Pop Century: Yea or Nay? [Archive] - The DIS Discussion Forums

Captain Crook

05-16-2004, 09:29 AM

LOL! Mr. Voice you REALLY, REALLY, REALLY need to learn how to read! The little trademark symbol aside, it's too bad you discount so many peoples opinions on what "is" Disney...Can your view truly be the only view?:eek:

"This could be deep" ... Another shot? Ouch, I'm wounded.

When we were at Pop I absolutely could not believe the numbers of people taking pictures in front of all of the, heretofore on the DIS regarded as, gaudy "decorations". You know the giant Lady and the Tramp or the Juke Box or the YoYo...In fact I heard MORE than one group talking about how wonderful the "themeing" was at this resort (Pop). I had to interrupt their conversations and tell them that according to Another Voice, this was not 'theming' but rather 'decorations'.:teeth: Further, aside from AKL, I have never seen so many people strolling the resort grounds taking in the "unbelievable" atmosphere. Note: Unbelievable to me is exactly what these huge icons are...Not good or bad, just unbelievable. It's totally surreal on the inside...I think Andy Warhol may have liked this shot at conventionalism.

To the point...Obviously very many people are comfortable, impressed and happy within the realm of this, as AV once put it, Motel 6 environment. Should Disney really have tried to reach further to satisfy this demographic? If so, why? Just because you think the best should always be the goal (irregardless of cost) or because that's what Walt would have done? Or should they, as I've seen mentioned, not gone after this demographic at all?

This discussion can easily degenerate into the same old crap but it can also forge some new territory should folks truly want to have a nice discussion...It's up to you.

pirate:

OLT2004

05-16-2004, 12:35 PM

Please Explain.........??
No "shot" intended.......
"This could be deep" ... Another shot? Ouch, I'm wounded.

Captain Crook

05-16-2004, 01:34 PM

Sorry if I misread your comment...It's so easy to do on the net and I'm not too familiar with your postings...And I generally elicit a lot of "shots" around hee. LOL!

Anyway, I hope I sufficiently explained my view. I'm certainly not saying, as Mr. Voice stated, that Pop IS the epitome of what "is" Disney...Only that many people are enamoured with this aspect of what "is Disney." Is that clear?

pirate:

Phoebesaturn

05-16-2004, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by Captain Crook
This discussion can easily degenerate into the same old crap but it can also forge some new territory should folks truly want to have a nice discussion...It's up to you.

pirate:

Translation: ....I only want to hear "Pop Century really is great you were Right it really is the best". If your not going to post that then don't bother. I've asked a loaded question that is impossible to answer based on the qualifications that I've posted along with it. So you either agree with me or your just a bash everything Disney does these days poster.

hyzdufan

05-16-2004, 01:46 PM

We were going to stay at Pop Century until we decided to purchase APs and then we switched over to POFQ. It looked like a really nice place, and the only complaint we've heard so far is that the pool gets loud at times. We definately took the reviews into account when deciding to stay here, because it seemed to be a lot nicer than the All Star resorts.

Captain Crook

05-16-2004, 02:22 PM

phoebesaturn, do you even know how to have a discussion?

I don't care if you don't like Pop, in fact I totally understand the negatives but as for this being a loaded question or statement...Hogwash! Tell me why you think any business could justify not serving this segment of the population? Tell me how the money could be better spent? Tell me why Walt wouldn't have done it. There are a multitude of manners in which to discuss, but no, you take a totally abrasive and confrontational manner to just dismiss what I've said. Why even bother posting?

Pop was badmouthed around here for a long time. It was said to be destined to failure. It showed no imagination, creativity or Disney spirit...Yet, now that its open the reviews seem to contradict these feelings. Do you have an opinion as to why or is it just easier to bash someone eles's attempt at honest discussion?

pirate:

All Aboard

05-16-2004, 02:57 PM

My singular grip about Pop is the use of the "catch phrases" along the roof line of each building. Especially those on the 1980's and 1990's buildings.

Beyond that, I think they are great. Just like the All-stars, they are fun-filled, over the top themed family resorts that offer more people the chance to stay on-site.

My position has been the same on the value resorts since we first stayed there 6 years ago.

OnWithTheShow

05-16-2004, 03:13 PM

Yeah, and Walt never would have let anything like Pop be built, it couldnt possibly compare to inspired theming and wow factor of the great Disneyland Hotel! (What a lame excuse for a Disney resort that is.)

Captain Crook

05-16-2004, 03:22 PM

I agree Greg, the catch phrases are the worst aspect of the theming...But when you're in the Resort the feel is a bit different (but I don't know why) AND they help you get to your room after a long night at the Adventurer's Club!:teeth:

I can tell you the parking situation at Pop was abyssmal on both of our visits. This had me longing for the uninspired yet parkable spaces at AKL! Is All Stars parking miserable as well?

Mr. Show, you're right about The DL Hotel. We stayed there last year and compared to the Grand Californian (where we stayed the year prior) it just didn't cut it.

BTW, we're going to be at WDW over Mem Day but I'm thinking your absent a that time. Is that right?
pirate:

Phoebesaturn

05-16-2004, 05:59 PM

Originally posted by Captain Crook
phoebesaturn, do you even know how to have a discussion?

I don't care if you don't like Pop, in fact I totally understand the negatives but as for this being a loaded question or statement...Hogwash! Tell me why you think any business could justify not serving this segment of the population? Tell me how the money could be better spent? Tell me why Walt wouldn't have done it. There are a multitude of manners in which to discuss, but no, you take a totally abrasive and confrontational manner to just dismiss what I've said. Why even bother posting?

Pop was badmouthed around here for a long time. It was said to be destined to failure. It showed no imagination, creativity or Disney spirit...Yet, now that its open the reviews seem to contradict these feelings. Do you have an opinion as to why or is it just easier to bash someone eles's attempt at honest discussion?

pirate:

"Destined to Failure"....I never thought that was the buzz even among the car 3 and 4 people. In fact I thought it was agreeded that it would do just as well as the All-stars...only the place was 100 times more tacky.

I don't see an attempt at an honest discussion...I see a loaded question that you qualified and still are qualfiying so that any opinion that is thrown out can be easly dismissed.

You crowing and trying to announce Pop Century as the next great thing is at best premature. Of course it fits a segment of the population. The issue is and always will be...was that "segment" always there or has Disney forced people into that segment that 20 years ago was never needed because of better pricing and less gauging by the current team? I have no idea if Walt would have built it...to guess would only be guessing. The argument has been tossed around more then it needs to be because it never ...never proves anything...because he is Dead. Can the money be better spent elsewhere? Depends...how much money has Pop Century made them? How much money has ABC made Disney? How much Money has DCA made Disney? How much money has DLP made Disney? Until you know numbers then again you would be guessing and as far as you know Pop Century is nothing but another black hole of money. Has Pop Century increased the number of guest that attend Disney? Do they spend more money. Or are these people now dowgrading and staying at Pop Century when they would have stayed at FQ in the past? Fruther more to argure that Pop Century really is not "Disney" never meets with any agreement...it always boils down to the same two sides. The side that can see the Disney slide and those that can't and accept every new cut less then steller attraction and Pop Century like "addition" or subtraction in most cases as they way that business today is done.

OnWithTheShow

05-16-2004, 07:06 PM

Considering occupancy rates are up at all Disney resorts people are not "downgrading" to Pop, I think most likely it is getting people who used to stay off property.

Another Voice

05-16-2004, 08:44 PM

In response, frankly Captain sir, I don't really care how much you like Pop Century. Your DISNEY® is not mine. You seek a brand experience, I seek imagination. I see plenty of brand stickers all over Pop Century to remind me where to spend my money, but I do not see a single drop if imagination, effort, talent, or craftsmanship in the place. Sure I'd like to save a buck, but I remember a time when I would want to stay at a new Disney resort instead of having to lower my expecations.

But I guess it's easier to enjoy the stickers if that's all one hopes for.

Enjoy your stay.

P.S. The Disneyland Hotel wasn't built by Walt (it remained outside of Disney's control until Eisner bought the Queen Mary). Then again, facts are difficult things to see when you're dazzled by the stickers, aren't they.

OnWithTheShow

05-16-2004, 09:30 PM

Voice,

Could you explain the association of Disneyland hotel to me in more detail. Everything I have read suggests a relationship between the resort and the hotel dating to 1955.

I won't even go into how unimaginative and boring the contemporary, the golf resort, ft wilderness, or even the Polynesian is. I am glad Walt (I think is was Walt) had the insight to insist that the monorail pass THRU the Contemporary, it is the only positive to the resort in my opionion.

Captain Crook

05-16-2004, 09:54 PM

What Show said!

Voice, you make it sound like I adore Pop...What's that all about? I stayed there once and liked it and stayed there again because the price was right. My 14 year old daughter thinks it fine but longed for AKL (another resort you disrespect). My 10 year old loved the whimsy of Pop...Me? I liked the price and found little to fault in the facility and found the CM's to be great. What's wrong with that Voice?

You, on the other hand, have your agenda and will not deviate...The proof is in the way you dismiss the AKL, a hotel that is spectacular in so many ways, yet all you can ever do is point how "it could have been better," but in truth, if my Aunt had balls she'd have been my Uncle.

So you disapprove of Pop. That's great and I even respect it, but what of those who do adore Pop? Do they count at all in your 'Disney world'? Or are they just the lowly uneducated? The terminally deluded by corporate mind games. Please inform us further...

pirate: :o

SnackyStacky

05-16-2004, 10:36 PM

When we were at Pop I absolutely could not believe the numbers of people taking pictures in front of all of the, heretofore on the DIS regarded as, gaudy "decorations". You know the giant Lady and the Tramp or the Juke Box or the YoYo...In fact I heard MORE than one group talking about how wonderful the "themeing" was at this resort (Pop). I had to interrupt their conversations and tell them that according to Another Voice, this was not 'theming' but rather 'decorations'.

I really think it's just a fundamental difference in expectation.

When I go to Disney, I expect more than I do from any other vacation. Why is that? Because that's what Walt did. He set people's expectations at a much higher level.

Granted, I wasn't around when Disneyland open. I wasn't even a glimmer in anybody's eye when Disney World opened. But I have become so enamored with all things Disney that I fanatically learned as much as I could about Walt, his ideals, his work, his background, etc. Going into one of his creations just doesn't have the same meaning to me that it does to somebody who just one day decides "We've never been to Disney World. Why don't we go?" How could someone coming from that angle be in the same place as someone like me? I'm certainly not saying that I know more than anybody, or my opinion is more valid than anybody else's - just that I'm coming from someplace totally different.

And then there's the majority of the folks on the DIS. They go once, and just LOVE it there, and accept it for what it is. Their devotion isn't NEARLY as fanatical as mine, and that's okay! It just means that once again - they're coming from someplace totally different.

When I see the video presentation Walt did for Epcot, it stuns me. It stuns me that this man could even IMAGINE a city the way he did. And had he lived - I would bet everything I own and everything I ever WILL own that he would have completed HIS E.P.C.O.T.

After seeing that, HOW can I be impressed with Pop? A few square motel buildings with giant fiberglass and oversize catch phrases? The man dreamed up, laid plans, and had very detailed ideas for an entire city!!!!

As for the should it have been built part? In my personal opinion - no it should not have. I don't believe that the Imagineers are fully realizing their potential. And I believe that it's because of budget cuts. I think if they were given carte blanche they could come up with one helluva budget resort. I really believe that Pop serves only to lower expectations - those of corporate management, as well as the guests.

Does that mean that anyone who enjoys it is wrong? Hell no! If they like it - more power to them. I just don't think it's even close to what Disney is capable of.

Tell me why you think any business could justify not serving this segment of the population?

C'mon now - if Disney hadn't overbuilt AND classified their guests based on what they could or would pay, they wouldn't have NEEDED budget accomodations.

I won't even go into how unimaginative and boring ... the Polynesian is.

I'm genuinely curious as to why you find the Polynesian unimaginitive. Is it the theme itself, or the execution thereof?

DisneyDude10171

05-16-2004, 11:12 PM

I would like to step in for a moment to clarify things regarding the Disneyland Hotel in Anaheim (not to be confused with the one in Disneyland Paris or the soon-to-be one in Hong Kong;)):

The hotel was built by Jack Wrather sometime after the park's opening in 1955 at encouragement of Walt Disney. Disney could not afford to build and develop the hotel himself, but reasoned that one would be successful if located nearby. Over the years, it was expanded to have the present 3 towers. Following Walt's death, the company attempted to purchase the hotel, so as to have complete control of the place which bore part of the company's name. In 1988, Eisner acquired the entire Wrather corporation, which included the hotel and the Queen Mary. As for the Paradise Pier, that hotel, which had several different names was also not designed by Disney. It was constructed in 1984 and acquired in 1995 from a Japanese company.

As for my stance, I won't say much- but will say that's it's skewed seeing as how I am an architecture student currently being trained in design. Keep in mind that I do not HATE Pop.

I would agree that developers of the Disney theme park properties- including WDI- need to be careful not to fall into Eisner's branding ideas (this is not necessarily an Eisner slam- he did do many valuable things for the company--- some years ago...)

You see, it IS places like Poly, CR, etc. where more creativity is evident- they were not made with the express intention of being connected with something already in existence. Take Alien Encounter-- ahem, Stitch Escape! for example. AE was a fine show as it was, and even attracted large crowds, but an underlying reason why it is being replaced is that it will now be immediately recognizable as being connected to Disney. That in itself is not bad, but making everything Disney-unique might not proove to be such a great idea.

Of course, talking about any of this is easier said than done, as the people responsible for the buildings and attractions have to try and please "everyone". Regardless of the outcome, we must respect the incredible amount of time a project of this magnitude demands. Imagine the number of times that final products we see (including Pop and Stitch) have been reworked and pushed- and then slapping the creators with "it could have been better". That's one thing that I can say is against the spirit of Disney.

Source: Smith, Dave. Disney A to Z: The Updated Official Encyclopedia. Hyperion, New York City. 1996, 1998.

Captain Crook

05-17-2004, 08:45 AM

I agree Snacky that a big difference in much of our discussion is at the fundumentality core. What Walt did, what was expected then has morphed into a behemouth of gargantuan proportions with different realities. Does this mean one shouldn't hope for the perfection striving of the past? I don't think so, but I think (sadly) it's one of those things where we each will 'pick our battles' so to speak. I do find it disingenuous to simply wave off everything post 1985 (or whatever) as purely profit motive although I will agree that as we've moved further the profit motive is certainly at the core way more than before and projecs like Pop lead the way in this thinking.

DisneyDude, from the design standpoint I can certainly see your frustration and I appreciate the mild tone you took while expressing it.

But let me ask something, fIf we were to make a basic comparison on the cost outlay for something fantastic (an AKL or Asian Resort) versus a themed motel? Wouldn't the difference in initail outlay must be great and wouldn't the payback breakdown have to be different? Could Disney even consider a low priced alternative using the full imagination mode??? It seems to me that is why the catagories exist (so there is something for everyone).
pirate:

Phoebesaturn

05-17-2004, 10:01 AM

Originally posted by OnWithTheShow
Considering occupancy rates are up at all Disney resorts people are not "downgrading" to Pop, I think most likely it is getting people who used to stay off property.

Up compared to when? At all hotels even the ones that have been closed off and on for the past 3 years? If you subtract out all of those off the market rooms...including Shades of Green are you still up? Or are you just back to numbes Disney was pulling beofre 1999?

MHopkins2

05-17-2004, 12:43 PM

The only thing I don't like about Pop (didn't like from the pictures and REALLY didn't like once I saw them in person) are the people and especially the "sayings" on the top of each building. Other than that, I thought it was fine. My favorite part may seem silly, because it's such a little thing, but it really added to the resort for me: if you pay attention to the "soundtrack" that plays in Everything Pop, at the bus stop, and at other places around the resort, they play "five song sets" with one song from each decade, in order. I doubt they will copy that idea over to the Legendary Years, but it's a fun little addition.

crusader

05-17-2004, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by Captain Crook
So my question is, was Disney wrong in its offering or do the good reviews and high occupancy make it justified?

Disney is not wrong in providing less expensive on-site accomodations. The values have continually proven themselves more than capable of generating bookings. Whether it be with large groups or families who want to spend less on where they stay in order to afford more on other aspects of their vacation, this company should always strive to meet and exceed the demands of tomorrow's audience.

I view the construction of Pop Century as build-out for future growth while the population continues to expand. That section of the property is far too distanced to warrant a deluxe resort the likes of the Asian or the Venetian, and given the size of Coronado Springs along with having several other moderates already on-site, it makes sense that a value was decided on here.

The complaints are mainly that this type of accomodation is too cheap, tawdry and insulting to what Disney represents in terms of quality. That may be true - in terms of the themeing - but I fail to see how that applies to building a more economical resort. It only really tells me that the designing was poor.

SnackyStacky

05-17-2004, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by Captain Crook
But let me ask something, fIf we were to make a basic comparison on the cost outlay for something fantastic (an AKL or Asian Resort) versus a themed motel? Wouldn't the difference in initail outlay must be great and wouldn't the payback breakdown have to be different? Could Disney even consider a low priced alternative using the full imagination mode??? It seems to me that is why the catagories exist (so there is something for everyone).
pirate:

It's not my job to imagineer a budget hotel, but it seems to me that something along the lines of a moderate could easily be done in a budget setting. Rooms the same size as what they have at the All Stars with a lot more attention to detail. I would sure feel better paying Disney prices for a budget hotel that didn't skimp on theme. I could deal with their dorm-size rooms at not-so-budget prices, if there was something there to look at besides big pieces of fiberglass.

WDWHound

05-17-2004, 04:37 PM

I was against POP from the beginning, though I have softened a little bit regarding it recently. I have 2 main complaints about POP. First, I agree with everyone who has said that the Sayings on the roofline are tacky. Worse, they can be seen from the CBR. I have always been a fan of the Caribean Beach Resort (I can hear Baron and Voice's blood preasure rising from here), but its hard to get emersed in the Carribean environment with a giant sign rising above the trees inviting me to "do the funky chicken".

Second, every Disney Resort except the All Stars attempt to sweep you away to another place. You are in the Carribean, The Wilderness, Africa, Key West, the South West, The Hotel of the Future, Atlantic City at the Boardwalk.... the list goes on and on. Where are you when go to Pop? The land where things get really, really big?

For what it is, I understand that it was done well. Its just that what it is is not whatI call a Disney Resort. Its more like a Mueseum to pop culture with a giant kids playground mixed in.

As for the Disneyland Hotel, it was never owned by Walt. Walt gave Jack Wrather the rights to build and run the hotel in return for his investing in Disneyland.

detective mickey

05-18-2004, 09:34 AM

never stayed at pop, but did stay at all-stars movies which seems to share some of the large oversized fiberglass and cut out metal items theming. it was our first stay on site and we were delighted. i want to stay at pofq or por next time. my point being the first trip was with children. they loved the gaudy oversized "cartoonish" looking props. i think some people are not considering the possibility that these resorts, including pop, may be geared for a childs enjoyment. children may not view akl or pofq with the same enthusiasm.
i do wish we could have different disney themed hotels though, such as tom sawyers island hotel, hollywood towers, pirates of the carribean, future world, haunted mansion etc. i think they would be fun. all stars movies seems to be the best disney cartoon theme hotel.

i know this is for the rides board but, and i know i may get blasted for this but pooh and buzz are cheap cheap cheap.
still cant wait to go back, disney is like sex, the worst i ever had was amazing.

Nebsky

05-18-2004, 10:02 AM

I would say a nay-------yea....

Ya know, last August we stayed at All Star Sports in a Preferred Room and this past March, we stayed at Pop Century in a Preferred room.

I have to say I liked staying at All Star Sports better. One of my main reasons for this is the gift shop and eating area. I liked them separate. It seemed to me that it was just an after thought and they combined the two at Pop Century. Its too busy to get through. I also liked Sports better for the check-in area. The TV playing movies so kids can watch while grown ups check in is within sight. I didnt like the fact that I couldnt see my son. Dont worry, wife went over there with him while waiting to check in.

Going to the outside areas, I liked to oversized ICONs of years past at Pop as opposed to the oversized sports stuff. The lettering on top of the buildings was kind of lame, but I guess they needed other things to catch the eyes. It should go, but I dont know what else they could put up.

One thing that Pop had that was better was dedicated bus for that resort only. This was HUGE!! I didnt like sharing busses with Movies/Music when we were there in August. The one draw back though was leaving MK really close to closing time the bus que was horrible. It was twice the size of the normal ques and was overflowing. Luckily they had 2 busses at a time, but it still was a 45 min wait. After that we drove the car.
Another gripe I had with POP was the parking or lack there of. Several times I had to park out front rather than the dedicated parking lot. I did not have a car at Sports, so I cant compare those.

Overall, I just liked the Sports better. Both are value resorts and you get what you pay for. I will say that if I was going to stay at the value resorts again Pop would probably be #2 for me...
My rankings would go...
All Star Sports
Pop Century!
All Star Movies
All Star Music.

Another Voice

05-19-2004, 12:13 AM

"Disney is not wrong in providing less expensive on-site accomodations."

Exactly. Even in the very early planning for WDW, Walt himself made reference to "motor motels". And, each of the major resorts were supposed to include several levels of accommodations each with a different price point (where do you think the hated Garden Wings at the Contemporary can from)?

The problem with Pop Century isn't that it's the wrong market, it's that Disney® treated that market so shamefully. The resorts aren't "cheap" – that Lady & The Tramp fiberglass costs more than the annual earnings of all the families staying around it. Why wasn't all that money put to better use?

Imagination doesn't cost a penny. All it takes are clever, talented people willing to work hard. Granted, they've been fired from Disney, but that's kinda of the whole point, isn't it? The crime isn't that Disney built the place, but that they didn't even try to build it well.

crusader

05-19-2004, 08:07 AM

The crime isn't that Disney built the place, but that they didn't even try to build it well.

Well said. Maybe it is part of the "slope" mentioned time and time again here. Maybe it's just a lack of effort in assigning the proper resources to the project - relying on the fact that the customer would show up either way. If money wasn't the issue then somebody dropped the ball.

The "values" have never appealed to me. Call it veteranitis if you will, but I've become accustomed to access and need the visuals and transportation options afforded with proximity.

There was no other choice in the 70's when staying on-site. That's certainly not the case today, and the longer time goes on the further away from that situation we are.

One thing I will commend is the Grand Californian. That resort truly gives the guest a sense of being "in" Disney - away from the confines of the city - and absolutely outdoes itself in terms of the accomodations. Exceptional!

Captain Crook

05-19-2004, 08:14 AM

Voice, I can accept that argument as totally valid. But still what does the "they didn't even try" theory say about the people who actually like Pop for the way that it is (not just the cost structure), and there are lots of these folks out there?

Can't you conceive that your vision of imagination isn't suited for all and that perhaps, just perhaps this overly simplified (to some) is just what (some) others are looking for? After all WalMart is exploding while Macy's is withering.

pirate:

SnackyStacky

05-19-2004, 08:27 AM

Originally posted by Captain Crook
Voice, I can accept that argument as totally valid. But still what does the "they didn't even try" theory say about the people who actually like Pop for the way that it is (not just the cost structure), and there are lots of these folks out there?

Why does Voice's argument have to say ANYTHING about the people that like it? It really is like you were asking a loaded question. Anything that anybody says - you have an answer for.

I don't see how Disney's effort and people that like Pop have to co-exist, and have a relationship to one another.

Think about when you were in college, and threw together a paper at 3am the morning that it was due. Then by some miracle, you got an A it. Just because you didn't try doesn't mean that the professor knows you didn't try, and it certainly doesn't mean that the professor won't like it.

Same deal with Walt Disney vacationers. Do you honestly think they care about how much effort Disney put into building Pop Century?

MHopkins2

05-19-2004, 10:00 AM

Originally posted by Captain Crook
After all WalMart is exploding while Macy's is withering.

pirate: Just FTR, I'm way more of a Macy's shopper than a WalMart one.

DisneyDude10171

05-19-2004, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by crusader
Well said. Maybe it is part of the "slope" mentioned time and time again here. Maybe it's just a lack of effort in assigning the proper resources to the project - relying on the fact that the customer would show up either way. If money wasn't the issue then somebody dropped the ball.

The "values" have never appealed to me. Call it veteranitis if you will, but I've become accustomed to access and need the visuals and transportation options afforded with proximity.

There was no other choice in the 70's when staying on-site. That's certainly not the case today, and the longer time goes on the further away from that situation we are.

One thing I will commend is the Grand Californian. That resort truly gives the guest a sense of being "in" Disney - away from the confines of the city - and absolutely outdoes itself in terms of the accomodations. Exceptional!

Couldn't agree with you more!! ::MickeyMo

Captain Crook

05-19-2004, 04:53 PM

Sorry Snacky...It's the second time I've been accused of issuing a "loaded question" in this thread, yet I've found the discussion overall to be quite good.

Look, I'm not trying to change Mr. Voice's (or anyone else's) opinion anymore than he's trying to change mine and I actually find it credible that Mr. Voice was able to verbalize a statement for which I could consider valid. Does this mean that I should abandon the way I look at Pop and what is transpiring?

I'm only trying to have some interesting discussion and honestly not trying to be a know it all, yet that's obviously the way I'm coming off...So for that I'll try to be more careful.

T
pirate:

Stitch 03

05-19-2004, 06:59 PM

I stayed at POP during Febraury for 5 nights. I have to admit that I would not be anxious to stay there again. However, that is my personal opinion. There are a lot of people who do really like that resort. Some of those people have been visiting WDW and staying on property for years. (BTW this conclusion I came to while lurking on the resorts board).

The one thing that I feel dictates how POP looks is what I refer to as 'The List'. Thie is a theory that I came up with on my last WDW visit. The theory is that there is a list of things that each class of resort can and/or cannot have. Examples:

1) Thou shalt not have interior corridors in moderate and value resorts.

2) Thou shalt not put full-service restaurants in value resorts.

3) Thou shalt not have pool slides at value resorts.

4) Thou shalt not have a moderate or value resort provide transportation other then bus to a theme park.

5) Thou shalt not include concierge services in a value or moderate.

And the list goes on.

Theme aside it is kind of amazing how, for the most part, all properties within a class are similar. It is almost as if Disney feels they need to have the class of hotels clearly distinguished to justify the price differences.

My conclusion? I do not think that Disney skimped on effort or cost when putting together POP. They just built a hotel based on the demographic need (need for more value rooms), and designed that hotel based upon a pre-determined blueprint for what a value resort looks like and its amenities. And that blueprint is the All Stars.

The idea of the 'list' is that no one should ever mistake a value for a moderate or a moderate for a deluxe.

Phoebesaturn

05-19-2004, 09:27 PM

I just want to know why budget minded people have such a high demand for tacky? At least thats the feeling I'm getting from these resorts. God forbid...budget minded people might not like a giant Yo-Yo or football outside their room.

Captain Crook

05-19-2004, 10:02 PM

I'm sure there are many, many, many budget minded people who WOULD be totally turned off by the rather simplistic offerings of Pop...But likewise there are many well-heeled folks who disdain the trappings of a Ritz-Calton or 4Seasons...I guess what needs to be discerned is what is/was the intent? What demographic is really being coveted by what?

This isn't to say Disney is always right, but it seems to me that Pop IS proving them right in this case much like DCA proved them wrong in that (brand loyalty) decision.

It's not iron clad but I do agree with Stitch 03's conclusion...You said it much better than me.
pirate:

SnackyStacky

05-19-2004, 10:38 PM

Originally posted by Captain Crook
Sorry Snacky...It's the second time I've been accused of issuing a "loaded question" in this thread, yet I've found the discussion overall to be quite good.

Look, I'm not trying to change Mr. Voice's (or anyone else's) opinion anymore than he's trying to change mine and I actually find it credible that Mr. Voice was able to verbalize a statement for which I could consider valid. Does this mean that I should abandon the way I look at Pop and what is transpiring?

I don't think anyone is trying to change anybody else's mind. It's just that the nature of your question is very much loaded. The question was:

So my question is, was Disney wrong in its offering or do the good reviews and high occupancy make it justified?

Wrong is a very subjective word. If you believe that it wasn't a bad move, AND want a true discussion, you have to analyze WHY it wasn't a bad move to build it in the first place.

Sorry - but "because people like it!" doesn't fly with me as an argument, either. It's what I like to call a generic argument. You can slide that right into any discussion. Not to mention the fact that if we're discussing whether or not it should have been built, "because people like it" automatically assumes that it should have, in fact, been built.

Not to mention:

Aside from a few (very predictable) malcontents here on the DIS telling us how auful Pop is (without actually staying there), most people seem to genuinely like it.

Starting ANY kind of discussion with THAT qualification? Tell me that's not in any way loaded. OR - at that very least, where it could easily be interpreted as loaded.

I'm only trying to have some interesting discussion and honestly not trying to be a know it all, yet that's obviously the way I'm coming off...So for that I'll try to be more careful.

