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

[DianeV]

Doesnt anyone think about what Walt wanted Disney to be? Fun for families to enjoy. I dont think he only meant the wealthy or even upper middle class familes yet the way Disney is moving those are the only types of families that will be able to enjoy Disney or stay in their hotels. I personally think he would be appalled at how money hungry Disney has become. (I know they arent the only ones, but I am talking about Disney specifically)

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Doesnt anyone think about what Walt wanted Disney to be? Fun for families to enjoy. I dont think he only meant the wealthy or even upper middle class familes yet the way Disney is moving those are the only types of families that will be able to enjoy Disney or stay in their hotels.

No! Sadly some people don't care at all! And some don't care about the history of Disney either!!

Sad isn't it?

 

[JeffH]

100% occupancy does NOT mean all existing rooms are filled, it means all available rooms are filled.
You cannot do maintenance on an occupied room.
If you have 100% occupancy all the time, then in order to do maintenance you have to make those rooms unavailable.
If you manage your hotel properly, then you operate at less than 100% occupancy which allows you to then perform maintenance without turning people away.
---
If you manage your hotel properly at the price determined by demand (which is what Disney does), then you always have rooms available (at a price), instead of turning everyone away unless they had the forethought to make reservations 3-5 years in advance. All I know is if I get married next month and would like to stay at the Poly, that with the prices high, I at least have that option as opposed to NO CHANCE (except for through a travel agent charging $1000 a night). When WDW first opened the hotels on the monorail line were underpriced at the time and therefore required advance reservations...so when we drove up in 1973 for our 1st trip to WDW we were turned away:-(. If they were instead charging what the hotels were worth, we could have stayed there and our 1st experience at WDW would have been far better.
Just because rooms were $99 back in the 70s and reservations had to be made years in advance doesn't make it right. Walt didn't set those prices and I don't think he would have set prices that would have forced him to turn people away.
"think he only meant the wealthy or even upper middle class familes"
Walt never mentioned anything about giving anything away...he was in the business to make money and be successful...and giving the public a premier product. WDW has always catered to everyone regardless of age or wealth offering kiddy rides, teen rides and adult rides as well as the luxury hotels on the monorail line for those who could afford it.
===
This line of thinking is simply absurd...just take it a step further...
Maybe WDW should change its ticket policy and only charge $6.95 to get into the parks, then everybody could afford to go!!!
Then there would be cars lined up at the parking lot gates, starting the night before, filling up all the area roads with people trying to get in the parks before they were closed down.
The roads would be clogged,
The parks would fill quickly
The parks would be at capacity EVERY DAY, ALL DAY.
If you didn't wait in the insane car line and didn't get in before the parking lot was full, you'd be turned away (to then get in line for the next day)
Or, a closer analogy would be day to day ticket sales sold in advance where you could never simply go to WDW unless you bought your $6.95 ticket 2-5 years ahead of time for that particular day, or were lucky enough to have gotten your $99 reservations at a hotel that guaranteed your entrance (into a packed park, oh joy)
Walt Disney was not insane he would not do such a thing.
I don't think he would have meant his resort to only be available to those lucky enough to make reservations 2-5 years in advance and turn away everyone else. And since we seem to like to try to decide what Walt would do or think, I think he made it clear that he wanted to build a park (resort) that a father could take his daughters to on the weekend, which would have proven impossible if the resort was 100% full and he was turned away.
If this happed to Walt, he would have turned away crying and then decided to build his own resort where families could drive up to, find an available suitable (affordable based on their pocketbook) resort and have fun.
But, gee, isn't that exactly what WDW is now...maybe Eisner hasn't done such a bad job after all, has he???
===
and the fact that Disney has had to close some hotels and stopped construction on another has nothing to do with poor planning, but to a slowing economy and 911. Before then the hotels were full and in Disney's desire to make it possible for everyone to afford to stay at a Disney resort (which you can't do if the hotels are 100% full) they continued to build hotels to accomodate everyone (both economy and luxury). After the economy slowdown (as a result of the .com implosion), it didn't make any sense to continue building a hotel that there would be no one to fill.
I guess we could look at this another way...
Did Walt set pricing at DL so low that it was packed every day and only those with 'hard to get reservations' could get in? The answer is NO.
===
But I do gripe, too...
===
The only thing I can agree with the Eisner bashers is that Disney should pay more attention to not letting areas deteriorate like some have...
and even though I understand why some attractions operate with restricted hours (it makes no sense to operate an attraction for a half dozen guests), I do not understand these 'seasonal' attractions. I would rather that a crew operate Timekeeper from 1-4 then move over to CoP from 4-7, and post the operating hours...then everyone can have a chance to see these attractions any day, not just 'seasonally'.
and I still think that Test track and Mission: Space should have been added to the pavilion, not replaced it...the existing Motion and Horizons rides were perfect 'family' rides (EXACTLY AS WALT WANTED TO BUILD), and would have better served the sponsors as such. Dad would have then 'shopped' in the post show area waiting for the kids to get off of the thrill ride.
and I think that the new (POS) Imagination ride could easily be made 'right' by filling all the EMPTY space (walls and ceiling) with pieces from the original ride...all the things that fed your imagination.
the Living Seas would be much better if guest simply entered directly to the hydrolators, and the preshow area was made part of SeaBase Alpha showing 4 different 10 minute films each hour (each 15 minutes). This area would then provide a chance to rest considering the standing required to enjoy all the exhibits. I've also suggested a kids area where they crawl through clear tunnels surrounded by fish. Something to keep the kiddies busy and happy while the parents check out the exhibits, like SpaceBase does at Mission:Space (so I can enjoy SpaceRace).

