Another question regarding hotels and such that will probably turn into a debate

[SnackyStacky]

I have a very legitimate question.

Are Walt Disney World "resorts" over-priced, or is it just me? I was always convinced that they were, but the folks on the resorts board seem to think otherwise.

When I stay in Manhattan, in a suite at the Doubletree in the heart of times square, I paid under $300. I believe it was about $250, including taxes. For that money, I had pretty much everything that's offered at the Disney deluxes (with the exception of beach access, obviously, and a pool). AND, so we're clear, that was rack rate. I had no discounts of any sort. I went to New York very last minute, and looked for a hotel AFTER arriving in the city.

For my honeymoon, I've decided to stay at a Disney resort, no matter WHAT the cost. I was looking into the Polynesian. After taxes, it comes to $492 a night.

I have to adjust my plans, because I simply can't afford that. I'll probably end up staying at the Animal Kingdom Lodge. Which isn't bad, but my first choice is the Polynesian.

Is that price gouging, or is it me? I'm really serious. Maybe it's just me, but for some busses, and being able to charge everything on property to your room, that seems really overpriced.

 

[Walt's Frozen Head]

This kind of thing can only turn into a debate if someone believes that their personal assessment of the situation trumps everyone else's.

I was always convinced that they were

Then, for you, the answer is yes, they are overpriced.

There will be people for whom the answer is no, they are not overpriced... but there's no more reason for you to change your opinion based on theirs than there is for them to change their opinion based on yours.

Of course, there's nothing really wrong with overpaying for something, now and then, if it's something important to you.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

This kind of thing can only turn into a debate if someone believes that their personal assessment of the situation trumps everyone else's.

The Head, as usual, is 100% correct!!

Now, with that being said, I am totally convinced that the resorts are horribly overpriced!! Both from a “value received” and an “historical” perspective! And the prices are well outside the “PHILOSOPHY”!!!

And that's my trump!!!

 

[ThAnswr]

As usual, I'm in agreement with "The Head" and "The Baron".

Value is what one perceives it as being and the prices of the WDW hotels are ridiculously over-priced.

As an example, I was part of the relocation from POFQ in June and stayed at the AKL for the unbelievable price of $94 a night. Mind you Savannah view and deluxe room.

Yes, the $94 was an unbelievable bargain, but no, that room was not worth almost $500 per night rack rate.

Just as an aside, it would be interesting to see what happens to WDW's hotel occupation rate if the various discounts, codes, and packages are discontinued due to that explosion of the ever-building "pent-up demand".

Any takers?

 

[Bob O]

I would also agree that the price is way too high in comparsion to the value received. With all of the hotels off site that offer accomdations as nice or nicer than wdw for far less it shows how disney is pricing themselves out of the reach of the middle class family. Its sad that when you pay good money for a hotel at wdw they cant even offer a free fridge in every hotel room which is found in almost all off site hotels. Even their budget priced hotels cant sleep a family of five while you can find suite hotels off site that cost less and even offer a breakfest for less than disney's budget hotels.

 

[Peter Pirate]

...I had pretty much everything that was offered at Disney deluxes...

Really? In Manhatten you had access to WDW theme parks? This is essentially what you'r paying for at a Disney Resort...Location, isn't it?...But that being said they are certainly overpriced and so are the park passes...And the food, as well.

Well, I guess I just turned this into a debate since I would appear to believe that my personal opinion trumps everyone elses... No wait...It appears I agree with everyone else. Does this mean no debate?

Oh and as for 'settling' for the AKL, don't look at it this way. I've stayed at the Polynesian 3 times and the AKL 7 times, they're both great places each with something big the other doesn't have. The Poly has that great access to the MK (via monorail OR launch), the AKL has wonderful animal viewing opportunities in a truly serene and African like setting (at least the Africans who work there have always told me so). Both are romantic in their own way. The AKL is more adult fantasy romantic, the dimly lit Savannahs, etc while the Poly is more Mickey Mouse magic, but on your Honeymoon I'm not certain images of Mickey Mouse are something I'd particularily want popping into my head...But hey, thats just me!

