with the exception of Riverside, which still charges an extra $15 per night to use the trundle bed) or need to book two rooms. Still the same situation. Disney doesn't make it easy for families of more than 4.

Snacky, I reread this several times and am not real clear on your point. Could you please elaborate?

[SnackyStacky]

Originally posted by crusader
Snacky, I reread this several times and am not real clear on your point. Could you please elaborate?

Sure.

You've got 5 people in your family. You have very few budget choices:

1.) Book two rooms at a value

2.) Book one room at Riverside, and pay an extra $15 per night for the trundle bed

3.) Book two moderate rooms

All options still cheaper than a deluxe, but you're still completely negating the "budget" aspect that Disney is marketing. The LOWEST you'll get two rooms for (without talking discounts) is $154.

My point is that just as in '72 - families on a budget still have to double up when it comes to rooms.

ALL the moderates and budgets have space for only 4, with the exception of Riverside. So basically, that $154 rate is what Baron was throwing around as a ball park for a fair Poly price today.

BUT, for $155 a night, these families with more than 4 people aren't getting a Poly-like experience. They're getting the shoddy budget experience.

[raidermatt]

Matt..... consider yourself SHOT.

Thank you!

[crusader]

My point is that just as in '72 - families on a budget still have to double up when it comes to rooms.

We may not be too far apart on this. I agree. I mentioned the doubling up issue because it was not being reflected in any of the '71 stats being thrown around.

You do need to add a number 4): get a campsite.

The difference today is that camping is no longer the preferred choice for the budget conscious family. The value resorts are.


ALL the moderates and budgets have space for only 4, with the exception of Riverside. So basically, that $154 rate is what Baron was throwing around as a ball park for a fair Poly price today

To which I say no - double it. You need two rooms if the trip is the every few years, 10+ days it used to be.

BUT, for $155 a night, these families with more than 4 people aren't getting a Poly-like experience. They're getting the shoddy budget experience.

Well shoddy is a bit strong but I do get your point. For $155/night you won't get a poly like experience today any more than I got at the campground back in the 70's. We roughed it.

[hopemax]

5 people fit in the Deluxe hotel rooms. What I see on page 17 is that 24.8% of families where the head of the household was aged 35-44 would need more than one room (households of 6 or more). 9.6% of families where the head of household was aged 25-34 would need more than one room.

That means 75.2% and 90.4% of familes only needed one room. Is this what you want us to see?

"Size of household" includes the head of household as defined earlier in the document. "All persons living in a residence" Did you perhaps, think it didn't?

A majority of families shouldn't have had to double.

[crusader]

Hope, you have to consider much more than that.

For starters:

Scroll over to the far columns on that page. 60% of the individuals within households from the 25-54 age brackets are over the age of 18. No way can 5 comfortably fit in a hotel room for a week to 10 days back in the 70's.

[Lewisc]

I don't understand why Disney doesn't take some of the Phase II buildings for Pop Century and make then into suite type rooms that can sleep 6-8. Places like HIFS do well and I'd think there'd be enough demand.

Price it similar to a moderate. Not everyone want to (or can afford) to buy into DVC.

[hopemax]

Scroll over to the far columns on that page. 60% of the individuals within households from the 25-54 age brackets are over the age of 18. No way can 5 comfortably fit in a hotel room for a week to 10 days back in the 70's.

What do you think that number actually says about the breakdown of a family? The presence of two parents is going to skew the percentage high. In a 4 person household, your going to get 50% of individuals within a houshold being over 18 because of the parents! 40% for a 5-person household. 60% is not all that surprising. Considering the age people started having children 30 years ago, it's not really a surprise that 40-54 year olds had children over the age of 18.

This still doesn't add up to the majority of WDW families required two rooms. Were the families who actually had more than 2 adults in the household choosing to visit WDW in the first place?

And I'd like a source for a majority of WDW visitors were staying 7-10 days in 1970's. I believe the average LOS for WDW visitors is somewhere between 4-5 days today, and that's with the 4 parks and everything else. You're going to have to give me something in order for me to believe the average LOS was 7-10 days in the 1970s.