 

[yecats]

IMHO, the wdw property resorts are over priced. I am not here to debate but am just giving my opinion.

I live on a budget and can afford a room up to about $150 (for a 3 to 5 night trip) which doesn't leave me many options on Disney property. I think that the properties are beautifully designed and themed. However, I am usually only in my room from about 9:00 until 9:00 the next morning with at least 8 to 9 hours of sleep and I don't truly spend any amount of time at the hotel other than maybe an hour or two at the pool on a night or two. For longer trips I usually stay off property within 2 to 4 miles and certainly don't mind the extra 5 to 10 minute drive to reach property. I have stayed at DTD and several other offsite resorts and paid half of what I would've spent on property and enjoyed my stay just as much. I have no children and would never pay rack rate to stay at the AS when I can go online at Priceline and bid on a really nice resort very close to Disney. Anytime I want, I can take a walk around the property to enjoy the feel, but a room is a room and I can certainly enjoy a larger one off property with amentities.

 

[JeffH]

I live on a budget and can afford a room up to about $150

???, Disney has resorts just for you. Disney's economy resorts start at about $77/night (with discounts down to $65/night or less), and their moderate resorts run about $133/night. With your budget your can afford a wide range of WDW resorts as a result of the fact that Disney has bothered to build such resorts that you can afford instead of only luxury resorts that only people with a larger budget can afford (and some think should be given away).
Directly from the Disney website...
Disney value resorts run from $77-124 w/discounts down to $49
(3 diff All-Star&PopCentury)
Disney moderate resorts run from $133 w/discounts down to $79
(4 diff resorts inc:CB&CS&POFQ&POR
Disney deluxe resorts run from $199 w/discounts down to $109

(And lucky for you, they aren't charging $29 a night and therefore booked up until 2006.)
====
It seems that most people aren't aware of how cheap rooms at WDW are, since there are plenty of more expensive rooms outside WDW at hotels that offer no where near the accomodations that even the value resorts offer. Now why people stay there when they can stay at a WDW resort for the same price or less is beyond me.
====
I personally don't see the sense in staying at any resort that costs more than $25/night, since we spend all our time at the parks, DD or visiting the WDW resorts (for meals, shopping, games, or shows)...at least at my budget level.