I don't see you coming off as a know-it-all; I see you coming off as not really able to see past people "liking it" and further delving into the philosophy behind the Disney name. The same way that you see us "malcontents" as only "very predictable" - you seem only to see the Disney name and coo with delight at whatever product they give you.

This isn't to say Disney is always right, but it seems to me that Pop IS proving them right in this case much like DCA proved them wrong in that (brand loyalty) decision.

So - the fact that people only have the All Stars and Pop Century to choose from have no weight in this discussion? Sorry - but trying to compare Pop Century to DCA doesn't sit well with me. First of all - one is a theme park, and the other is a resort. Second of all, Disney World exists in such a different setting than Disneyland. They're really incomparable as far as I'm concerned.

Theme aside it is kind of amazing how, for the most part, all properties within a class are similar. It is almost as if Disney feels they need to have the class of hotels clearly distinguished to justify the price differences.

That's EXACTLY my point. The theme was totally cast aside as part of the seperation - the caste system if you will. The budget folks don't get a theme. It's like one of the amenities at a deluxe resort that was thrown to the wind. And the theme is what made Disney....well.....Disney! (And just so we're clear, I'm talking about theme in relation to a transporting experience - not a few decorations)

I do not think that Disney skimped on effort or cost when putting together POP. They ... designed that hotel based upon a pre-determined blueprint for ... And that blueprint is the All Stars.

Sure! And I think the effort put into the All Stars is worth its weight in solid crap. And Pop? Got even less effort. They didn't need to design anything. They just replaced movie, sports, and music icon decorations with popular culture decorations. Everything else was all done.

Captain Crook

05-19-2004, 11:40 PM

Let's try this. I'm just going forget the fact that you've portrayed me as the 'villiage idiot' and speak to the issue.

Pop was criticized for a long time (prior to opening) as being an unimaginative work that was doomed to failure because of the lack of adherence to typical and historical Disney standards. Note: I fully understand the theory behind the objections. Further, I can at least see the objectionists POV when they comment that all Disney income classes should be treated to the same care in 'storytelling' if not amenities...This obviously is not the case with Pop as there is no "story" to speak of.

BUT...All Stars proved that success lies NOT ONLY in giving the people everything you can, as Walt believed but also in giving the people what they want, as Eisner obviously believed (especially if it was cheaper). We can argue that this statement alone is already straying from the original blueprint and is starting the slippery slope...Again I get it.

BUT...People actually liked All Stars. Sure a % of folks (like me) will utilize he Values primarily for the cost issue, but still this works because Disney is still so overtly represented at these resorts it doesn't seem like them 'giving less' as much as my simply choosing which I prefer. Note: I realize that this use of personal anecdotal opinon violates your view of the big picture...

Pop came and offended classical senses. It didn't tell a story per se, it's purly historical and kitchy historical at that. It's different than the predecessors for specific reasons. It's catering to people who (1) can't afford more (2) Choose to spend less (3) are not comfortable with deluxe 'trappings' and (4) folks who simply are impressed more by Neiman than Monet. I understand this but you seem to wish to ignore what is being embraced by people simply because you don't find the standards suitable.

My question then becomes who is the arbitor of the standard? It could be argued that Walt's ideals should be held true and this is the most compelling argument...Of course it ignores all of the socio/economic changes in America since Walt's death, but sill the mans dreams should live on. Aside from that I'm not willing to let other Disney historians, affecianados or simple 'lovers' be the judge for me. It simply has to be the result and the result of Pop is positive so why is this resort so polar?

Another Voice

05-20-2004, 01:36 AM

"It simply has to be the result and the result of Pop is positive so why is this resort so polar?"

'Candle in the Wind' by Elton John is the biggest selling record EVER. Titanic is the top grossing movie of ALL TIME. A football game outdrew man landing on the MOON to become the highest rated show on American television.

Never confuse "popular" with "timeless quality".

Disney always stood for striving, for creating, for imagination, for building the impossible because they could do it. They used to be confident that they could capture the public's interest and that the public would respond.

No one can look at Pop Century and honestly say they see the same joy of creation in a hundred foot WHAZZUP sign as there is in a single frame of Beauty and the Beast. Markets, income brackets and all the other excuse we hear have no bearing on the sheer creativity that's put into a project.

It costs nothing to come up with a good idea.

But it does take effort. In the race for our pocket books, today's DISNEY® has no time for that. They have no time for thought, for respect - for real magic.

The good stuff, the stuff that drove all of here in the first place, is being driving out by the easy stuff.

Captain Crook

05-20-2004, 08:27 AM

Mr. Voice, does it seem to you, as well, that we are always circling with each other?:teeth:

I'm not confusing popular with timeless and I think from all of our discussions you know that...In fact, that's a constant chorus of mine...The problem is what Disney always stood for and what they've been standing for the past 20 years. These are admittedly two different things. It seems I'm discussing what works in the face of the current Disney while you are referring to the ideals the whole thing was built on. Fair enough?

It costs nothing to come up with a good idea.
I agree, but here is my point. Who decides what the "good idea" is? Me? You? Jim Hill? Eisner? No, I think it's the people. If people actually like the idea of Pop I submit it isn't wrong in the face of current Disney and while it doesn't hold true to the classic ideals in format its end does (i.e. people ARE enjoying a Disney product, forming memories and making traditions).

In this vein let me say that Pop and the theming at Pop would never make my personal top 100 list. For the Pirate, er Crook family they could certainly have done better, but I saw a boatload of people during my two stays who thought the Pop experience was the emmis. Now who am I to refute that?

pirate:

crusader

05-20-2004, 05:58 PM

Never confuse "popular" with "timeless quality".

Fair enough, but you have to admit, popular can be timeless absent the quality.

Who decides what the "good idea" is?

Good question. For Disney, it evolves within the organization so it is ultimately the company itself who makes this decision. The audience has the ability to affect popularity but has no control over the implementation or distinguishment of good or quality during the idea phase. All they can do is respond favorably or unfavorably but as we've seen time and again even the highest quality can fail to sell.

One thing I've repeated is that within today's culture, something only has to be "good enough" to succeed. I'll contend that the majority of decision-making behind our entertainment venues, continually applies that premise. There is an urgency to get a product quickly to market in order to launch the revenue stream vital to recapturing costs.

In the case of the AllStars, my belief is that management used gargantuan icons as a marketing tool to emphasize the sheer magnitude of the place and look really great in an overhead shot. People like the resort because the rooms are a scale above the chains, and the food court; pools and timely bussing are considered to be a bonus given the price.

But the biggest draw continues to be the on-site experience. It doesn't seem to matter how far away a guest happens to be staying from the parks, you still get a tremendous feeling the moment you enter the property. That's timeless.

SnackyStacky

05-20-2004, 10:49 PM

Originally posted by Captain Crook
Let's try this. I'm just going forget the fact that you've portrayed me as the 'villiage idiot' and speak to the issue.

It certainly was not my aim to portray you as the village idiot. Seems it should be pretty difficult to be offended by my comments when you were making remarks like these:

Aside from a few (very predictable) malcontents here on the DIS telling us how auful Pop is (without actually staying there),

Furthermore - the "without staying there" part is what's really bothering me about what you're trying to say. It's like we're discussing "I like it! I think it's great!" or "I don't like it! It's ugly!". It's a matter of "I don't like how this is going to affect the company in the long run." Do you see that? I really feel like we're having two COMPLETELY different discussions.

Pop was criticized for a long time (prior to opening) as being an unimaginative work that was doomed to failure because of the lack of adherence to typical and historical Disney standards. Note: I fully understand the theory behind the objections. Further, I can at least see the objectionists POV when they comment that all Disney income classes should be treated to the same care in 'storytelling' if not amenities...This obviously is not the case with Pop as there is no "story" to speak of.

The only thing I see in that statement that I care about is: This obviously is not the case with Pop as there is no "story" to speak of. That's the meat of the argument!

BUT...All Stars proved that success lies NOT ONLY in giving the people everything you can, as Walt believed but also in giving the people what they want, as Eisner obviously believed (especially if it was cheaper). We can argue that this statement alone is already straying from the original blueprint and is starting the slippery slope...Again I get it.

Walt did give the people what they wanted. BUT! He forecasted what they wanted. He knew what the masses wanted before the masses knew that they wanted it.

BUT...People actually liked All Stars. Sure a % of folks (like me) will utilize he Values primarily for the cost issue, but still this works because Disney is still so overtly represented at these resorts it doesn't seem like them 'giving less' as much as my simply choosing which I prefer. Note: I realize that this use of personal anecdotal opinon violates your view of the big picture...

SEE?! There it is again! You can't use personal anecdotes here. I don't know you. I will assume that you're a seasoned veteran, and know the history of the company. And that's fine. But there are people out there who DON'T know the history - and who think that Pop is representative of the true Disney experience. That's simply not good for the brand. It dillutes it, and lowers expectations. It lets the company slack.

Pop came and offended classical senses. It didn't tell a story per se, it's purly historical and kitchy historical at that. It's different than the predecessors for specific reasons. It's catering to people who (1) can't afford more (2) Choose to spend less (3) are not comfortable with deluxe 'trappings' and (4) folks who simply are impressed more by Neiman than Monet.

It can be done. Well - it could have. By artists that decided that the company no longer stood for what it once did. They could have fulfilled those three things in something that is far more representative of the Disney name than the schlock that is Pop.

I understand this but you seem to wish to ignore what is being embraced by people simply because you don't find the standards suitable.

So what? WHO CARES! I think it's just fine and dandy that they like it. I don't think they're stupid, or any less of a Disney fan than I am. What I AM saying is that if they keep turning out substandard products, eventually Disney will be nothing more than Six Flags. Yeah - we have a resort at our local Six Flags that rivals a deluxe - amenities wise, and a budget - cost wise.

My question then becomes who is the arbitor of the standard? It could be argued that Walt's ideals should be held true and this is the most compelling argument...Of course it ignores all of the socio/economic changes in America since Walt's death, but sill the mans dreams should live on.

I REALLY am not understanding this. It has been conceded by MANY that Walt definitely had plans to include budget accomodations. What I'm arguing is that it would have been done much better than Pop Century - AND the All Stars for that matter!

Aside from that I'm not willing to let other Disney historians, affecianados or simple 'lovers' be the judge for me. It simply has to be the result and the result of Pop is positive so why is this resort so polar?

I don't think anyone is asking you to change your mind about it. You're being asked to put your personal opinions ASIDE, and look at it from a standpoint of "What is building something that is less going to do to the standards?" See my above comments reagarding the few predictable malcontents.

Another Voice

05-21-2004, 12:32 AM

"Eventually, if a dominant critical mass of guests enjoy something, that something has to be considered a success in my book. Not THAT many people's opinions can be ignored."

By which you going to admit that Shrek was better than all of Disney's animated films for a decade combined just because of the box office take?

We're waiting…

Really, just jump in here…

Yea, I thought so.

I became interested in Disney because of what they made. In my mind, "Disney" is a philosophy, a belief, a standard, a goal. To me it means thinking hard, working harder, and then still not being satisfied and striving for even more. Disney means that imagination is the most important human trait, that one should try because it's simply the right thing to do.

Sure, not even can achieve those goals – but does that mean it that way of thinking should be abandoned?

That's what a lot of people are arguing that we should approach Pop Century. No one is saying that the place is good, imaginative, innovative, or even that much thought was put into it. Instead we get defenses that the place is a good place to save money, that people "like" it and Mr. Scoop's ever popular crap-in-the-past-justifies-crap-in-the-present stance.

Sorry, but the world is already filled with enough CheezWhiz, boy bands, and home renovation reality shows. I don't care for anymore mediocre products. I don't care who they're made by, who they're made for, or how much money they're going to make.

I enjoyed Disney because they at least tried to do more. When they did, they were rewarded to a far greater degree than whatever profit they'll squeak out of Pop Century. But today's company refuses to see that (or to acknowledge that fact). So instead of trying and risking the occasional failure, we get pure, safe, clean garbage.

P.S. And yes, Mr. Scoop, even Computer Who Wore Tennis Shoes was a product of "trying". At a time when Hollywood was turning out nothing but adult films in the vein of Dog Day Afternoon and The Towering Inferno, some people thought there still might be families that wanted to go to the movies. Considering that Disney was the only studio to survive intact from the decade and the fact that it's real, real hard to get a studio to make an 'R' rated movie these days – what does that say about where the dominant mass really was?

crusader

05-21-2004, 08:01 AM

In my mind, "Disney" is a philosophy, a belief, a standard, a goal.

This is probably our biggest disconnect. In my mind "Walt Disney" had a belief, a standard, a goal which he used to launch his companies.

Once he passed, only a fragment of that remains in what he left behind. Whomever runs this organization post Walt will bring their own beliefs/standards/goals etc... with them. They can choose to adopt and implement the philosophy of the founder but really fail to succeed at this 100% because they aren't and will never be the founder.

Captain Crook

05-21-2004, 08:16 AM

"It certainly was not my aim to portray you as the village idiot. Seems it should be pretty difficult to be offended by my comments when you were making remarks like these:"

Another cheap shot Snacky? You seem to be pretty good at that, but it's too bad you don't have a grasp on discussion unless it falls into your narrow parameters. I'd suggest you just ignore me and just continue talking with like minded folks...

Oh, with regard to the "malcontent" quote...It was a joke. You notice Mr. Voice, for whom the comment was jokingly directed, never even responded as he knows I WAS KIDDING. Further, I never used comments such as "I liked it" or "I really think it's great" as a basis of any discussion...I did, however, point out that I've noticed on various Disney boards and while visitng Pop that there were MANY people who felt that way. See Scoops explanation.

That's the meat of the argument.
Pot calling kettle, pot calling kettle...So you get to decide what the meat is? I agree that from your perspective this is the "meat" but from mine it's the fact that the Resort, against seemingly insurmountable odds, seems to be a big success. Is this that hard to understand? Two or more sides of an issue?

Enough.

Mr. Voice, I don't think I'll admit Shrek was BETTER simply because of the box office figures but I (grudgingly) have to admit that it was obviously an entertaining and well done flick even though I didn't get it, even in the least. So it seems as though you could admit that Pop, while far less unimaginative than it could have been, does provide 'Disney Magic' to a group of people who are obviously unlike yourself...

Crusader, I think you hit the nail...

pirate:

SnackyStacky

05-21-2004, 08:27 AM

Originally posted by Captain Crook
[B]Another cheap shot Snacky? You seem to be pretty good at that, but it's too bad you don't have a grasp on discussion unless it falls into your narrow parameters. I'd suggest you just ignore me and just continue talking with like minded folks...

WHOAH! No cheap shot. I didn't know it was a joke, and I really found it odd that you'd even think I was calling you (or portraying you as an idiot). This ENTIRE statement is completely out of left field.

Pot calling kettle, pot calling kettle...So you get to decide what the meat is? I agree that from your perspective this is the "meat" but from mine it's the fact that the Resort, against seemingly insurmountable odds, seems to be a big success. Is this that hard to understand? Two or more sides of an issue?

Fine. I'll concede that it's success in that people like it. In fact - I thought I said as much! But I don't think that that makes it a success in the long run. If that's where you want me to leave it, I will. It seems that I'm not welcome to my opinion - let alone to attempt to support my opinion.

If you don't want me discussing on this thread, then I'm out!

Phoebesaturn

05-21-2004, 11:04 AM

They've developed a mix of resorts for a mix of audiences. Whether you or I like Cheez Whiz or not, there is an audience that does

There is apparently a huge audience for McDonalds hamburgers too. Imagine the audience for a better burger at the same price and you got a smile and a thank you along with it.

Seems like a rather silly point to argue for what people will settle with and still be happy. The Disney we all know and love....wanted you to be surprised, delighted and have your expectations blown out of the water.

If your keep settleing for Cheese Whiz what are you likely to settle for in the future ?

Tinkerbellz

05-21-2004, 11:14 AM

It is resorts like the All Stars and Pop that make it possible for people like my family to enjoy WDW. Our family loves Disney and find it hard to stay for a short period of time. The value resorts make a longer stay possible for us.

2001 All Star Sports--We happen to be sports fans...so we loved it.

2004 DH wants to try POP. Our ressies are for Thanksgiving. This time we are staying 6 days.

We, as I'm sure all of you do, work hard to scrimp and save in order to take our family to enjoy the magic.

Our intent for a room is just that. A roof, beds to sleep in, and a clean bathroom. We like the convenience of staying on-site. I don't need to blow my savings on staying at a fancy hotel, and I'm certainly not going to judge someone for doing so...their requirements for vacation are different from mine...it doesn't make their decision wrong just different.

Difference is the spice of life.

So let's agree to be different.

All Aboard

05-21-2004, 11:30 AM

Scoop, I completely agree with you on this matter. Success in entertainment (and at WDW, resort hotels are part of the entertainment) is measured in how well the consumers who try the offering respond to it. Financial success is very easy to define.

There's a reason folks aren't raving about the Days Inn on US 192. But, most of what I hear from people who have stayed at Pop is positive. We thoroughly enjoyed our stays at the All Stars, we miss staying there. Do we enjoy staying at the Polynesian more? Yes. But, that doesn't mean we didn't enjoy the All Stars, nor thought they didn't offer great value, nor thought they weren't fun-filled places that really seem to be an extension of the theme parks.

If the discussion is about "what could have been" then that's a different subject. But, if it is simply, "is Pop Century a hit with its audience" then I think the answer is "yes."

All Aboard

05-21-2004, 11:32 AM

The Disney we all know and love....wanted you to be surprised, delighted and have your expectations blown out of the water. Do you know for sure that the families staying at the All Stars and Pop Century aren't experiencing these feelings?

Phoebesaturn

05-21-2004, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by gcurling
Do you know for sure that the families staying at the All Stars and Pop Century aren't experiencing these feelings?

NO not from Today's Disney...15 years ago...I would have said yes. Like I said when you start to settle for Cheese Whiz....

If you must...think of Pixar as being the Disney of yesterday....When you prepare to go see a Pixar movie...aren't you expecting a great movie? When are you going to start expecting less and less from them? Maybe if Pixar put out a movie and only charged half-price?

cristen

05-21-2004, 02:12 PM

I think it comes down to choice. The people who are choosing to stay at a value resort, for whatever reason, do not have much of a choice. It's all the same hotel with a different piece of fiberglass on it.

Now what if the imagineers were told, you have X amount of money to spend on a value resort, I want it to be completely different from what we have ever seen at a value. Don't you think we would get something much better? Now if people who choose to go value had that resort or AS, which do you think they would stay in?

Why do they all have to be the same building? Why does AK and the WL have to be the same building? Why can't there be some variety? I would welcome the addition of a value resort, if they had some form of imagination with them. AV said the resorts are expensive to build, does anyone know how much these resorts cost?

airlarry!

05-21-2004, 02:19 PM

Scoopy, don't be disingenous. You said: Eventually, if a dominant critical mass of guests enjoy something, that something has to be considered a success in my book. Not THAT many people's opinions can be ignored. not just Pop Century must be considered a "success" (not the best resort, not even the second best resort...but a successful resort) because the vast majority of guests report that they have enjoyed their experience and are very interested in staying there again.

Scoop, clearly you meant more than a financial success...otherweise you would have cited numbers, figures, dollars etc. You said when a dominant critical mass of guests enjoy something, it must be a success--creatively, magically, Disney-like etc.

That is just not true. No matter how many people buy CheezWiz, it is still CheezWiz.

And one more thing, I understand Greg's point about the All-stars (b/c I too have stayed there twice and enjoyed my stay)...but Greg isn't it more because it is on-site, is reasonably priced, has lots of cool Disney stuff around it, has a nice pool, and has bus transportation to the parks that you can depend on?

Right?

The question is not whether the Disney company should bomb the All Stars and the Poop into oblivion without replacement, or whether that price point of a hotel should ever have been built.

The question is whether the AS and the Poop are worthy additions to the property. Instead of spending $5 billion on FoxFamily, couldn't they have come up with anything better than AS and the Poop?

Someone said that the area near AK won't support a deluxe area like the MK.

Go see what they did at Tokyo DisneySeas. Look at what Disney did at Epcot.

If the company had spent creatively and imaginatively on DisneySeas (instead of throwing $5 billion at FoxFamily perhaps?), then maybe they would have added a destination gate to the park that could support another monorail complex of luxury hotels supported by hotels at a lower price point with bus connection to the monorail.

Instead, we got giant fiberglass and lame pools.

DancingBear

05-21-2004, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by Phoebesaturn
If you must...think of Pixar as being the Disney of yesterday....When you prepare to go see a Pixar movie...aren't you expecting a great movie? When are you going to start expecting less and less from them? Maybe if Pixar put out a movie and only charged half-price? Precisely. Who goes to Pop Century expecting the same experience as the Poly?

DancingBear

05-21-2004, 03:14 PM

Originally posted by Another Voice
I enjoyed Disney because they at least tried to do more. When they did, they were rewarded to a far greater degree than whatever profit they'll squeak out of Pop Century. But today's company refuses to see that (or to acknowledge that fact). So instead of trying and risking the occasional failure, we get pure, safe, clean garbage.

P.S. And yes, Mr. Scoop, even Computer Who Wore Tennis Shoes was a product of "trying". At a time when Hollywood was turning out nothing but adult films in the vein of Dog Day Afternoon and The Towering Inferno, some people thought there still might be families that wanted to go to the movies. Considering that Disney was the only studio to survive intact from the decade and the fact that it's real, real hard to get a studio to make an 'R' rated movie these days – what does that say about where the dominant mass really was? I think with this example you are arguing against yourself, A-V. Sounds to me like when Disney made "The Computer Who Wore Tennis Shoes" that they were realizing that there was an underserved market which would pay money to see the "pure, safe, clean garbage" which that movie was. Seems analogous to me to the current Disney producing Pop Century.

And, BTW, how hard is it to get a PG-13 movie made these days?

All Aboard

05-21-2004, 03:23 PM

but Greg isn't it more because it is on-site, is reasonably priced, has lots of cool Disney stuff around it, has a nice pool, and has bus transportation to the parks that you can depend on? Yes, that's a lot of it. And, I think that should be enough to make a value resort be deemed a success. I think I'm getting a ton for my $49 a night when I stay there. Much more than I'm getting at other comparably priced hotels outside of WDW. Now, many folks on this board hate that kind of rationalization. But, honestly, that's what economics is all about - choice. A well-run WDW should be providing accomodation options that fit a reasonably wide spectrum of budgets that (at each level) provide guests with an experience that both a) provides significant value and b) provides a memorable experience. Shoot me, but I think the Value resorts at WDW provide both.

Another thought. Many of you travel to WDW once a year or less. So, you don't even consider the All Stars or Pop as your vacation choice. The All Stars (I know because I've spoken with so many guests in the check-in lines for my 21 stays there) are filled with Florida residents making weekend journeys to WDW. They are looking for a well-priced on-site option, and are provided one. Without question, these same frequent visitors were staying off-site in the days before the Values. A family travelling to WDW 5 times a year (honestly, how they can stand to only go that FEW times I'll never know) weren't ponying up vacation money to stay at the Poly. Because it's not a vacation for us, it's a weekend getaway.

I think there is a distinct difference in how I consider the merits of a resort hotel v. the merits of a theme park or theme park attraction. Every guest travelling to AK has been offered Dinorama as the only addition to the park since '99. That's a negative. No one but the guests staying at the Values are impacted by their existence. In my 5 years on this board, I've neve read a compelling argument to the contrary (other than being able to see Pop from CBR - which is a problem.) And, if those guests find it valuable, entertaining and special - aren't we teetering on elitist ground by trying to tell them they don't know how bad it really is?

DancingBear

05-21-2004, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by Stitch 03
The one thing that I feel dictates how POP looks is what I refer to as 'The List'. Thie is a theory that I came up with on my last WDW visit. The theory is that there is a list of things that each class of resort can and/or cannot have. Examples:

1) Thou shalt not have interior corridors in moderate and value resorts.

2) Thou shalt not put full-service restaurants in value resorts.

3) Thou shalt not have pool slides at value resorts.

4) Thou shalt not have a moderate or value resort provide transportation other then bus to a theme park.

5) Thou shalt not include concierge services in a value or moderate.

And the list goes on.

Theme aside it is kind of amazing how, for the most part, all properties within a class are similar. It is almost as if Disney feels they need to have the class of hotels clearly distinguished to justify the price differences.Why is this so amazing? Isn't it possible that these guys maybe know quite a bit about what the costs are in constructing and operating hotels and motels? Do you find it amazing that many of these distinctions also appear industry-wide?

cristen

05-21-2004, 03:25 PM

These examples show me that the claims of these several posters are nothing more than "hypotheticals"--to today's regime...and the regimes which came before.

Of course it's hypothetical. But are you trying to say that they couldn't come up with something new and different than fiberglass icons even on the smaller budget they get?

WHy are the mods and deluxes so different in what experience they offer, but not the values? Are you saying that they are not capable of offering that kind of variety on a budget?

DancingBear

05-21-2004, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by SnackyStacky
That's EXACTLY my point. The theme was totally cast aside as part of the seperation - the caste system if you will. The budget folks don't get a theme. It's like one of the amenities at a deluxe resort that was thrown to the wind. And the theme is what made Disney....well.....Disney! (And just so we're clear, I'm talking about theme in relation to a transporting experience - not a few decorations)Seems to me the folks at the Disney Golf Resort didn't get a theme, or a "transporting experience" either.

All Aboard

05-21-2004, 03:33 PM

But are you trying to say that they couldn't come up with something new and different than fiberglass icons even on the smaller budget they get? Isn't it possible that the guests at the All Stars and Pop just might find those big icons to be more interesting and more appealing than whatever new and different the posters on this board might think is better for the guests of the All Stars and Pop.

Phoebesaturn

05-21-2004, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by DancingBear
Precisely. Who goes to Pop Century expecting the same experience as the Poly?

Exactly...so your saying that its ok to know up front that because the movie is half-price you won't be getting the great movie you were expecting?

So Room is half-price and now you expectations of what will be offered next time are even lower.

Captain Crook

05-21-2004, 04:23 PM

Man! I'm kind of scared to jump back into this one...What with the first string out in full force and all.

Snacky, don't quit on my account. I may just be overly sensitive or something. Your points are valid but I think we were kind of discussing different aspects of a like subject.

It's good to see most of my points being bandid about, although perhaps more eloquently than I ever wax.

Basically I think it isn' so much success (in numbers) that warrants Pop's being considered a success in this case as it is the type of positive reviews Pop seems to be getting. Yes, Greg and I and probably many other floridians use these resorts and their cheap rates to help us financially but for myself I would never consider it if it just didn't feel Disney and believe me Pop feels Disney. Like Greg, Pop is now substitute for AKL for our family but variety as well as cost considerations are necessary when visiting so frequently.
pirate:

DancingBear

05-21-2004, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by Phoebesaturn
Exactly...so your saying that its ok to know up front that because the movie is half-price you won't be getting the great movie you were expecting?

So Room is half-price and now you expectations of what will be offered next time are even lower. Yeah, my point is that price matters. There are movies that I would go see at the half-price late-run theater, or at a discounted matinee, that I wouldn't pay full price for. I have watched many a movie on cable that I thought was enjoyable enough to kill an evening at home, but that I was glad I did not pay to see at the theater.

That fact doesn't lower my expectations for the times when I do choose to pay full price (and get a babysitter, and buy the expensive popcorn and a drink) and go out to the movies.

airlarry!

05-21-2004, 04:30 PM

All right, let's reverse the statement.

Is anyone willing to stake a claim, that given the same money and goals, WDI could not have come up with a better set of value-priced hotels than the hotelineers came up with? That basically, as Scoop has tried unsuccessfuly to argue, Poop Century is the best that could be built for the price and with the goal of value price?

Anyone? Sign the pledge card right here...

I won't.

I have more faith in what WDI could have built five or ten years ago. I don't guess or believe or think or hope....I KNOW that WDI would have done better with these projects than what the accountants came up with. If I am alone in these sentiments, then just drown me in mickey-headed butter right now and end my misery. ;)

Scoop, you seem to know Matt O. and Greg E. et al so well. Call 'em up. Ask them if "Disney could (not) have done immensely better yet still served the less expensive price point that Pop Century does." Report the answer back to us. That way I can judge them for what they really are. I know the answer to that question. Do they?

******
Greg, I believe that you and I aren't far apart here. I've stayed there, too, on exactly the kind of circumstances you've talked about.

You are arguing that there should be a 'class' of hotels which caters to a lower price point. I'm agree with that. Walt sold hot dogs and pretzels and popcorn...and had sit down restaurants too. There is nothing inherently wrong with having a hotel with a value price in today's economy.

My problem with Poop and AS is not the price...its the lack of Disney touches that are apparent if you stay even at a moderate, the lack of transportation, the pitiful parking, and the 'decorations' as opposed to 'immersive theming.'

cristen

05-21-2004, 04:32 PM

Isn't it possible that the guests at the All Stars and Pop just might find those big icons to be more interesting and more appealing than whatever new and different the posters on this board might think is better for the guests of the All Stars and Pop.