 

[DisFlan]

No debate, here. Waaay overpriced for what you actually get in a hotel room. But as we all know, at Disney World, we aren't just paying for the room. Location, location, location.

 

[DisneyKidds]

And that's my trump!!!

I'm not gonna play cards.

I would say that this question can be answered both objectively and subjectively..............and ultimately we may agree on some things and not agree on others. Therefore, I won't waste my time debating.

Objectively (IMHO at least, which I guess takes objectivity out of play).........yes, RACK rates at WDW are overpriced.

Subjectively............seeing as I've never paid more than $221 a night (including tax) for any of the deluxe resorts, and I've stayed at every one except for the AKL and as recently as last May, I don't think the resorts are overpriced at all. For those who aren't fortunate enough to avail themselves of such rates the answer would be different.

 

[TammyC]

I think it is just a supply and demand thing.. many people are willing to pay what they charge. Imagine if all deluxes were $99/night, it would be full all the time and getting a room reservation would be harder than CRT!

Tammy

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Originally posted by TammyC
Imagine if all deluxes were $99/night, it would be full all the time and getting a room reservation would be harder than CRT!

Tammy

Why would that be bad?

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

It might not be bad for a shareholder but it would be unpleasant for the average guest for WDW to be at 100% lodging occupancy.

Why? It was the way of the world prior to 1985 (or so). For nearly fifteen years this system worked rather well. I personally don’t see a downside.

But, then again, on the flip side, it might not be so great for the shareholder either because they'd be correctly wondering why Disney is only charging 99 bucks per night when they could be charging more and still keeping similar if not greater revenues.

Two reasons: Long term investment (building brand loyalty by insuring that a Disney experience is truly unique, including perceived value) and guaranteed income for ALL their resorts (of course they’d have to raze half of their resorts and make them… ah… well, I guess… DISNEY!!)!! Too bad they didn’t stick with the original philosophy and do a little long-term thinking in the first place!!

The $99 per night suggestion sounds like a subsidized room. And that's a dangerous trend to start. Soon you'll end up with a situation where something "better" doesn't exist and the existing then loses it luster...and value.

What utter nonsense!

 

[ThAnswr]

Again, I'm agreeing "The Baron" regarding room occupancy pre-1985.

When I went to WDW the first time in 1982 (and almost 30 years old), there were only 3 hotels and 2 (the Polynesian and the Contempory) were on the monorail run.

To get a reservation at either hotel, you either had to plan years in advance, get incredibly lucky, or have a reservation left to you in a will. There was always 100% occupancy. No sooner did a reservation open up, then it was snatched up.

The room cost $105 per night (lagoon view) and the place was rehabbed every single day. If there was piece of wallpaper coming off the wall, it was replaced. If there was a chip in the paint, it was repainted.

Please, am I one of the few who remember that WDW as an adult? I must be a dinosaur because I read all the excuses and rationalizations of what's happened to Disney, and all I can think of was that at one time, it all worked and made a profit.

Excuse me, it's time for my nap.

 

[Peter Pirate]

Utter nonsense

A correct statement Mr. Baron, only it was your statement and not the Scoopmeister's that fits the bill. Why on Gods green earth would Disney want to sell their rooms at a rate low enough to foster 100% occupancy when more profit AND efficiency could be made by attempting to maintain a pricing policy aimed at 80-90% occupancy? Oh, I forgot

to build brand loyalty

LOL!!! You're kidding, right? From what segment of the buying public will this brand loyalty (above what already exists) come?

Too bad they didn't stick to their original philosophy

And this, again, would be that philosophy you found written where? Oh no, you don't have documentation do you? You have your PERSONAL OPINION of what Walt did and why and what Walt would do were he here today, right? Tsk, tsk, tsk...

