DEBATE: When does the "Disney Experience" cease to exist?

[DVC-Landbaron]

OK!! I think it may be time to regroup. Something I've been trying to do for a while now with Mr. Kidds in particular. So, no quotes, no conversation and no 'snappy' comebacks. Just a simple position essay, which I really don't want to debate as almost all of it is very subjective, and one single solitary question (asked many different ways, of course. I'm regrouping, I'm not changing personalities!! )!! A question that I hope is answered in the spirit in which it was given.

Quality and Experience of a Disney Resort

It is my subjective belief that the "guest experience" of either the Poly or the Contemporary defines what Walt & company was after when they first had a notion to build and operate resorts. And it is also my firm belief that this 'concept' or 'standard' (if you prefer) was not an accident or random occurrence, but was given deliberate consideration and very careful planning in each and every aspect of the design, operation and implementation.

I don't know how they did it. I was not there for the process. But I can imagine. I can imagine studies being performed, disseminated and analyzed. I can imagine task groups charged with certain questions gathering information. I can imagine reports being typed, spreadsheets being used and data collected from any source available. I can also imagine smoke filled rooms where "resort" discussions took place. Groups of people sitting around an office and comparing traveling notes. What they liked about certain hotels, what they didn't like, what they thought was superfluous and what they thought they'd include in their own resort. And I further imagine that this conversation would cover a wide range of concepts, ideas, feelings and personal preferences. Things as small as the type of matches left in the ashtrays (yes ALL rooms were smoking back then), pillow size, desk lamps, bed size, newspaper delivery, cost to the guest, you name it, it was brought up. And lastly I imagine Walt passively at times and very actively at other times giving his final word on the subject!

I guess if you disagree with the above paragraph then we really don't have much to talk about. Skip the rest because it will make little sense to you, cause gales of laughter and you will find yourself talking to no one in particular, asking aloud if this guy has got a brain. And I really don't need that kind of abuse!!

However, if we believe that the design of the theme, structure, operation, amenities and implementation were not random or capricious acts, then it seems to me that we MUST concede that deliberate thought and careful examination took place. We MUST believe that they talked about these things and for one reason or another they decided that what they included was officially approved and stamped - "Disney". I subjectively accept this as a given. And I would think that anyone who agreed with what has been written so far would also agree.

So, where does this leave us? Does this mean that we can NEVER change anything? Does this mean that these are the Standards we are stuck with FOREVER? No! Again, it is my subjective opinion that we do not have to maintain the status quo. If fact, again subjectively the way I interpret Walt's philosophy, we MUST strive to improve the SHOW (experience) at all times! Disney, the way I read it, is COMPELLED to change those standards in an effort to enhance the guest experience.

And here's where it gets sticky. I firmly believe, subjectively, that every time a change is considered, no matter how minute or inconsequential that change may appear, it MUST be for the improvement of the SHOW and for no other reason. It CANNOT be price driven, profit motivated or a in consideration of efficiency!!

If they decide to change the brand of pillowcases, they really have to consider HOW this affects the experience. Their motivation might be to cut costs, but that doesn't matter. Does this change live up to OR EXCEED the standard that was set? If it does not, THEN DON'T DO IT!! If it does, then by all means, have a ball!! Change what you like!! This goes for ANYTHING, any change, any modification, including (and maybe the most important) price!

Now, since price has reared it's ugly head, let's tackle what most people believe is my most convoluted premise. I believe subjectively that value plays an vital role in the experience. I point to the original concept for Disneyland. Here was a place that was sooooo far ahead of the competition that a comparison is really pointless. EVERYTHING was theme, even the ashtrays and trash cans!! Grounds immaculately manicured. Street and sidewalks so clean you probably could have eaten off them. Restrooms sparkled!! Innovation everywhere you looked and ride experiences that were never even considered before. All this for only slightly more that the local, dingy, dirty, rat infested amusement park was charging. That was the magic. That was the experience! Disneyland was at least 100 times better than the local offering. If they charged 100 times the going rate would it have been as magical? And at what point, monetarily, does it completely cease being magic and is nothing more that a rip-off?