[crusader]

Originally posted by hopemax
What do you think that number actually says about the breakdown of a family? The presence of two parents is going to skew the percentage high. In a 4 person household, your going to get 50% of individuals within a houshold being over 18 because of the parents! 40% for a 5-person household. 60% is not all that surprising. Considering the age people started having children 30 years ago, it's not really a surprise that 40-54 year olds had children over the age of 18.

It tells me what our homes looked like 30 yrs ago and makes absolute sense in terms of our travel needs. Given that 60% of the 25-54 yr old households consisted of adults and that one third of these homes had 5 or more people, you're looking at a mature family.

That means you need more space; you consume more food at adult prices and you pay adult rates for everything.

Add to that the fact that all 5 of you are staying in only one of two hotels adjacent to a single themepark with no kitchen facilities.

Your dining options are limited and very expensive.



This still doesn't add up to the majority of WDW families required two rooms. Were the families who actually had more than 2 adults in the household choosing to visit WDW in the first place?

They required more space and that's still the case today. The hotel room is considered too small to fit comfortably.

LewisC is right on when he mentions HIFS. The suite is where extended stays in our culture are leaning. Just look at the way the DVC rent/trade board operates.

And I'd like a source for a majority of WDW visitors were staying 7-10 days in 1970's. I believe the average LOS for WDW visitors is somewhere between 4-5 days today, and that's with the 4 parks and everything else. You're going to have to give me something in order for me to believe the average LOS was 7-10 days in the 1970s.

If I had that source I'd gladly provide it. My assessment is much more practical. In the 70's the automobile was the standard method of travel. A weeklong vacation took an average of 10 days to accomplish. Nobody around me was going to Disney for less than a week back in the 70's because nobody was flying.

[YoHo]

That's 10 days including travel time right?

I know the last time I travelled by car to Disney with my parents, it was 10 days including 5 travel days. That was 1986.

[airlarry!]

Ha, and double ha.

Disney was lucky to get three nights of a guest's stay at Disney when the MK opened. LUCKY!

The travelin' family had to see Cape Canaveral; Daytona beach; Lion Country Safari; Silver Springs; the place with the kids on skis; state parks; not to mention countless little mom and pop adventures like gatorland etc.

For lots of my friends over the years, heck even today, Disney is still lucky to get three nights even with four parks.

Aghast you cry out that this can't be true. Welcome to reality. Not everyone is like us. We are the ones who have hundreds, if not thousands of posts on a disney bboard.

The rest of America still sees Disney as the place to go for three ro four days while you check out everything else in Florida too.

Yes, friends this post is purely subjective, has no analytical data to back it up.

Doesn't mean I'm wrong, though. ;)

[hopemax]

Thanks Larry, that's my perception as well. In 1974, my parents took a 2 week honeymoon to WDW. The number of days actually spent in WDW: 2. The rest was spent on the drive to and from Wisconsin and all the stops inbetween. But if you ask them what they did for their honeymoon...Oh, they went to WDW!

[Grog]

But if you ask them what they did for their honeymoon...Oh, they went to WDW!
Same with our family. We went in '77 and '81, did a two week road trip each time where we saw a lot of Florida and the Gulf coast, but only spent two days each time at WDW (of course at that time there was only MK). Even though we saw a lot of other stuff, my parents always refer to "the times we went to WDW".

[DancingBear]

Originally posted by DVC-Landbaron
Greg! What other choices do they have? Do you think that they really [b]CHOOSE the poodle skirt because they find it intriguing? Because their friends and neighbors have told them what a WOW experience it is to gaze upon it? Because compared to the other choices at WDW that darn skirt beats the heck out of the place with the monorail running through the lobby or that ‘South Seas something or other’ type of resort?

No!! Of course not! They choose it because of price! THE ONLY KIND OF OPTION WITHIN THE PRICE!!

You make it sound as though they really have something to choose other than the poodle skirt! Tell me, is it that poodle skirt that draws you in?