That's my point. We will never know, because they are not given any other option. If you go to WDW knowing you are going to stay at a value, then you had better like big icons.

But if I go with the idea of staying at a mod, then if I don't like the Southwesten feel, which I don't, then I can stay at New Orleans, or the Carribean. More choices for me at the mods.

I'm just wondering why they couldn't do that at the values. That's all I am trying to find out.

DancingBear

05-21-2004, 05:01 PM

Originally posted by airlarry!
Is anyone willing to stake a claim, that given the same money and goals, WDI could not have come up with a better set of value-priced hotels than the hotelineers came up with? That basically, as Scoop has tried unsuccessfuly to argue, Poop Century is the best that could be built for the price and with the goal of value price?The best? No, of course not. Could you even say the Contemporary was the "best that could be built for the price"? But....

[Could] Disney...have done immensely better yet still served the less expensive price point that Pop Century does[?]Immensely better? I'm no hotel engineering and operations expert, but from my perspective of looking at what other hotel properties offer for what price points, etc., it seems unlikely to me that there is some room for "immense" improvement within the cost restrictions.

Captain Crook

05-21-2004, 06:10 PM

I deplore the "they could have done better" argument. Of course they could have...On every single thing they've ever done from Walt to now.

But Pop seems to be fitting a niche, as Greg pointed out, extremely well. As I said, I saw many people who were as totally immersed in Pop as what I've seen with folks at AKL or the Poly (which was amazing to me, but true nonetheless). This seems significant in that while many may see the bar as being lowered the fact is it just may be different. Even the "could they have done it better" statement is only as good as whose making the judgement or setting the standard.
pirate:

airlarry!

05-22-2004, 08:29 AM

Scoop, I know you are going to say it isn't the same thing...but I've seen $200million dollar movies that were crap...and $20 million dollar movies that were Oscar worthy.

I've seen 'em spend a fortune on Mission:Turntable, without success, and spend a lot less on Pooh, with success. (Yes, I know Tokyo's better. I'm not forgiving them for giving it to Tokyo instead of us. ;) But if you didn't know about Pooh in Tokyo, you'd say that Pooh was a nice little C ticket ride and a worthy addition to Fantasyland.)

I'm not giving up here, because you keep tweaking the hypothet.

We went from a $79-99 hotel to a $59 hotel. How'd we get there? Are you telling me that Disney Development (who you know actually implemented these hotels, don't you) planned for these hotels to only charge the $49-59 we've seen them charge lately?

I just don't believe it. These were intended to be $100 hotels, and I'm still waiting for confirmation that the WDI of 5-10 years ago can't build $100 a night hotels more like Dixie Landings than Poop Century.

Still waiting.

Still waiting. ;)

DVC-Landbaron

05-22-2004, 05:50 PM

First an observation;

Phoebesaturn:
What a wonderful poster!! Way back on page #1 you were dead on!! Loaded questions and dismissal of all counter concepts. It is the standard MO for the Pirate!! But that’s why I love him!! He quite simply doesn’t see that he’s doing it!! He really thinks he’s debating!! And he tries to do it in such a polite way. Ain’t that cool? Like I say in every post – Long Live the Pirate!!

P.S. The Disneyland Hotel wasn't built by Walt (it remained outside of Disney's control until Eisner bought the Queen Mary). Then again, facts are difficult things to see when you're dazzled by the stickers, aren't they.
A.V. and DisneyDude10171,
Thank you for setting the history straight on the Disneyland Hotel. I really get tired of having to repeat this to the same posters over and over and over again!! Mr. Show: I really don’t know how you could have missed it before when Scoop tried the same ploy. Anyway, I hope this FINALLY ends this silliness!!

And while I’ve singled out Mr. Show...

I won't even go into how unimaginative and boring the contemporary, the golf resort, ft wilderness, or even the Polynesian is.
YOU CAN’T BE SERIOUS!!!??? ARE YOU!?!?!

I mean I must have missed some sort of sarcasm, irony, trenchant wit in your post… I must be the blame for not rising to your sophisticated humor!!

If that’s not the case let me know and I’ll start another thread regarding the unimaginative and boring Poly!! OK?

It will, I guarantee, be a first on this board!!!

Scoop!
just like it did in the 1980s following the creative lull of the mid to late 1970s.
Do you mean that creative lull that ended in 1981 with the accomplishment of EPCOT? Yes sir!! That was quite a creative lull! Just because you don’t instantly see something doesn’t necessarily mean that “CREATIVE” activity isn’t going on. Unless your position is that EPCOT took only a year to develop!! Is that what you’re saying?

No, the difference I will readily admit is that Today's Disney puts out more crap than yesterday's Disney.
My point exactly!!!

That's not a matter of "I like it"...but, if the vast majority of guests really do love their stay at Pop Century, it's hard to entirely dismiss its success out of hand.
Why?

I’m afraid this is something I’ll never understand. Just because something is a success and it happens to carry a Disney® on it, doesn’t necessarily make it something that Disney ought to be doing!

That is really what this is all about. Not if the huddled masses “like it” or not. Not whether Peter Pirate or the Captain had fun there. And especially not if the Curling family can afford it every other weekend. But instead the question should be whether it should have been built in the first place. It is a “Disney” concept – PHILOSOPHICALLY!?!?
Eventually, if a dominant critical mass of guests enjoy something, that something has to be considered a success in my book. Not THAT many people's opinions can be ignored.
So what you’re actually saying is: No matter how low, no matter how uncreative, no matter how base, if the public likes it, Disney should do it? I’m I getting that right?

You remind me very much of the loyal Cubs fans who go to Wrigley every year, get so mad a the Tribune company, but just can't let it go.
Not quite! Unless you live here, living and breathing the Cubs you really don’t have the complete picture. The Cubs have never had any quality (or very rarely at least). It is something that we have grown up with. It is something we have been born into. We know this. We complain, but we all know that this is simply a fact of life. We don’t have any expectations. We have a ‘wait until next year’ attitude in April. And if we happen to win in the early season the “wait until next year” is replaced with, “Well, it ain’t August yet!” We are true blue defeatists that are hooked! It’s like a dependency. We all our drug of choice is bad for us, we just can’t kick the habit without a 12 step program!!!

Disney is vastly different! It is more like the people of a medieval England yearning for the return of Camelot!! Only the Camelot is not a simple myth, but a real, honest to God, tangible thing!! That really and truly once existed!

It is not like some pie-in-the-sky pipe dream of a Cubs World Series!!!

See the difference?

Like you, I too don't like Cheez Whiz. Heck, I hate the stuff. I think its an abodimination to all those who believe in the quality of real cultured cheese.

Yet, I can neither begrudge those who do nor dismiss cheez whiz as the ugly step-cousin of Brother Feta who warrants nothing more than condescion.
But should Disney be in the Cheez-Whiz of resorts business? That’s really the question. Can you answer that one?

Or stated another way (which you left unanswered)…

Phoebesaturn said:
There is apparently a huge audience for McDonalds hamburgers too. Imagine the audience for a better burger at the same price and you got a smile and a thank you along with it.

Seems like a rather silly point to argue for what people will settle with and still be happy. The Disney we all know and love....wanted you to be surprised, delighted and have your expectations blown out of the water.

DancingBear:
Precisely. Who goes to Pop Century expecting the same experience as the Poly?
Everyone should. The Disney experience IS the Disney experience! Plain and simple! And that experience should NOT be watered down, diluted or ‘less’ reflective of price! Don’t you see the dichotomy in that! It is nothing more than turning Disney MAGIC or the "Disney Experience" into a simple and mundane commodity. And that’s a fine way to go for any other company on the face of the planet. But it isn’t what brought me to the dance in the first place. Philosophically it is diametrically opposed to the Walt “IDEAL”. Wouldn’t you agree?

Do you find it amazing that many of these distinctions also appear industry-wide?
How sad! Disney has been reduced to following the standards - industry-wide. Kind of makes AV’s point about the void of creativity, doesn’t it?

cristen :
WHy are the mods and deluxes so different in what experience they offer, but not the values?
Simple! Justification of price! Justification of the “Caste System of Resorts”©!! PERIOD!!!

DancingBear:
Seems to me the folks at the Disney Golf Resort didn't get a theme, or a "transporting experience" either.
AH!!! A little Disney history is needed!! It did indeed have a theme and a purpose and a direction. Read up on it. I’m going on too long as it is!!!

Scoop:
That does not make logical sense for, if it were true, it would have been done at WDW long before Eisner came along.
I totally disagree!! Please back this OUTRAGEOUS statement up!!

I too deplore the "they could have done better" argument because it is impossible to prove and therefore impossible to debate. As Captain very aptly pointed out, everything "could" be better.
I totally agree! I try really, really hard not to go there! HOWEVER!!! Replace the “Could” with “Should” and answer the question, even to the extent of “SHOULD” have done it at all!

To me that is far more important!

© Official LandBaron Copyright

Captain Crook

05-22-2004, 06:48 PM

Oh Landbaron how you've changed.;)

I think I'm debating? No, how many times have I told you it's only discussion that I'm after? As for being dismissive, perhaps it appears that way but I read every thing that's written with an open mind and when it's done thoughtfully, as Voice has done a couple times here, it makes the discussion more fun. It doesn't matter that I'm right (although I am) or wrong, it's just fun. As for "trying to be nice"...Landbaron, you've met me, you know I AM nice.:cool:

Loaded questions again? It was my original post and my original hope was to determine if the apparant overwhelming guest approval of the resort equated success...But no, over and over again the 'other side' reads into the question what they wish to discuss. It's tiring from this side and you guys can't even see that you're dong it. Truly frustrating. It's true that I trolled a bit with my "element" comment but you guys are pretty easy really.:wave:

Next the "I like it" myth. No where has this comment been used as the qualifier. Not by me, Greg or Scoop. At best it has been a personal comment that supports the opinion we're trying to make but NEVER has it been the sole catalyst. Landbaron you know better than this slight of hand.

But instead the question should be whether it should have been built in the first place.
Yeah, but that WASN'T the discussion point I proffered, was it. It's easy to paint a broad stroke over my M.O. but not so easy to actually answer a question, I guess.

I totally agree! I try really, really hard not to go there! HOWEVER!!! ...
And then you go there anyway.:crazy2: :crazy2:

Look, for all of you "other siders" I wish Disney did better with their Value Resorts too...I'd like a Poly type experience for $49.00 but I just don't see it as realistic. Tell me how they could offer deluxe at value rates without cutting the throat of the deluxe?

Further, I'll admit that the Values aren't my cup of tea, even though our stays earlier this year were very enjoyable. I love the AKL & the Poly as my first choices but that doesn't change the fact that maybe, just maybe Pop Century COULD POSSIBLY BE someones ultimate experience. Is this not possible? Anyone? If so, does it not matter? What would Walt think of this exclusionary behavior?
pirate:

DVC-Landbaron

05-22-2004, 07:32 PM

Originally posted by Captain Crook
...Landbaron, you've met me, you know I AM nice.:cool:

Yes sir!! You are nice!! Very nice!! Blinded by the brand... stupefied by all things Disney... loyal to ANYTHING that Disney does... But, very, very, very NICE!!!

Loaded questions again? It was my original post and my original hope was to determine if the apparent overwhelming guest approval of the resort equated success
OK! Let me get this straight! If I tell you, in answer to the narrow definition of your question, that PC is a success, can we then go on to the higher and more important philosophical question.

If so...

YES!!!! It seems to be a success!

---------------------End of original Question ---------------------

BUT...

See the above LandBaron post and answer the "should have" question!!

Also:
Next the "I like it" myth. No where has this comment been used as the qualifier. Not by me, Greg or Scoop. At best it has been a personal comment that supports the opinion we're trying to make but NEVER has it been the sole catalyst. Landbaron you know better than this slight of hand.
There is no slight of hand. You offered your entire postulation and related question to the fact that there were many smiling people there. That they seemed happy about it, and other such subjective nonsense. You may not have said “I” specifically, but the intent was a simple equation:

The public loves it = SUCCESS!!

That’s no slight of hand, my dear Pirate. It is as subjective as you can get!!

Tell me how they could offer deluxe at value rates without cutting the throat of the deluxe?
You see!!! The wrong question again!! It isn’t a case of “COULD”!! It is a case of “SHOULD”!!!

What would Walt think of this exclusionary behavior?
He would think of a way to do it right or… (all together now)

NOT DO IT AT ALL!!!

Captain Crook

05-22-2004, 08:02 PM

There now! Isn't that better? No need to belittle or besmurch...Well, not much, but hey you're my oldest DIS bud so some lax behavior has to be allowed!:jester: YES!!! It seems to be a success!
WOOOOOOHOOOOOO
WOOOOOOHOOOOOO
An agreement! Even if it means little...It's still nice!::yes:: :yo-yo: :hyper:

As for "the above Landbaron question" I do believe I answered it but I'll try more. I'd be thrilled if they would stick to the high road all of the time. I'd like not to complain about The Studios losing shows with no replacements, or AK turning its back on animals for carnivals, DL's ridiculous Tomorrowland, or yes Landbaron, the Park hours. If Disney could once again gain the result of PIXAR's with the penchant for quality AND financial success I'm all for it. If that means Jobs in, Eisner out...Great. If that means Mugsy McGillacutty in and Eisner out...Great.

But to backpeddle (as you knew I would) this doesn't change how I view the successes of the current Disney (including Pop). Could they be better? Yes. Should they be better? Yes.

Happy Pappy?

pirate:

DVC-Landbaron

05-22-2004, 11:20 PM

An agreement! Even if it means little...It's still nice!
Peter!!! It means NOTHING!!!

So people like it!! So what!?!?! People like the Sopranos too. Is that or should that be Disney? People like Casinos!! Should Disney build some? People like x-rated movies! Should Disney release some? People like strip shows!! Should Disney replace the Hoop-Dee-Do with one!?!?

IT MEANS NOTHING!!!

The question was, is and will always be -- SHOULD Disney build them.

It is evident from your answer that they shouldn’t! Or did I misread something?

And if I didn't misread anything, then we shouldn't be discussing their merits (of which there are none!), but instead discussing the boneheads who drew up the plans, and how far they have strayed from the original philosophy!!!

THAT is what AV meant in the first place! He laments the loss of "Walt's" Disney. You seem to find any excuse to praise Disney®!!

Captain Crook

05-23-2004, 08:59 AM

NO, NO, NO!!! Not praise, but enjoy. ENJOY!!! Disney still has a lot to offer and it's still within the realm of Walt's magical ideals...It is admittedly straying and I agree that it's too bad. But I still love (along with millions of others) what they've done with WDW. It's a family vacation mecca and an absolute joy to partake. Could it be better? Yes. Should it be better? That'd be great. But it's still unbelievable in its own right even if it isn't the way Walt would have done it.

Once again LB, it isn't that people (including me) simply "like it", but they may actually love it. They may actually be building timeless memories around it. Pop could be the memory of a lifetime for many, many families. This goes way beyond "liking it" and you simply have to be able to grasp this. Walt would not be unhappy with this development even if he wouldn't have built the resort himself. But stilll even Walt did things he didn't want to ... Heck, he HATED Donald Duck but couldn't get rid of him because why???? People loved him!!!
pirate:

DancingBear

05-24-2004, 11:58 AM

Originally posted by DVC-Landbaron
The question was, is and will always be -- SHOULD Disney build them.If you don't think Disney should offer "Value" accomodations, then your answer to this question is no.

If you do think WDW should offer a "Value" alternative, then I say there is no evidence offered that Disney could do "immensely" better than the All-Stars and PC.

Whether you like the reference to "industry standards" or not, nobody at WDI has the ability to magically change the basic economics of the motel business.

If industry standards don't matter, then I guess it shouldn't matter also when folks point out that many of Disney's "Deluxe" resorts don't offer amenities offered by similarly-priced "luxury" accomodations elsewhere.

crusader

05-24-2004, 12:32 PM

I do believe the Captain has nailed it!

Disney still has a lot to offer and it's still within the realm of Walt's magical ideals...It is admittedly straying and I agree that it's too bad. But I still love (along with millions of others) what they've done with WDW. It's a family vacation mecca and an absolute joy to partake. Could it be better? Yes. Should it be better? That'd be great. But it's still unbelievable in its own right even if it isn't the way Walt would have done it.

Very well said.

One quick note to Sir Baron regarding this little blurb:

Phoebesaturn:What a wonderful poster!!

Cut me a break!

(resorting to such blatant tactics to conceal one's identity doesn't deserve such praise) Unless of course you have a vested interest somewhere.

crusader

05-24-2004, 12:32 PM

sorry - dup. post

raidermatt

05-24-2004, 02:37 PM

I do believe the Captain has nailed it!

All he nailed is that there are still those who can't bring themselves to say their favorite vacation spot isn't being run the way it should be.

Which is fine, of course. There's no law requiring people to attempt to separate their emotions from their analysis.

They may actually be building timeless memories around it. Pop could be the memory of a lifetime for many, many families. This goes way beyond "liking it" and you simply have to be able to grasp this.
A perfect example of what I said above. People build timeless memories around thousands of things. That doesn't make all of them appropriate business ventures for Disney, or any other company for that matter.

I too deplore the "they could have done better" argument because it is impossible to prove and therefore impossible to debate.
So there is no point in debating anything Disney has ever done, since it is impossible to prove any alternative strategy would have yielded better results.

That includes not only the values as they stand, but Dinorama, DCA, Euro-Disney, Atlantis, Go.com, etc, etc, etc.

Interesting attempt to kill the conversation.

With all the creative brainpower that has gone throught Disney from that time until today, I believe that, if what some of you claim is possible could really be done, then it would have been done.

For the first 40 years or so, that creative brainpower was never asked to build a cheap hotel.

Wonder why?

ShadowWind

05-24-2004, 03:10 PM

I just got back from Disney and had reservations at All-Star Music which upon arrival, I felt it was seriously lacking what Pop Century had. Because of this, I actually switched hotels to the PC and enjoyed my stay once again there.

Reading this thread, I started to think about what makes PC different than All-Stars. Theming doesn't have to be immersive, just as art can be tacky and still be meaningful. The problem I think with AllStars is that the generic icons like a football, cowboy boots, surfboards and a Coke cup really doesn't stir any feeling unless you are a fan of such things. They don't have a general appeal. ASMovies is a little better at this, because we all relate to Disney movies we've seen and enjoyed and tap into those feelings to get the experience.

PC, from the moment you drive down the entrance road, you get that feeling of nostalgia. It starts with the fun signs that says stuff like "Color TV" and "Air Conditioned Rooms" which may not mean much to the younger folk, but these type of signs were a staple on the roads of America when looking for lodging. I found that everywhere I looked, a flood of great memories of day's gone past came back to me, and that is why it works and I bet is successful. I think people who stay at Pop Century would be hard pressed to not find something there that sparks their memory. I had a Big Wheel when I was a kid, and can remember racing down the street trying to beat my friends. I drooled over a Mickey Mouse phone when they came out, but never got one, but still. I had a mood ring, played PacMan, remembered 8 Track tapes and how the tape always came out of the plastic carriage. The huge icons work here because the retro feel can be tacky, but fun and certainly bring back memories, and that is what Disney is all about, is it not? You know it's funny, because Sci-Fi Dine In Theatre at Disney-MGM is expensive to get a hamburger, that you can get anywhere and watch a movie that you wouldn't watch if it came on TV probably, but yet people flock inside. Why? Because they remember the fun of drive in theatres and have pleasant memories of such.

I stayed at Port Orleans Riverside last year, and I found it to be quite stunning and certainly had that old world charm, but I don't remember once thinking to myself, this really brings up memories for me. I've travelled through the southeast and while I've seen such architecture, there is not a whole lot to base the memories on. To me, it just seemed like a well architected hotel. I just didn't relate to it.

I do know the history of the company and I agree that Walt would probably have avoided what he considered tacky, just as he would avoided DINORAMA, but I think he would find interest in the fact that people do relate to what is presented, as it was his goal. I think he would have probably made it more subtle, something along the lines of a Hard Rock Cafe than big and glaring.

But in the end, I think it depends on what your definition of Disney is. We all seem to have differing opinions. People will never get Contemporary's appeal, while others will never get PC's. PC is not an immersive experience like Polynesian and Wilderness Lodge. It is not designed to be. However, if as I said above, you consider Disney to be a place where memories come flooding back in fun ways, then I think PC is very Disney-esque in it's own right. I think AllStars taught them that there was a market for budget hotels and it's taken to PC to really tweak that experience. Besides, any resort, regardless of the theming is infinitely more Disney than the offsite hotels. I stayed at some of the most expensive ones off site and found them to be full of amenities but cold on atmosphere. There is no place that does it as well as Disney.

ShadowWind

05-24-2004, 03:20 PM

Another point I've just thought of is that the values are a good introduction to the Disney experience and often get people hooked on staying there. I didn't even consider staying on property until All-Star Sports had their $49 special and since then I won't stay anywhere else (except the Hilton in Hotel Plaza because I wanted to extend my stay at POR or any other Disney resort but there were no rooms available onsite). If I had to pay $149 a night to try it, I would still be staying off property.

Phoebesaturn

05-24-2004, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by crusader

Cut me a break!

(resorting to such blatant tactics to conceal one's identity doesn't deserve such praise) Unless of course you have a vested interest somewhere.

I would love to have my old name back...I doubt they will give it to me though. Think Moons! I was in a past life a great icey moon thought to have the ability to support life. I was very famous in a couple of moives 2001 and 2010. Do you know who I am yet? PM's perfered.

If you do think WDW should offer a "Value" alternative, then I say there is no evidence offered that Disney could do "immensely" better than the All-Stars and PC.

This argument has be fought time and time again....and past pricing of the Contemp and Poly have proven otherwise.

DancingBear

05-24-2004, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by Phoebesaturn
This argument has be fought time and time again....and past pricing of the Contemp and Poly have proven otherwise. Huh?

Phoebesaturn

05-24-2004, 03:55 PM

Originally posted by DancingBear
Huh?

Should have been past pricing...ie before the current "check the bus seats for droped coins" team.

DancingBear

05-24-2004, 05:31 PM

I'm still not following how "past pricing" of the Poly and Contemporary are evidence that "Value" resorts could be better.

Phoebesaturn

05-24-2004, 08:00 PM

Originally posted by DancingBear
I'm still not following how "past pricing" of the Poly and Contemporary are evidence that "Value" resorts could be better.

Its been shown before that past room rates for both the Contemporary and the Poly were very reasonable( in late 70's and early 80's dollars) and were not the 250+ a night mug fest they are now. At some point that idea was changed to the current rob them at the front desk pricing. So if the Poly and Contemporary could for years provide the true Disney magic at a reasonable price what changed to where that same price point gets you Pop and the All-Stars?

If fact if I remember correctly didn't someone post some numbers one time that showed that the building cost between the different hotels was not that far off and didn't justify the current price gaps?

raidermatt

05-24-2004, 08:11 PM

The numbers showed that Disney did offer the rooms at a more "reasonable" rate than today. In fairness, they were not the equivalent of today's "value" rates either.

The point remains true, however, that Disney itself is the precedent for offering more immersive experiences at lower prices than they do now.

That doesn't mean the Poly at $59 per night, however.

It does mean that if you can't offer an immersive experience at $59 per night, pehaps you shouldn't offer anything at $59 per night.

Focus on, and invest in, the things that do fit your company's vision and strategy.

Of course when your company's vision and strategy becomes "make money", I guess you can argue anything fits.

Captain Crook

05-24-2004, 09:45 PM

Of course it is seldom noted that those prices in those days didn't offer the current breadth of choices that a current WDW stay does...Insignificant? I think not...
pirate:

SnackyStacky

05-24-2004, 10:17 PM

Originally posted by DVC-Landbaron
OK! Let me get this straight! If I tell you, in answer to the narrow definition of your question, that PC is a success, can we then go on to the higher and more important philosophical question.

If so...

YES!!!! It seems to be a success!

---------------------End of original Question ---------------------

Despite the fact that I've left the debate here - I'd simply like to throw in that Baron - I tried that.

Didn't work. :)

airlarry!

05-24-2004, 10:58 PM

Hmm, I dunno, Matt, these people are starting to convince me.

It's the price that counts. Not necessarily the show. It's the purely just the bones. If you can get the Disney name, be within a 35 minute bus ride from the Magic Kingdom, shop in a Disney approved store, and all for under $50, it must be good.

Just think, there are some hotels out there that advertise $29 a night. It's time for Di$ney to capture that market too, cause that has to tee off Mr. Ei$ner.

We need one more tier of hotels..."value" is already taken.

How 'bout "cheap"?

Build them in the same manner...because as some have pointed out that the Poly and the Poop basically cost the same to build, it's the extra to run it that is the difference.

So build another stretch of motel rooms. We need a theme, the first could be an homage to all of those wonderful little motels that sprang up around Disneyland in the 60s or maybe the cute little boxy mom and pops that used to line the streets of Kissimmee.

But there will be changes.

The deluxes have great restaurants, the moderates have one restaurant and food courts, and the values have a single food court. Whoops, the cheaps will have no food court, just those little rolling vendors, but lots of them, selling churros and mickey headed chocolate ice cream bars all over the property.

The deluxes have giant landscaped themed pools, moderates have a nice sized pool with a slide, and the values have two pools, one with a waterfountain. That's gotta go. The cheaps will have a pool, but it will have no fountain, just one small pool for everyone.

The deluxe have monorails, the moderates have multiple bus stops, the values have one stop, so of course, the cheaps will have no stops. That's right. They will be built next to the values, and a 'magical' walkway through the 'magical' gift$hop of about 1/4 mile will lead you right to the value bus stop.

But remember, you will be:

.On site
.Paying only $29-69 a night (gotta move the values back up to .$89-109 like they were intended)
.Have transportation
.Disney shopping
.A smiling face with a Disney CM nametag on it checking you in
.24/7 Disney on the tube in your room

Just think how many people who never could afford the values, will no be able to stay onsite. Who knows in a couple of years, they may move up to the All Stars! It's not the experience of staying on site for under $100 with the signature Disney touch that is important, it's the fact that you are staying on-site in a clean room with Di$ney brand plasted everywhere that counts.

It's a foolproof plan.

YoHo

05-25-2004, 01:14 AM

Originally posted by Captain Crook
Of course it is seldom noted that those prices in those days didn't offer the current breadth of choices that a current WDW stay does...Insignificant? I think not...
pirate:

Wait so, if you offered what is now called deluxe at what was moderate pricing in 1972. Then, you built hotels that hhad fewer amenities, no views of the park etc etdc. you should raise the price of the old room and htis is a good thing?

It's a load of Cow doots that's what it is.

Oh, and as usual I didn't read the whole thread, but I'd like to take this opportunity to to address Mr OWTS's snide comments about the Disneyland hotel. Now, first what you must understand is that the Disneyland Hotel is WHY we have the Polynesian and the Contemporary. It was the unDisneyness of that hotel which gave us the new one.

Having said that, as gob as my witness, I'd rather stay at the Disneyland resort and fly to WDW everymorning then step foot in Pop Century. I will never see it first hand. It's an offense to our creator (whatever you think that is), Nature and innocent primary colors everywhere.

You wanna fight about it? you know where to find me.

DVC-Landbaron

05-25-2004, 01:39 AM

Mr. SHOW!! Where are you? You really need to explain this:

I won't even go into how unimaginative and boring the contemporary, the golf resort, ft wilderness, or even the Polynesian is.
Like I said before, I must have missed some sort of sarcasm, irony, trenchant wit in your post… I must be the blame for not rising to your sophisticated humor!! Or else you’re just plain NUTS!!!! (said humorously, of course!)

DancingBear
If you don't think Disney should offer "Value" accomodations, then your answer to this question is no.
They should offer THE Disney experience. Period. If they can do that for economy (They are NOT a “VALUE”!!!!!) prices, then they could (or even should) provide it. If not, a resounding – NO!!!!!

If you do think WDW should offer a "Value" alternative, then I say there is no evidence offered that Disney could do "immensely" better than the All-Stars and PC.
Again, they are not a “value”! But that aside, just because you didn’t see any evidence doesn’t mean it could not be done. No one saw any ‘evidence’ that the amusement going crowd would be WOWed by Pirates, before they thought it up! And no one saw any ‘evidence’ that the country needed a theme park, before they did it. No! They should be leading that ‘industry’ that you seem to hold in high regard. Instead they follow. And most of the time they lag far behind.

BTW, On another discussion board (in conjunction with an AV concept) Mr. Kidds got me to change my mind about ‘alternative’ pricing. YES!! It very definitely CAN be done. And this concept was thought up by a couple of knuckleheads on an Internet Bulletin Board!!

No, Mr. Bear! Just because you aren’t aware doesn’t mean Disney couldn’t do it if it chose to!! They just choose NOT to. Instead they come up with clear cut price distinctions and try to milk every dollar they can. And again, that is most assuredly NOT the philosophy that brought me to the dance in the first place! Is it what attracted you?