 

[CWIPPERMAN]

It seems that everyone is missing the main point here. Let's say hypothetically that a room at Port Orleans Riverside was $100/night, and a room the same size - with the same IN ROOM amenities (coffee pot, color TV, 2 Double Beds) at "Bob Smith Hotel" (name made up obviously) off-site was also $100 - which room do you think most folks would stay in? Now.... imagine that the room on-site was $110.00, and the other one was still $100. Sure you would loose a small percentage of folks - but most folks would see the value of staying on site.

So the question arrises - when is the difference in cost between on-site and off-site enough to NOT make it a value any more to stay on site.

Now - one thing that is being overlooked is that the original question was comparing "Rack" rates for rooms. Now... I'm certainly not a world traveler. But I have done my share of staying in hotels. I cannot think of a time in my life I have EVER paid "Rack" rate for a hotel room.

To me, where the value makes itself evident is with stuff like the packages. I would not be taking my vacation in 2 1/2 weeks if it wasn't for the Fairltale Package. I could have probably done a stay off-site for less than the cost of the FTP this year - but that's not the point. Paying the money and getting the whole Disney experience is what is important.

A "Rack" rate is in my opinion a fictional number. That is like the "MSRP" of an item in a store. When you go to a furniture store, the couch that is on sale for $699 has a "MSRP" of $1200. NOBODY pays $1200 - but that is the "MSRP". Same with a "Rack" rate for a hotel room. Unless you are stranded in a city and walk in the front door and say "I need a room" - I can't imagine that anyone normally pays the "rack" rate for a hotel room.

So..... where the actual "Value" in staying at Disney comes from IS the "specials", "Discounts" and "Fire Sales" (to quote Baron) that are being referred to.

To me - I am amazed that Disney World is such the value that it is. I took a Ski trip to Colorado two winters ago. I paid about $100/day for lodging and lift tickets (shared a 1 bedroom condo with 2 friends). For this trip to WDW , I'm paying less than $100/day which includes hotel, UPH tickets, and transportation. So... I am getting MUCH MORE for my money.

I see WDW as being a great value.

As far as the way things used to be.... it is my understanding that Walt was never alive when any hotels were open. I'm not sure how it could be said that the hotel pricing would be changed since Walt was in charge.

But to me to compare the pricing policies from over 20 years ago to today is not right. When a local casino opened - they were selling their suites for $99/night. Now those suites are $200+/night (of course "Rack" rates are $350). When you are BUILDING a customer base - of course you have low prices. Everyone knows where WDW is. Everyone knows that WDW has hotels. Everyone WANTS to go to WDW. The only thing they need to do now to get visitors - is to run the specials to encourage folks to come on down when they can save the most off of those "Rack" rates. Hell... if they priced a room $200 room at a "Rack" rate of $1000/night and then ran a "special" where it was only $300/night to stay there - you'd have folks lining up to take advantage of the discount.

So..... to me..... the prices aren't too high. I think that by pricing the rooms high - and then offering the discounts in "packages" - they are encouraging folks (like me) to come down and "save" money by staying longer and on site.

I can tell you right now that I personally would never consider going to WDW without staying on-site. Because of my Disney website I have had offers to stay off-property for free so that I could "review" a hotel. I just think that it is missing the excitement of Disney to not be completely surrounded by the magic.

 

[DisFlan]

Originally posted by 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.

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.

It's all still there, just in a different form. (I assure you that I DO notice.) It's no joke that it wasn't unusual to see a gardner run across the path in front of you to snip that one dead flower top, hoping to get it before you saw it. To have grounds people know your name as you strolled along the lake - and you kids names. To smile and ask if you need another towel at the pool - and get it for you. To have a waitress remember you prefer poppyseed dressing over French. There were hundreds of small details that all added up to a very special, very personal experience. You felt coddled and special and the price didn't matter- this was something SPECIAL.

I haven't felt that way at Disney in a very long time. It's still a special place that I enjoy, but it's not as personally special as it once was. But Disney is still Disney. It's changing, morphing into what it will need to be to survive in the future. Things change. They have to.