Therefore, it is my strong subjective belief, based on that thought process, that if prices are raised, beyond inflation, the 'experience' is diminished. Again, I hearken back to the original resort concept. The finalized list of "things Disney" is presented for the group and they all agree, even Walt, that THIS is the definitive "Disney experience"!! So now they must put a price tag to it. The ledger is a blank page. They could write in it anything they want. They decide, after much (or no) debate, that the price would be comparable to a Holiday Inn. Now THAT'S magic!!! If they had decided to charge more, the magic of that 'value' declines. If they decided to double the amount I believe that hardly anyone in the world would have considered it a Magical experience! Now, I understand that technically the "experience" hasn't diminished one little iota. The same table and chairs still are in use. The soap is the same and the palm trees haven't been relocated. But the OVERALL experience, the one which includes price, has been substantially lowered!!

Now, it is an objective fact that things changed when Ei$ner took over. Two things happened. The first, which doesn't get much press around here, but is undeniable nonetheless, is that prices were raised EXCEEDING what the normal rate of inflation would have been. The second was that he had resorts built with standards that varied from the originals. Those are facts! OBJECTIVE facts. I don't think anyone can refute them. The Floridian and the Caribbean were both built within this time frame and they both carry DIFFERENT standards, from each other and the two originals.

Ok! So, it is my considered subjective opinion that this very concept SUCKED!! First off they took the "value" away from the original Disney experience. By raising the prices so outrageously they damaged the experience. And second, they muddied the waters soooo badly that even after 15 pages, ardent Disney fans cannot agree on what those standards were, much less are, or even more important, what they should be!! He reduced the entire experience to theme and theme alone. Ambiance, comfort, amenities, little Disney" touches", quality, feel, price, value and even decorations (All-Stars) have become so mixed up that the true Disney experience has become lost.

And of course a third thing happened when these two concepts were employed. And it is my subjective opinion that this is the very moment when the Disney Magical Experience went from being an all-inclusive concept to a commodity. The more you pay, the more "magic" you get. Yep! Magic, for the first time, went ala carte!!

Now, one could argue that this isn't a bad thing. That by raising prices, profits rise. As a stockholder this pleases me. And that by lowering the standards more people could afford it. And as a people kind of guy this pleases me as well. All very well and good. And it's awfully hard to refute. But I can't help thinking that this is NOT what Disney is all about. This is NOT what was envisioned when Walt paced off the property in Anaheim. Quality was the watchword. Value was the key. And those two concepts, in my humble and very subjective opinion have become lost in the shuffle of corporate greed!

The end!!



Now for the ONE question!!
(restated many times - LandBaron style!!)

Ladies and Gentlemen of the DIS:

At what point does a Disney Resort stop being Disney? How far from the Standards (not only the original or my standards but any standards) do we have to go before it is no longer a "Disney Experience"? Is there a cut off? Is there a point that a far worse CEO could go when the "experience" ceases to be Disney? Or does having the same zip code suffice? And how would you objectively or even subjectively draw that line?

Thanks,

Your friendly neighborhood LandBaron!!

 

[Testtrack321]

When the guest can get a better experence at another hotel or park NOT because of thrills, but the lack of imagination (come on, we hate Pop, but it has Imagination) and Diseyified things (things well thought out before hand and hand sculpted to match and perfect other things from previous resorts and parks).

A Holiday Inn with parrots is a Holiday Inn with parrots, but the Polynesian uses music, water, plants, scluptures, AND service that Disney can only offer.

 

[BRERALEX]

shortly i think a disney resort stops being disney when i have to come to a newsgroup to see if im not the only one that feels the resort is crap and it's not just me.

"If it sounds like some of this research was simply recalling what day-to-day America was like for the decades in question, the designers hope that the effect on guests isnt much different"
"youll be amazed at how many times you'll walk through, look at something, and say, 'oh i forgot about that!"

thats from an article in the latest disney magazine. When disney has to write an article about one of their new resorts because they know the "theme" of it sucks and they are insecure about there chosen "theme" then to me thats not disney.

And what happens when i finally do pass by an icon that i know it's there will i smile and have a great disney experience to recall when i get home?

"While it was easy for the Imagineers to pick some of the giant icons for this Walt Disney World resort{duh} (for instance, the 1960's area gets a touch of Flower Power in it's swimming pool). it took more thought-and two years' worth of research-to decide upon others."

did everyone just read that. TWO YEARS. lord help us all.

I dont mind the disney magazine promoting a new hotel i mean thats what its for to market everything disney to us but this article was more of them trying to sell the resort to us. Trying to tell us "hey we didnt jkust throw up some b.s. icons we researched-------for two years!!!!!!!!!!!!