Sir Crusader! Hail and well met! We haven’t jousted in a while. I’ve been a bit busy lately and haven’t have time to check in much. So I might have missed a name change or two, but believe me, I was (and still am) totally stymied when you said:

Cut me a break!

(resorting to such blatant tactics to conceal one's identity doesn't deserve such praise) Unless of course you have a vested interest somewhere.
Please fill in the blanks for me!!! I feel like I’m really out of the loop!

Mr. Bear!
I'm still not following how "past pricing" of the Poly and Contemporary are evidence that "Value" resorts could be better.
It simply means that we’ve worked the numbers. We worked them to death. And it turns out that in today’s money the poly would cost $125 a night!!! Now perhaps you can see why I refuse to call those cheap, gaudy decorated NON-Disney like aberrations “Values”.

It is simply because the Poly (price with the Walt philosophy) was the real “value”.

Captain Pirate!! My old friend! How you do like to stir things up!!
Of course it is seldom noted that those prices in those days didn't offer the current breadth of choices that a current WDW stay does...Insignificant?
TOTALLY insignificant!! My dear Pirate! AGAIN, you ask the wrong question!! Price, cost and all other things combined is absolutely insignificant compared to providing “THE DISNEY EXPERIENCE”!!!

THAT cannot be watered down, diluted, broken up or parceled off and sold off as a commodity. It is fundamental to the Walt ideal! It is basic to the philosophy!!

It really is that simple!!

NOTE: Sir Matt and His Airness! PERFECT!! ABSOLUTELY PERFECT!!!

raidermatt

05-25-2004, 02:53 AM

Of course it is seldom noted that those prices in those days didn't offer the current breadth of choices that a current WDW stay does...Insignificant? I think not...

Yes, there are more choices.

Each with their own price.

DancingBear

05-25-2004, 09:20 AM

Originally posted by DVC-Landbaron ....just because you didn’t see any evidence doesn’t mean it could not be done.And just because you say it could be done doesn't mean you're correct. Again, no Imagineer has the ability to magically alter the economics of the motel business.

It simply means that we’ve worked the numbers. We worked them to death. And it turns out that in today’s money the poly would cost $125 a night!!! Now perhaps you can see why I refuse to call those cheap, gaudy decorated NON-Disney like aberrations “Values”.Oh, please. Disney charged what the market would bear then, just as they do now. If it was so cheap to stay on Disney property back then, just why was 192 loaded with Econolodges?

DancingBear

05-25-2004, 09:24 AM

Originally posted by YoHo
Wait so, if you offered what is now called deluxe at what was moderate pricing in 1972. Then, you built hotels that hhad fewer amenities, no views of the park etc etdc. you should raise the price of the old room and htis is a good thing?

It's a load of Cow doots that's what it is.What, does Disney live in some magical vacuum where they can just randomly set prices for their resorts? Of course not. The pricing is dictated by supply (including off-site competitors) and demand. They couldn't have raised the prices for the "deluxe" resorts unless the market allowed it.

DancingBear

05-25-2004, 09:26 AM

Originally posted by raidermatt
It does mean that if you can't offer an immersive experience at $59 per night, pehaps you shouldn't offer anything at $59 per night.I got no problem with this position, only with the idea that WDW could have done much better with their "value" options.

DancingBear

05-25-2004, 09:34 AM

Originally posted by Phoebesaturn
If fact if I remember correctly didn't someone post some numbers one time that showed that the building cost between the different hotels was not that far off and didn't justify the current price gaps?I don't know what numbers were presented before, but there is simply no way that the costs of building and outfitting PC are even roughly equivalent to building a new deluxe. Cinderblock buildings with flat roofs and exterior walkways, minimal landscaping and big pools vs. a building with pitched and decorative roofs, carpeted interior hallways, themed interiors (look at all of the light fixtures in the hallways at AKL or WL), heavily landscaped exteriors and pools with amenities? The furniture? The restaurant facilities? What a joke.

And, of course, there are all of the additional operating costs.

airlarry!

05-25-2004, 10:17 AM

DB, have you ever been to the MK? They've got gold paint on the horses there. Chandeliers in the burger joints. Real steam engines refurbished from Mexico. Roller coasters built indoors instead of exposing the tracks to the queue'd up public (well...at least they used to.)

Disney vacations weren't cheap. They provided experiences that weren't cheap.

But they were value. How could Disney afford to spend the money it does on what you may call useless extras? Because they wanted to treat EVERY guest as special.

I see no problem, and if you know Land Baron you know that he has slowly been convinced of this too, that there is a place for tiered pricing in resorts. Not every wants or needs a monorail running right next to their room, or five restaurants overlooking the lake.

But every person who stays at Disney deserves a magical experience. For $59 a night, it is poppycock to believe that the All Stars and Poop Century give you anything more than a cheap place to lay your head inside the World.

Let's inject some common sense here.

Those of us who have stayed at the AS or Poop stayed there because it was almost as cheap as staying off-site, had reliable Disney transportation, and had smiling CMs at every turn. We felt like we were part of the world.

We were satiated.

Is that Disney's goal today? To satiate the customer? Or to wow the guest?

Please do not misunderstand our venom here. It is not against motels at cut-rate prices. It is the blase attitude that people who spend $59 a night don't deserve some of the same perks people who spend $109 a night get.

It is, contrary to your assertions, not impossible to provide even the 'moderate' experience for that price. At least it used to be.

Oh yeah, I am railing against the tackiness of the Poop Century resorts. And that's a personal opinion, of course. Others may disagree. When we drove by there in December, I just couldn't help thinking to myself, "This is the best idea they've got?"

Before the internet, I used to get the Birnbaum each year just to see what the newest resorts were. Dixie Landings, Coronado, Caribbean, Port Orleans, Grand Floridian, even the AKL and Wilderness Lodge, all of these evoked a desire to see 'em as soon as possible.

All Stars? Poop?

Well, at least it's better than staying on I-drive.

Hey, that could be the new marketing slogan:

"Stay at the Poop! It's A Little Better Than I-Drive!"

Captain Crook

05-25-2004, 10:34 AM

Stay at Poop! It's a Little Better Than at the I Drive!
At least this is funny.:teeth:
pirate:

BRERALEX

05-25-2004, 11:06 AM

WDI helped with Pop Century. It was not completely a WDI project, but it certainly had WDI involved

Yeah two guys drinking beer called up their parents asked them what they used to do in their youth then they'd googled every era and came up with those great icons. Anyone of us could have come up with the unimaginitive Poop century's decor layout and the oh so hard icon logistics.

DC7800

05-25-2004, 11:07 AM

Originally posted by DancingBear
Oh, please. Disney charged what the market would bear then, just as they do now. If it was so cheap to stay on Disney property back then, just why was 192 loaded with Econolodges?

Because there were so few (less than 2,000) rooms on property, not counting Hotel Plaza, through the mid-80's! With just the three Disney resort hotels, Fort Wilderness, and the WDW Village Villas, a majority of guests are just going to have to stay off property. Now, certainly the demand was there to support a higher priced Polynesian, but the point is they didn't do it. Those resorts were very modestly priced.

Today the situation is reversed. There are plentiful (perhaps too many) Disney resort rooms available, yet various chains continue to thrive along 192. They often don't go for significantly less than Disney's own lowest-priced option (say, $40 for some Day's Inns & $59 for PC), so I have never been able to understand why Disney cannot fill its own rooms (note PC's opening delays, and other resort closures) with guests who would otherwise have stayed off property.

DancingBear

05-25-2004, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by airlarry! Please do not misunderstand our venom here. It is not against motels at cut-rate prices. It is the blase attitude that people who spend $59 a night don't deserve some of the same perks people who spend $109 a night get.So you think that people that spend $109 a night don't deserve MORE than the people who spend $59?

airlarry!

05-25-2004, 11:55 AM

Of course. Don't you?

Otherwise, we could move that chandalier out of the burger joint right into Dancing Bear's House of Expensive Quisine, right?

I'm not advocating that Disney build the Venetian and price it at $29 a night. That would be a little silly, don't you think?

What I am advocating is that:

a. The themes of AS and Poop are at best tolerable, and at worst, creatively bankrupt.

b. Disney can and should provide resorts value priced grouped around the parks, with magical transportation in addition to the busses. Monorails? Not for Value resorts, of course. Train rides, safari vehicles, water transportation etc? Ah, now that could be magical, if done right.

c. No resort, none, no matter the price, should go below the Caribbean/PO/Coronado standard. That is the MINIMUM pool required to be a Disney pool. I would hate to be forced to explain why the AS and Poop pools do not meet the Disney standard...just check out my earlier post on the Cheap resorts Disney could build next.

DB, you must agree that it is economically feasible to design a resort that caters to the value minded guest who does not need a monorail nor an exclusive restaurant, but who wants a great pool, wonderful theme, decent choices at food, and something more than the belching buses.

Don't you?

YoHo

05-25-2004, 12:22 PM

Actually, I would have to search for the info, but I believe at that "other" board, we got some info from amanager at Yacht and Beach club that said that the operating expenses for the Deluxes while higher then the Values were not in line with the price premium. I want to say we worked out that $180 a night would be the correct rate to charge to be in line in terms of profit margin with the Values on the Deluxes. Further, you forget that the original Deluxes were built highly modular and the newer ones are just as modular (although not via the same technique) Sure, there are costs associated with the decorations, but the actual structures are the same, And I have to believe AV when he says the huge Fiberglass Icons are of a similar price-point. Unles syou have some actual numbers to back up your position, I'll stick with AV and the Y&B manager.

I have no problem charging what the market will bare, but then I have to ask, if that's what the market will bare, why did they have to build lower cost alternatives?

Whoever just said it is correct, people didn't stay on I-drive, becuase Disney was super duper expensive, they stayed on I-drive, because there was a two year lead time on bookings, because there were relativly few rooms.

And even if we allow that Disney could and should provide lower cost alternatives, that doesn't equate to the Allstars or the Poop Century being the acceptable end results.

Honestly, if you think that the phrase "I can't think of anything better, the Imagineers must have done the best possible" justifies anything, then this argument isn't going to go anywhere. Given the brain drain at WDI and the general crappiness of most of what's been produced over the past couple of years (with some exceptions) one wonders how you could believe that the Hotelineers could possibly produce ANYTHING of value? Unless it's based on that wonderful Wilderness Lodge Blueprints.

So, to sum up, Disney sells an experience. I have no problem with them charging what the market will bare for that experience, HOWEVER, not giving people that experience, telling them, NO, the Emperor really does have some nice clothes (or the Resort really does have some brilliant themeing.) And then charging them more for the real deal is NOT what this company made its reputation on.

It would be like Apple Computing Making Beige IBM clones and saying they are Macintoshes.

EsmeraldaX

05-25-2004, 12:58 PM

Here is my take on this.

I COULD afford to stay at a moderate. I am staying at POP because it's kitschy and I , and a lot of other people, really like kitsch. I would prefer to stay at Pop and pay $70 a night and have the extra money for nice meals in the World Showcase etc. I rarely spend much time at the hotel when I am in WDW. It is really just a place to sleep.

If I was going for the "resort" , I'd probably choose to stay at a deluxe. Granted that would mean less meals out in fancy resteraunts etc. I'm on the very low end as far as salary goes. I can't have it all, so I have to have priorities for the things I want on a WDW vacation.

I want to stay in the parks as much as possible. Stay out at PI as late as possible. Eat most of my meals sit down at nice places. Be able to afford a rental car so I don't have to use busses (except for the nights at PI, thank you, in which case everyone should either designate a driver or take the bus!). Be able to buy some nice Disney figurines/snowglobes to take home.

I do not care about spas, sit down meals at the hotel, pools, babysitting services, kids club (we don't have kids), being on the monorail, views, concierge service.

The only thing they have at the Deluxes I'd miss is the boats, but I can always go downtown to rent a boat.

I think POP is a fun, bright, interesting place. Granted I haven't stayed there yet (will be staying in Dec.) I am interested in the history of pop culture in this country and I really think I'll find the place fun.

Not everyone has fun at fancy big time resorts. Don't get me wrong, if I was going away just to be pampered in my hotel, the GF, or Poli would be great. But when I'm on vacation to go to WDW parks, I don't care where I stay.

I know some people want the whole experience of the pampering hotel and everything else I want and if they can afford it - good for them. I can't. I don't know a lot of people who can. I think the budget hotels are great.

And for those who think the statues are tacky , please remember , one person's "tacky" is another person's "fun".

raidermatt

05-25-2004, 01:00 PM

The pricing is dictated by supply (including off-site competitors) and demand. They couldn't have raised the prices for the "deluxe" resorts unless the market allowed it.

As was alluded to, Disney did not charge what the market would bear. As I understand it, they sold out far in advance. Clearly, if its a simple case of supply and demand, they could have charged more, still filling up their rooms, and therefore making more profit.

But they didn't.

We were all taught the law of supply and demand in high school. Then there's the point where marginal cost meets marginal revenue, etc, etc, etc.

All very important concepts to understand.

But using only these basic economic concepts to form a business strategy is woefully inadequate.

Clearly there is a demand for even lower priced rooms than the Values. If we only look at supply and demand, Disney should build them.

When it gets down to it, they should build anything for which there is a demand.

Certainly we can all agree there should be more to Disney's business strategy than that, right?

And if there is, then we can't just look at s/d and say that's where Disney should price their resorts. The resorts exist as a piece of a complex entertainment complex. Their pricing impacts the rest of the system both in the short term and the long term.

But how Disney prices their current resorts is a smaller piece of the big picture.

I got no problem with this position, only with the idea that WDW could have done much better with their "value" options.

Well, don't get me wrong, I know they could have done better. They may have had to spend a little more, but the long term benefits would have been significant.

We need to get rid of this idea that Disney can't afford to invest more than they do in parks/resorts. The company has plenty of money to invest. They have just chosen to invest large chunks of it in other ventures, like Go.com, Fox Family, airplane leases, etc.

ShadowWind

05-25-2004, 01:02 PM

Many people don't know what the difference is between a US-192 hotel/motel with a Disney resort. To many, the motel or hotel is just a place to lay your head down after a long day at the park Whether that pillow is $74 (the non-florida off season rate) or $25 doesn't much matter, except to the wallet. Also staying at Disney resort requires you also to pay Disney prices for food. On US-192, food prices are anywhere between $4-$7 a person (for more), versus $9-12 at a Disney resort (for much less). When I stayed off-site it was much, much cheaper to do a week at Disney than it is now that I stay on-site.

However, because of the value resorts, we were able to discover the wonders and magic of staying on-site and how such added price is justified. We discovered it's not just a bed to sleep on, but an experience. We stayed at the Hyatt Orlando that was $89 a night and after 7pm, if you saw anyone walking around the hotel, you were doing good. At a Disney resort, people continue the fun back at the hotel, swimming in the pool, playing in the arcade, hanging out at the pool bar, whatever. There is activity and life. They just don't go back to their room and sleep, so the extra price justifies the fact you get more from the hotel, beyond just decor. It's also psychological that you are in the world, Disney World.

I've noticed in this thread that most of the people who are doing the most complaining stay at the Contemporary, or Polynesian. To me, it sounds like they want the same thing out of the values, because they could then save a lot of money on the hotel. Understandable. But isn't that why Disney doesn't create them all equally? How could they justify $200 for the Contemporary if a hotel with the same amenities was offered for $59? I don't see many people who have stayed at Pop Century complaining. In fact, the good reviews seem to outweight the bad, so Disney can't be all bad, even if your personal opinion of Disney salvation would seem to indicate.

Besides, is it not creative to base a hotel on pop culture? Do you know of any other hotel in the world that has such a base? And if you are going to do a hotel based on such culture, wouldn't you research the time period and get icons that people will relate to? As I said, in Sci-Fi Diner, they just took the concept of a drive in and turned it into a restaurant. Not that creative considering that food basically was a staple of the drive-in while watching the movie. Creativity does not have to beat someone over the head with theme to still be creative.

I don't understand the whole thing here anyway. If you don't like Pop Century or All-Stars, there is certainly plenty of experiences to choose from at WDW and I'm sure you can find one that fits your family's dream vacation. The fact that Disney put in value resorts that are not the same immersive experience as the moderates and deluxe is no surprise and certainly something that they would have had to eventually consider or miss out on a huge market. And as people's income and lifestyles change, the value resort guest of today could very well be the deluxe resort guest of tomorrow. Like everything in Disney culture, the earlier they can get you hooked, the more you'll grow to love the world.

raidermatt

05-25-2004, 01:12 PM

I do not care about spas, sit down meals at the hotel, pools, babysitting services, kids club (we don't have kids), being on the monorail, views, concierge service.
Most of these things are not what we are talking about when we speak of Disney doing more with their Values.

Its about story and show.

Think of the attractions in the parks. They aren't Disney because they are the biggest or fastest.

The attractions we think of as Disney are the ones that go out of their way to tell us a story, and immerse us in the experience.

That's what we are talking about with the resorts. Most of the differences you describe could still exist, differentiating between "values" and "deluxes".

But story and show should be non-negotiable.

raidermatt

05-25-2004, 01:17 PM

How could they justify $200 for the Contemporary if a hotel with the same amenities was offered for $59?

For the most part, the amenities aren't the issue...

JKanownik

05-25-2004, 01:54 PM

Here's my take on the Value Resort theming:

Let me preface this by saying that I've stayed onsite 4 times, twice at CBR, once at ASMo and once at ASMu. I have also visited all of the resorts with the exception of Pop (our Mears bus did stop there though, so I did get a look) and the DVC ones. I've stayed at the value resorts our last 2 trips because they allowed us to lengthen our stay while experiencing the magic of staying onsite. While I would prefer to stay at a moderate or deluxe, I simply cannot justify the price difference.

When I consider that I make decent money and don't have any kids, I can't imagine what it is like trying to plan a trip to WDW for people who make less money and have kids. With those people who are on a limited budget the only choice you have when designing a hotel is to create a value resort. You either build a hotel for that people can stay at for $77-$126 a night, or these people stay offsite. It's that simple.

Now, lets say that Disney took the advice of people on this board and came up with a great idea for a new Value resort. How the heck do you expect to get people to continue to pay for a premium for the moderate and deluxe resorts? In many cases the answer would be that you don't. There would be a tremendous downsizing of resort guest into the new resort.

So, what I'm trying to say here is there is a portion of the population that would only consider a value resort. And if you want to build a resort to suit their needs you can't cannibalize guests from existing resorts. These are facts. Now lets get into the fuzzy part of all of this.

When I think of the value resorts, 3 words come to mind: Disney, fun and tacky. Each of these serves an exact purpose and I don't think Walt Disney himself could have done it any better.

Disney: The value resort definitely respresent all that is Disney. There is tremendous attention to detail that Disney is known for. There are little Kanine Krunchies bones sculpted into the pavement in front of the 101 Dalmations buildings at ASMo. There are the music notes on the railings of the ASMu that are the actual notes from songs. These are details you won't find at any other hotel, let alone one this is considered a value. The service is also excellent and goes well beyond what you expect at a "value" resort and is very much in line with what you would expect from Disney.

Fun: The design of the resorts is fun, escpecially for kids. The buildings are bright and cheery. The large sculptures and facades are always of something fun and family friendly.

Tacky: This is genious! The large fiberglass sculptures serve their task of looking slightly tacky perfectly! The "tacky" design as it is seen by many is what keep the people who would normally stay in the moderate and deluxe hotels away from the values.

While it is the tacky part that most people have a problem with, I see it as marketing genious. The fact that some people see them as being tacky is merely a matter of their own personal opinion. After viewing It's a Small World I don't see how anyone could say that Walt Disney would never allow a tacky resort to be built. As long as the hotel was fun and exceeded customer expections of service and amenities, I don't see how Walt could be against it. And you know for sure that Walt would support anything that made the magic of staying on-site accessable to more people without sacrificing his core values.

-Josh

ShadowWind

05-25-2004, 01:59 PM

Pop Century tells the story of the pop culture of America from the 1950's to the 1990's, in all it's tacky and fun glory. It certainly has more story than Contemporary, which just looks cool. I'll agree that the All-Stars don't really fit this scenario as well, Pop Century which seems to be on everyone's nerves certainly does. It's full of story. It's the story of the things that we grew up on and enjoyed in our lives. To me, it's one of the few that has a story from the moment you drive in rather than just emulating a certain culture or location.

Amenities are apparently a problem because a poster above wants a value resort that has magical transportation like boats, trains, etc. And wants it to be close to the parks.

ShadowWind

05-25-2004, 02:06 PM

I cross posted with JKanownik, who said it better than I ever could...Well said. I had forgotten all those little details at the All-Stars like you mentioned.

All Aboard

05-25-2004, 02:07 PM

Discussion Ender ahead...

The finacial success / guest reception/response to the All Stars was great enough for Disney to conclude that they could double the offering. So, they did. The rest of the discussion is personal preference and the esoterics of "what would Walt do?"

The Value resorts at WDW work.

YoHo

05-25-2004, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by gcurling
Discussion Ender ahead...

The Value resorts at WDW work.

This is true, That's probably why Walt had them on his early master plan docs isn't it?

That however does not justify the theme of said resorts. And yes, I know you and I have have wrestled over this one before, but I see most of your positive comments as nothing more then Shopping carts and escalators for Hotels. :crazy:

There are a whole mess of people young and old that think WWE is the greatest form of entertainment ever. Should Disney therefore attempt to enter this market?

No, Disney should attempt to create things that are DISNEY and despite the people that enjoy 2 story tall primary colored "kitsch," that is NOT Disney and SHOULD NOT BE Disney.

Again, understand that you like them, understand that you see others that do, but that doesn't make it true Disney.

EsmeraldaX

05-25-2004, 02:45 PM

Originally posted by raidermatt
Most of these things are not what we are talking about when we speak of Disney doing more with their Values.

Its about story and show.

Think of the attractions in the parks. They aren't Disney because they are the biggest or fastest.

The attractions we think of as Disney are the ones that go out of their way to tell us a story, and immerse us in the experience.

That's what we are talking about with the resorts. Most of the differences you describe could still exist, differentiating between "values" and "deluxes".

But story and show should be non-negotiable.

I see Pop as having story and show. The story is the pop culture of various decades and the show is the giant statues and pop history displays.

EsmeraldaX

05-25-2004, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by YoHo
This is true, That's probably why Walt had them on his early master plan docs isn't it?

That however does not justify the theme of said resorts. And yes, I know you and I have have wrestled over this one before, but I see most of your positive comments as nothing more then Shopping carts and escalators for Hotels. :crazy:

There are a whole mess of people young and old that think WWE is the greatest form of entertainment ever. Should Disney therefore attempt to enter this market?

No, Disney should attempt to create things that are DISNEY and despite the people that enjoy 2 story tall primary colored "kitsch," that is NOT Disney and SHOULD NOT BE Disney.

Again, understand that you like them, understand that you see others that do, but that doesn't make it true Disney.

By saying you don't like kitsch, do you also mean you dislike the 50's prime time, the sci fi drive in, and many other parts of MGM? Do you not like the Lego statues at the marketplace? How about the mimi golf course and the Polynesian Resort? The Poly = tiki gods = very much kitsch.

YoHo

05-25-2004, 03:12 PM

When did I say I didn't like Kitsch. Kitsch is as much about how something is presented as it is about what it is.

And you're comment that Big fiberglass icons tells a story made my head explode.

DancingBear

05-25-2004, 03:30 PM

I work with real estate developers, primarily office and retail, every day. Design and finish cost money. Look up at the ceiling tiles in your office. Are they standard 2'X3' rectangles, or more expensive squares? Are the acoustic tiles standard or of a particular, more expensive design? Are the diffusers on the flourescent lights standard flat, textured panels or more expensive divided lights? Are the sprinkler heads exposed or do they have caps?

Class A office space brings higher rents than Class C office space, because of these types of details.

The fancy railings at Port Orleans French Quarter cost more than the plain railings at PC.

A pool with a large, detailed Mayan pyramid with a slide as at Coronado Springs costs more than the Hippie Dippie pool at PC.

A big fiberglass thing, for which the only maintenance is essentially a periodic power wash, costs less to construct and operate/maintain than the exterior details and landscaping that you see at the Poly and the WL.

Busses move lots of people more efficiently than boats.

YoHo

05-25-2004, 04:23 PM

But, the landscaping is WDW wide and is amortized across all of the resorts, so that isn't a factor. And I actually doubt the busses are more efficent then the boats.

DancingBear

05-25-2004, 04:30 PM

Originally posted by YoHo
But, the landscaping is WDW wide and is amortized across all of the resorts, so that isn't a factor. And I actually doubt the busses are more efficent then the boats. Regardless of how landscaping is accounted for internally at WDW, the landscaping at the Poly costs more than the landscaping at the Value resorts.

I think you're completely wrong on the boats vs. busses economics, at least if you're talking about the size of boats that would be likely used at WDW, such as the ones that run MK to WL.

airlarry!

05-25-2004, 04:36 PM

Some of the comments I've read today read like an insider's transcript of Walt's discussions with the heads of major New York banks when building Disneyland.

Somehow that little money pit in Anaheim got built anyway, and somehow it worked.

I know I'm asking you to believe in this on faith, but there it is. Have faith that with a little bit of creativity, some hard work, a little less greed and a lot more focus on guest satisfaction, a value priced accommodation could be built to satisfy the guests who want value pricing but deluxe feeling.

Hey, some would argue that no Disney experience is true without the monorail. (After staying on a monorail resort, I can see where the sentiment comes from). I don't. I may never have taken the boats from PO to DTD, but I still bragged to my friends that I could have.

The pools and transportation options at the AS and Poop cannot be defended, and are below the Disney standard. The argument against this essentially boils down to a "my room is just a place to sleep, so why do I care argument." Trust me, the price of the Coronado's pool isn't much of a factor at all in the exact price of the Cornodo's room rates, except as a selling point. It is negligble in the grand scheme of things, but only to an accountant, not to a guest.

DancingBear

05-25-2004, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by airlarry!
The pools and transportation options at the AS and Poop cannot be defended, and are below the Disney standard. The argument against this essentially boils down to a "my room is just a place to sleep, so why do I care argument." Trust me, the price of the Coronado's pool isn't much of a factor at all in the exact price of the Cornodo's room rates, except as a selling point. It is negligble in the grand scheme of things, but only to an accountant, not to a guest. The transportation options are the same as for the Coronado Springs and the Caribbean Beach (the original moderate resort), no?

Fine, add some bells and whistles to the pool, it won't cost that much more (even with the additional lifeguard requirements). But would that satisfy everyone?

And, again, at some point how would you justify charging more for the mods?

airlarry!

05-25-2004, 05:11 PM

DB, are you defining the Disney standard for accommodations on-property as...only needing bus transportation, only needing AS type pools, and only needing food courts? Is this the minimum that you consider the Disney standard to be?

Really?

Well, what are you going to do when someone around here bids even lower? Someone, somewhere will say:

"I don't need those things. My kids enjoyed the Giant Bic Cigarette Lighter resort even without a fountain pool. We didn't need a food court, and we thought it was magically fun to walk a mile to the Poop Century to catch a bus. Besides, it was $29, it was on-site, AND it had that Disney feel to it. And let's face it, it's only a place to sleep in at night."

Then you'll be accused of being a fussy Disney grump, too. ;)

My curiousity is piqued. Let's hear your idea of what the minimum a Disney hotel experience should have. I don't think that Disney should ever be in the "How Low Can We Go" game. I think Disney should strive to exceed guest's expectations.

P.S. The CBR without freaking water transportation to MGM, and the Coronado without train transportation to AK not only is moronic as a marketing tool, but it is a disgrace, too. :)

YoHo

05-25-2004, 05:11 PM

"That's why I love Walt Disney. It costs $100,000 to build a spire you didn't need. The secret of Disney is doing things you don't need and doing them well and then you realize you needed them all along." - Ray Bradbury

JKanownik

05-25-2004, 05:22 PM

Originally posted by airlarry!
I think Disney should strive to exceed guest's expectations.

The All Stars exceeded my expectations. And from the reviews of the Pop it sounds like it is exceeding people's expectations as well. In fact, I would say I am amazed at how well the Disney Magic is maintained when I've stayed at the value resorts even though I've only spent $74 a night both times I stayed there.

While I recognize that the deluxe resorts have their place at WDW, IMO I think that they would not meet my expectations when considering the premium price they command. One night at the Beach Club has to compare to not one night at AS, but to the 3 nights that would be a comparable price.

-Josh

YoHo

05-25-2004, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by JKanownik
The All Stars exceeded my expectations. And from the reviews of the Pop it sounds like it is exceeding people's expectations as well. In fact, I would say I am amazed at how well the Disney Magic is maintained when I've stayed at the value resorts even though I've only spent $74 a night both times I stayed there.