Following the iterations of the Mouse is interesting. I like some changes, don't like others, but it's not my call. If they end up with too few items and too many hassles to make my trips enjoyable, I'll simply stay away. I hope that doesn't happen.

 

[ThAnswr]

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

Really fosters great debate, eh?<<<<

Is there room for debate over statements such as "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" when the fact is there was 100% occupancy at the WDW resorts for many years and maintainence/rehab was done better than it is today? Where's the debate? Is the debate, "yes it happened or no it didn't"?

>>>>>>>>>>I'm assuming those of you who say it's overpriced then choose to stay elsewhere?<<<<

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe we're saying the rack rate is waaay overpriced. If my options are pay rack rate or stay elsewhere, I vote with my feet.

The feelers Disney seems to be putting out is that they're trying to phase out discount codes in favor of packages which leave AP'rs out in the cold. And just to get it out on record, yes as an AP'r, I expect something extra. I get something extra when I use my Winn Dixie card, my Hallmark card, and my Regal Cinema card. It's called being a preferred customer and these merchants want me to come back. Disney is a business like every other business. Businesses give their preferred customers something extra to keep their business.

>>>>>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. <<<<

News Flash - This is what happened. It's also called preventive maintainence so that you don't have to repaint an entire wall when you take care of the chip when you see it.

>>>Because this whole idea that because you've been to Disney longer than some of us, our opinions are "just what they are" is just silly. You don't have to have been born in the 1950s to have started loving the Yankees then. <<<

The point isn't that being 40 something gives someone a leg up on someone who's 20 something. The point is sometimes the 20 something is making statements about the impossibility of doing certain things when the 40 something knows that it is not impossible and has been done successfully in the past. Btw, 40 and 20 are just used as examples.

And, yes, I love AKL. There I've said it. And, no it isn't worth $500 per night which is the rack rate for some of the rooms.

 

[DancingBear]

Surprise, surprise, I'm on the other side from the Baron again!

I suppose I'll have to start by discounting my recent personal experiences, which include paying $280 for a night at the Holiday Inn Suites in Ocean City, MD this summer, and staying in a $250/night room at the Holiday Inn Sunspree in Wrightsville Beach, NC in October last year, versus paying $99/night at the Contemporary last December courtesy of Shades of Green.

[BTW, Shades of Green is that decidedly unthemed 30-year old Disney resort, which had a 100% occupancy rate while operated by the military, and which had to be shut down completely to be renovated and expanded. 30-year old hotels need a lot more maintenance and refurbishment than when they were 5 or 10 years old.]

Are the rooms overpriced? No, of course not! Are they underpriced? No, of course not! They're priced at what the market will bear, just like at every other hotel everywhere else.

Do they provide good value? That's up to each consumer to decide. And, apparently enough folks generally find them to be so.

Should the hotels charge less to increase occupancy? The folks in the business are always looking at this issue. I saw a recent study of Manhattan hotels saying that the increase in occupancy rates from discounted rooms weren't worth the cost of discounting. So, if all of the hotels stopped discounting, they would be better off as a whole. But, as some of the hotel people said, if your competitor starts discounting, you have to respond in kind.

Should the hotels charge less just to increase customer satisfaction with their overall visit to WDW? That's a strategic decision, but my guess is that the marginal increase in customer satisfaction wouldn't be worth it.

Call me an apologist or whatever, but I tend to think that perhaps the Disney management in charge of the resort pricing knows more about these matters than thee and me.

[Incidentally, I really don't understand why the Baron seems to want to go back to single pricing all year long. Why is that better for customers? Well, I suppose it would mean that the high season visitors would be getting a price break of sorts, but the slow season visitors would pay more than otherwise--why is that good? Who runs a business like that, anyway, ignoring supply and demand?]

Did Disney/Eisner overbuild? It appears so, for the time being. However, commercial development tends to run in these cycles. Capital investment decisions have to be made long in advance of actually bringing the asset on line, and circumstances can change significantly in that time period. So, they've managed the construction schedules and the rehab schedules, closed sections of resorts, etc.--that all makes sense to me.