Sorry old friend, but just because you and a few of your pals are able to repeat certain mantras over and over doesn't make them fact and I've never seen a compelling argument by you or anyone else to make me change my mind...For debates sake, I'll stick to an easy subject that I, in part, base my opinion on. You and some others don't see the AKL as a classic Disney Resort despite all of the positives and unique experiences that it alone can offer the WDW vacationer...The AKL is (IMO) probably more Disney than any other Resort, giving guests an experience that can't be found anywhere else in the United States, yet you continue to include a run of the mill golf motel as acceptable Disney philosophy over the AKL... and I'd bet a million bucks that Walt would love AKL.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Okay. Your "utter nonsense" comment means nothing to me unless you take the time to explain why you say that without resorting to quips followed by smilies or "I still like you, thoughs".

OH! How wonderfully condescending!! GOOD! It’s been a little too quiet lately! Let’s have at it!

The $99 per night suggestion sounds like a subsidized room. And that's a dangerous trend to start. Soon you'll end up with a situation where something "better" doesn't exist and the existing then loses it luster...and value.

Sounds like value to me!! What sounds ‘cheap’ and really ‘loses its luster’ is the shameful, tacky and tawdry manner in which Disney ‘hawks’ its wares today! Like some cheap sideshow barker or worse, that seedy used car salesman in the loud checkered coat:

Come one – Come all!!! Hurry, hurry, hurry! Tell ya what I’m-a gonna do!! If you buy this package – (so much off), If you purchase with this number – (so much off)!! SALE – SALE – SALE!!! Buy now!!! PRICE REDUCED!!!!

Good lord, Scoop!! The only thing missing is the blue light!!

What was VALUE - what was NOT cheap; was the way Disney set a price and that was that!! No ‘seasons’, no ‘specials’, no ‘secret numbers’, no ‘fire sales’ of any kind!! Just a set price, throughout the year, that represented Disney value!! AH! What Disney Magic!!

Also, indeed there are 2 more parks now than before, but it again goes back to infrastructure...all the important logistics, etc. that you don't see, but which hiddenly work to make a seamless vacation experience.

Yep!! Calls for a little planning and foresight. Too bad neither happened!!

If every WDW room was full on a regular basis, then rehab and maintenance activities like replacing carpet, re-painting, new mattresses would be really tough to efficiently do

What utter nonsense!!*

Sadly, for many around here, that's all a differing opinion will ever be considered.

Maybe that’s because that’s what it is!!

The idea that others might well have some insights remains very foreign to the select few that seem to have a monopoly on understanding things.

We know what WORKED before. And then it changed. And it isn’t working as well. So why don’t you… ah… now, how did you put it in that first paragraph… OH YES!!! I remember: “… means nothing to me unless you take the time to explain why you say that without resorting to quips followed by smilies or "I still like you, thoughs"

Something about being good for the goose….

Peter, nice to hear from you.

Why on Gods green earth would Disney want to sell their rooms at a rate low enough to foster 100% occupancy when more profit AND efficiency could be made by attempting to maintain a pricing policy aimed at 80-90% occupancy?

Oh Yes!!! That’s why they are shuttering resorts and not finishing others. I forgot. EiSner’s brilliant business model WORKS!!! And of course, the flip side, Walt's didn't. Jow screwed up is that!!!

LOL!!! You're kidding, right? From what segment of the buying public will this brand loyalty (above what already exists) come?

Now it’s you that has got to be kidding. Did you learn NOTHING from Walt?

Sorry old friend, but just because you and a few of your pals are able to repeat certain mantras over and over doesn't make them fact and I've never seen a compelling argument by you or anyone else to make me change my mind

No! I’s me that sorry, old friend!! I mean, would you recognize the argument if you saw it? Somehow I doubt you’d be able to see it through those glasses of yours!!

and I'd bet a million bucks that Walt would love AKL.

Fine!! You’re on!! Now, how do we settle it!?!?