No. I didn’t think so!If it's only the price that leads folks to choose the PC, then why aren't they staying at the EconoLodge on 192?

Instead of littering the property with ill-conceived, cheap, non-Disn… well INSTEAD…

You can take your pick from any of the following (only three please):
Persian
Asian
Venetian
Mediterranean
New Orleans
Caribbean
Wilderness OR African (not both, THEY ARE THE SAME!!)

One more pick (only one, they are all too alike!!)
Yacht Club
Beach Club
Boardwalk

Or make up one or two of your own…

NOW! Price it as it would be if they had followed the 1972 pricing…

$125.00 per night!!!

Pretty magical isn’t it? (Oh heck!! Even go up to $150.00! I’m feeling good tonight!!)Right, back to the lower profit margins of the 1970s. I remember that "philosophy". That's the one that led to the near takeover and breakup of the company in the 80s, until Eisner came in and saved the company by exploiting its hidden assets, including the FL real estate! (Now, that oughta get some blood boiling).

Come on! Bear with me. Only one more step!

Now build out the areas of each resort. Use the pricing structure that says: as you get further from “Prime Location” your price goes down (same concept as when the place opened). Those “away” or “less than great views” can even have slightly smaller rooms or no indoor corridors, etc. What they would not have is any difference in Theme, Story or SHOW!! In other words NO LESS A DISNEY EXPERIENCE!! Remember, we’re talking EXPERIENCE here. NOT Amenities! Now you can keep that method going until you reach that 79.00 mark!Yes, I remember the past thread about building the multi-tiered priced resort. Never really seemed to see design suggestions that would overcome the practical issues involved, as far as I could see. And did it really overcome the "class" system that folks seem to have trouble with here?

[DancingBear]

Originally posted by airlarry!
Ask yourself a question...should a person spending sub $100 be shuttered away from the rest of the Disney experience.Is it better if they don't have an on-site option and stay out on 192?

[DancingBear]

Originally posted by airlarry!
For lots of my friends over the years, heck even today, Disney is still lucky to get three nights even with four parks.

Aghast you cry out that this can't be true. Welcome to reality. Not everyone is like us. We are the ones who have hundreds, if not thousands of posts on a disney bboard.

The rest of America still sees Disney as the place to go for three ro four days while you check out everything else in Florida too.

Yes, friends this post is purely subjective, has no analytical data to back it up.I have no data either, but do you really doubt that the average stay at WDW has increased over the years? Notice there are no longer 3-day hopper passes offered?

[DancingBear]

Originally posted by hopemax
Just because *you* get the discount does not make it the reality for the majority of travelers to the WDW resort. You get all over our case for not using the appropriate inflationary statistic. Prove to me why I should compare a published rate from one era to a non-published rate from a different era? How is that going to give a fair comparison? I'd like someone to prove to me that the majority of people booking a WDW hotel are booking at the cheapest available rate.I don't know what percentage of folks are paying full rack rate, but:

--I think most folks are more savvy than you give them credit for. Lots of folks are visiting lots of travel websites to compare hotel prices for lots of locations, not just WDW.

--It's tough to make comparisions between all-year even pricing at WDW in the 70s to the current pricing system, with seasonal rates and multiple, targeted discounts.

[crusader]

Disney was lucky to get three nights of a guest's stay at Disney when the MK opened. LUCKY!

Sure - I could see that, if you were staying at the Poly or Contemporary in the 70's. Too expensive; too many meals out; and in some cases, too cramped given the options.

BUT

No way did a family drive two days and a thousand + miles to Florida to set up camp for 3 days onsite at Ft Wilderness.

Camping was much more economical and offered many many options for the family besides visiting one park and dining out everyday!

[SnackyStacky]

Originally posted by DancingBear
--I think most folks are more savvy than you give them credit for. Lots of folks are visiting lots of travel websites to compare hotel prices for lots of locations, not just WDW.

Have you TRIED to book a Disney hotel through the internet outside of disneyworld.com?

*Expedia.com - You can book through them, but not room only. You HAVE to have that infernale Ultimate Hopper Pass.