Still, and I believe the Baron acknowledged this in a backhand sort of way in another thread, Eisner has been very successful overall in the resort building effort. Many, many more people stay on the property for their entire visits, spending money in the on-property restaurants, shops, etc. The previously underutilized resource of the Florida real estate has been exploited.

The Baron sees this as short-term gain at the expense of long-term vision. As I've said before, I have trouble understanding how large capital expenditures are just short-term profit manipulation by Eisner; however, in any event, the many loyal fans of the Swan and Dolphin, Beach Club, the Coronado Springs, etc. (stop by the Resorts Board to hear from them all) seem to think it's just fine. And, most of those DVC customers seem to be pleased as well.

 

[DisneyKidds]

Wow, what a train wreck..........................thankfully there are a few people thinking out there (Planogirl, JeffH, and a few other non-regulars). I'll agree with them on a few things..............

As with every "discussion" we have there are those who migrate to the extremes. Planogirl is right............Disney resorts don't have to be $99 or $400. As usual, the best answer, the best rate, lies somewhere in the middle. To argue that $99 would be a good rate to provide long term success is just silly. Baron, I hope you are arguing "$99" as an example of a fixed rate that is lower than rack is today but would provide for efficient and profitable operation. If you aren't, and you REALLY think $99 would be good for Disney...............well, I hope you don't ever run your own business.

To be fair, obviously there is something wrong with the way Disney resorts are priced and run today. The delayed opening of Pop, the closures of POR, the relatively low occupancy compared to the past....................that all proves that things aren't humming along. There are lots of reasons for that, but Disney certainly shoulders a good deal of the blame. Personally, I think that the kinds of rates that can be had out there using discounts are just fine. It is too bad that people have to work to find them, and sad that many never do. I think that Disney would be better off if rack rates were in the viscinity of available discounted rates.........but that's just me.

Now for occupancy...............................and that red herring that is "100%" occupancy. Listen to JeffH as he seems to be one of the few using his head here. Sorry Baron but no hotel, not even your beloved Poly of 1971, ever fills every room. Jeff is right that they may operate at 100% of available rooms, but they always hold some back in order to perform routine maintenance. So let's stop arguing something that never existed. Now, the valid question is why the current Disney resorts aren't filling 100% of available rooms the way the resorts of old did? Heck, is 80% occupancy today a comparable number to that 100% occupancy of yesteryear? I have no idea as I don't know how they measured and reported then versus now.

I think we would all agree that given the problems of the recent past that Disney resorts could probably be run a little more efficiently and at higher occupancy rates.........................and generally lower available rates would help that. However, you can't set your rates too low as that is not good for business either.

I will agree with Baron that Disney had a recipe for success in the past. With that I'll fall back to the old Lodging Inflation index adjusted 1970's prices that would put a deluxe resort today somewhere in the mid $200's give or take. If we use the info ThAnswr provides us (a 1982 Lagoon View room for $105) the current rate would be about $286. I think those rates would be perfect for rack............................and still provide Disney the ability to provide a discount package or two here or there.....................as they have always done in one form or another.

Oh............one more comment. Just because something worked 30 years ago doesn't guarantee that it would work today. You just can't make that assumption, just like you can't discount the possibility that it might have. Too bad Disney didn't try it as it would have been interesting to see where things went. As Confucius said (or should have )..................There is as much danger living in the past as there is in not learning from it.

 

[DancingBear]

For the sake of credibility, I should amend my prior post to say that I do think that Disney has flopped around a bit on how they want to handle discounting. They started with the "seasons", and they had limited discounts through Magic Kingdom Club and AAA and such. Gradually discounts proliferated APs, codes, etc. Then they tried to manage these by doing things like not releasing AP discounts or MKC (Disney Club) discounts early, etc.

Now, they seem to be trying to bring some focus to this area. Postcards, regional promotions, getting rid of AP room discounts, going more through the Visa card, and offering discounted packages.