When i read a simple article like that one and read between the lines that they are so insecure and dont want us to see right threw this idiotic "themed" resort it stops being disney for me.

And it really stops being disney for me when i have to keep referring to great things disney in past tense like i did this year.

"i remember when they were open till 12am for free no enight."

 

[Planogirl]

At what point does a Disney Resort stop being Disney? How far from the Standards (not only the original or my standards but any standards) do we have to go before it is no longer a "Disney Experience"? Is there a cut off? Is there a point that a far worse CEO could go when the "experience" ceases to be Disney? Or does having the same zip code suffice? And how would you objectively or even subjectively draw that line?

One thing that always struck me was how truly simple the original Disney resorts were. They were comfortable and attractive and unpretentious. They had a reasonable amount of theming, many nice little Disney touches and a quiet atmosphere. A person could go to the parks and go wild for the day and then relax back at their resort.

I guess that a Disney resort stops being Disney to me when it starts to choke on its own theming. Something like Pop Century seems to be so determined to be heavily themed that it's lost all semblance of style and taste. It's simply too much! It makes me want to run screaming to the nearest quiet Doubletree (a personal favorite).

I can think of a few other resorts like that but I won't get into critiquing other people's favorites. Let's just say that Las Vegas is supposed to THEME while Disney is supposed to provide an overall and more subtle experience. A kindler, gentler themed resort if you will with the superlative Disney service and the little touches that Disney once handled so easily.

This is, of course, VERY subjective.

 

[Walt's Frozen Head]

I had to riff on a couple specific passages, first, but I'll eventually get around to answering your question... kinda... probably.

I firmly believe, subjectively, that every time a change is considered, no matter how minute or inconsequential that change may appear, it MUST be for the improvement of the SHOW and for no other reason. It CANNOT be price driven, profit motivated or a in consideration of efficiency!!

One of my favorite "old sayings," and the one probably most misleadingly semi-quoted in the history of language, is "the love of money is the root of all evil."

I believe your statement is correct for any kind of business... if you're not there to improve your product, it would be better for all of us if you just quit.

Disney's wane and Enron's implosion have exactly the same root cause: executives who were more interested in making substantial spreadsheet entries than offering substantial products or services. The differences are only of scale, not the intent, methods, nor motivations of the executives.

I understand what you're saying in context, but on a larger scale, I don't believe the criteria should be reserved only for Disney.

Now, since price has reared it's ugly head, let's tackle what most people believe is my most convoluted premise. I believe subjectively that value plays an vital role in the experience.

I hate that word. Value plays no part in my Magic.

Value is what you get for 99 cents at Wendy's. Value is what you buy by the bale at Sam's Wholesale Club.

I have many problems with Pop Century and the All Stars, problems aesthetic and philosophical, but their classification as "value" resorts I find dead-on.

Don't get me wrong; I again understand what you mean. I think there's no doubt that early WDW pricing represented a genuine bargain on a superior product. I'm resigned to price increases, even larger than inflation, as inevitable in the pursuit of high quality. I won't grouse much about price unless it's growing while the product is deteriorating.

If someone created, today, a park that captured the essence of 1971 WDW, executed with today's superior media and technologies, I for one would save whatever it took to get there (once our WDW APs expire in November, our next Disney trip will require passports).

What if I proposed that focusing on "value" is just the first step down the slippery slope?

Aside: I really have no idea how "family affordable" WDW was in the early days... I was six in the summer of '72 and didn't have to concern myself with such things. I just know what that kind of quality would be worth to me, now.

At what point does a Disney Resort stop being Disney? And how would you objectively or even subjectively draw that line?

It goes back to the "improve your product" thing. Each of us has our subjective opinion of what, really, that objective "product" was... the essence of WDW's Magic.

This won't be the first time I've lamented the loss of WDW as a vacation world, self-contained and isolated from this ordinary world. A truly hardline interpretation of that position might suggest "no monorail" means it's not in Disney World, but I am forgiving to the extent of the Boardwalk area hotels (you can actually get to two parks via alternative transportation... and if you're willing to walk through EPCOT, technically, you can get to MK without encountering the outside world) and the Wilderness Lodge (I'm a sucker for the launch. It's likely time inefficient, but we regularly got to EPCOT from WL via launch to the Contemporary then the monorail. When you're not standing on a bus, the trip can be a delightful part of the vacation).

