After a nightmare weekend with a DEAD computer - I tentatively try to catch up with an ever-broadening thread. I will do my best to stay on topic, but that ain't always easy for me folks!!!
BTW - where is that bunko squad? That essay of those last posts of mine and not one debunking?
Right here, SIR!! Reporting for duty, SIR!!
A compromise if you will - Oh, wait Walt wouldn't do that! - Well, yes he would, and did!
Well, of course Walt would compromise. He did it all the time. He had to compromise when
Disneyland was built. Remember? Tomorrowland or the rest of the park done right? Toilets or drinking fountains? Everyone compromises somewhat. He probably thought it was a compromise to hide his bourbon and donut habit from the general public. Walt was a showman. He wasn't stupid. And he was even practical at times.
So we have to look at HOW he compromised. Not that he was forced into it at times. Desperate times calls for desperate measures. But I didn't think that was the premise of your question. The way I read the question was, "What would Walt do, given the same circumstances that Ei$ner had?" Is that wrong? Did I misunderstand?
So I'll give you that Walt issued compilations. But what were the motivating factors behind the decision? Was it to reach a wider audience? NO!! Was it to pull one over on the public? NO!! Was it to make a fast buck? YES!! But why did he feel he needed to make a fast buck? Was it to line his own pockets? NO!! Was it to raise the bottom line on the quarterly report? NO!! Was it to acquire some mismatched company, boasting his own ego? NO!! Or could it be that maybe he needed a little quick cash to finance a "QUALITY" production? Perhaps he needed some funding to keep from going out of business completely? Yeah! I think you might reasonably assume that was the motivation. Especially given that after the financial crisis had passed, we saw no more of these things. Can we say the same of the motivating factors for the current regime? Sadly, NO!!
But guess what? The well had run dry. And tough choices have to be made.
I do love when you help me make my points (if I actually have one .) But what is to say that Walt would not have faced more of these choices in the future.
Well, that's an entirely different question than the one that was originally asked. Isn't it? You're now throwing things into the mix that may force him to compromise. And Yes!! He just may have done it. But that's not what I thought you were asking. I thought we were supposed to work off the same premise that Ei$ner has had. If that's NOT the case, then I'm answering the wrong question.
Of course he would have done whatever was necessary to 'stay afloat'. I suppose there may be a line he wouldn't cross, a watermark he wouldn't sink below, no matter what, but we never really saw him have to make that choice. So, I guess, given your "if pigs had wings" scenario, that yes, he would have considered building moderates. Or he may have said, "Nope!! Not for me!! Time to retire!!"
Given his track record I'm sure he would have found ways to put himself in more pickles that required him to make tough choices.
Nah! I kind of doubt it. Disneyland alone was making more money than he knew what to do with. He never took a salary more than $100,000.00 a year in his life. The ONLY thing that may have caused this kind of heartache would be EPCOT. His EPCOT. But we excised that from the equation because it destroys the very foundation of your premise and question. And if (and it's a mighty tenuous 'if') but IF EPCOT started to fail, I don't think he would still put Moderates into the existing "Vacation Kingdom" simply because it would have already been built up to the level that would automatically make profits like a money machine. And all that was to take place BEFORE the first shovel hit the ground for EPCOT. It would be a mature "Vacation Destination" that was fully built and 100% operational. All this in accordance with the master plan, which, by the way, has no mention at all of moderates!! They weren't even considered. As AV said. If you wanted a moderate, on the grounds, Hotel Plaza Drive was the place for you!!
Of course. The 'package' pictures were still quality, still 'Disney' - they were just something different - and that was ok. So, too, could a second type of hotel if that is what Walt felt was prudent at some point - and he would have done it with quality.
I do love when you help me make my points (and I actually have one .
)
The quick answer is that he would have NEVER felt the need. In fact, that's not only the 'quick' answer. It's the
only answer. You can tell that in a glance, just by looking at the master plan. NO DISNEY MODERATES!! The moderates were left to the hotel chains in the Hotel Strip.
The record speaks for itself if you choose to see it. So had the need or opportunity arisen Walt could have done a 'package' hotel.
You slip that word "opportunity" in as if it has some weight. IT DOES NOT!! He had the 'opportunity' when the concept of WDW came up in the first place and
deliberately decided against it, making provision elsewhere and NOT under the Disney banner.