While I recognize that the deluxe resorts have their place at WDW, IMO I think that they would not meet my expectations when considering the premium price they command. One night at the Beach Club has to compare to not one night at AS, but to the 3 nights that would be a comparable price.

-Josh
Wow, you wouldn't think it possible, but my head just exploded again.

airlarry!

05-25-2004, 05:29 PM

Josh, I'm curious, how did the resort exceed your expectations?

I take this to mean that you expectated certain things from your resort, and that instead you found the resort to have better things.

What were they?

All Aboard

05-25-2004, 06:31 PM

Expectations are borne out of experience and comparison. I think that's true for everyone. So, breaking that down...

A person has likely stayed at hotels before. A person has likely spent the same $ per night as they have paid at the WDW Value Resort. A person may have stayed at another WDW of higher category and paid more. They know what they "got" in each of these instances.

So, they arrive at a WDW Value resort, paying $xx per night. Based on the above paragraph (all sentences that apply to them specifically) they have likely generated an "expectation" of the resort.

The resort may fall short, meet, or exceed the expectation. If someone says it exceeded it, then it probably did. Or, are you saying, "you're wrong, you didn't experience what you did, you don't realize that you didn't, but you didn't, so you are wrong?"

ShadowWind

05-25-2004, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by airlarry!
Josh, I'm curious, how did the resort exceed your expectations?

I take this to mean that you expectated certain things from your resort, and that instead you found the resort to have better things.

What were they?

I can't answer for Josh, but I can tell you what exceeded my expectation at Pop Century and that is the general atmosphere and undying friendliness of the CM's. I travel all over this country and I do so with some special needs. In many hotels, I've been hassled, frowned upon, treated as though I am a second class citizen. Disney, no matter what the request, does their darndest to help and/or at least treat you with respect. I can't tell you how many CM's went out of their way during my visits there to help out anyway they can. To me, that is as big of a part of the Disney magic and what I pay money for over just staying at an ourside resort. There are other things that I mentioned earlier, but this ranks right up there. The CM's always exceed my expectations at the resorts. And honestly, I find the value resort CM's to be friendlier than at the moderates, at least in my dealings with them. I can't remember the last time I heard an employee of any hotel chain outside say, "We just want to make sure you are happy..."

Add to this what I said earlier, and it should be clear why I consider Pop to be just as much Disney as any other resort. Whether you like their choice of architecture or not, does not make the property any less Disney-esque or impossible to have a Disney vacation there.

YoHo

05-25-2004, 07:15 PM

Originally posted by gcurling
Expectations are borne out of experience and comparison. I think that's true for everyone. So, breaking that down...

A person has likely stayed at hotels before. A person has likely spent the same $ per night as they have paid at the WDW Value Resort. A person may have stayed at another WDW of higher category and paid more. They know what they "got" in each of these instances.

So, they arrive at a WDW Value resort, paying $xx per night. Based on the above paragraph (all sentences that apply to them specifically) they have likely generated an "expectation" of the resort.

The resort may fall short, meet, or exceed the expectation. If someone says it exceeded it, then it probably did. Or, are you saying, "you're wrong, you didn't experience what you did, you don't realize that you didn't, but you didn't, so you are wrong?"

Conversly, someone who has stayed at the Poly in the 70s and can work an inflation calculator on the price of that room might think that the Poop century is a Travesty. (regardless of mitigating factors)

More importantly, Disney did not used to be in the buisness of selling hotel rooms, but of selling expereince. At least at WDW.

Captain Crook

05-25-2004, 07:20 PM

You're involved? I'll have to buy you a beer!

Needless to say Greg hit on exactly what I believe...And he and I don't always agree on these things.

I still can't grasp how the 'other side' in this argument can't concieve that despite all of their protests, knowledge of history and good taste, that some people could actually find Pop to be 'all that'? Please tell me how you can not recognize their love and perhaps devotion of this Disney offering. I know...I understand that it (Pop) doesn't live up to the lagacy (as you know it) of doing 'great things' that we all feel Walt left us...But again, who is the arbitor of what are 'great things'? These people (Pop lovers) may not 'know' Disney the way you do, but maybe they do...This is an unknown. But the fact remains that with this very controversial project, the current Disney seems to have created a certain positive buzz for many people...The project may not have fit into the scheme as we believe it should be but the net result seems to fit anyway...

Also, do any of you doubt that Walt would be happy by the positive experience so many are reporting from Pop?

Lastly, to all those who still harp that I'm a 'one trick pony', I refer you back to Mr. Curlings earlier post that aside from the financials this is all subjective. I understand all of your points but you fail to recognize that my arguments are seldom from the old school timeline. I may not be as interested in the "what Disney was" and "what Disney could still be" game as I am discussing what the current Disney can offer within the broad realm of the Disney magic that still exists. Don't confuse my choice of conversation as the inability to understand. We're not ALL bozo's on this bus...
pirate:

YoHo

05-25-2004, 08:10 PM

you as usual have missed the point. We don't care how many people like it. As I said, a lot of people like Pro Wrestling. That doesn't make Pop Century or Pro wrestling a Disney caliber offering.

"That's why I love Walt Disney. It costs $100,000 to build a spire you didn't need. The secret of Disney is doing things you don't need and doing them well and then you realize you needed them all along." - Ray Bradbury
"That's why I love Walt Disney. It costs $100,000 to build a spire you didn't need. The secret of Disney is doing things you don't need and doing them well and then you realize you needed them all along." - Ray Bradbury
"That's why I love Walt Disney. It costs $100,000 to build a spire you didn't need. The secret of Disney is doing things you don't need and doing them well and then you realize you needed them all along." - Ray Bradbury
"That's why I love Walt Disney. It costs $100,000 to build a spire you didn't need. The secret of Disney is doing things you don't need and doing them well and then you realize you needed them all along." - Ray Bradbury
"That's why I love Walt Disney. It costs $100,000 to build a spire you didn't need. The secret of Disney is doing things you don't need and doing them well and then you realize you needed them all along." - Ray Bradbury
"That's why I love Walt Disney. It costs $100,000 to build a spire you didn't need. The secret of Disney is doing things you don't need and doing them well and then you realize you needed them all along." - Ray Bradbury
"That's why I love Walt Disney. It costs $100,000 to build a spire you didn't need. The secret of Disney is doing things you don't need and doing them well and then you realize you needed them all along." - Ray Bradbury

raidermatt

05-25-2004, 08:19 PM

I still can't grasp how the 'other side' in this argument can't concieve that despite all of their protests, knowledge of history and good taste, that some people could actually find Pop to be 'all that'?

That's not the point at all.

People like what they like, and there's nothing wrong with it.

But once again, there are thousands of things Disney could build that people would "like".

Its essentially the "it makes money" argument, which is what Greg is saying.

There's so much more to it than that.

I can tell you what exceeded my expectation at Pop Century and that is the general atmosphere and undying friendliness of the CM's.
Again, only one aspect.

Yes, an important, must have aspect for a Disney resort.

But that and decorations are not enough. That doesn't mean its not enough for YOU to enjoy your vacation, or for ME to enjoy my vacation.

It means its not enough because Disney's strategy and vision said its not enough. It said you did things a certain way regardless of whether you thought guests would demand it, or whether bookings would increase at a rate that justified the investment...

You did it because you believed in the concept. You put in a real chandelier when 99.9% of the guests wouldn't even notice.

Captain Crook

05-25-2004, 08:22 PM

Comprehension problem, guys?
As I said, lots of people like pro wrestling. That doesn't make Pop Centurey or Pro Wrestling a Disney caliber offering. According to????????? You? Would that be an objective or subjective opinion?

Look, read the rest of my post. I know where you're coming from and from that isolated little speck of the planet you have a valid point...But how Pop Century fits into the original scheme of what Disney was accomplishing isn't the basis of this discussion...

Geesh.
pirate:

YoHo

05-25-2004, 08:26 PM

Originally posted by Captain Crook
[B]Comprehension problem, guys?
According to????????? You? Would that be an objective or subjective opinion?

According to people who have taken the time to look into what Walt did and why he did it. According to people who worked for Walt and Eisner. According to people who care about Why Disneyland legitimatly claimed the title of Happiest place on Earth. Not just people that are glad it's still a fairly happy place now.

According to people who care about whys and hows.

That's who. If that doesn't give an opinion at least a little bit of weight, then I don't know what does.

And I am well aware that the basis of discussion is a narrow concept you're trying to push. So narrow that there can be no real discussion.

The Title of this thread is quite simple. I gave my answer and I and others have justified why it's a valid answer in spite of the eyesore's (subjective AHOY) popularity.

You refuse to accept it and instead belittle my opinion. Perhaps I should return to merely trolling and looking to start fights with OWTS. It's jkust about as intellectually stimulating.

Captain Crook

05-25-2004, 08:29 PM

Who?
pirate:

YoHo

05-25-2004, 08:33 PM

You know who.

Captain Crook

05-25-2004, 08:34 PM

LOL! You accuse me of belittling your opinion afteryou as usual have missed the point.
Sure the conversation point is narrow, but I really didn't expect the whole DIS allum would be returning!:teeth: Well, maybe I did, a little...But the point was with all of the neg pre opening pub could anyone still admit it a failure? The other argument (Disney history) is tried and true and I guess we can go there, but as you said to me there is really no room for legitimate argument there either...
pirate:

Captain Crook

05-25-2004, 08:41 PM

I've been directed to the jewell site and see Yoho's had it with me...But physical violence? Really?

Listen, this is fun. I learn things from all of you guys and I'm seriously not trying to be obtuse...But it is frustrating when I'm held to a standard that you guys don't follow when arguing with me (this is how I see it). That's the nature of internet debate, I guess.

Sorry for the aggravation Yoho. We've talked for a long time and I'd hate to make it worse, so unless other comments are directed to me I'll bow out (I'm going to Disney World-tomorrow).
pirate:

YoHo

05-25-2004, 09:12 PM

Who directed you there?

There are a lot of people I threaten physical violence to, it's just frustration. If I actually punched everyone I threatened to punch, I'd be behind bars by now.

No hamr no foul?

DVC-Landbaron

05-25-2004, 09:17 PM

Just a couple of things. The thread went crazy today and I simply don’t have the energy (or the desire) to collect all the misinformed and philosophically devoid quotes!! Besides most of the car pool showed up in my absence and as usual are – RIGHT ON THE MONEY!!

But Greg!!!! My goodness!!! I’m surprised at you!! It seems you have completely lost the old Disney ‘TOUCH’ and replaced it with the old ‘sharp pencil practices’ that Walt HATED!! I suggest you re-read some of the element posts dealing with the concept of “Give the public everything you can give them”! Especially that new element poster, Ray something or other…
"That's why I love Walt Disney. It costs $100,000 to build a spire you didn't need. The secret of Disney is doing things you don't need and doing them well and then you realize you needed them all along." Thanks Mr. Bradbury!! Something I’ve tried to say for years. But that’s why you get the big bucks as a writer, isn’t it? You just can’t shove any old verb next to a noun (as I do) and expect to make sense. You have to choose them carefully instead!!! And those are very carefully chosen words!! And everyone[/b] from the non-element side should read it daily!! Because basically this is all the ‘element’ is really talking about!!

Which brings me to DancingBear!! Who should really to a bit of research and digging for history!! But I’m ahead of myself! First Peter (or Captain – or whatever seafarer he’s going by today)!!
But how Pop Century fits into the original scheme of what Disney was accomplishing isn't the basis of this discussion...

Well… Not quite, Mr. Pirate!! If you will recall…
OK! Let me get this straight! If I tell you, in answer to the narrow definition of your question, that PC is a success, can we then go on to the higher and more important philosophical question.

If so...

YES!!!! It seems to be a success!

--------------End of original Question --------------
And then we moved on!! Remember?

OK!! Mr. Bear!!! You are at the beginning of a journey! And it is filled with awe inspiring concepts and revolutionary philosophies regarding business and life! Oh! How I envy you! I look at you as recommending to you a good book and then wishing, somehow, that I can erase it from my mind, so that I can experience it for the first time all aver again! So!!! Have fun! And enjoy the trip!!
Oh, please. Disney charged what the market would bear then, just as they do now. If it was so cheap to stay on Disney property back then, just why was 192 loaded with Econolodges?
As has been pointed out by almost everyone else – You couldn’t be more wrong!! But after you read a bit of your Disney history you’ll see how far off you really are!!
What, does Disney live in some magical vacuum where they can just randomly set prices for their resorts? Of course not. The pricing is dictated by supply (including off-site competitors) and demand. They couldn't have raised the prices for the "deluxe" resorts unless the market allowed it.
Again, better writers than yours truly have shown you that Disney was not influenced by ordinary business factors. No indeed!! But more fundamental question, and a question that THE PHILOSOPHY demands an answer, is:

SHOULD they have raised prices?

And again, I think you’ll see, that this approach – IS the difference!!

Oh Captain, My Captain!!
so unless other comments are directed to me I'll bow out (I'm going to Disney World-tomorrow).
Have fun!! I always do!!

And don’t be too hard on YoHo!! He was here even before you or me. And let's face it, anyone who spells that badly can't possible be....

… Well, you know what I mean!!

YoHo

05-25-2004, 09:58 PM

If nothing else, this is his thread and I'm far more upset that something I said in jest at another site would cause him to abandon his own thread then I was frustrated with the actual thread.

It's your thread dude, say whatever you want to in it. it should be my job to get out if I can't take it.

Captain Crook

05-25-2004, 10:05 PM

Yoho, I'm not upset in the least. As Landbaron can certainly attest to (if he remembers) my sense of humor is much maligned, so there is no way I'm taking offense to this...

All is well in the house of mouse...discussions.

Variety is the spice of life and I take very, very little of this too seriously.

I'll be seeing Greg and Scoop this week and rest assured we'll be talking about you all.:teeth: :teeth: :teeth:
pirate:

Captain Crook

05-25-2004, 10:07 PM

PS

Damn you Landbaron. You caught me on a technicality...Something I WILL admit you're very good at.:teeth: :teeth: :teeth:
pirate:

YoHo

05-25-2004, 10:09 PM

Now that I have a job again, I'm saving for a trip to florida. One day soon, you can talk to me, not about me.

unless of course you decide to make a trip out west.

Captain Crook

05-25-2004, 10:14 PM

We actually visited California each of the past two years...This year has been cancelled (so far) due to the fear of $16.00 per gallon California gas prices...And my daughters health. There's still a (remote) chance we'll be making the trip and perhaps we'll be able to touch base...Otherwise we can meet in Florida and I'm quite sure you won't want to punch my nose!:jester:
pirate:

DVC-Landbaron

05-25-2004, 10:30 PM

Hey Captain!

What did you think of that Bradbury Quote? Pretty neat, ain't it? It certainly sums up the philosophy, doesn't it?

Captain Crook

05-25-2004, 10:38 PM

It certainly sums up the philosophy, doesn't it?
Yes, it does.
pirate:

airlarry!

05-25-2004, 10:39 PM

Hope you don't mind if I wade through the hugs and kisses here ;) but back to the topic.

Someone asked why I think I am the arbitrer of good taste when it comes to Poop and AS.

I guess I'm a bit shocked to even defend the fact that the they can't compare to the other resorts.

But, unlike some of my brethren, I wish it were only the incredible tackiness of the Poop resorts that made it so abominable.

To me, it is the utter disregard for the Disney Standard, one which I see in three pages of love fest has gone unaddressed.

No matter. I'm patient.

Tell me again how this Purple Plop of a resort fits the Standard, and I'll tell you again that there is someone, probably many someones on this very board who will bid you lower.

JKanownik

05-26-2004, 08:42 AM

Challenge to those who think the value resorts go against the Disney standard. Give me one an example of each of the following:

1) A value hotel anywhere in the country that comes anywhere close to the AS or PC in terms of amenities, service, fun atmosphere and attention to detail. Personally, I've yet to see a hotel come close.

and

2) Suggest a design and a list of amenities for a value resort that would meets your standards AND would still maintain a reasonable price to design and amenities ratio when compared to the moderate and deluxe resorts. All of the ideas you've suggested are great, but they make you wonder why anyone would pay for a moderate or deluxe when they could get the exact same experience at a value price.

Also, the same Ray Bradbury quote keeps getting posted about the $100,000 spire, but I don't understand how that is a knock against the value resorts. They may not have $100,000 spires, but the same spirit is evident in their large fiberglass sculptures, detailed patterns created in the walkways, the design of the pools and the facades of the buildings. They very easily could have built a plain hotel with no Disney transportation, subtandard service, Disney themed painted buildings (no facades or sculptures) and square-shaped unthemed pools.

-Josh

SnackyStacky

05-26-2004, 09:41 AM

So my question is, was Disney wrong in its offering or do the good reviews and high occupancy make it justified?

But the point was with all of the neg pre opening pub could anyone still admit it a failure?

Since the Captain is gone and now can't tell me to leave, I can finally say a little something!

Those above quotes come direct from Crook's posts. They're two COMPLETELY different questions. And even the first two questions in his initial posts are asking two completely different things.

SO - was Disney wrong in its offering? YES! Why? See Raidermatt's, Baron's, Voice's, and YoHo's posts.

Do the good reviews and high occupancy rate make it justified? NO! Why? See Raidermatt's, Baron's, Voice's, and YoHo's posts.

On those two questions, I cannot bend. I can't see how Pop Century can be justified when you have something like the Crystal Palace. When opened, didn't it just sell burgers? Who really cares about real crystal chandeliers if you're only going in there to spend $1 on a hamburger? Isn't that pretty darn similar to the budget resorts? Why should anyone care about anything when you're only paying a few bucks a night to sleep?!

How can anyone see something like that and then contend that the budget resorts fit within Walt's philosophy?

Can anyone still admit it a failure? Here's the crux of the disagreement - and quite frankly why I got so frustrated cause if that's what was initially being asked - then it should have been asked!

Success would mean achieving your goals - and the goals are different for every person. They're different for Disney, for the casual Disney vacationer, and the Disney geeks. For me, a success would be something that adheres to Walt's goals and philosophies. In that, I don't think that it's a success.

But for someone who's looking for huge statues and "fun atmosphere" - it fits! But that's all very personal; on both sides. I'm looking for more when I go to Disney. That doesn't make me right and everybody else wrong - and likewise, it doesn't make them right, and me wrong. It means that we all have different definitions of what success would be.

Phoebesaturn

05-26-2004, 09:48 AM

Originally posted by JKanownik
Challenge to those who think the value resorts go against the Disney standard. Give me one an example of each of the following:

1) A value hotel anywhere in the country that comes anywhere close to the AS or PC in terms of amenities, service, fun atmosphere and attention to detail. Personally, I've yet to see a hotel come close.

and

2) Suggest a design and a list of amenities for a value resort that would meets your standards AND would still maintain a reasonable price to design and amenities ratio when compared to the moderate and deluxe resorts. All of the ideas you've suggested are great, but they make you wonder why anyone would pay for a moderate or deluxe when they could get the exact same experience at a value price.

Also, the same Ray Bradbury quote keeps getting posted about the $100,000 spire, but I don't understand how that is a knock against the value resorts. They may not have $100,000 spires, but the same spirit is evident in their large fiberglass sculptures, detailed patterns created in the walkways, the design of the pools and the facades of the buildings. They very easily could have built a plain hotel with no Disney transportation, subtandard service, Disney themed painted buildings (no facades or sculptures) and square-shaped unthemed pools.

-Josh

Its almost as if people don't read.

JKanownik

05-26-2004, 10:55 AM

Originally posted by Phoebesaturn
Its almost as if people don't read.

It's funny to see people post things like this and expect their take on Walt Disney's values to be considered seriously. At the very least you could point out an example of my illiteracy so that I could work on improving my reading abilities.

-Josh

bretsyboo

05-26-2004, 12:56 PM

well I find no real need to argue here. I wanted to say something like pointing out that saying disney can't give a disney experience at disney prices is hogwash because the math has shown that disney could still be making a profit at the poly and charging only 130 dollars a night. This comes from hotel management, but I won't source it further because like I said it's worthless. Walt himself could tell you that the pop century sucks and that he would have never built it and you'd still disagree. (as for turning that around on me, it's his company, I'd rubber stamp anything he wanted to do, he makes all of the decisions to anything he wants on his name)

I just stayed at the pop century and the hyatt just of property, from the hyatt I saw 3 theme parks and I could have seen the fireworks at night from my bed. I wouldn't call the hyatt a disney hotel because it was a hotel...it wasn't really themed anything though it was nicely decorated, but I sure found some magic gazing out upon those parks. I found non at pop century, I've found non at the all stars. I had more magic not staying at a disney hotel, and that is sad. Pop century meant and did nothing for me, actually I liked the all stars FAR better than I liked pop century.

Let's be clear, I never wanted pop to be built because I thought it wa a stupid, ugly, unimaginative idea. I didn't see how the creative unit of disney thought it was imaginative to take a bowling pin and make it...bigger. However, when I went to POP I fully expected that just being there, on the grounds, on a vacation that had already been heightened and excited me, that I would be there and regardless of decorations or tackyness that I would LIKE it. I was suprised to find that I didn't. The only Disney magic that I experienced at the pop century was seeing the custodial people decorate childrens windows with stuffed animals for when they come home, an act I'd have to guess they do at all of the motels on property.

So that's where I stand, it was definitly past the line for me, which makes me have to ask, at what point will we agree? Where would the magic disappear for you?

What if it was just a square pool?

What if there were no fiberglass structures?

What if there were no sayings on the roof?

At what point would you go to a Disney hotel and say this is NOT Disney? Perhaps when they go so low, and they will, I can come back here and we can all stand together and shout about the cheapening of a once great product...unless of course any place with the disney name fits your definition.

hopemax

05-26-2004, 01:24 PM

Josh, you have asked for:

1) A value hotel anywhere in the country that comes anywhere close to the AS or PC in terms of amenities, service, fun atmosphere and attention to detail. Personally, I've yet to see a hotel come close.

This is where the spire quote comes in. Disney does things that you never expect, might even think are ridiculous, better then you ever expected, and after the fact you realized it was the right move.

If the only way you will believe that something is a better idea, is for someone else to have done it first, you will end up waiting an incredibly long time. No one will change their practices because they're all waiting for someone else to prove it works! Businesses are not omniscient. They are run by average people like you and me who have their own set of preconceptions of the correct way to run a business. Change happens when a person is willing to look past what they've always believed to examine the possibility that there might be a better way and risks the ridicule during the process.

I can not point to a hotel anywhere run the way that I would love to see the Disney hotels operate. But I can point you to an example of a businessman who did something that most every other successful businessman thought was absolutely the stupidest move a business could ever make. There were even predicions of global recession following the news. Henry Ford, made a decision that the best way to improve his bottom line was to double the salaries of his employees and institute a 40 hour work week. Think about that. If your boss announced that he was doubling your salary, and dropping the length of your work week by 5 hours, what would you think about your bosses sanity and business acumen? But it worked. And I can do it again with many of the choices that Walt Disney made.

And by that standard, does operating hotels that look more like the moderates but costs the same as the values sound nearly as insane? And yes, absolutely this would affect the pricing points at the higher priced hotels. But the lower prices would affect demand, it would affect people's perceptions of the value of a WDW vacation and thus their willingness to return or recommend a WDW vacation to others, the amount of marketing needed to generate bookings, etc. Pop Century can be called a "success" because it is getting the bookings. But does that prove that the Pop Century was the best and most successful option for WDW? I suppose we're back to, "If there was a better way, wouldn't they have done it?" And I'm back to "Businesses aren't omniscient. And if businesses always choose the best way, then that means, now in 2004, businesses are at their zenith. There will never be a better way to run a business." Is that what you believe?

But if all of that fell on deaf ears, I have stayed at numerous hotels which cost no more than the values at WDW that came with microwaves, coffee makers and refridgerators in the rooms at no additional charge. And high speed internet access is becoming more and more frequent. Some included a continental breakfast, others meal coupons for a full breakfast at a neighboring restaurant. But these are not things found at the WDW values and are one reason why those hotels fail to meet my expectations.

KNWVIKING

05-26-2004, 01:27 PM

***" because the math has shown that disney could still be making a profit at the poly and charging only 130 dollars a night."***

What is an acceptable amount of profit for Disney to leave on the table ? Not just in the resorts, but at all the profit centers. After they've finished their break-even analysis, where should they set their mark-up ? Should it be what the market will bear ? Or should be some discounted rate that let's everyone share the magic of Poly and the Parks ?

As for the magic of the Hyatt vs PC/AS : What floor were you on that allowed you to view the fireworks while laying on your bed ? Would that Hyatt -on property- possibly have ruined a site line ala Swan/Dolphine ? I've stayed on and off property. To me, the magic isn't the resort, but actually being on property, staying in a city that is on vacation. The CM's make the resort what it is moreso then the structure. Maybe I'm just lucky, but I've never had a bad experience with a resort CM but have been irratated at other hotels where the staff seemed totally disinterested in their jobs.

Personally, I think the PC & AS resorts are ugly.

raidermatt

05-26-2004, 01:33 PM

A value hotel anywhere in the country that comes anywhere close to the AS or PC in terms of amenities, service, fun atmosphere and attention to detail. Personally, I've yet to see a hotel come close.
You maybe right, though you may want to read some posts from many Disneyites when Early Entry was axed... seems there wasn't quite as much "Magic" in all those other things after all. When it comes down to it, the difference is really the location and decorations that make them different.

But that doesn't make it Disney. It makes it nice. It may even make it the choice of many for their vacation accomodations. But that was not enough for the Disney of old, and it shouldn't be enough for the Disney of today.

Suggest a design and a list of amenities for a value resort that would meets your standards AND would still maintain a reasonable price to design and amenities ratio when compared to the moderate and deluxe resorts. All of the ideas you've suggested are great, but they make you wonder why anyone would pay for a moderate or deluxe when they could get the exact same experience at a value price.

I'm not an "imagineer", nor do I claim to be qualified to be one. So I've stolen a post from another board and pasted it below.

I'm sure anyone who wants to can pick apart pieces of this as being impractical. Maybe they'd be right. But its the spirit of the idea that is the key.

Say, for example, that the shoebox Animal Kingdom Lodge wasn't built. Instead the Village of Humarbi sprawled over a couple acres. The town is a vibrant market place were the local craftsman and farmers sell their wares. In the center of town the old Victoria Hall still rents out rooms and serves as reminder of an age long past. It's run by the original proprietor (some say a power local shaman has cast a spell that keeps the old British Major forever young). Many of his friends stop by at the attached pub and restaurant – the club regaling visitors with tales of their adventure.

Not to be outdone, other local merchants have opened up a wide variety of accommodations for all tastes and budgets: a bed and breakfast type resort the Governor's old mansion, a safari lodge has been converted into a nice mid-range hotel, and the thriving Animal Research Center even will let people stay in the Research Assistant housing. The more adventurous might want to truly "go native" and stay in native huts and longhouses – or join the staff of the research station as they camp out on savannah at night (beware the zebras wandering through the camp).

During the day, the town is alive with activity. Some may wish to see what is happening at the Animal Center and become a researcher or caretaker for the day. Nearby Switzer Falls area off all kinds of water activities (just make sure the hippos are out of the pools). Jeep tours with the naturalists leave every hour for an "up close" experience with the environment. Or you can go on foot and explore the area yourself. There are even rumors that the lost mine of King Solomon may be nearby. One only wonders what may be inside…

DancingBear

05-26-2004, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by DVC-Landbaron
OK!! Mr. Bear!!! You are at the beginning of a journey! And it is filled with awe inspiring concepts and revolutionary philosophies regarding business and life! Oh! How I envy you! I look at you as recommending to you a good book and then wishing, somehow, that I can erase it from my mind, so that I can experience it for the first time all aver again! So!!! Have fun! And enjoy the trip!!

As has been pointed out by almost everyone else – You couldn’t be more wrong!! But after you read a bit of your Disney history you’ll see how far off you really are!!Sorry, Baron, but I've been on this journey with your before, and I just don't end up at the same destination. Do I have to repeat my Disney credentials again? Repeated visits to Disneyland since 1964, since my grandparents lived in Orange County, CA? Repeated visits to WDW since 1972, since my other grandparents wintered in St. Pete? I've read Married to the Mouse, Vinyl Leaves, Inside the Mouse, among others. I went to the Architecture of Reassurance exhibit at the Cooper-Hewitt Museum. I've chatted with professional colleagues who were involved in running Wide World of Sports and in created the DVC. I've played 3 of WDW's golf courses, done an Illuminations cruise, stayed at the CR, WL, Shades of Green, Coronado, ASSp, PO-FQ (pre FQ), and CBR.

I am an attorney of 17 years experience who works exclusively in commercial real estate. Agree with it or not, I believe mine is as informed an opinion as yours.

bretsyboo

05-26-2004, 02:00 PM

What is an acceptable amount of profit for Disney to leave on the table ? Not just in the resorts, but at all the profit centers. After they've finished their break-even analysis, where should they set their mark-up ? Should it be what the market will bear ? Or should be some discounted rate that let's everyone share the magic of Poly and the Parks ?
The poly example is what the price would be today had they used the acceptable profit margin of when the resot opened. Somehow, over the years, Disney has felt they had to make more money....a LOT more money. The point is though, that obviously almost every other resot on prop. costs less to maintain, meaning that while it may take the poly 130, it may take the contemp 125...and port orleans 85, etc...