Separately, of course, they've managed their oversupply problem through various means, such as shutting down sections of resorts, and coordinating that with renovations.

I think this all will stabilize somewhat over time, and be somewhat more predictable; however, every segment of the travel industry is dealing with this management issue, and variable pricing is here to stay.

 

[crusader]

What in blazes is going on here?

I agree with those who feel the "rack rates" are overpriced. You have to really work at making a disney vacation affordable which takes a minor degree in travel planning. Thank goodness Walt was astute enough to provide an affordable alternative - you could always drive and camp!

Here's where I think the answer lies:

About the only way to really go would be to attempt to call WDW and UO monopolies and therefore question their pricing conduct within such a narrow market.

Yes. Holding the monopoly on resort ownership at WDW in particular gives Disney the capability to name their price. The more convienent the access, the higher it climbs.

P.S. Baron - you get a pass. (this time) great read my friend!

 

[SnackyStacky]

Wow.

This would be exactly why I put the disclaimer in the title. There's too many differing opinions for it NOT to become a debate.

The reason I mentioned my stay in Manhattan was specifically because of the location. Instead of access to theme parks, I had access to MANHATTAN. That's quite the prime location.

I wasn't specifically looking for someone to change my opinion, but I really did ask that question with an open mind, and was ready to change my opinion. It wouldn't have changed the fact that I couldn't afford it, but possibly my opinion.

And actually, the main reason that I was asking is because I'm going to buying a Premium Annual Pass. I'm going to take two trips in a year. And as such, with the trends Disney's following, I won't be able to stay in one of their hotels on my second trip, because they've seemingly done away with the AP discounts.

So for my honeymoon, because I really want to try it, I will, for the first time stay in a Disney deluxe. But for my second trip, I will vote with my feet and stay on hotel Plaza Boulevard, or off-property completely.

 

[MelissathePooh]

Well....since I was mentioned I'll offer up my very subjective opinion.

As for the way it used to be pre-1985 - I don't believe I would want most of that back again. I remember many trips where my mother would call for reservations and we would have to book a year or two out and then wait list for the current year. I remember that waitlist coming thru night by night on some trips and my mother having to spend time each day making sure we could stay at the Poly another night - on occasion having to change rooms. I also remember the huge crowds regardless of what season it was we were there - because there were only 3 hotels and 1 park. The early days of Epcot didn't spread that crowd out very much.

Would I want to go back to that system - heck no! What we have now is a variety of resorts to choose from along with a pricing scale that may or may not meet someones pocket book. The rooms are only "over-priced" when people stop paying for them. No one is forced to stay on property. While the deluxe pricing schedules don't make much sense to me exactly aside from the fact that they have fewer rooms and prime locations, the moderates and value resorts don't seem to be that out of range given other hotel chains in the world - outside of Orlando. A typical Hampton in will cost $90 a night - truthfully I'd rather stay onsite at an Allstars. Considering a huge food court, complimentary transportation, ect...

If people believe its over-priced than they shouldn't reserve a room. If its a consitent enough opinion attendance at the particular resort will decline and other rates will become available.

As far as WDW never having offered discounts in the "old days" DR or I can re-post the "package deals" from the of Disney Magazines (MKC subscribers). We have a few of them from 1979 or so and up thru Epcots opening. The offered packages were different from the standard rack rates.

Melissa

 

[Lanshark]

Yep. To me they are very overpriced.

 

[MikePezz]

DING, DING

Ok, that's the bell ending the round.

Everyone return to your corners!

Yikes.....

Let us remember the great mantra:
"The great thing about opinions is you can have yours, and I can be right."

'Value' is in the wallet of the beholder.

 

[JeffH]

Yep. To me they are very overpriced

Then you need to check out the prices (that I posted).
Disney offers themed on-site Disney resorts offering all the Disney benifits (parking is worth $7/day alone) at prices starting at $49/night ($42 if you subtract the $7 parking saved). This is cheaper than MOST of the non-themed non-Disney hotels (although not cheap enough to lure me away from my $21/night room) just outside WDW.
Now if you are only referring to the super deluxe resorts, then that is more a matter of opinion and pocketbook. And getting back to my original point...if everyone could afford them then no one would be able to book them.