And the "need" bit! Well, I see that as nothing other than some more "IF pigs had wings" stuff? I suppose you could "What if" the premise to the point that I would have to agree that he would have possibly, maybe, instead of going out of business entirely, built something less than he would have desired. IF the market crashed, IF the vacationing public deserted him, IF his EPCOT failed beyond belief, IF we were suddenly invaded by space aliens, IF the Cubs won the World Series ... IF... IF... IF...!!!
But given the same set of circumstances that Ei$ner has had, would he have built moderates? Just because he could? Just to capture a different market segment? Just to make money? The answer has to be NO!!
(BTW, you can say the same thing about the Floridian as well.)
When Walt did his new or different hotels that could be equated with the second generation hotels (read: 'moderates') of today, his motivation would not to have been to commoditize the hotels, but to make his dream available to more people (or save the company - he had to do that once or twice).
Again you're working with a poor premise. If he had 'wanted' to make his dream available to more people, the master plan, and Disneyland itself, would have addressed that issue. He chose not to. And the 'save the company' bit is more of the "what if" game. And one that I'm not very good at, because I simple don't see a feasible or possible scenario of that ever happening. To me, there are way too many "IFs" involved.
I don't think Walt would have built the All Stars as they are. I'll give you that Walt wouldn't have considered them good Show. But that doesn't preclude a third generation (read: 'value') hotel from being built.
You know, I talk and explain and reason, and you don't seem to comprehend.
HE ONLY BUILT "VALUE" HOTELS!! The Poly and Contemporary
WERE the value hotels. The price was ridiculously low. Which bring us to the next little bit in this thread. Cost.
Case in point. We just returned from Cape May, NJ. For an EXTREMELY basic room across the street from the beach, with no amenities and ants in the bathroom, we paid $229 a night. Other hotels (they are really motels) with a parking lot view go for more. There are some that are less - but for good reason. The Seaview Marriott, a rather lovely resort that is comparable to say the GF runs about the same as the GF. We are going up to Cape Cod next weekend - the Courtyard in Hyannis - and the room goes for about the same as the GF. I defy the bunko squad to find any resort destination that has a hotel like the GF (or any hotel - moderates included) that is any cheaper than the Disney hotels.
What in the world does any of this rhetoric have to do with Disney? SO WHAT!!
Look. The Disney "experience" is just that. An "EXPERIENCE". It's either there, or it isn't there. If you want to 'Maintain Walt's Standards" you have to crystallize what that standard represents. So it's decided that a resort is to be built on the grounds of what will become WDW. They have played with various themes and have settle on two out of the seven possibilities (the remaining 5 will be built within the next five years). They're going with a Contemporary "A" frame (mainly because by this time the author of the plan realizes that EPCOT ain't going to happen and he wants to leave a little taste of it on the grounds anyway) and the South Seas Resort, better known as the Poly.
Now! How do we instill in these "hotels" a "Disney Experience"? You start with theme. Then add a lot of WOW!! A monorail running through the resort. Real flames in the Tonga Torches. Lush vegetation. Sweeping concrete walkways and topiaries. Polynesian music playing underwater in the swimming pool and rock & roll playing underwater in the Contemporary. And then you decide what type of amenities. Is there to be a free news paper delivered every day? Do you give away a free continental breakfast? Should each room have a coffee maker? Those type things. And, if you're Disney, doing it the Disney way, you pay very little attention to what the rest of the "Industry" is doing and concentrate on what you like and don't like when you're traveling. And when you have your list you find out what it costs to put on a SHOW like that. Cause we're not talking about running a hotel here. That's just the nuts and bolts stuff you have to do in order to get to where you really want to be. And that's producing a SHOW. A resort SHOW. A "Disney" resort SHOW.
And when you finally cost it all out, you find where your comfortable profit margin is and price it accordingly. Then, and only then, do you look at the market to see if anyone will actually show up for what you HAVE to ask. And you find, much to your delight, that your price is SUBSTANTIALLY under the current industry standard for what you are offering. And that doesn't even put a price tag on that wonderful intangible commodity known as the SHOW!
So you come away with a totally different resort experience. Some things that are considered standard in the so-called "Deluxe" accommodations are not offered at the "Disney- experience" resort. And some things that cost you extra in any other hotel in the world are indeed included for the same low price. Is that pricing higher than a motel-6? Yes!!! Quite a bit more!! Indeed!! So, if you're vacationing on a budget, you may not be able to afford a Disney resort. But on the other hand, is the price lower that what you'd expect to pay in New York, Chicago or L.A for similar hotels? YES!!! Quite a bit less!! It's almost a steal!! It is certainly a "VALUE"!!!