Therfore the idea that Disney did all they could when charging pop century prices is hogwash, the values are off a cliff when in comparison to every other resort there is. Furthermore they get cheaper and cheaper, they aren't anything but cookie cutters pasted on property that are less staffed, and well less everything, but here I am arguinf when I said I wouldn't, I'll just try to address what you said and move on.
As for the magic of the Hyatt vs PC/AS : What floor were you on that allowed you to view the fireworks while laying on your bed ? Would that Hyatt -on property- possibly have ruined a site line ala Swan/Dolphine ? I've stayed on and off property. To me, the magic isn't the resort, but actually being on property, staying in a city that is on vacation. The CM's make the resort what it is moreso then the structure. Maybe I'm just lucky, but I've never had a bad experience with a resort CM but have been irratated at other hotels where the staff seemed totally disinterested in their jobs.
As for your answers ot the hyatt, I don't know what floor, would it have ruined site lines? sure probably, but uhhh....I SAID it wasn't a Disney resort, and I didn't consider it one, I never suggested Disney should do this, only that it was sad that I had more magic there than in a disney one. (and in anyway no sitelines would have been ruined from where the hyatt was built)

The CM's are the same CM's everywhere, they are all not paid what other places pay, like universal, sea world, or to a more extreme, the hyatt. I had spectacular service at the hyatt, spectacular. The same CM's that are at the grand floridian are the same quality CM's at the Pop, therefore I can't see how it is a plus for the pop to be meerly staffed with people making less than 7 an hour. It's like a wal mart, want a job? apply, you won't be put where you are best suited, you'll be thrown in a pool and massed where they need you. With the exception of management and entertainment cm's are cm's.

But I want to go back to my last post that you didn't answer. Is that your answer? Any old building so long as they have CM's is Disney magic for you?

KNWVIKING

05-26-2004, 02:35 PM

***" But I want to go back to my last post that you didn't answer. Is that your answer? Any old building so long as they have CM's is Disney magic for you?"***

I'm not sure what post you're refering to - was it intended for me ? cause I just entered this frey ?

Don't try and twist my words to make it sound as if a Motel 6 would be acceptable as long as the CM's were great. My point was that the magic of staying on property isn't just the brick and mortar - or even the plastic & fiberglass.

As for the Hyatt: You went into detail how the Hyatt to you was more magical then the PC. Well, a Hyatt is an upper end hotel, would your off property stay had the same magic in a Motel 6 ? You were quite happy with your fireworks view, so I'm assuming this isn't a simple 3 story building. I'm sure the people in the Swan find their view of the fireworks magical also.

But now back to the question I asked you : How much profit should Disney leave on the table ?

All Aboard

05-26-2004, 02:36 PM

Nope, Baron, you only perceive that I was ever a "What would Walt do?" person. While I believe in his principles and their outcomes, I have never once stated that I believed his model is the "only" way WDW would or could work today.

I know when you got the feeling that I did. It was during 2001 through part of 2003 when I was griping about what I thought to be very bad business decisions. Amongst them were go.com, Fox Family, Dinorama, the elimination of EE, operating hours reductions, elimination of character meals, staggered operating hours for different lands, the reduction of boat transportation, etc.

All of these were clearly short-sighted, poor business decisions. I have for quite some time believed that Eisner's days should be over. I can see how a reader could associate my views as "WWWD?" But, really, I've always been a sharp pencil guy. But, a long-range thinking sharp pencil guy.

The Value Resorts (as currently conceived and executed) fit my personal model for WDW quite well.

bretsyboo

05-26-2004, 02:53 PM

dude, you STILL didn't answer my question. I'll quote myself so you can reread it and answer it.
At what point would you go to a Disney hotel and say this is NOT Disney? Perhaps when they go so low, and they will, I can come back here and we can all stand together and shout about the cheapening of a once great product...unless of course any place with the disney name fits your definition. As for the Hyatt: You went into detail how the Hyatt to you was more magical then the PC. Well, a Hyatt is an upper end hotel, would your off property stay had the same magic in a Motel 6 ? You were quite happy with your fireworks view, so I'm assuming this isn't a simple 3 story building. I'm sure the people in the Swan find their view of the fireworks magical also.
I've said it on the other board so I'll say it here. I had ZERO magic at the pop century that was caused by the pop century (I did say, look at maps at the pop century which gave me magic, but I could do that here...and do, and also the custodians putting the stuffed animals in the wondow was nice) Zero magic, Nooooo magic. Nothing about the pop century did anything for me, in any way, and like I said, I even expected it to! Would a motel 6 be the same? with the exception of stuffed animals in wondows YES! YES for me it would have been the same (only cheaper) It was a motel 6 with animals in some windows! Is that what Disney's aim should be?
But now back to the question I asked you : How much profit should Disney leave on the table ?
None, but that's not the issue is it? I wasn't advocating they slash the poly prices or anywhere else was I? I was pointing out that they could easily build a better resort and still make a profit. Wasn't the argument here that Disney couldn't do any better for the lower income people? Doesn't the fact that the poly, a spectacular hotel, makes a profit at almost the hundred dollar prices of the all stars prove that? And at the same time you can whine whine whine about how they need cheap hotels, but hey, if they have great occupancy rates and they shouldn't leave any profit shouldn't they be raising the prices to maximize their profit?

So you can take one of two roads, but you can't take both. Either Disnery MUST have a cost controlled environment where they provide lodging for those who can't affor the floridian...in which case I'd say the moderates most clearly could do that if Disney wanted them to, and are clearly superior to the values, or you can say that disney should continuie to raise the prices until the market won't hold it anymore which would then negate the values being built for people who couldn't normally afford it to stay on property.

What this most certainly ISN'T is Disney doing everything they can to provide cheap lodging at maximum value for Disney so that they still make a profit and yet lend a helping hand to those that can't afford the other options. 75 dollar hotels are not bad. THESE 75 dollar hotels are bad.

raidermatt

05-26-2004, 03:04 PM

While I believe in his principles and their outcomes, I have never once stated that I believed his model is the "only" way WDW would or could work today.

If we define "work" as being financially successful, then I don't think we are really going to get very far. Even with the questionable decisions (AK, PC) and near-disasters (DCA), WDW, and the parks in general are working quite well, financially.

The only real question is whether they can meet their ever-increasing margin targets.

There's plenty of different directions they could go that would work.

That's why we have to look beyond financial success. Its just a minimum requirement of remaining a viable entity.

To Scoop's point, of course its impossible to prove that a different route would yield better long term success, as only real data would prove the point. Since anything that didn't actually happen is a hypothetical, there won't be any real data.

But if we aren't going to consider the possibility that a different route would improve results, there isn't anything to discuss.

kathylovesdisneyworl

05-26-2004, 03:38 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bretsyboo
[B]dude, you STILL didn't answer my question. I'll quote myself so you can reread it and answer it.

Trying to follow this thread. Who is "dude"?

All Aboard

05-26-2004, 03:51 PM

Financial success is a large part of the definition of "works". But, the financial success only follows the experience and the public's reaction to it. If they've found that the offering is not matched by others and provides a unique and valuable family experience, leaving them with a desire to return to it again, then I'd say it works.

All of the things I listed above do not contribute to this happening. I do think that the value resorts do. They are unique, they are interesting, (to me) they fit in with the flavor of WDW very well, and they are well received (from what I'm told) by the large majority of the guests experiencing them. And (while doing all of this) they offer the opportunity for more guests to experience WDW on-site.

KNWVIKING

05-26-2004, 04:12 PM

... I'm "dude", but I actually prefer Ken.

raidermatt

05-26-2004, 04:18 PM

If they've found that the offering is not matched by others and provides a unique and valuable family experience, leaving them with a desire to return to it again, then I'd say it works.

But that's the trap many fall into, as we can see on this thread. The public will pay for a lot of things. Using others as a baseline is only going to encourage a lowering of the bar in Disney's case.

We've seen it in other areas of Disney's business. The resorts did not magically escape.

All of the things I listed above do not contribute to this happening. I do think that the value resorts do. They are unique, they are interesting, (to me) they fit in with the flavor of WDW very well, and they are well received (from what I'm told) by the large majority of the guests experiencing them. And (while doing all of this) they offer the opportunity for more guests to experience WDW on-site.
I can't really disagree with anything you said here, other than possibly the "flavor" point.

But even if all of it is 100% true, if we want to hold to the true Disney strategic vision, that's still not enough.

Enough to succeed as a business? Sure.

Enough to truly be considered "Disney", and I think , gain even greater success as a business? Nope.

KNWVIKING

05-26-2004, 04:24 PM

Let's see if I can answer Bret's question.... how low is too low ?

Well, when there is mildew in the showers at Poly, Poly stops being Disney. When the carpets are thread bare at CR, bed springs poke you in the ribs at GF, you talk through a speaker hole mounted in bullet proof glass in order to check in at PO, it stops being Disney.

But I don't think that's what you're asking.

bretsyboo

05-26-2004, 04:29 PM

the speaking through the glass was close, I'm not talking about things like mildew I'm saying more of the initial plannings, you don't plan to have mildew in your bathrooms, you do build glass to speak through. I'm looking for something like Pop century minus, or motel 6 plus, or heck, motel 6 minus...

but like you said, you probably already knew that.

I'm not just looking for you to answer viking, I'm looking for any and all supporters of pop century, I'm also just looking for answers, not a fight. If I wanted to fight, I'd just do it on the merits of pop century, but I am looking for where everyones line is, how close we are too it, and how low disney can go and still be considered acceptable disney quality. my only response beyond clarification would be a thank you (if I wasn't too lazy to type that)

cristen

05-26-2004, 04:41 PM

how close we are too it,

Umm, that would be "to" with one O, not two. Too, means in addition to, also. You want "to".

Maybe you should have gotten one of those degrees in spelling. Because good spelling is necEssary for good journalism.

DVC-Landbaron

05-26-2004, 04:46 PM

OK! One person at a time, this time!!

First, Mr. Bear:
Do I have to repeat my Disney credentials again?
Sorry. I had indeed forgotten. But, I do admit to being a little bewildered. I mean, you say…

Repeated visits to WDW since 1972,
... And at the same time you make such seemingly uniformed and outrageous statements as:
Again, no Imagineer has the ability to magically alter the economics of the motel business.
It’s strange that you say you are frequent visitor since ’72, yet you conveniently forgot the way Disney simply threw out the “standard business model” when they built and priced the original three resorts. (Heck! They even threw away the model for a standard campground at the time!) And if you recall, they were booked solid for years in advance! Worked pretty well as I recall.
Oh, please. Disney charged what the market would bear then, just as they do now. If it was so cheap to stay on Disney property back then, just why was 192 loaded with Econolodges?
I think others have shown you the error of your ways. But it’s this type statement that had me wondering about your “credentials”. Surely you had to remember what it was like when the place opened and how the other resorts and hotels grew because Disney did not! How could you forget something like that!!!???
What, does Disney live in some magical vacuum where they can just randomly set prices for their resorts?
Again!! This type of statement goes counter to someone who ‘LIVED’ the Disney experience in 1972!!! Remember!!?? They did EXACTLY that!!
The pricing is dictated by supply (including off-site competitors) and demand. They couldn't have raised the prices for the "deluxe" resorts unless the market allowed it.
Of course they ‘couldn’t have’!! That’s not the point! Disney used to give a ‘value’ for EVERYTHING they did!! Does that mean it was cheap? NO! Does that mean it was inexpensive? NO!!! Does that mean that they always charged the top of what the market could bear? NO!! And this last was what created the “VALUE’!! How could you forget that, if you lived it back in ’72?
So you think that people that spend $109 a night don't deserve MORE than the people who spend $59?
Sounds as though you’re advocating magic (or Disney experience) as a commodity. Quite frankly I never saw that back in ’72. Did I miss something?
but there is simply no way that the costs of building and outfitting PC are even roughly equivalent to building a new deluxe.
I think Mr. Boo handled that one pretty well!! Don’t you?

bretsyboo

05-26-2004, 04:48 PM

Too, means in addition to, also.
I'd think you would have proof read before insulting me. I'm sorry let me rephrase that. I'd think a smart person would have proof read. With you I knew I would find an error. It is almost as though you think messing up in one of your posts is always necIssary.

cristen

05-26-2004, 04:59 PM

I'd think a smart person would have proof read.

All right Scoop, I get it. I'm stupid, and a whiner. You are a lot like Derek.

JERKFACE!

bretsyboo

05-26-2004, 05:02 PM

All right Scoop
that's playing dirty

KNWVIKING

05-26-2004, 05:42 PM

What board is this ?

bretsyboo

05-26-2004, 05:56 PM

ANSWER MY QUESTION!

BRERALEX

05-26-2004, 06:02 PM

What board is this ?

jeffjewell.org?

shameless plug

cristen

05-26-2004, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by bretsyboo
that's playing dirty

Hmmm...... I'll leave that one alone.

airlarry!

05-26-2004, 07:27 PM

Josh, I'm sitting on my porch with a sloooow wireless connection but I promise to get to your question tonight.

I would like to add to DB, Vike...err...Mr. Ken, and Josh that something struck me as funny today as I leafed through excellent posts that were wedged around a bizarre mating ritual between two obviously inebriated JJers.

Captain Pete bravely asked, if I may paraphrase, if any one of us are surprised by the 'success' (his words, surely not mine) of this new hotel. Poop is popular, it seems, according to the good Cap'n.

Does it really come as a surprise that a hotel charging under $80 a night, on site, with smiling CMs, mickey mouse towels in the window, reliable if boring bus transportation to the parks, themed (crappily) pools, and authentic Disney shopping.........has so far been a success, from a booking standpoint?

Wow.

Next thing you'll tell me is that when Moses parted the Red Sea, the Isrealites escaped. Or maybe announce, "Pearl Harbor Attacked! U.S. considering declaration of war against Japan!" Holy Not Surprising, Batman.

No, the real surprise would have been the exact opposite.

A little planning, mayhaps, like putting new parks situated with new resorts with two or three price points to attract those of different means. (cf Matt's plagiarism...err...research). ;)

You know.

Risk taking. Something Walt would frequently (though admittedly not always) do.

Or.

You could just blow $5 billion on Fox Family, build two hotels any high school FBLA advertising team could design, piss off John Lassiter, and declare the Ei$ner Doctrine of Tourism Containment, right DB?

cristen

05-26-2004, 08:03 PM

I really wish someone could post all the figures. I don't think this thread can go much further until we know some numbers.

Exactly how much does it cost to build these hotels? Of course the deluxes cost more, but exactly how much more?

Since we are quoting the AP rates for the values at 49.00-59.00 a night (because on their web site they are offered at 77.00, not 49.00), then I want to know why they can offer the values at 59.00 a night and the moderates at 74.00 a night? That's only a 15.00 difference. So that would tell me that the mods are not that more to operate, or to build. Otherwise they would have to charge a whole lot more to recoup the costs, correct?

So for 74.00 a night I get Port Orleans, for 59.00 a night, I get a giant poodle skirt. That's lame, and there is no other way around it. Who cares if it is a success (financial, no other), it's lame that that is what they are being offered.

And really, it is an eye sore. I was so impressed as I first drove into WDW for the first time, then I see Pop. What a disappointment. They at least could have put it somewhere where no one could see it.

bretsyboo

05-26-2004, 08:44 PM

wedged around a bizarre mating ritual between two obviously inebriated JJers.
This is completely untrue. It was not obvious.
They at least could have put it somewhere where no one could see it.
california adventure

DVC-Landbaron

05-26-2004, 08:56 PM

Exactly how much does it cost to build these hotels? Of course the deluxes cost more, but exactly how much more?
I know that many will not understand my response to this, but I'll give it a go anyway.

IT DOESN'T MATTER!!!

Read that post from the newest element member Ray:"That's why I love Walt Disney. It costs $100,000 to build a spire you didn't need. The secret of Disney is doing things you don't need and doing them well and then you realize you needed them all along." - Ray Bradbury

That's all that matters. Quality and WOWing creativity in conjunction with price = amazing "DISNEY" value!!

And that should have been the goal instead of those abominations that they did build!!

YoHo

05-26-2004, 09:26 PM

Originally posted by cristen
I really wish someone could post all the figures. I don't think this thread can go much further until we know some numbers.

Exactly how much does it cost to build these hotels? Of course the deluxes cost more, but exactly how much more?

Since we are quoting the AP rates for the values at 49.00-59.00 a night (because on their web site they are offered at 77.00, not 49.00), then I want to know why they can offer the values at 59.00 a night and the moderates at 74.00 a night? That's only a 15.00 difference. So that would tell me that the mods are not that more to operate, or to build. Otherwise they would have to charge a whole lot more to recoup the costs, correct?

So for 74.00 a night I get Port Orleans, for 59.00 a night, I get a giant poodle skirt. That's lame, and there is no other way around it. Who cares if it is a success (financial, no other), it's lame that that is what they are being offered.

And really, it is an eye sore. I was so impressed as I first drove into WDW for the first time, then I see Pop. What a disappointment. They at least could have put it somewhere where no one could see it.

There's this board run by this guy Jeff where a couple months ago, I started a big old multithread Resort costs behmoth that answers many of these questions.
Costs to operate resorts in 2004, costs from the old days. It's all there. I suspect you've been to this site in the past. you should check it out.

YoHo

05-26-2004, 09:42 PM

And just to clarify. This isn't about profit left on the table. Bret answered that, but not well enough apparently.

Look,
Right now, May of 2004, Disney could make a profit chargin $130 a night at the Poly. it wouldn't be a huge profit, but a profit. They charge what between $280-$1000 not counting discount codes or other annoying cheats? So, they make a 100% profit and up. Clearly, the market would bare a whole lot.Logically, all they should build are Deluxes, because they generate such a rediculous profit. sure, most of the plebes would be forced out on to 192 or I-drive, but they don't deserve Disney Magic.

Or, they build resorts that are NOT the poly, tha cost less, but not much less to operate and still make a hefty profit. Sure, the experience isn't the same, but heck, no pay, no play. The CM's will still make your towels into little animals and the pool is not a rectangle.

That's crap too. I don't have a hard amount that DIsney should leave on the table, becuase their isn't a hard amount.

The issue is that Disney should be uncompromising on what it means to be a DIsney resort.

There should be a list that says.
A Disney Resort MUST:

I would suggest to you, that if you made such a list based on the poly, you'd get a good fondation.

Then from that list you might say, okay, what on here is something that is less essential? maybe it's the resturants? certainly it could be location.... Now you have a Moderate/Value.

The Value resorts don't look at things this way. There is no obvious direct decending from Poly to Poop. There is one from say Poly to Port Orleans, or even CBR, although I think CBR took some wrong turns.

The money is only a side issue. The cost to operate is an answer to those that would say that giving us the Poly costs TOO DANG MUCH for a value, they'd lose their shirts.

Well, no they wouldn't actually. They'd make a profit at $130 thankyou very much.

So the question isn't how much they are leaving on the table, but why they choose to screw the value guests?

That's the reason that the former Imagineer plan for Hamurabi is so interesting. It acknowledges that the biggest difference between a Deluxe, a Mod and a Value is perception.

KNWVIKING

05-26-2004, 11:00 PM

Bret answered my question: He states that Disney should leave no profit on the table, so the rates Poly charge now are acceptable because that is what the market is willing to pay. A by-product of that profit margin allowed Poly to do a beautiful renovation of the pool, ( although I can't imagine why there is no hot tub) , maintain the lush landscaping and keep the resort staffed at a level to maintain 1st class service.

But obviously not everyone can afford Poly's market price. So what to do......

As I've stated in this thread & others, staying on-property is more magical to me then the actual resort. I've stayed in very nice resorts off property,Marriott, Radisson and Sheraton, but it just wasn't the same as staying on property.My DW is from a large family- 8 bro & sis. She is trying to arrange a big family trip to WDW. At this time in our lives we are very fortunate to be able to afford to stay on property, but some members of her family are not if AS/PC were not an option.

So is it better to raze the Value resorts and exclude those who can't afford a Poly or even a Riverside ? I don't think anyone in this discussion is snobbish enough to want to restrict access to only those who can afford the Poly so I will assume there is a need for an affordable Value resort.

Now, don't forget, Disney shouldn't be expected to leave profit on the table in order to accomplish this. The market sets the rate.

If I understand the message Baron & others are trying to express it's that Disney should build a Poly type Value resort but still be able to keep the rates low enough for the common man. Brett, I haven't "built the resort that goes too low" for you yet, but I'll ask you to build me a Value Poly.

After the New Poly is built to old Poly standards, what happens when Old Poly guests say "hey, I can save a few $$$ by staying at the New Poly. It's the exact same magic for a 3rd of the price. Now the market takes over. Old Poly has empty rooms, prices have to be cut,slashed,discounted out the whazoo. What a bargain, retro Poly pricing. But the same market affect is doing something odd to New Poly. Guests love it, place is booked months in advance. Can't leave that profit on the table- bump the price...bump it again...and again. Hmmmmm. What happened.

cristen

05-26-2004, 11:08 PM

IT DOESN'T MATTER!!!

There's this board run by this guy Jeff where a couple months ago, I started a big old multithread Resort costs behmoth that answers many of these questions.

Thank you guys. Of course I know it doesn't matter. But I got the feeling that part of Scoop's argument was that with the shoestring budget that was given to build these hotels, that that was all they could come up with. So I would like to know exactly how much they cost, just to compare. Not, YoHo, just how much the operating costs are. I know from that very long thread, and Boo's friend, that it's not that much of a difference. I was talking mainly about the building costs. And unless I was sleeping that night I was on, I don't remember anyone posting specific numbers on how much all the resorts cost to build.

So you see, YoHo, my friend, I was posing the question to different people on a different board. They may have never read that thread. :D

YoHo

05-26-2004, 11:55 PM

I believe that those questions were answered as well. At least in part.

Mr. Viking, we do not live in a black and White world. Some things however can be equated in such terms.

There is only 1 Disney standard. something either isn't a part of it, or it is. The shades of gray in profit margins however are voluminous.

I ask you how did Walt make the Happiest place on Earth? I don't know the whole story, but I do know that he never once, not once gave a flying fig about What the market will bare and neither did his sharp pencil brother. Walt would have created it at a fair price and not compromised his standards to do so.

In my opinion, putting What the Market will bare ahead of what the company should provide is a significant flaw in modern Disney and many other U.S. Corporations today.

Of course, given the fact that many a modern corporation is getting their tail handed to them in the buisness world and in the courts........

bretsyboo

05-27-2004, 12:28 AM

ANSWER MY QUESTION!

ANSWER MY QUESTION!

ANSWER MY QUESTION!

O.K., now moving on.

when you say: O.k. wait, I'm a bit frusterated so I'm first going to talk to cris

But I got the feeling that part of Scoop's argument was that with the shoestring budget that was given to build these hotels
It was confirmed that Disney pays off the building fees within 2 years of the hotel opening, and has always done so. The all stars are paid off already.

ok, viking, here we go, when you say:

If I understand the message Baron & others are trying to express it's that Disney should build a Poly type Value resort but still be able to keep the rates low enough for the common man.

You are wrong.

It's like saying that I think every ride Disney builds should be like pirates, I don't. I think Pirates is absolutly the best, but it doesn't mean I think everything else has faile,d or everything else needs to be pirates plus.

However I do feel that there are minimums I feel triceratop spin falls below that minimum, I feel that the american adventure is well above it. I'm not disappointed that neither are up to pirates standards (imo) I am disappointed that tric spin isn't up to disney standards. That is a HUGE point. Look I've already put a 130 dollar price tag on what Disney COULD be charging for the poly, that is above the "values" and I would certainly never expect to be charged below. But Port Orleans, as Cris points out, obviously COULD be charged the same rates as the values, and so there you are, you want a value resort I'd accept? Port Orleans, I've just built it for you.

Look, you have two choices and you can't have it both ways. Either you think Disney should take the profits or leave the profits. Either you think Disney should charge market value for every hotel, which if you believe the occupancy rates means you think they should raise the prices of the values....which would price them out of some peoples ranges and thus negate the "moral purpose" of the values, or you think Disney should lower the prices to some sort of flat profit % rate that doesn't exclude some segments of the population and therefore hotel prices would drop dramatically and the moderates would then easily fall into the affordable category thus negating the need for the values.

Any other solution is unfair. Guests are supposed to be treated equally. Making people who stay at the Poly pay market prices while having the values stay rent controlled is simply not an acceptable solution when talking about guest equality. Besides if you are charging a family that can afford the 500 dollar a night poly prices, but are looking at a 50 dollar a night value price...well plenty are going to be taking up those affordable value rooms and leaving empty unaffordable rooms for those who can't afford them as they get their hotel off property. This is why prices must be one or another, either what the markets will bear or what the resorts cost, tOO big of a devide will always come back to hurt you in the end.

So what are we left with? The idea that you can build a resort that is so tacky, and so, well pathetic, that the market will never let its "value" exceed the low prices needed for some families.

Perhaps this is the underlying perfection of the values. They suck SO much Disney knows that there is no way the public will price it out of anyones range. Genius.

Personally I see the market driving up prices at the poly to the extent that they have because the poly gives you such an experience that people are willing to pay outrages prices just to get a taste of that Disney magic. People who stay at the pop seem to do so because they want to be able to get tastes of other magic (food, park tickets, etc.)

Let the market price:

Hello guest, ff you want to stay on property and can't afford it, gosh I'm really sorry, but we build things so well that we are able to get 100% capacity at our hotels and we simply have no more room. Now rest assured that we are making plenty of money off of this and so because we are a good company we are not giving the profits away as stock benefits to the board, but instead expanding our resorts all over the world.

Because we have this capacity obviously we can build more hotels here, which while increasing our profits would at the same time lessen the strain on the other hotels and lower there price. Perhaps then you can afford one. Or maybe we will build a resot closer to your place of residence which would lower the strain on all other resorts, make us able to keep prices lower while making more money and lowering YOUR traveling expenses thus increasing your liklihood of being able to afford to stay with us.

Unfortunatly even in the beginning, even when it was just walt with disneyland, we cannot set our prices because someone may not make much money and live far away and have a lot of other circumstances that may keep someone from affording a disney vacation. All we can pledge to you is that we are putting this money to good use and the way we are doing it will not only make us more money, but also lessen the financial strain upon our guests.

Rest assured that we will never ever lessen our product just so you can stay on the grounds and have a cheap imitation of what a Disney experience is supposed to be like. That's not who we are. Each and every guest we have we are going to give it our all to give them the trip of their lifetime and that is why they are willing to pay the prices that they pay. We fully recognize that an oversized buzz light year or a giant yoyo does not fit in this description and we will not insult you or the Disney name by saying it does.

Let a % margin price:

Come on in to Port Orleans we are offering everyone a very fair price. Since all of our prices are comparable and easily affordable based upon what the public is willing to pay, you can be sure that people are quickly flocking to our admittedly better resorts and leaving you, who may not be able to afford upwards of 150 a night this still very good resort for about half the price.

You still get those great CM's, you still get magical transportation free of charge to downtown disney, you still get a spectacular and huge pool with a slide, you still get activities specific to your resort, you are still immersed in a theme, and most importantly we still try to give you the best Disney experience we can.

We'd love for every resort to overlook the magic kingdom on the beach front, unfortunatly those spots have been taken. Still, we recognized that not everything can be the best but we want you to know that we are commited to you not just being satisifed but having a truly magical experience.

Obviously some people like things better than others, and this may not be your favorite resort, but gosh have we put the effort into it so that you will enjoy your stay. We admit that motel 6 is cheaper, and if a hotel is nothing more than a bed and a roof, then it probably actually is smarter for you to stay off property.

However if you need our free of charge provided Disney transportation we are happy to inform you that the millions of little extras we give you will not hamper your need for a bed and roof in any way.

Also, you do not need to make a compromise because we have kept our prices so low. Pretty great that we are still offering you this hotel instead of another one in the middle of nowhere where the view out your window could well be the back of a fiberglass jukebox for the same price eh? Yeah, we know it's great, it's because we TRY to do our best with everything that we do, and frankly we are well aware that 5 coats of bright paint and cool it written on a roof top is nowhere near the effort needed to make something great.

We'd like to remind you that we know the Disney name means something and so we would never build an abomonation like that even if we only charged 20 dollars a night because the name Disney means something special to everyone, and we know that a hotel like that would not instill the feelings in our guests that we would hope to fill them with, and nothing but nothing means more to us then to show each and every guest that we are committed to giving them a trip where from the moment they step on property we will skimp on nothing because we love our guests and we know that in a world that does nothing but try to rip them off, that they are special, and such treatment will do nothing but benefit both sides.