So that's where I objectively draw a line... the Seven Seas Lagoon/Bay Lake resorts and the Crescent Lake resorts are Disney resorts (well, except for the two that aren't Disney resorts, in any sense).

Subjectively, I think the extent to which a resort contributes to the "isolated vacation world" theme should be the measure. All of the above objectively qualified resorts also meet my own subjective Disney Standard on that measure.

-WFH

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Well!! Just some observations so far.... And in order of appearance.

Scoop!

Disney stops being Disney when we decide that it is no longer unique, special, something extra that it isn't the first place we think of when we think of a family resort.

I don’t mean to pick, but that’s rather obvious and about as vague as vague can be. In fact it really is just a re-statement of the question in declarative form. I’m asking what specifically through explanation or example would it take to reach those depths? Where do you draw the line? What’s acceptable and what’s not? Of course we’ll all stop going when it’s no longer special to us. But what would it take to get you to that point?

BRERALEX

And it really stops being disney for me when i have to keep referring to great things disney in past tense like i did this year.

Ah! How well I know that feeling!!!!

Planogirl

One thing that always struck me was how truly simple the original Disney resorts were. They were comfortable and attractive and unpretentious. They had a reasonable amount of theming, many nice little Disney touches and a quiet atmosphere. A person could go to the parks and go wild for the day and then relax back at their resort.

PERFECT!!! How nicely put! I really wish I would have said that. It wraps up the “experience” so well!! Thanks!

Mr. Head!! Always a pleasure to talk to you!! And not surprisingly I agree with nearly everything you say! Nearly everything!

Value is what you get for 99 cents at Wendy's. Value is what you buy by the bale at Sam's Wholesale Club.

Yes! I see what you're saying, but I’m a little hard pressed to find an alternative! But may I suggest that you DO value these things. I VALUE family time. I VALUE my kids. I VALUE my good health. Things I hold dear I value. Things that are important to me I value. And things that exceed my expectations I value.

I value (or at least my wife does) buying toilet paper for less than she would normally expect. And when that happens she enjoys the VALUE of it. I would think you would feel the same way. That nearly everyone would. And I contend, that when the product is ‘magic’ or ‘experience’ instead of a commodity there’s really no difference. I think you’re hung up on the following concept:

I have many problems with Pop Century and the All Stars, problems aesthetic and philosophical, but their classification as "value" resorts I find dead-on.

NO!! I don’t agree at all. I find NOTHING of value there. Nothing I would hold dear. Nothing that exceeds my expectations. That is a word Disney coined to trick the masses! There is no value there and they are not ‘VALUE’ resorts. They are CHEAP resorts! Period!! Does that help solve your problem with the word ‘value’?.

I'm resigned to price increases, even larger than inflation, as inevitable in the pursuit of high quality.

I suppose I could agree if (no wait that if ain’t nearly big enough) IF (there. That’s better) there was even a hint of that high quality pursuit you mentioned. But there isn’t!! They were pursuing bigger paychecks only. and that really pis.... ah... well.... bothers me!!!

If someone created, today, a park that captured the essence of 1971 WDW, executed with today's superior media and technologies, I for one would save whatever it took to get there

Ditto!

Aside: I really have no idea how "family affordable" WDW was in the early days... I was six in the summer of '72 and didn't have to concern myself with such things. I just know what that kind of quality would be worth to me, now.

Answering the aside: A room in the Poly cost 32 or 33 bucks a night! Not bad. YoHo did the math and found that the cost today would be right around the Mods (a little less if I recall right, but I'm sure Mr. Kidds will correct me if I'm wrong)! (Hmmm, kind of like the ole LandBaron’s been a- sayin’ for nigh on to two years now, I reckon!!)


Come on! Keep them cards and letters coming, gang!! Where do YOU draw the line!!!???

 

[DisneyKidds]

DVC LandBaron, it is nice to meet you . My name is Mr. Kidds . You may not know me but I have recently seem a number of your posts. It appears that we both, along with so many others who frequent this wonderful board, share quite a love for Disney. While I can't profess to agree with all of your positions, it appears that you have spent a great deal of time exploring your feelings for something that is important to us all. Sometimes tough love is the best kind of all, and the only kind that will work. I can respect that. You appear to possess a great deal of knowledge regarding not only WDW, but Walt and many other things Disney. I hope we can take the opportunity to learn from one another's perspectives.