* Sorry Scoop, I couldn’t resist! You KNOW I would never postulate that they skimp on maintenance. They did MORE maintenance then, than now, for God’s sake!!! Come on Scoop!! You have to do better than that! And you know it!!

 

[Peter Pirate]

Eisner's brilliant business model.

Who said it was Eisner's? Anyway, the model is fine, if Disney isn't exactly executing it properly, fine. That's another argument. But no hotel will settle at 100% occupancy and not do something to better the bottom line. Also, Walt's plan? I wasn't aware that Walt was ever around to set policy for lodging...

Re: Loyalty...You've got your head in the sand if you think your one size fits all low resort rate will build good will. There is no good will anymore. We're a disposable society with a what can you do for me now mentality. I'm not happy about this but if Disney were to follow this pricing scheme they'd be giving away the farm and receiving NOTHING in return.

Would you recognize an argument if you saw it?

Yeah, I would. You just can't offer it..)

Somehow I doubt you could see through those glasses of yours.

Oh good, the glasses comment again. Listen I find lots of fault with Disney but in trying to be a voice of reason I end up defending the utterly ludicrous comments of the Eisner bashers that it gets lost in the shuffle...Offer something creative once in awhile...Think outside of the box...So much repetition is what killed one of the few nuetralities around here, gcurling...
OK we've got a bet...Can we get the dead guy unthawed by Labor day?

 

[rwodonnell]

I'm assuming those of you who say it's overpriced then choose to stay elsewhere? Either that, or you say with your brain and fingers that they are overpriced, but you say with your wallet and consumer's voice that it is a fair market value.

 

[DisFlan]

ThAnswr - no, you aren't alone. My first trip tp Disney World was 1977. Our memories of early WDW as adults make a difference in our current expectations. We know what it was like. We remember the INCREDIBLE attention to detail - which no longer exsists. Disney grew and GREW, and it's been overwhelmed by economic realities. The economics and culture of a smaller, labor intensive Disney World in the 1970's and '80's just won't work today. Too expensive.

So go with what we have of Disney - and enjoy. It'll probably change just as much in another thirty or forty years. But I won't much care. I'll leave it to my grandchildren to pay rack rate - or not.

 

[Planogirl]

Wait! The Polynesian can only be $99 or $400+? Maybe something in between would be a little more sensible.

I agree that Disney's prices are too high but that's my subjective opinion. And no, those costs won't be worth it to everyone only because of location. There are actually people out there that hate the thought of being anywhere NEAR the parks as odd as that sounds. Some people seem to believe that being in New York City or the Texas Hill Country is of more value to THEM than staying in WDW. Disney likely has to account for those people who place different values on the Disney experience and in turn make the experience worthwhile to enough people to lure them to the resorts. The question is whether they have succeeded.

As for staying offsite because I think the rooms are overpriced, I don't because I love a moderate by the name of Port Orleans Riverside. This resort keeps me coming back to WDW the way things stand right now because I will not pay the current deluxe prices.

 

[JeffH]

The attention to detail is there and quite incredible if you bother to open your eyes and see it.
The landscaping has never been better...more lush/extensive and beautiful.
The little things are all over from the fiber optic lights in the concrete at Epcot to the (continued) extensive theming for attractions and their pre-show areas.
Live shows are all over the place and as far as I'm concerned they are wonderful and last a lot longer than your 5 minute thrill ride.
There are far more characters and street actors and improptu street musicians everywhere.
The sound systems everywhere are excellent as are the sounds they deliver.
The resorts cater to all.
And as far as 'giving away' the luxury resorts for $99, that would be insane for Disney, as well as for the guests, and all the other hotels in the area would cry foul. If the luxury hotels were $99, I would be rich, because I would buy up all the rooms and sell them for $400 a piece to those same people who are buying them now (or more since they would be impossible to get). At $99/room Disney would then not be making the money, the travel agents would be and there would be no incentive for Disney to build more hotels, especially luxury hotels like AKL. The average guest would never see a $99 room.
But if all you can see are the few flaws at WDW (which I comment about as well), and fail to see how much more and how much better it is (and continues to get), than that's your flaw.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Dorothy? Somewhere over the rainbow? No! Just the way a company used to do business. But then again, some are not interested in history. So we get the gospel according to Scoop:

Hey Dorothy. News flash. This world never existed. Click your heals all you want. Click 'em real hard if you must. But, you can click 'em til your heel falls off but that won't change the fact that WDW lodging never had a one single price model. That's just fiction if you really weren't joking.

Oh!? Really!? And what is the color of the sky in your world, Scoop!? Now, you can rewrite history (or click your heels) all you like, but that don’t make it so. Remember what the “keeper of the archives”, our beloved Hopemax said on the subject?

BTW, I've found TIA's "other lodging" Travel Price Index. May 2003 it was 253.7. The base of 100 is for 1982-1984, which is nice because of what numbers we have. I have a feeling that the "other lodging" is 1984. If I assume that the 1982 number was 93, I can get the same $85 corresponds to $231, so I'm going to use the 93 to adjust the others. $75 - $205, $95 - $260

Besides the discounts, what also is mucking up any comparison is the one season vs. 4 seasons, so I'm going to compare regular season.

Poly Garden $344
Poly Lagoon $430

Cont Garden Wings $265-$305
Cont Tower $370

$260 vs $370 for the Tower, $260 vs. $430 for the Lagoon. Over a 6 night stay that's a difference of $660 or $1020! $834 difference for a Poly Garden.

It's no wonder why LB's parents were able to swing a stay at the Poly but feels he can't. $800 or $1000 over industry inflation is a lot of money to add to a week's vacation.

Pay particular attention to the second paragraph:

Besides the discounts, what also is mucking up any comparison is the one season vs. 4 seasons, so I'm going to compare regular season.

That’s the way I remember it too. So, Your Honor, I plead insanity!! It’s clear Scoop’s CRAZY!!!!

Okay Dorothy. Another news flash. If you have 100% nearly year round, then that means the rooms are all full nearly year round. And guess what that means, toto? Well, if you want the room kept painted clean, with new carpet and fixtures to boot, then you'll have Carl from maintenance hangin' new wall paper borders during your stay. Again, basic math.

MY GOD SCOOP!!! You must be right!! From 1971 to around 1986, the Poly and the Contemporary must not have had ANY maintenance!!! GOOD GRIEVE!! Am I glad Ei$ner straightened out that mess!! They are so much better cared for today!!! (History rewritten by Scoop!)

Are you saying that because you went before us, then we couldn't know. That our opinions are fatally flawed.

No!! Not at all!! Simmer, pal!! Stop the paranoia. I take that attidute once in a while, and when I do, I am VERY clear!! I’m just saying that the system that was implemented at eh resorts, from 1971 until around 1986 (or so) WORKED!! IT MADE MONEY!! AND IT MADE FOR A WONDERFUL VALUE EXPERIENCE!!! That’s all. Nothing that you had to live through. No trump “experience” card being played. It’s nothing more than reading about it and knowing that the company didn’t go out of business providing this model. So calm yourself and think about it. It’s nothing you had to live through. It’s nothing you have to automatically dismiss. It just is. And it WORKED!! How well, is something for discussion. It is NOT something to be dismissed out of hand!

Or maybe not. Maybe, just maybe, being the only one right every time on every issue, might get a wee bit boring after awhile.

Gee!! I don't know!! It hasn’t been boring so far. Has being dismissive, superior and condescending (as well as wrong) all the time been boring?






PS:

You don't have to have been born in the 1950s to have started loving the Yankees then.

Really should have been 10 years old by 1927!! Otherwise you missed the Yankees!! I sure would LISTEN to a guy in that age range if I wanted to learn about the ball club!! Wouldn’t you?