 

[SnackyStacky]

Okay, a few things....

1.) JeffH - I don't know where you're coming up with $49/night for the All Stars. The lowest rate I can find is $77. Perhaps you're thinking of a room with a discount....discounts that are seemingly being phased out in favor of attempting to get more package bookings. I specifically mentioned rack rates. If you still believe that $77 is a fair rate for a Disney resort, I'd really like for you to go a little bit more in depth as to why you think that's not overpriced. (I say that with no sarcasm or ill will....like I said, I'm trying my best to hear all sides of this)

The reason I say that I feel that the resorts are over-priced is because you can find off-property hotels for SUBSTANTIALLY less. It seems to me that what you're paying for is the Disney transportation, and the themeing. And everyone seems to be right when they say that I suppose it's a matter of whether or not you think transportation and themeing are important enough to spend the extra $30 or so. And that's only the values! The moderates have somewhat more theme, but not much else over the values, and are substantially more expensive. You can stay off-property with what Disney considers deluxe amenties for Disney's moderate prices. And then the deluxes...well, that's in a completely different league.

I suppose it does come down to what you value and what's important to you.

And as for having a problem getting a room, it seems like this is a problem that Disney hasn't quite gotten rid of. There's often instances of people having a hard time getting a room, especially any rooms that DO have discounts available.

I remember having this debate with Kidds a while ago, and he said I was nuts to be talking about rack rates. Well, Disney's sort of forcing this discussion to be re-hashed since they've decided that room-only discounts will be few and far between.

 

[Planogirl]

Originally posted by SnackyStacky
The moderates have somewhat more theme, but not much else over the values, and are substantially more expensive. You can stay off-property with what Disney considers deluxe amenties for Disney's moderate prices. And then the deluxes...well, that's in a completely different league.

I suppose it does come down to what you value and what's important to you.

I don't agree with your view of the moderates. I feel that the moderates have significantly more amenities than the values. They have not only more theming but larger rooms with true toiletries, restaurants, bars, rentals, gamerooms, nicer pools with slides, a boat to Downtown Disney... Oh wait, I'm describing Port Orleans but you get the idea.

I agree though that there are great offsite properties for far less cost. Again it depends how much extra that you're willing to pay for Disney theming and Disney transportation.

 

[JeffH]

Even at the non-discounted rate of $77 I would consider it a good deal because there are still many hotels outside WDW that cost more. The hotels outside WDW that are less than $77 aren't anything special and never will be because why should someone build a fancy hotel (in hopes of charging fancy rates) when Disney pretty much has that market locked up. And the hotels that are significantly cheaper than $77 are basically your 'strip' hotel/motels'.
Strange, though, how we seem to be comparing Disney hotels to the cheap hotels outside WDW. US192 was so overbuilt with hotels that we are lucky enough to have these cheap hotels as an option. But if you try getting a hotel almost anywhere else, you'd be lucky to find one for less than $50...and that's just for a single room. I know, I agressively priced hotels (looking for a cheap $20something room) for conventions in Tampa and N.Orlando. In N.Orlando I managed to get a room for only about $50 (with NO maid service, no pool, no CBreakfast). In Tampa I was unable to get a room for under $50 and ended up sleeping in my car. And when I priced hotels for training near the Orlando Airport, the cheapest was $50 at a Weasley Inn. Neither of the hotels that I ended up staying at offered anything special except a room. No theming, no expansive lobby with games stores or food. No transportation to WDW, no free parking at WDW,
===
Now one advantage to staying offsite (assuming you have a car) is the access to cheap stuff, food, gas, WalmartSuperstore.
===
Even though I don't stay at Disney Resorts for a variety of reasons, comparing them to other hotels in the real world clearly shows that they are priced quite appropriately...if anything, cheaper.