*Travelocity.com - Sure, they've got the Disney hotels listed, but go ahead and try to book them. It won't work.

*Orbitz.com - no Disney hotels listed

I know there are other sites, but those are the big three.

Even before Expedia went to being able to book only packages, they usually had only rack rates available.

If you want a discount, you HAVE to call 407-W-DISNEY, or book direct through their website.

BUT, have you looked at Disney's booking engine? It's frought with peril for the discount seeker.

First of all, if you don't click on their itty bitty link at the bottom marked "Specials" - you won't get any kind of discount. Did you ever notice that RIGHT at the top is the reservations link, but the specials are no longer linked by a graphic? Just a small text line that you have to scroll down to see.

OKAY - so you've made it past that first hurdle, and are now ready to book! You fill out all your travel information, making SURE that you DON'T check the box that says you're interested in concierge level services, and request a quote. One comes back. Holy HELL it's expensive! Know why? If you're booking a deluxe, you've been given a quote for the premium view with concierge services included! BUT, only if you read the itty bitty print that says you've been offered lagoon view concierge will you know that. If you're booking a moderate or budget - you've been quoted for the premium view or room, whatsoever it may be.

Isn't Disney just GRAND?!

THEN, assuming that you can clear ALL of those hurdles and get a basic room, if a discount code comes out - you can't apply it to your reservation. You have to cancel and book a whole new reservation.

Even savvy travelers need to know the Disney process in order to secure a discounted room - and unless you're looking at these boards or see one of their ads, you're screwed.

[Demosthenes]

Originally posted by SnackyStacky

Even savvy travelers need to know the Disney process in order to secure a discounted room - and unless you're looking at these boards or see one of their ads, you're screwed.

Even given this (and I would dispute your pemise), when you compare rack rate costs from 1971 to rack rate costs today, the relative value today is greater than it was then.

[Planogirl]

Originally posted by SnackyStacky
Have you TRIED to book a Disney hotel through the internet outside of disneyworld.com?

*Expedia.com - You can book through them, but not room only. You HAVE to have that infernale Ultimate Hopper Pass.


You can still book WDW rooms only on Expedia. Just do the search and then scroll on past the first entry listed which is the packages.

I just did a search in Orlando and the first Disney hotel for the first week of August shows up on page 2. It's AKL at $199 per night. :crazy: The WL is next even worse at $219 and then PORS is $144.

I decided to stop because I REALLY don't want to know how much the true deluxes cost.

[DancingBear]

Originally posted by SnackyStacky
Have you TRIED to book a Disney hotel through the internet outside of disneyworld.com?My point is that folks these days are savvy enough to know that rooms are often available at less than rack rate, and know to look for bargains.

Between Disney-advertised discounts, many WDW travel books, and websites like this one or Mousesavers.com, there are certainly a decent percentage of WDW visitors who are aware of discount offerings.

[SnackyStacky]

Originally posted by Planogirl
You can still book WDW rooms only on Expedia. Just do the search and then scroll on past the first entry listed which is the packages.

They changed once again. For a while even with the hotels PAST the initial Disney packages, you couldn't remove the ultimate hopper. It was greyed out.

My point is that folks these days are savvy enough to know that rooms are often available at less than rack rate, and know to look for bargains.

I understand your point. I think mine may have been missed. In going through and looking at Expedia again, they're listing only rack rates. The usual ways of finding discounted room don't apply when you're going to Disney World. The ONLY way to get a discount is through Disney themselves, and even then, you still have to know how Disney handles their discounts.

[JohnsPrincess]

I stayed there this past Wed night and Loved it. I have loved Every Disney hotel I've stayed at so far except for the All Star Sports. The only reason I didn't like it is because I'm a Girly Girl and it was too "boyish" for me...but that's just the themeing. I stayed at Pop with my boyfriend (29), his dad (54), his sister (27), and his other sister (12). We all thought it was Great!! My boyfriend LOVED the check-in area with all the things on the walls. We didn't really get to explore much but what we saw was really intersting and nice!