Now, EITHER one of those options are acceptable ways to run Disney in my opinion. So....

ANSWER MY QUESTION!

cristen

05-27-2004, 12:54 AM

It was confirmed that Disney pays off the building fees within 2 years of the hotel opening, and has always done so. The all stars are paid off already.

This still doesn't tell me what I want to know!!!! First off, let's say the WL costs 100 dollars to build, and Pop cost 50 dollars. Then I want to know why the huge discrepency in the pricing. If WL cost 100 dollars and Pop cost 60, then I want to know why such the huge descepency in theming and overall apperance. If the WL cost 100 dollars, and Pop cost 10, then I know.

Telling me how long their payment plan is on this, is not helping me. Thank you.

bretsyboo

05-27-2004, 12:59 AM

you're welcome!

DVC-Landbaron

05-27-2004, 01:09 AM

The LandBaron rises and wildly applauds Mr. Boo!!!!

Bravo!!

Thank you Mr. Boo!!!! Very well said indeed!!!

ShadowWind

05-27-2004, 04:15 AM

Originally posted by bretsyboo
I've said it on the other board so I'll say it here. I had ZERO magic at the pop century that was caused by the pop century (I did say, look at maps at the pop century which gave me magic, but I could do that here...and do, and also the custodians putting the stuffed animals in the wondow was nice) Zero magic, Nooooo magic. Nothing about the pop century did anything for me, in any way, and like I said, I even expected it to! Would a motel 6 be the same? with the exception of stuffed animals in wondows YES! YES for me it would have been the same (only cheaper) It was a motel 6 with animals in some windows! Is that what Disney's aim should be?

Not to sound crass, but should the other hundreds of thousands of guests care whether you personally felt the magic or not at PC? I am a long time Disney visitor and I found both stays at PC to be quite magical and certainly an enjoyable time. Much more so than my disasterous stay at Port Orleans Riverside where it was the worst vacation I'd ever had at WDW. Not only did I get in an argument over a 45 minute key replacement, dealing with their stupid and archaic push button door system (which from an ECV is a nightmare), the bowel loosening bridges that shake an ECV to death, and the fact I had to explain to every darn CM that my Riverside Bank debit card was not a phony resort ID. I certainly wrote a scathing review. So going by your standard, they should tear down POR because I experienced no magic there, zip, nada. As far as decor, I live in the south and have travelled the region quite extensively, and all I saw was reproductions of the common mansions found here. But I do know that other people enjoy it, just as I enjoy Pop Century. The blast from the past back to days that were far more fun and much less hard than they are now, was just what the doctor ordered. I had a great time, looking over the icons, historical displays, and such. Made it fun and eager for me to get out of bed and go exploring. If you choose to see it as a Motel 6, it's certainly your perogative, but I've stayed at all ranges of resorts and motels, and I certainly wouldn't categorize it that way. It's not beautiful, but then some of the most enjoyable art isn't either. It's still art and to me it's still magic.

My advice. Just don't stay there again. There are 20 hotels or so on the property, serving all kinds of vacationers and their interests. I have the money to stay at the more expensive resorts. A 7 day solo trip generally costs me $2200 with all the fixings, so another $15-20 a night doesn't make that much difference, but I choose to stay at PC, because I like it and to me, it's magical and artistically fascinating.

To answer your question, when Disney creates a sterile and cold hotel like the hundreds I've stayed at in my travels. When it no longer presents something that can only be found there. When it stops to make the world outside reappear. Then it will be below the Disney standard in my eyes. I think DINORAMA and McDonalds bring in too much of the outside world. It's not even that they are tacky, but too off the shelf in experience. I don't consider Pop Century such a failure, because regardless of the decor, the whole experience to me is much more than fiberglass icons.

KNWVIKING

05-27-2004, 09:45 AM

***"Perhaps this is the underlying perfection of the values. They suck SO much Disney knows that there is no way the public will price it out of anyones range. Genius."***

In one respect, this is exactly why you build an AS/PC the way they did rather then a Poly. I'll come back to this.

***" Guests are supposed to be treated equally. "***

If you mean every guest should expect the same level of service regardless of the price they paid then I disagree. Every guest should expect courtious CM's, clean rooms and a safe enviroment, but don't expect turn down service at the Motel 6.

Back to the first point and I'll try and build your "too low" resort as I go. Disney chose a piece of less then prime realestate - not that it's bad land, but it's also not on the mono line or within walking distance to Epcot. This will restrict it's pricing. Placing the resort on land out near what I believe is affectionately refered to as "the muck pond" goes too low.

The Value resorts lack a sit-down restaurant - opting instead for a food court. Nothing wrong with a food court, but the lack of Boatwrights will discourage some guests, helping to keep the price low. "too low" would be no food option whatsoever.

The value resorts lack the lush landscaping and secluded pathways of the other resorts. People that intend to make the resort their vacation rather then the parks and other outside interest would be discouraged from staying here for this and other obvious reasons. "too low" would be brown sod & three palm trees at the resort enterance.

Value resorts are not quaint, cozy resorts, they are sprawling resorts with many times the number of rooms, (didn't I read where PC could have 10,000 rooms when -and if- completed). People who want and can afford to avoid such crowds will stay away, keeping the price low. I believe the PC building are no more then three stories. "too low" would be 10 story boxes.

Value resorts need functional check-in areas that can handle traffic efficiently. It is more a place of business then a comfort station. IMO the WL lobby has an unmatched WOW factor. If money isn't an issue, a stay at the WL is worth it for the lobby alone. People will never be drawn to PC for the lobby, helping to keep the price low. The lobby in the "too low" resort would include the afore mentioned bullet proof glass, thread bare carpet, a little table in the corner with a half pot of 6 hr old coffee, a three pound container of some off-brand creamer & sugar bags that have golden arches on them. The "CM" behind the counter .... well, I think you understand the point I'm making.

Many guests at a Value resort I assume choose to drive to WDW in order to save a few bucks. Large parking lot are needed. Many room views will be of parking lots & not fireworks. The parking lots will placed a good deal away so as to not ruin the feel of the resort as much as possible. The other resorts do a much better job obviously of hiding the parking lots, although I don't think any resort lacks at least some parking lot views. People that really enjoy sitting out on their balcony with a morning cuppa will be discouraged from staying at a resort with too many parking lot views, helping to keep the prices low. "too low" resort would have the guest room buildings sitting right in the middle of a searingly hot asphalt parking lot or they would build a 10 story parking garage & charge $8.00 per day to use it.

I'll build more later if needed but I should actually try & get some work done for my employer.

But I want to get back to my original point. There is nothing quite like staying on property, regardless of where you stay. Could PC have been built to my standard of a Value and looked a lot better, no doubt about it, but for whatever obscene reason, the people that do stay there - the average vacationer, not the Walt Disney purist - enjoy the place.

All Aboard

05-27-2004, 10:33 AM

So for 74.00 a night I get Port Orleans, for 59.00 a night, I get a giant poodle skirt. That's lame, and there is no other way around it. Who cares if it is a success (financial, no other), it's lame that that is what they are being offered. Yet, cristen, there are a couple thousand people every night facing that pricing decision and electing to choose the poodle skirt.

This thread still stinks of "you don't know what's good for you."

SnackyStacky

05-27-2004, 10:58 AM

Originally posted by gcurling
This thread still stinks of "you don't know what's good for you."

You give me ANY quote that backs that up.

I don't think that ANYBODY has said that people that enjoy pop don't know what's good for them. It's been simply stated that it's a huge departure from Walt's philosophies.

I don't see how much clearer that can be made.

bretsyboo

05-27-2004, 01:00 PM

Not to sound crass, but should the other hundreds of thousands of guests care whether you personally felt the magic or not at PC?
Boy oh boy, I was asked a question of what it was for me in regards to a motel 6, and I answered it, it was not a justification for anything, it was not a people should feel the way I do, it was nothing more than me answering the question the same as you reported your P.O. experience where I could then unfairly ask you if the millions of guests that have stayed there should care. I was asked, I answered, should I not have? The entire passage clearly states what it was for me, I used first tense the entire time, I didn't say pop century IS this, or DOESN'T do that for anyone, I said what it didn't do for me.

Might I add that it sounds like most of your PO bad experience was with cast members, so if we are using "my" qualifiers that you made up, then we ought tear down every resort. Did you appreciate the theme?

To answer your question, when Disney creates a sterile and cold hotel like the hundreds I've stayed at in my travels. When it no longer presents something that can only be found there. When it stops to make the world outside reappear. Then it will be below the Disney standard in my eyes. I think DINORAMA and McDonalds bring in too much of the outside world. It's not even that they are tacky, but too off the shelf in experience. I don't consider Pop Century such a failure, because regardless of the decor, the whole experience to me is much more than fiberglass icons.
I appreciate the effort, but your disney too low seems almost entirely based upon feelings, are you saying if there was a mcdonalds at the pop is would be too low for disney, and if so does that mean you feel that marketplace is below disney? I'm looking for something concrete that when they come back here with a mcdonalds on resort property you are going to be pissed, with meerly feelings I would have come back here for pop and been quite suprised. Of course I want to know what you think of the huge coke bottle at the all stars.

viking-the idea of building something you know huge segments of the population won't like so that it remains available for segments who can't afford the good stuff is obsene. It's disgusting. To say yes you can stay on property because anyone in their right mind who can afford to stay somewhere else won't be here well...gee...I wonder why we never heard that Walt quote.

As for guest equality, what needs to be done for every guest differs from ride to ride, hotel to hotel, restaurant to restaurant, etc. Still the effort remains the same throughout. What I mean by this is the effort to make you experience another world and have a dream vacation. You may like WL more than the Poly, but in both places they try to theme you, they try to get that wow factor. There is nothing obvious missing from either. If you were to be asked to picture a wilderness lodge you would picture the one they built. If you were asked about a polynesian resort, the poly would be a perfect illistration. Disney has never done anything to perfect authenticity, but when you step into the poly you feel like you were there, or at the least you feel like the effort to make it like polynesia is there...same with all of the other resorts.

Now picture a 50's resort. That's right, just like in the 50's there would be giant fiberglass dogs, Yoyos that act as stare cases, bowling pin shaped pools, and silhouettes of dancers blocking windows. Just like in the 50's your bedspread would be the timeless look of every decade that had ever existed (which turns out to be appropriatly themed for every decade) and the walls would be bare as could be with the exception of a poster on the wall dedicated to the current decade you live in that reminds you "hey! I'm in the 50's!" It's so dangerously real I have seen older guests cry for the good old days.

Pop century was always going to be nothing more than a cheap resort, so no effort was put in to making the guests feel the magic. They treated all of the guests equally throught all of the other resorts until they got to all stars, and somehow made it worse with pop. There was no care or respect for the guests. They made it extremely apparent that if you can afford to stay at the yacht and beach club then you are far more important then those who choose to stay at Pop.

As for your answers-am I to take them as a whole? All of these makes a non disney resort? Or does it just take one, or a combo, or something like that. If pop's food court went under a 2 year rehab, would it not be a disney resort for 2 years?

Yet, cristen, there are a couple thousand people every night facing that pricing decision and electing to choose the poodle skirt.

This thread still stinks of "you don't know what's good for you."

I suspect that if many guests stayed at a moderate for one night at 15 dollars more, and then stayed another night at pop, they would go back to the moderates.

is that you don't know what's good for you? I'd say no, but maybe. I don't blame anyone for taking a more economic route whatever their reasons may be, I don't blame anyone for staying off property. Disney is expensive. I do feel sorry for them that they can't experience fully what Disney is supposed to be like, and I don't think the values come close to what Disney is supposed to be like. I think the moderates are minor steps down from the luxury hotels, I think the values are off a cliff.

I think perhaps we are too far removed from Walt and his ideals and so people don't realize what Disney is supposed to be.

But hey Curling, glad you are still keeping up with this thread, and as so...

ANSWER MY QUESTION!

SnackyStacky

05-27-2004, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by bretsyboo
Disney has never done anything to perfect authenticity, but when you step into the poly you feel like you were there, or at the least you feel like the effort to make it like polynesia is there...same with all of the other resorts.

I agree with everything except the above. The Polynesian upset a lot of guests because the 2nd floor had no balconies - attempting to emulate Polynesian longhouses.

Just something to chew on. :)

YoHo

05-27-2004, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by gcurling
Yet, cristen, there are a couple thousand people every night facing that pricing decision and electing to choose the poodle skirt.

This thread still stinks of "you don't know what's good for you."

At the risk of making this quote.

Isn't that a very crass way of discribing exactly what Walt did?

There was nobody out their besides Walt himself clamoring for something better then the basic carny style amusment park. Walt knew better, Walt built better and people flocked to Disneyland. I'd be curious to know if a day at Disney cost more in 55 then your typical amusment park? I'd lay favorable odds that it did.

The Masses don't always know what's good for them, or more specifically, they don't always know that they are missing out on.

How many satisfied Poop guests stayed at the Poly in the Seventies? That would be an interesting figure to know with more relevence in this debate then the average person here likely provides.

If you've only expereinced the Deluxes at Market Value prices, how can you understand what you're really missing?

In another way, we aren't saying you don't know what's good for you (Greg, you are the posterboy for loving the values, so you must bare the brunt of all of this regardless of whether you want to). All we are saying is that what's good for you right now isn't Disney. It isn't what they, the Walt Disney Corporation SHOULD have given you, whether you like it or not.

George Lucas made Star Wars Episode 1. That's what I get for an Episode 1. It will never be replaced.

It's an ok movie in that it has lightsaber battles and Palpatine and R2D2, but it certainly isn't up to par with the Original Trilogy. It lacks the feel of a Star Wars movie. The pacing is bad. It's the Value resort of the Star Wars Movies. Fiberglass Lightsaber battles instead of real movie magic.

But YoHo, it made a lot of money and their are millions of people that love it.

Yeah, those people are wrong to think it's a Star Wars caliber movie, just like people who think the current Values are wrong to think they are Disney Caliber, even if they do find significant enjoyment in them.

Escalators and Shopping Carts.
Being enjoyable and being Disney are NOT the same thing.

KNWVIKING

05-27-2004, 01:21 PM

***"viking-the idea of building something you know huge segments of the population won't like so that it remains available for segments who can't afford the good stuff is obsene. It's disgusting. "***

You know as well as I do that your comment is an over simplification of the point I was trying to make about your first similar comment.

The reason a true Value resort can never be a replica of a Deluxe at value prices is because obviously the old Deluxe will be abandoned. A Value resort must provide a pleasurable experience for the guest at a price that will allow them to enjoy the magic of being on property. By all accounts from people who have stayed there, AS/PC is doing just that, without Poly guests canceling their ressies in order to stay there also.

***"As for your answers-am I to take them as a whole? All of these makes a non disney resort? Or does it just take one, or a combo, or something like that. If pop's food court went under a 2 year rehab, would it not be a disney resort for 2 years?"***

Never thought of them as individual resorts, but the more I think about it any one of those elements would make for a non-Disney experience. However, a foodcourt under rehab would not disqualify a true Value resort the same as the pool rehab at Poly and GF did not exclude them. Rehab's are not a factor in this type of debate.

YoHo

05-27-2004, 01:26 PM

It's a true mark of the misunderstanding between the "Element" and the Pixie Dust Junkies :teeth:

That Staying "On Property" is somehow the mark of what is or isn't magical.

As if an Army Pup tent in the Swamp with an LOS pass and a Bus stop would be Disney Magic. (OMG HYPERBOLE)

KNWVIKING

05-27-2004, 01:27 PM

***"The Masses don't always know what's good for them, or more specifically, they don't always know that they are missing out on."***

YoHo, this statement is correct for a lot of things in life, but I'm not certain it applies to WDW. Disney has done a great job of educating the public about what to expect from the property. Nobody checks into PC and later by mistake wonders into the Poly and "oh poop, if I'd known about this place I never would have stayed at PC".

SnackyStacky

05-27-2004, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by KNWVIKING
***"viking-the idea of building something you know huge segments of the population won't like so that it remains available for segments who can't afford the good stuff is obsene. It's disgusting. "***

You know as well as I do that your comment is an over simplification of the point I was trying to make about your first similar comment.

The reason a true Value resort can never be a replica of a Deluxe at value prices is because obviously the old Deluxe will be abandoned.

I think what you just said speaks volumes. There's a difference between a RESORT, and a MOTEL. If you're gonna build a motel, then charge motel prices for it.

the magic of being on property

What is the magic of being on property? Could you please explain that to me? If that were the case, then just walking along a highway "on property" could be construed as magical.

Never thought of them as individual resorts, but the more I think about it any one of those elements would make for a non-Disney experience. However, a foodcourt under rehab would not disqualify a true Value resort the same as the pool rehab at Poly and GF did not exclude them. Rehab's are not a factor in this type of debate.

I really find it funny that magic is being quantified.

All Aboard

05-27-2004, 01:31 PM

Yeah, those people are wrong to think it's a Star Wars caliber movie, just like people who think the current Values are wrong to think they are Disney Caliber, even if they do find significant enjoyment in them. A couple of quick thoughts (as I've entered the "less than 24 hours till my departure for WDW" Zone - so my glasses may get a bit more rosey from here on in.)

Lucas is selling Ep 1 and Ep 4 as full blown feature films for the same price. Disney is not selling ASMu and the Poly for the same price.

Is Ep4 Casablanca quality? Is it The Godfather or Citizen Can quality? Couldn't it have been?

KNWVIKING

05-27-2004, 01:31 PM

***" As if an Army Pup tent in the Swamp with an LOS pass and a Bus stop would be Disney Magic. (OMG HYPERBOLE"***

The only thing you left out of your rediculas statement was Matt's Pornorama.

***"It's a true mark of the misunderstanding between the "Element" and the Pixie Dust Junkies

That Staying "On Property" is somehow the mark of what is or isn't magical."***

Ooops, this board has Moderators. I won't comment.

bretsyboo

05-27-2004, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by gcurling
A couple of quick thoughts (as I've entered the "less than 24 hours till my departure for WDW" Zone - so my glasses may get a bit more rosey from here on in.)

Lucas is selling Ep 1 and Ep 4 as full blown feature films for the same price. Disney is not selling ASMu and the Poly for the same price.

Is Ep4 Casablanca quality? Is it The Godfather or Citizen Can quality? Couldn't it have been?
paleeez! my question!

YoHo

05-27-2004, 01:38 PM

OMG JOKING

My Hyperbole stands though, maybe they charge $5, spray paint some mickey sillouettes on the tent and a gator trap free of charge. :crazy:

Greg, some people, critics included would say that Eppy 4 is in fact that calibre of a movie, but more importantly, Lucas didn't make Casablanca or Citizen Kane. What relevence do they have?

That's like saying that the Poly isn't good enough, because some resort on Tahiti is better.

We can only compare Lucas to Lucas, just as we can only compare Disney to Disney. Walt Disney set a standard for what it needs to be to bare his name. That standard was well defined. the Values don't meet that standard. How many people enjoy them is irrelevent to those statments (that I would call facts)

KNWVIKING

05-27-2004, 01:53 PM

***"What is the magic of being on property? Could you please explain that to me?"***

There was a thread a long time ago that had some great answers to this question, although the question was posed as the topic and not a point-counter-point game of one-upmanship.

I've stayed both on & off property. I might not be able to explain "the magic", but I know I experience it when I'm on property. The easy answer would be to say EE or EMH, but for me at least it's not that. We stayed at Disney's Vero resort a couple years ago.....great resort. But every time I left the resort, I was back in the real world. There was nothing vacation-like driving up A1A. It felt no different then driving in my home town. We always have a car in WDW. Last trip I drove 200+ miles inside WDW. It never felt like I wasn't on vacation. I never once found myself thinking about my job back home, I was truely on vacation. To me, that's magical and it had nothing to do with the resort I was staying at on property.

YoHo

05-27-2004, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by KNWVIKING
***"What is the magic of being on property? Could you please explain that to me?"***

There was a thread a long time ago that had some great answers to this question, although the question was posed as the topic and not a point-counter-point game of one-upmanship.

I've stayed both on & off property. I might not be able to explain "the magic", but I know I experience it when I'm on property. The easy answer would be to say EE or EMH, but for me at least it's not that. We stayed at Disney's Vero resort a couple years ago.....great resort. But every time I left the resort, I was back in the real world. There was nothing vacation-like driving up A1A. It felt no different then driving in my home town. We always have a car in WDW. Last trip I drove 200+ miles inside WDW. It never felt like I wasn't on vacation. I never once found myself thinking about my job back home, I was truely on vacation. To me, that's magical and it had nothing to do with the resort I was staying at on property.

So that's a subjective opinion. When Disney World was built, that was a part, but only a part of what the Disney magic was right? and they didn't even have EE or Character Caravans back then.

There's a difference between what Disney established as the experience and what we see as the experience and historically, Disney has been dead set against altering their standard down to meet a minimum set by guests understand?

What you like is not relevent so much as what Disney builds is.

Here's a question for you, When the Moderates first opened, they were priced where the values are now. They offered a lower thrills, but still Disney experience. The themes, the settings all there. They didn't hurt Deluxe bookings

The Values don't provide that at all, yet clearly, Disney could have provided such an experience as the moderate without hurting the Deluxes, because that's exactly what they did do. So please, try to justify your claim of hurting the Deluxes by making better Values within the context of History.

KNWVIKING

05-27-2004, 03:36 PM

***"Here's a question for you, When the Moderates first opened, they were priced where the values are now. They offered a lower thrills, but still Disney experience. The themes, the settings all there. They didn't hurt Deluxe bookings"***

Uh, YoHo..... what's the question ???

***"So that's a subjective opinion."***

Of course it is. Isn't everything we discuss here subjective opinion ?

***"When Disney World was built, that was a part, but only a part of what the Disney magic was right? and they didn't even have EE or Character Caravans back then."***

I'm not extactly sure what you're trying to say, but back then they didn't need EE or CC, they had no competion.

***"....They offered a lower thrills, but still Disney experience. The themes, the settings all there. They didn't hurt Deluxe bookings"***

You mean those same Mod's that many vocal members of your car ridership insist are not Disney standard - with the possible exception of Dixie ? I have no idea what affect the Mods had on the Deluxe, but that isn't the point. Look at what you said -they offer lower thrills. You've basically proved my point. People didn't abandon the Deluxes for a resort with lower thrills. That's why you can't build a Clone Poly Value resort and maintain an economical price.

All Aboard

05-27-2004, 04:01 PM

Sorry Bret, I haven't read every word of this 15 page thread. Did you ask me a question?

All Aboard

05-27-2004, 04:04 PM

Here's a question for you, When the Moderates first opened, they were priced where the values are now. They offered a lower thrills, but still Disney experience. By this I assume you are giving a thumbs up to the moderates. I'm fairly sure that many of those arguing against the values carry the same argument against the mods - that they are, in fact, not Disney. That is why I really think when you boil it all down, battle through the miles of words and reasoning, we are arguing personal preference here.

bretsyboo

05-27-2004, 04:10 PM

my question, which is posed to everybody who supports the pop century resort is simple.

Pop century fits into what disney is to you, what would a resort have to be before it does not fit into the what disney is for you?

What I mean by this is (assuming you agree pop century is the worst, if you'd like you can substitute another resort) something along the lines of:

If pop century didn't bother to have bright purple walls. or If they didn't have pop century covers or if they had one less fiberglass decoration, or a combo of things, or a sweeping generalization such as someone on the other board said it's not a disney resort unless it doesn't have magical transportation.

I'm trying to find out on an individual basis where the line is for everyone here, obviously for some like me the line has been crossed, for others like you it hasn't...so what would it take to cross the line?

All Aboard

05-27-2004, 05:14 PM

Pop century fits into what disney is to you, what would a resort have to be before it does not fit into the what disney is for you?

This will stir the pot, I know, but it's an honest answer. Several examples... The Contemporary Garden Wings, The Golf Resort, the Townhouses, Fairway Villas and Bungalows, the Swan and the Dolphin. If they built the Disneyland Hotel on property at WDW, if any of the Hotel Plaza Blvd were built on property.

It would have to be:

1) Unthemed (I don't buy the "decoration" argument)
2) Not unique
3) Not possess elements that make it "fun"

bretsyboo

05-27-2004, 06:51 PM

1) Unthemed (I don't buy the "decoration" argument)
then explain...
Now picture a 50's resort. That's right, just like in the 50's there would be giant fiberglass dogs, Yoyos that act as stare cases, bowling pin shaped pools, and silhouettes of dancers blocking windows. Just like in the 50's your bedspread would be the timeless look of every decade that had ever existed (which turns out to be appropriatly themed for every decade) and the walls would be bare as could be with the exception of a poster on the wall dedicated to the current decade you live in that reminds you "hey! I'm in the 50's!" It's so dangerously real I have seen older guests cry for the good old days.
unless you basically can't decorate without theming I really don't understand how this can be considered themed.

What shocks me is with the very few answers I've gotten just how many hotels I've been to that fall under Disney.

In my college town, we are the Bulldogs, and we have the Buldog Inn, which contains the "themeing" of I guess, the bulldogs. There are pennants everywhere and a giant sign on the roof that says bulldog inn and has a cutout bulldog. Who knows, it might even be fiberglass. Last year there was an art thing very much like the 75 years of mickey where people basically painted up and decorated "or themed" statues of bulldogs (that were, yes, giant bulldogs, well 3 or 4 times their size) and this place basically bought a lot of them and threw them all over the grounds. It's also only one story tall and has a "breakfast" in the morning meaning you can go to the "lobby" and get a bagel or a donut and some fresh coffee.

Tacky? yes. Ugly? oh yes. Themed? Apparently so, definitly moreso than Pop or all stars. Disney? Yes.

At least according to this boards soaring standards of what Disney is.

DVC-Landbaron

05-27-2004, 07:36 PM

Yet, cristen, there are a couple thousand people every night facing that pricing decision and electing to choose the poodle skirt.

This thread still stinks of "you don't know what's good for you."
Hmmmmmmmmm. This should be a thread all by itself!!

Greg! What other choices do they have? Do you think that they really 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!

But it is your other statement that really grabbed me. And the instant I read it I knew my response. But only a couple of posts later, that motorcycling YoHo beat me to the punch with IDENTICAL thoughts!

The entire post is WONDERFUL, but these particular thoughts are well worth repeating:
Isn't that a very crass way of describing exactly what Walt did?

There was nobody out their besides Walt himself clamoring for something better then the basic carny style amusement park. Walt knew better, Walt built better and people flocked to Disneyland. I'd be curious to know if a day at Disney cost more in 55 then your typical amusement park? I'd lay favorable odds that it did.
To which I would add, “But not outrageously so!” I’ve always said that Disney was not cheap by any stretch of the imagination, it was only SLIGHTLY more expensive than their competition! And the “value” (or ‘what you got for it’) was light years ahead!!

And the good YoHo also wrote:
If you've only experienced the Deluxes at Market Value prices, how can you understand what you're really missing?
Bravo!! Well said!!

And lastly:
All we are saying is that what's good for you right now isn't Disney. It isn't what they, the Walt Disney Corporation SHOULD have given you, whether you like it or not.
I wish I would have said that!!

I guess it all boils down to liking what Ei$ner has created, in other words what is there now or…

---------- A different take on it… ----------

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!!)

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!

WELL, WELL!! What have we done!? Melded the Mods (which should be priced as the economies), seamlessly, into the Disney Standard. It’s really no different than the three tiered pricing structure that they had in 1972. It just takes it one or two steps further. And we have that wonderful Disney equation. That same equation that Walt “got” way back in 1955, but hardly anyone pays attention to anymore

Price + The Disney Experience = Tremendous VALUE for the customer!!!

And for those bottom line type, one more equation (more in line with business):

Tremendous customer VALUE = Undying brand loyalty + LOTS OF MONEY!!!!

For many, many, many, many, years into the future!!

BTW Greg! Have a wonderful trip!

YoHo

05-27-2004, 07:45 PM

Viking, you clealry haven't been keeping up, you should subscribe to the Element Newsletter.

It has been acknowledged that the Moderate are not inherintly unDisney and that even Walt himself had plans for such lowcost resorts. If you're going to tell me what "we" as a group think, at least try to keep on top of it. Oh sure, there's a fiesty Chicagoan who doesn't always like to agree, but even he's been willing to bend a little.

Here, let me explain it to you plain and simple.

There is absolutly nothing about the Value resorts that is intrinsically Disney in any way at all. NOTHING. Nothing about them matchs the standards set by this company back when they had standards. Not one thing.

CMs are not intrinsic to a hotel. Being on property, not intrinsic.

No, the intrinsic part is the theme, the staging, the set, the Story.

The Moderates from Port Orleans at the top to Caribbean beach have this intrinsic THEME.

There is no theme to the Values, there is no story and don't give me this isoteric it's telling the story of the twentith century bull doots, that's not the way Disney has ever told a story before. Disney Tells stories in a cinematic fashion. Storyboards, scripts. That isn't what the Values do AT ALL.
They are the shyster used carsalesmen of storytelling.