You make Baronesque use of !!!!! regarding AKL savannah view. What do you think would be a reasonable charge for a nice sized room in an incredibly themed resort with lots of amenities and a giraffe right off your balcony?
Awe, come on!! That's easy!! If you decide that it should be part of the magic, it is done right or not at all!! In other words if you're not going to lose your shirt, it is priced EXACTLY the same as the rest of your resorts!! If you find you will lose your shirt, you have to forgo the concept!! It's just that simple!! Why? Because PRICE is part of the magic!! And a Standard is a standard!! Plain and simple!!
Again I ask - have you actually seen the All Stars and the AKL? Please - go look if you haven't. I assure you, if you spend any time at your resort there is a world of difference in the 'experience', as well as the hotels themselves.
I do love when you help me make my points (and I actually have one .
) My point precisely!! Just where exactly, in this mish-mosh of resorts, is
thee definitive standard? I'll tell you where it is. Out the window!! Ei$ner threw it away when he started lining his pockets with all the cash his Caste system was raking in!! (And as an aside, an issue we haven't talked about yet. In the process of throwing that standard out he randomly (YES!! I SAID RANDOMLY) plopped resorts all over the property and overbuilt it in the process!!) (how's that for a new thread topic!!
)
I guess Baron is with you in thinking that the AKL should only cost $99. Of course, Baron probably doesn't approve of AKL - but it is probably harder to find a better Show when it comes to a hotel. An actual savannah as part of a resort, with wild animals from across the world right outside your door. Rather unique if you ask me, innovative in the hotel world - something Mr. Disney might have thought of.
Ahhh! How little you know me. I think it's just fine!! It doesn't quite go far enough, but it goes a lot further than I thought Ei$ner & crew would go. It's just terribly overpriced!!
I have a question. I know Baron mentioned an analysis that showed WDW hotels grew 10x inflation since 1972. I bet that is based on peak rack at GF.
No it is not!! It's based off the Poly, regular room rate, for regular room rate. There were no discounts in 1972. And we based it off (I think) 1979 costs. Factored in inflation and found that an ordinary Poly room had more that doubled the inflation rate!! So when you think about the room rates in Disney, please keep in mind that the most upscale you could possible get was the Poly (or the Contemporary). And the most downscaled you could get was... well.. I know!! The Poly (or the Contemporary)!! And it was given to you at a little (not much but a little)
BELOW the current Moderate rates!! I'd call that value. Wouldn't you?
I believe, based on what Baron has taught me , that Walt's standard would be Quality, Safety, Courtesy, Show and Efficiency.
Well... I don't want to quibble... but... Quality would be inherent in the SHOW aspect!! You wouldn't want a quality item put before safety. "It killed 45 people!! But boy oh boy!! Was it a Quality Kill!!!"
If the original hotels grew too expensive through inflation, he would have found a way to make more hotels to give everyone a chance.
That's not possible!! Inflation is inflation!!
I doubt he'd roll over in his grave over $84 a night for POR. Even if they could have made the Show a bit better (which Walt would have), that is quite a value.
NO!!!!! You still don't get it! He didn't care about VALUE, for value's sake!! He only cared about 'value' AFTER the SHOW or how it related to the SHOW!! But NEVER value alone!! Remember? Safety, Courtesy, Show and Efficiency! SHOW first. Efficiency (cost, price, demographics, marketing, etc.) later!!
Ahhhh! It's good to back!!!
.
.
- does it really matter - you know what I am trying to say.
But s/he is included in the regular room rate for the hotel which provides the service. Just because there is another hotel that doesn't provide the service and doesn't have the cost in the rate means that no hotel should? 
(yes, soon to be 4, but time will tell if the rumored 6/2003 opening will happen)
began discussing WDW hotels vs the CY and how one was a better value. Discussion took a detour into relative value of resort destination hotels. While I agree the rhetoric has nothing to do with Disney per se, it is on point regarding relative value of WDW hotels vs others. I agree that a WDW resort vacation is an experience. Your whole diatribe on what makes that experience is rather superfluous - I am well aware of what makes the experience. The way subsequent hotels were done at WDW, the current second generation hotels get half way there - the third generation hotels don't get that far. However, Walt could have done them with the full experience.