How's that for a fresh start? Honestly, I mean it.

I find your position essay quite fair, honest, and thought provoking. A very good job of conveying your beliefs and feelings, and relating them to the resorts of the World that we all love. I actually agree with an awful lot of it. Your question is a tough one, one that requires quite a bit of thought. I like those kinds of questions . I can't say we won't go more than a few pages on some of what we are bound to discuss, but I will endeavor to make it, for the most part, new.

Now, there are a few things we could jump into from the get go, like the commoditizing of Disney, the present day value of Disney resorts, and.....well, we'll get there later, but first and foremost your question must be answered.

There is just one thing to clear up before I do that, and you know on what - you even knew I would correct you. Adequate, relevant math has not been performed on the present day price of Disney resorts relative to 1971 prices. Rough math, yes. However, it did not use indicies which are applicable to the subject at hand. Granted, rack rate today is beyond what an appropriately inflated 1971 price would be. However, the actual prices that I have been quoted for various times of the year for Disney resorts are not that far out of line with an appropriately inflated 1971 price. My research has shown that the rate of lodging inflation has outpaced the CPI. We can debate the specifics, and you can state that it is a self fulfilling prophecy, but is is very likely that an appropriately inflated 1971 Poly rate would be two bills, give or take - pretty much what I have been quoted for the Poly over the past two years. However, this is nothing I haven't said before, so in repeating this I have already said too much. If we could possibly identify the prices for rooms at the Poly for every year since 1971 I think it could make a fascinating case study. I anyone has any leads let me know. With that out of the way I hope to move into new territory.

At what point does a Disney Resort stop being Disney? How far from the Standards (not only the original or my standards but any standards) do we have to go before it is no longer a "Disney Experience"? Is there a cut off? Is there a point that a far worse CEO could go when the "experience" ceases to be Disney? Or does having the same zip code suffice? And how would you objectively or even subjectively draw that line?

In my completely subjective opinion, Disney Resorts stop being Disney when they no longer provide the WDW going public with more than what they want. An important qualification - if you want a deluxe resort, you should get more than what you want in a deluxe resort. If you want a moderate resort you should get more than what you want in a moderate resort, if you want a value resort.......However, if you want a deluxe resort, you can't evaluate a moderate resort against what it is you want in a deluxe resort. Now, none of this provides justification for dumbing-down the experience, as you like to say (boy, I hate that expression), just because someone might want one of those tube type accomodations that you can find in Japan (hey, that would be an exotic theme - but I digress) or like to stay in a roach motel (hmmm...audioanimatronic roaches anyone?). While providing people with more than what they want, there still has to be the Magical ability to put the guest in a place removed from the everyday cares of the real world. While providing people with more than what they want, Disney must also provide an expeience that is unique and, with successive resorts, is unlike anything that can be found in another theme park based destination resort. While providing people with more than what they want, Disney must provide an experience that is capable of inspiring awe in the eyes of the guest. The range of human emotion, of human opinion, of human preference, is simply too large to draw a line in the sand and say that only something at this level or that level can be Disney if it does not provide the public the diversity they crave. Sure you can say that Walt gave people something they didn't even know they wanted. However, that can only be taken so far. In some things, like resorts, even those things that people didn't even know they wanted have to be attainable. Sure, you can say that if a certain standard was established when the Disney folks first contemplated a Disney resort that that particular standard should be unflinching. However, Disney theme parks were created for people to enjoy. I realize that all the people will never be able to enjoy them. I am not naive. However, is it unreasonable to think that the Disney theme park and resort experience can be made available to more of the people? If that can be done while still 'wow'ing the guest, providing the guest with a unique experience that gives them more than what they anticipated it would be, and exceeding expectaions it most certainly can be Disney. So maybe people want less if it makes it affordable. So they might have lesser expectaions for room size and amenities. Does this 'dumb-down' the experience? No - people aren't stupid. Anyone who stays at a moderate resort knows that it isn't going to be the same as a deluxe resort - but that is ok so long as those things that I mentioned above are realized. So how 'low' can you go? How much 'less' can a resort be than the 1971 Poly. Well, I really don't know. With the AS we are at Motel 6 level accomodations. What I do know is that, so long as the things I mentioned above are accomplished, anything is possible. I, in my subjective opinion, think that the AS does some, but not all, of what I mention above. As such, in my subjective opinion, they fall a bit short. However, they didn't have to. Change a few things and, smaller, boxy rooms and all, it could be Disney in my eyes. But therein lies the pitfall of subjective definition of Disney resorts - something you, Baron, have been lamenting during our lengthy discussions, but something that is truely unavaoidable.