The difference at least in theory between the moderates and the Deluxes is simple,
Location, amenities, cost.
Those are not intrinsic values either.

This whole it's a subjective you don't like it I do, so you can't argue it is offensive to the imagineers who put so much effort into the original resorts. I can objectivly know how much work and what type of work was put into a resort and I cna objectivly know whether that work effort and type of work conform with the Disney standard for creating and therefore, I can know if something is Disney or not. OBJECTIVLY.

What I can't do is question whether say Greg really enjoys the All Stars. Clearly he does and that's fine, I have no problem with it, but that doesn't make the Allstars a Disney caliber resort.

The act of creation is not debatable and I dare any one of you to find me evidence that the attention to initial creation inherint in the Deluxes and mods is there for the values. If you can provide me evidence of the manhours of design and storyboarding and planning, I'll back down. We know what went into the Deluxes, because Disney is not embarassed to tell us. I'd like to see if the same attention to detail is their for the lower priced fare.

Or perhaps the unwashed masses don't deserve Disney quality?

If only we could limit the entrance to movies to only those of means and charge them an arm and a leg, then maybe we'd get somthing that wasn't a festering pile from Disney Animation. The masses can get Sleeping Beauty XV: Aurora gets a hangnail.

bretsyboo

05-27-2004, 09:32 PM

Sleeping Beauty XV: Aurora gets a hangnail.
keep up yoho, that's sleeping beauty XIV. Sleeping Beauty XV is Aurora pricks her finger again, and you really should check out Sleeping Beauty XXX, it has cameos from all of the princes.

YoHo

05-27-2004, 09:33 PM

since it's number XXX do the little princes show up too?

bretsyboo

05-27-2004, 09:34 PM

dang it yoho, I edited it while you were typing. Talk about a joke gone bad.

KNWVIKING

05-27-2004, 10:18 PM

The late Tony Randell was on a talk show years ago and remarked that he was trying to improve his vocabulary by learning one new word a day.

YoHo, was intrinsic your word for today ? Just joking, no offense.

I guess Greg needs the same Newsletter because he posted almost the exact same comment just below mine about the Elements opinion of the Mods.

Anyway, after I figure out what intrinsic means I'll come back and refute your subjective opinion.

YoHo

05-27-2004, 10:26 PM

in·trin·sic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-trnzk, -sk)
adj.
Of or relating to the essential nature of a thing; inherent.
Anatomy. Situated within or belonging solely to the organ or body part on which it acts. Used of certain nerves and muscles.

And, my opinion is Objective, but I haven't been talking opinion. I've been talking facts.

KNWVIKING

05-27-2004, 11:03 PM

Okay, tell me the facts. But first, answer me this: Have you ever stayed at AS or PC ? Have first hand knowledge of the theme,the story ?Greg has and he's not backing your team.

Tell me the cost facts. How much do three story high "big wheel" costs ? If the cost of all the plastic & fiberglass elements of the PC theme were added up, how would they compare to the cost of POFQ's theme elements, ( I picked FQ because I've stayed there). Did ME chose the theme as a means to build a cheap resort ? Please tell me the facts.

***"CMs are not intrinsic to a hotel. Being on property, not intrinsic."***

Totally disagree. I don't understand how you believe staff & location aren't ".....essential nature of a thing" .

That's all for tonite, past my bedtime.

Demosthenes

05-27-2004, 11:08 PM

Originally posted by DVC-Landbaron

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

$125.00 per night!!!

This is hyperbole. It is wildly inaccurate to compare the cost of a hotel room in 1971 and 2004 based solely on inflation. In order to have an accurate comparison of hotel rates it is imperative to compare recreational spending against overall spending in 1971 and 2004.

Based on the 1970 Census, in 1971 average household income was $10,622.00. Average discretionary household spending was $850. Based on the October 1971 Polynesian price, a week's stay at the Polynesian represented 24% of household discretionary spending ($203). Based on the 2000 census, the average family household income was $56,747, and average discretionary household spending was $10,782. Using a rate of $259 a night to represent 2001 Polynesian prices for the same time of year as the opening rate at the Poly, a week's stay at the Poly represented 17% of household discretionary spending ($1,813.00). A stay at the exact same hotel room in 1971 cost more as a percentage of annual household discretionary spending than it did in 2001.

Keep in mind that the often bantered about $29 room rate was a promotional rate that increased to $39 after only 6 months. Despite this, we are still comparing rack rate at a hotel that now routinely discounts 10%-35% off rack rate. When you factor in some of the deals offered today, the percentage rate drops to 12%.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p60-218.pdf
http://www.vought.com/heritage/years/html/h1971.html
http://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/P60-84.pdf
http://allearsnet.com/acc/faq_poly.htm
http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

YoHo

05-27-2004, 11:17 PM

They are not Situated within or belonging solely to the organ or body part on which it acts.

Cms and location are a part of every aspect of Walt Disney World endeavor. and are therefore, not intrinsic to whether or not a given resort is or isn't Disney Caliber. Clearly a resort that didn't have Disney CMs would be literally not a Disney resort. similarly, a Resort not Within the boundries of WDW cannot be a WDW resort and as AKL shows, view of a park is not intrinsic either.

But tell me, why this obsession with costs?

Last I checked, Walt Disney didn't care about costs, he cared about doing something RIGHT! If he had lived to make a budget resort himself, I'm sure cost--to the guest would be factored in, but cost of the design and construction would probably not have.

So please explain to me how the costs of the thing could possibly matter? Or are you saying that now costs do matter? Convient how costs started to matter at the same time that Disney started blowing its money on crapola like ABC.

For your information, I took one look at the values on the Vacation planner tape the year Sports and music opened. threw up a little in my mouth and started to wonder if maybe Micheal Eisner wasn't a complete moron.

And please stop using the words PC, Fiberglass and theme as if they go together. you're demeaning us all.

Poop has some really big decorations. There are some roadside amusments on old Route 66 that would be impressed and that's about it.

airlarry!

05-27-2004, 11:17 PM

My Gawd, this is the thread from hell.

I love it. But I'm still too swamped to get to Josh's question (although thank you Mr. Boo for continuing my long-suffeirng quest for answer to The Lowest Bidder--seems only our good friend, and normally wise person, Greg Curling has answered). ;)

But before I nod off, I must applaud Shadowind for giving us the birth of a new vocabulary for these hotels.

We've debated and hated rides like Trike and Prime Evil Whirled....cause they are off-the-shell (yes, it is kind of a code word).

Now, thanks to Shadowwind, we have "Off The Shell Resorts."

Deluxe, Moderate, and Off The Shelf.

I like it.

P.S. Greg Curling, you know I've always read and admire your thoughtful posts, but the Baron has you on this one. Other than the poster whose bad experience at the PO because of disgruntled CMs, no one else has actually spoken up to say that the theme of the Poop and ASmu and ASmo and *** is why they chose to stay there.

Can't we all agree that, perhaps, people may choose one side of the Off the Shelf World or the other because decorat...err...theme, but that in reality, people choose the OTS Hotels because it is a cheap place to get a nice shot of on-site, smiling CM, Disney branded magic?

This comes from a like-minded budget traveller who has done the exact same thing on two separate occasions.

YoHo

05-27-2004, 11:18 PM

Originally posted by Demosthenes
This is hyperbole. It is wildly inaccurate to compare the cost of a hotel room in 1971 and 2004 based solely on inflation. In order to have an accurate comparison of hotel rates it is imperative to compare recreational spending against overall spending in 1971 and 2004.

Based on the 1970 Census, in 1971 average household income was $10,622.00. Average discretionary household spending was $850. Based on the October 1971 Polynesian price, a week's stay at the Polynesian represented 24% of household discretionary spending ($203). Based on the 2000 census, the average family household income was $56,747, and average discretionary household spending was $10,782. Using a rate of $259 a night to represent 2001 Polynesian prices for the same time of year as the opening rate at the Poly, a week's stay at the Poly represented 17% of household discretionary spending ($1,813.00). A stay at the exact same hotel room in 1971 cost more as a percentage of annual household discretionary spending than it did in 2001.

Keep in mind that the often bantered about $29 room rate was a promotional rate that increased to $39 after only 6 months. Despite this, we are still comparing rack rate at a hotel that now routinely discounts 10%-35% off rack rate. When you factor in some of the deals offered today, the percentage rate drops to 12%.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p60-218.pdf
http://www.vought.com/heritage/years/html/h1971.html
http://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/P60-84.pdf
http://allearsnet.com/acc/faq_poly.htm
http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

One wonders why they need to offer deals today?

Demosthenes

05-27-2004, 11:23 PM

Originally posted by YoHo
The Moderates from Port Orleans at the top to Caribbean beach have this intrinsic THEME.

There is no theme to the Values, there is no story and don't give me this isoteric it's telling the story of the twentith century bull doots, that's not the way Disney has ever told a story before. Disney Tells stories in a cinematic fashion. Storyboards, scripts. That isn't what the Values do AT ALL.
They are the shyster used carsalesmen of storytelling.

When the Contemporary opened, the theme was, very loosely, southwestern. How did you know? Well, there was a southwestern bedspread in the rooms, a southwestern poster on the wall, a map of the WDW--oh, wait, that's not southwestern. Well, there was a giant southwestern tile mural, some restaurants with southwestern names, but not food, and a giant convention room turned gameroom named the "Fiesta" fun center. I'm sur it was the theming that kept this resort at 98% occupancy for all those years.

I am somewhat confused by the Golf Resort. I guess it had a golf theme. It was understated, but the view left no doubt that you were in a golf resort. They carried the theme to the blank white walls decorated with framed posters of the golf links and...a map of WDW. Still, a stay there undoubtedly transported you to a Golf Resort.

Demosthenes

05-27-2004, 11:29 PM

Originally posted by YoHo
One wonders why they need to offer deals today?

Who does? Look at the number of hotel rooms in 1971 in and around WDW as compared to today. Disney discounts to attract people away from off-property hotels and into their own rooms. They encourage the LOS pass to keep people on property. I think that is fairly obvious.

Phoebesaturn

05-27-2004, 11:46 PM

Originally posted by Demosthenes

Based on the 1970 Census, in 1971 average household income was $10,622.00. Average discretionary household spending was $850. Based on the October 1971 Polynesian price, a week's stay at the Polynesian represented 24% of household discretionary spending ($203). Based on the 2000 census, the average family household income was $56,747, and average discretionary household spending was $10,782. Using a rate of $259 a night to represent 2001 Polynesian prices for the same time of year as the opening rate at the Poly, a week's stay at the Poly represented 17% of household discretionary spending ($1,813.00). A stay at the exact same hotel room in 1971 cost more as a percentage of annual household discretionary spending than it did in 2001.

How is "Discretionary spending calculated and by who? What accounts for the "discretionary spending" increasing by more then 10 times compared to overall income incrasing by 5 times between the years ?

hopemax

05-28-2004, 12:17 AM

Demosthenes, Perhaps you would like to know where Baron got that $125 number. I had prices from 1972 (rate card), 1982 (Birnbaum Guide), 1989 (rate card), and since this was done in 2003, 2003 prices (Disney.com). I found a reference to the "CPI: lodging away from home including hotels and motels" back to 1967. I then proceeded to take the 1972 numbers adjusted them both by the standard CPI and the industry specific factor and compared them to what the actual hotel prices were in 1982, 1989 and 2003. As you can see, the actual 1982 rates were either the same or LOWER than adjusting the 1972 rates for industry specifc inflation. The must have been one hellavu long "introductory" rate. If they did infact raise the rate to $39, the 1982 rates would have to be considered even a bigger bargain.

Baron is incorrect to keep shouting the $125 number. He should be shouting $205 a night! However, do not miss the bigger picture. What is the cheapest published rate for the Polynesian today? It's certainly not $205, is it.

The rates were $29, $36, or $44 in 1972

Just CPI 1982: $67, $83, $102

Adjusted to 1982, industry specific: $76, $95, $116

Actual 1982: $75, $85, $95

------------
1989 CPI: $86, $107, $131

1989 industry: $112, $139, $170

Actual 1989 regular season (room categories had changed): Parking $175, Garden $190, Pool or Water $205, Marina $215, Lagoon (concierge) $235

--------
2003 CPI: $128, $158, $194

2003 industry: $204, $253, $309

Actual 2003 regular season: Garden $344, Lagoon $430, Garden concierge $440, Lagoon concierge $525

*************
Next thing, awhile back someone asked about comparing the rates to something other than inflation. So I dug around the Bureau of Labor Statistics, found the average wage for 4 industries which I consider typical within an average family and calculated how many hours a person would have to work to afford a room in 1982 vs. 2003. Here's what I came up with:

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

All Aboard

05-28-2004, 12:31 AM

Thanks Demosthenes for that analysis. On the way home yesterday, I was thinking of doing the same thing. You took it a step farther, I was going to just compare the rates v. average household income, but taking it to discretionary was the appropriate metric in this case. CPI doesn't provide information on affordability.

"It's certainly not $205" Hope, I've never paid a penny more than that. $179 the last time I stayed there.

All Aboard

05-28-2004, 12:33 AM

Do you think that they really CHOOSE the poodle skirt because they find it intriguing? I surely know that a lot of folks CHOOSE ASMOV because they find Andy's Room, Buzz and Woodie appealing.

hopemax

05-28-2004, 12:47 AM

What percentage of people actively seeking a room at the Polynesian are aware of the discounts?

Book through the website, you get the published price. Book through the travel company and just ask for a room, you get the published price. Book through a travel agent, you get the published price, maybe 10% AAA discount. Does 10% off the published price = $205?

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.

And once someone is able to do that, I'll ask they why do they publish the other rates in the first place! Why let all those people who pick up a WDW travel company brochure from a travel agents desk, look at the numbers and say, "Whoa, I didn't realize it was so expensive," and don't book a trip. Is that the best way to run a business? Don't you lose potential new customers that way?

ShadowWind

05-28-2004, 01:08 AM

I said that DINORAMA and McDonalds were off the shelf. I didn't extend that to the value resorts. So please don't give me credit for something I didn't say, because it's certainly not my take on things. I don't consider any of the value resorts to be off the shelf, IE a motel 6. If you do, it's your perogative I guess.

This discussion reminds me of the one we have in the art world where Picasso's work is often scorned as being unworthy. Many people will tell you that it downright sucks. A few don't realize that Picasso could paint masterpieces, but chose to be different. I hate his style personally, but I respect his ability as an artist whether he could paint as a master or not. The same holds true here. Pop Century is a new departure of style for Disney. It's obviously not your cup of tea and that's fine, but whether it's worthy or not is up to the patron, not to the self-appointed keepers of the flame.

Again, Pop Century has a story. Contemporary, IMO, does not. The southwestern theme is in stark contrast to the futuristic hotel it's supposed to be. It's own decor contradicts itself. Pop Century doesn't try to be anything but what it represents, which is the gaudy pop culture of America. On story alone, there is not much difference between the two, except PC is gaudy, so it must be bad. Just like Picasso, who you either like or find to be an eyesore.

I'm out of this discussion, because basically you all aren't happy unless everyone calls it Poop Century and says it sucks and that Walt would have turned over in his grave. Maybe he would, maybe he wouldn't. Eisner is in charge and Disney is not the same company it was in 1971. The entire spectrum of the industry has changed. Back then, Disney was the only real game in town. I liked Pop Century. I can't put my finger on what made it Disney as specifically as you like. I just thought it was and I know many others that do. I will stay there again and if that means that it supports Eisner's plan, well then so be it. I'm not interested in what Walt would have done or not done. I'm interested in what makes for a good vacation and as far as I'm concerned, PC and even AS does just that for the price point. As I said before, if it's not your cup of tea, there are other hotels for you to stay at.

bretsyboo

05-28-2004, 01:23 AM

funny, I'd say the contemporary is more like picasso, both works of genius you don't like :-)

oh, and here is the thing:

"I'm not interested in what Walt would have done or not done."

yeah, well I guess there you have it. If you don't care what walt would have done, then you don't really care what disney does. Afterall if they build a park you don't like, you can go to another park, you can go to another hotel, ride, store, yadayadyayada. Disney has inspired something in me, and I'm not one to want to see something I idolize disappoint me, so I care about anything it does

It's walt's company, he built it, he created it, and things out of respect for him should be done in his way. If walt decorated his apartment, and then rented it out to Eisner he would be pissed and I would pissed for him if shag carpet was installed.

DVC-Landbaron

05-28-2004, 01:43 AM

In order to have an accurate comparison of hotel rates it is imperative to compare recreational spending against overall spending in 1971 and 2004.WRONG!! That would suppose that Disney used or at least modeled the original structure (and the subsequent ten odd years afterwards) off the industry standard. And as we all know that is simply not true!!

Now if you want to talk about the current regime and inflation then I would have to agree with you. They are corporate robots, devoid of original thought, and HAVE to follow the industry standard, because by themselves they don’t know what to do!

But the original pricing structure that was kept in place for ten years or so (until Ei$ner got hold of it) was specifically NOT aligned with any standard except the Disney Standard!

And by the link you provided:
What cost $28.00 in 1972 would cost $119.64 in 2002.

What cost $430.00 in 2002 would cost $100.63 in 1972.

And Hope is right, even by the industry standard the current regime is raping the Disney experience, but she would stop there. I wouldn’t. I’d go all the way back to the time when people really believed in the “What Would Walt Want” thinking. And those men in charge at the time, after careful consideration, chose to ignore the ‘industry’ and instead price it the Disney way. And it worked pretty well, didn’t it?
Keep in mind that the often bantered about $29 room rate was a promotional rate that increased to $39 after only 6 months.Well now! That’s just simply wrong! Or at least that’s what I’ve been led to believe! Can you back it up? Can you refute Hope’s numbers? Please do so!

Despite this, we are still comparing rack rate at a hotel that now routinely discounts 10%-35% off rack rate.How sad that they not only have to follow the hotel industry standard, but they also seem to follow the ‘used car salesmen’ philosophy with this nonsense!

There used to be a glorious time, even before you were born, that such a slimy practice wasn’t needed! Indeed – the price was the price – ALL YEAR AROUND!!

When the Contemporary opened, the theme was, very loosely, southwestern.You’ve got to be kidding?

I'm sur it was the theming that kept this resort at 98% occupancy for all those years.Probably the only thing you and I agree on. No it was not the “southwestern theme”!! It wasn’t even the true theme of being… come one now… all together so he’ll know next time… that’s right… Contemporary!!

IT WAS THE PRICE!!!! – in conjunction with the Disney experience!! Pretty simple when you get right down to it, isn’t it?

Disney discounts to attract people away from off-property hotels and into their own rooms. They encourage the LOS pass to keep people on property. I think that is fairly obvious.
Again, how sad! They used to do that with creativity, ‘the Disney experience’ and the obscenely low relative prices! It created an overwhelming VALUE!!

Today they need cheap gimmicks and ‘blue-light’ specials. I find that sad, don’t you?

hopemax

05-28-2004, 02:02 AM

On the way home yesterday, I was thinking of doing the same thing. You took it a step farther, I was going to just compare the rates v. average household income, but taking it to discretionary was the appropriate metric in this case. CPI doesn't provide information on affordability.

But Greg, he didn't look at discretiony INCOME he looked at discretionary SPENDING Looking at discretionary spending doesn't provide information on affordability either. It includes monies spent on items the households couldn't necessarily afford, correct?

In 1971, very few people had a credit card, so in that case discretionary spending and discretionary income were probably very similar numbers. I don't think that is the case today, and I'm extremely hesitant to use a recent discretionary spending number as proof of affordability. 43% of Americans are spending more money than they earn in a year. That's why I went to a number of hours someone has to work strategy.

Tell me why I should accept discretionary income and spending as the same thing?

YoHo

05-28-2004, 02:11 AM

I'll just reiterate what Lanbaron said.

THE THEME OF THE CONTEMPORARY RESORT WAS FRICKIN CONTEMPORARY, NOT SOUTHWESTERN!!!!
The Archetecture, furnishings, linens ALL Contemporary styling. Heck given the modern Meterosexual trend and Trading spaces lifestyle, one wonders if the Contemp will receive a surge in popularity. The central concourse isn't called the grand canyon due to a southwest theme, it's becaus eof how big it is. The story then takes on those southwestern sounding names and murals to reinforce the name which was chosen by the shapoe and design of the building.

The THEME is most definatly CONTEMPORARY.

I'd also just like to add a Go Hope GO!!!

ShadowWind

05-28-2004, 04:18 AM

I promised myself I wasn't going to get back into this, but...

bretsyboo,
It's no longer Walt's company. He's been dead for almost 40 years now and no one that isn't sprinkled with pixie dust would expect a company to follow a ghost that lived in the 1960's to set the ideals and standards for a market that is nowhere near what it was back then. Ron Miller tried this with EPCOT Center. Despite the obvious differences in Walt's idea of a city and the theme park that EPCOT became, Miller tried very, very hard to maintain the legacy and the Imagineers created what I still consider their finest works. But while those attractions might have really enchanted the audience in 1982 because they were new, they had lost their appeal as the market changed by the late 80's. I remember one father who summed up Horizons by saying, "It's better than the outside." World of Motion, one of the most creative of the rides was said by Disney Imagineering in the Test Track book to be a "bad show." Die-Hard fans didn't think so, but Disney can't play to them or they would lose their shirt and so they are forced to play within the rules of budgets and market of today, not in 1971.

I was once a keeper of the flames, quoting Walt out of what I believed he would do or not do. I cared greatly, but it's amazing what being crippled will do to your perspective. I learned that such things weren't important and concerning myself with them, only made the experience less enjoyable. Once I freed myself from that care that the company was going to heck in a handbasket as those seem to think here, I was able to enjoy the ride much more and experience the magic in a wide variety of things. I am still fascinated by the culture Disney has created, and yes, I still am inspired in my work and art by a man who can turn a mouse into a legend. And I am still disappointed when my favorite attraction, restaurant, or whatever is taken away, but I can either whine about how it's so un-Walt like, or I can accept what I can't control and find pleasure in what is there. If I can no longer do so, I will find other places to spend my money. I would certainly miss Disney, but my eyes and wallet are not blinded by pixie dust.

Nuff said...

Demosthenes

05-28-2004, 06:10 AM

Originally posted by DVC-Landbaron

IT WAS THE PRICE!!!! – in conjunction with the Disney experience!! Pretty simple when you get right down to it, isn’t it?

WRONG! It was the proximity to the lone theme park, it was the amenities, and it was the Disney experience. When the CR and Poly opened, THEY WERE NOT CHEAP; THEY WERE EXPENSIVE! As illustrated earlier, a weeklong stay at the Poly at opening day rates cost 24% of the average family’s discretionary spending for the year. In 2000, a weeklong stay at the Poly, at rack rates, represented 20% of the average family’s discretionary income seeBureau of Labor Statistics from 2000 (http://www.clba.org/WEB_ARTICLES/How%20Americans%20Give.htm). While I would never argue that today's rack rates are cheap, compared to opening day on-site resort costs, today's rack rates are a relative VALUE!

Again, how sad! They used to do that with creativity, ‘the Disney experience’ and the obscenely low relative prices! It created an overwhelming VALUE!!

Today they need cheap gimmicks and ‘blue-light’ specials. I find that sad, don’t you?

While your argument about value (as specifically relating to the resort hotels) is clearly not true, I fail to find it sad that Disney is willing to discount their rooms. I'm not even talking about the value properties here; the SAME rooms are proportionally cheaper today for the average family than they were in 1971. When Disney discounts the rooms, the relative value, again for emphasis, FOR THE SAME ROOM as 1971, is greater.

Demosthenes

05-28-2004, 06:11 AM

Originally posted by hopemax

Tell me why I should accept discretionary income and spending as the same thing?

You're right. You shouldn't. See above.

Demosthenes

05-28-2004, 06:56 AM

Originally posted by YoHo
I'll just reiterate what Lanbaron said.

THE THEME OF THE CONTEMPORARY RESORT WAS FRICKIN CONTEMPORARY, NOT SOUTHWESTERN!!!!

...The central concourse isn't called the grand canyon due to a southwest theme, it's becaus eof how big it is. The story then takes on those southwestern sounding names and murals to reinforce the name which was chosen by the shapoe and design of the building.

Sure it was. And it was executed precisely. That explains the Grand Canyon Terrace, the Pueblo Room, and the Mesa Grande Lounge. Of course, it doesn't really explain the Fiesta Fun Center, the southwestern themed carpets, the southwestern bedspreads or the southwestern framed posters on the walls in the guest rooms. It almost seems like the storyboard concept lost the plot a little bit there, doesn't it?

The Archetecture, furnishings, linens ALL Contemporary styling. Heck given the modern Meterosexual trend and Trading spaces lifestyle, one wonders if the Contemp will receive a surge in popularity....

...The THEME is most definatly CONTEMPORARY.

Sure...TODAY! I'd say the resort has a cohesive Contemporary theme today; I just don't think that's always been the case.

For the record:

The CR has always been my favorite resort hotel, anywhere in the world.

Because I've stayed at least 1 night in every WDW hotel, I tried POP for 1 night. I wouldn't do it again. I want the amenities of a deluxe resort. It also doesn't have a theme I like. But it does have a theme, and it does offer Disney service and amenities. These resorts are booked solid with people who would be vacationing in Orlando, one way or another; and just like Walt took on projects to "pay the bills" (a direct quote from the Walt Disney Story), the value resorts represent a tremendous opportunity for profit for the resort. As dirty as it may seem, sometimes businesses have to remember that no matter how lofty your dreams or noble your goals, you have to be able to pay the bills. It is unfortunate that this seems to be the only motivating factor for Disney right now, and I certainly don’t think that this has always been the case. And one thing we probably agree on is that if a group of imaginers had approached Walt with a POP concept for a value resort, he likely would have scrapped the design and old them, “We can do better than this.”

KNWVIKING

05-28-2004, 07:51 AM

Check your mail.

airlarry!

05-28-2004, 08:31 AM

Shadowwind, excellent post. You seem to be in that gray area many of us find ourselves from time to time, balancing fear for the future with enjoying the present. But if you vacationed with me, you'd find out that there's still a twelve year old little boy inside of me who yells loudly to get on the Indy stunt show, will ride Space mountain three times in a row, stops for every Itsakoodoozle cart he sees, and was pumped when he finally got a picture with Robin Hood at Epcot. A happy guy, enjoying a happy place.

But when I get back, I always wonder what Disney will be like when my kids do the same thing my dad did with me...jaunting across the Gulf South for the family vacation.

The off-the-shelf (OTS) Poop Century gives me pause for Disney's future. It is *not* Picasso, IMO. In fact, do you not agree that "Rembrandt is to Picasso as Polynesian is to Poop Century" kind of breaks down a bit? I know where you were going with this, but it just doesn't fit.

Poop Century is exactly the phrase I borrowed from you. An off the shelf, decorated motel.

Look at how the original resort was built. You had plans for three or four hotels in a cluster around a lake all within sight of the Kingdom. You had a golf resort, whose sole function was to entice those golfing dads and corporate big wigs who might not like Mickey Mouse shaped waffles during their vacation. Notice that when you drive to it, you still see the monorail, the lake, the ferry boats, the castle, and the fireworks. Same thing with the campground.

Remember that Walt wanted 'moderate' style accommodations at his newewst project. But the question that everybody, including our friend Greg, is avoiding is an important one. Forget whether you enjoy saving a buck at the AS or Poop. Forget that the decorations are fun to look at. Forget that your father taught you to hate sit down restaurants as snobbish enclaves.

Ask yourself a question...should a person spending sub $100 be shuttered away from the rest of the Disney experience. People accuse me of being a snob because I frown at the 'theme' of the Poop. Hello! Don't you think The Prince of Central Park was thumbing his nose at you when he relegated us to outlying parcels on 'his' property? You want to talk elitism...try sticking the dirty sweaty masses like me out where you are miles from the Kingdom, and a 20-30 bus ride from Main Street. Prince Michael sure can't have us Wal-Mart shoppers mixing with his Grand Floridian Uptown Socialite Scene. That, my friends, is pure elitism.

Will I stay at Poop? I would have, before I met Baron. Now, I'd rather save up a little longer, to stay at a nicer place. I am not asking anyone else to do anything like that. I'm definitely not telling fine gentlemen who care about Disney like Greg and the Pirate who go all the time to spend more money upgrading their reservation. All I'm asking is that they recognize the difference.

Anyway, like someone said, to each his own, and we can agree to disagree. The moderates are not perfect, but they are much truer to giving the vacationer that fabled Disney experience than the AS and Poop resorts will ever be. And yes, I will be satisfied if you call the newest resort the Poop Century. ;)

P.S., Curling, I will admit to you that the ASMovies, where I have friends who have chosen to stay there just because of the decorations (when choosing of course an OTS resort), is one resort that is chosen, ostensibly for theme. In fact, I've had travel agents tell me that the ASMo is the harder one of the three to book, as it fills up first, with the ASMu, being a little easier to get into.