So, what are the biggest challenges to my view of what a Disney resort can be? Well, it is the fact that everyone views things differently. While I have stayed at just about every Disney resort, I still walk around POR or CSR in awe. Sure, I may be in awe of different things than I would be walking around the Poly, but that is OK. Someone else might walk around CSR and do nothing but yawn. Someone else might walk around the AS in awe while I don't. Expectaions are another problem. As with anything in life, improperly set expectations will ruin anything. If you go to any moderate resort expecting to have a great time that expectaion will be exceeded. If you go expecting to get great service that expectaion will be exceeded. If you go expecting CSR to be the equivalent of the Poly you are sure to be disappointed. Circumstances can create big problems as well. For someone who seeks to go to a moderate resort for reasons of spending a little less, if they go and have no preconcieved notions, if they go willing and able to accept and be immersed in the experience, they are going to be 'wow'ed. On the other hand, if someone is forced to go to a moderate because they can no longer afford what they truely want, a deluxe, there are bound to be problems. Unfortunately, not everything in the world/World can be all things to all people. However, an attempt to make it more things to more people is certainly fair game. With that, the guest experience should not take a back seat to margin. Some feel that is all that happened when resorts strayed from the Poly formula, but I don't know that I agree with that.

Well, I think I have rambled enough for now. As difficult as the question is, I'm sure I'll refine my thoughts, out of personal desire as well as out of necessity, as the discussion progresses.

ps - LB, check you PM.

 

[Walt's Frozen Head]

There is no value there and they are not ‘VALUE’ resorts. They are CHEAP resorts! Period!!

I know, big fella... equating the modern consumer connotation of "value" with "cheap" was precisely what I intended to do... I largely agree with what you said, that riff was just a semantic tangent concerning a term that is so regularly used to mean only "cheap" that I find it impotent to describe its original denotation.

Occasionally my fascination with the fancy tricks our language can play (or my disgust with the vulgar things it can twisted into) obfuscates my intended message. Just ask any of the old school Car #1 folks...

That's my gift... agreeing with people so verbosely I appear contrary.

-WFH

 

[DisneyKidds]

there is a barely noticeable, yet very important, transition from the Florida Department of Highways to Walt Disney World. The grass gets a little greener, the road a little smoother and the view much more controlled.

Scoop - I toyed with throwing this out there as well. I thought about it primarily when reading WFH's subjective line on the beach and how the Seven Seas/Bay Lake and Crescent Lake resorts make his Disney list due to the "isolated vacation world" aspect they present for him.

For us, a resort doesn't have to be a walk, monorail or boat ride away to be part of what we view as the "isolated vacation world". That is a direct result of what I would say is the not very subtle, and very noticible, transition you make once you set wheel on Disney property. Nothing says we have arrived at WDW more than that Magical change that happens once you hit property, and that starts on the roads - the very first thing that hits you squarely on the jaw. So, the fact that you might have to drive to a resort has never bothered us. We rather enjoy being out and about on property. It actually adds to our experience. For those who are the type to compare and contrast, the transition you speak of only reienforces that you have entered another world, an "isolated vacation world" that is very different from the real world. That doesn't necessarily have direct relation to the resort question, but it can explain how one could view "lesser" transportation options as not being a deal breaker.

 

[montessori]

I find this thread very informative and entertaining!
I have some strong opinions about "all things Disney", although they may not be quite as defined as the ones expressed so far. I won't attempt to put my 2 cents worth in though, I feel like I'd be writing an essay for final exams in college...and I'd probably get a "D"!

I appreciate the time and effort you all put into writing your posts.

Thanks!

 

[Another Voice]

I stand in the plaza between the two parks in Anaheim.

On one side I can see the ghost of Walt running out to me. “You got see this, this is really amazing! We thought of this idea and we’re all really excited about it. You like pirate movies? Me too! Well we made one, kinda, but this time you’re in it! It’s something I always wanted to do, you know, like be in the middle of a pirate battle! Com’on, there isn’t an adult around here that didn’t want to be a pirate as a kid! And come back next year kid – you want to see what a haunted house looks like inside?!! We’re wasting time; this is going to be fun! Come ON!”

On the other side I see the flickering video image of Eisner. “You want to see the place kid, that’s fifty bucks. Hey, we got a roller coaster. Our marketing department said people like roller coasters, so we bought ourselves a roller coaster. Man, let me tell you, those were some tough negotiations to get the price down. It’s lunch time, you can eat at our Wolfgang Pucks. But think it’s like the one down at the mall – this is an upscale Pucks. Hey, quality costs. Com’on kid, hand over the money. There might be other people behind you wanting to get in. Move it, I ain’t got all day.”


Disney stopped being Disney when its soul switched from creation to commerce.

 

[Bstanley]

Great word pictures AV.

Reminds me of the 'Old' Las Vegas compared to the 'New' Las Vegas. I've been going to conventions in Las Vegas for more years than I'm willing to admit and have seen the remaking year by year.

The Old Las Vegas was strictly for 'Guys and Dolls'. It was tacky, rude, raw, and direct. It was basically a mugging - you walked into a linoleum floored, garishly lit area and they took your money away without so much as a bye your leave...wham, bam, thank you - get out.

The New Las Vegas is now like an expert pick-pocketing. You've got extraordinarily themed areas to hold your attention and quiet entertainments with ever so pleasant people that assist you - and all the while they are gently separating you from your money with such skill that when they're done you actually look forward to the next time! LOL!

Disney WITHOUT the show will not be able to make the money needed to maintain themselves.

The irony is that Disney WITH the show can make great piles of money - much more than they do now...

 

[scooby-the-doo]

Originally posted by Another Voice
Disney stopped being Disney when its soul switched from creation to commerce.

But it was always about commerce. MK was only built to finance Progress City.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

scooby-the-doo,

But it was always about commerce. MK was only built to finance Progress City.

Was this tongue in cheek or can you really not see what AV was talking about?

 

[BRERALEX]

back to that disney magazine article lolol

to me if the resort was done right done disney, they wouldnt have to try to sell it to us and justify what was put into it. i just read and see the insecurity in that article, whereas if it was truly disney and done in a walt type standard they wouldnt have to sell it to me.

Id be sold on it.

id know it was done right id know it was disney. disney of old. not disney of 'how much did we save on this resort' instead of the disney i knew which was 'no doubt everything possible has been done to make this experience unforgettable. no where else in America can you come and get an experience close to this' Not an experience "like" this but an experience here that nowhere else on the planet can come close to.

It's stops being disney to me everytime i go lately!!!!!!

 

[hopemax]

The New Las Vegas is now like an expert pick-pocketing. You've got extraordinarily themed areas to hold your attention and quiet entertainments with ever so pleasant people that assist you - and all the while they are gently separating you from your money with such skill that when they're done you actually look forward to the next time! LOL!

I've compared the old Disney too a gigelo. He may not be interested in anything more than your wallet, but he understands the best way to get the money is to wine you, dine you and whisper sweet nothings in your ear.

I compare the new Disney to a junkie. The need for the next fix is growing stronger by the day. And they're being more and more brazen in their attempts to get the score.

 

[HorizonsFan]

OK, here goes...
What makes Disney resort for me is not berms, pillowcases, butter, ashtrays, palm trees, beds, color TV's or (insert amenity/feature/perk here). All those things make the resort a fine hotel, but don't make it Disney.
What makes a Disney resort for me is being in the middle of WDW, in a place that is commited to a theme and excellent service. I know when I step out of my door(whether that be into an interior corridor or an outside walkway) I'll be:
1.) very close to a WDW park
2.) surrounded by a theme (whether that theme is appropriate or not is another debate!)
3.) surrounded by Cast Members who are commited to making my stay special
4.) safe, and
5.) very well entertained.
These things combine to make my experience "magical".
That "magical" experience is not available anywhere else. It is a commodity found only at a Disney resort. This commodity, like any other has a price. The more rare a commodity, the higher the price. The price of rare commodities does not follow the cost of living index. The price of rare commodities is based on what someone is willing to pay. I'm willing to pay...
When outside forces, be they cost-cutting measures, shoddy upkeep or rude CM's begin to intrude on the things that make Disney resorts a rare commodity for me, I will feel that the "Disney" is slipping away. The resort will have slipped back into the realm of the ordinary and will lose it's rarity. At that point I won't be willing to pay.
I know some of you have reached that point already; I haven't.
I hope I never do...

 

[Planogirl]

A lot of folks here feel like Disney being Disney involves being immersed in the magic and not having to deal with the day to day hassles of the real world. Well, Disneyland is smack dab in the middle of the real world. Everything is right there just outside the gate and there's no real feeling of immersion. And yet the Disney magic is strong there. Maybe it's not as strong as it once was, I didn't see it before but it feels good to be there. It feels "right".

So, if that is the case and I'm not delusional, how does Disneyland still manage to be Disney?

 

[DisneyKidds]

Originally posted by Planogirl
A lot of folks here feel like Disney being Disney involves being immersed in the magic and not having to deal with the day to day hassles of the real world. Well, Disneyland is smack dab in the middle of the real world. Everything is right there just outside the gate and there's no real feeling of immersion. And yet the Disney magic is strong there. Maybe it's not as strong as it once was, I didn't see it before but it feels good to be there. It feels "right".

So, if that is the case and I'm not delusional, how does Disneyland still manage to be Disney?

Good question. I believe that it represents an entirely different discussion from this one.

First off, this discussion was started out in relation to Disney Resorts. While there are now Disneyland Resorts, it didn't start out that way. Resorts were not a part of the original DL plan. Therefore, it becomes very difficult to determine what respresents Disney by way of resorts at DL. Can the DL resorts even be compared to the WDW resorts?

Secondly, WDW is much more of a complex interaction of theme parks, resorts, water parks, and other entertainment (granted, the water parks and other entertainment weren't in the Master Plan) than is DL. The intent of DL was to create a theme park, better than anything that existed in the day, that families could enjoy together. Dare I say it? Perhaps Walt was short sighted in that goal. He didn't envision the extent to which the surrounding environment would effect DL. DL didn't start off as a place that would provide escape and buffer from the 'real world'. Enter the Florida Project. A chance to correct the mistakes and shortcomings of DL, particularly with respect to the surrounding environment. Walt purchased enough land so that he could create his Magic, at first with a theme park that was very much the same as DL (Walt's only true, willing sequel?), and keep it safe and protected from encroachment by the outside world. WDW was designed to be more of an escape, as a place to be 'protected' from the outside world, a place where outside influences could not effect the Magic, whereas DL wasn't.

In comparing the Magic of DL, I would say you have to go to more of a micro level at WDW. The Magic of DL would be better compared to the Magic of the MK. What makes DL Magic, and what makes MK Magic is the better question. Both of these parks involve fantasy, but it is similar fantasy within the theme park. Yes, when you are in either theme park you have an escape from the real world. However, at DL that escape ends when the park closes. At WDW that escape lasts as long as you are on property, be it at a theme park, a resort, you name it. You could put DL or the MK anywhere on the planet, and the Magic would not change. Once you go thru the turnstiles you are isolated in the Magic of a theme park. WDW is a much more complex beast whose Magic depends on quite a few factors outside of the theme park, and the WDW escape many talk about was intended to be one of those factors, a factor which is not nearly as important for DL.

Does that make any sense?

 

[Walt's Frozen Head]

So, if that is the case and I'm not delusional, how does Disneyland still manage to be Disney?

I suggest that Disney World had a different purpose than Disneyland, that they were inherently different products, and therefore, the determination of "how Disney" they are must be determined along different scales.

To my mind, the "immersive, isolated vacation world" concept was the one and only reason they bought all that land in Florida, in the first place.

They already knew they could build a successful "theme park in a population center," and Disneyland exhibited all the detail and story focus that we have come to associate with Disney to that particular product.

Disney World was to be something else, entirely.

I believe the "immersive, isolated vacation world" concept was the heart and soul and skeleton of what Disney World was intended to be, and that the attention to detail and storytelling and show were simply the tools Disney used to approach any project.

I feel that during Eisner's leadership, Disney forgot what Disney World was supposed to be. I also feel that during the same period, Disney eschewed more and more the tools of detail and storytelling and show, across all of their products.

When it came time to respond to Landbaron's question, I considered those two main aspects of Disney World's decline, and felt that the "immersive, isolated vacation world" criteria was the one that could be measured most objectively, simply by noting transportation options. The more subjective part would be our judgements of how well the company used the "detail and storytelling and show" as tools.

-WFH

PS: It was only very recently, with DCA, that Disney appeared to forget what Disneyland was supposed to be. But I'm not confident that the use of detail and storytelling and show have been maintained any better in DL than in WDW.