Dear Eisner

[airlarry!]

Mr. D:

I understand now the reasons why you are not visiting Disney establishments.

While you are not going to Disney places, please make sure that you don't go to The Adventurer's Club over on Pleasure Island.

That place is, IMO, the one place in downtown Disney that is just dripping with Disney magic. If you like comedy, and especially musical improvisational comedy, don't check it out! I hear if you don't buy an AP for Pleasure Island, you won't save a lot of money with repeated non-visits.

If you don't go, make sure not to tell us all about it. Good luck with the continued boycott, and Kungaloosh!

(psst-if you do go, I won't tell anybody...)

 

[raidermatt]

Let's assume you are right-handed and are not an experienced dart thrower. Now, stand 10 feet from a dart board and throw 10 darts with your right hand. Then 10 darts with your left hand.

Sure, a few of the lefty darts will be better than some of the righty darts.

That doesn't change the fact that going lefty isn't the best choice.

Yet every time the "new" Disney is criticized, the minions of Sauron, Gozer, or whatever other name we give the dark one running Disney, pull out something that was done in the past that seems comparable.

I don't think Walt would have built these type of resorts but I also think they serve a valuable purpose for alot of guests.

Their only purpose is to make money. Period. We've established many times that this alone is not a justification for Disney.

Certainly a company of Disney's capabilities could come up with more 'Disney-like' ways to make money.

Of course, when the process begins with how can we make more money, those other ways rarely see the light of day.

If you can't recognize that this film had not only quality animation, but incredible story and depth then you are way too jaded to ever productively discuss Disney in any meaningful fashion. The depth of the original story in Brother Bear eclipses the likes of Lion King and Litlle Mermaid.

1. Why is this statement ok, but a statement like "If you can't see the problems with (fill in the blank)..." is not ok?

2. Brother Bear was a quality movie, but it was "safe". The plot was similar to Ice Age, but it was done in a more formulaic fashion. For example, there wasn't even a real attempt to work the comedic relief into the story... (Maybe I'm nuts.... ok, I am nuts, but that's not the point... but I don't think that opinion disqualifies me from being able to discuss Disney in a productive fashion.)

3. Depth of story... I can see where you could make that point with respect to TLM, but that's a tough sell on TLK. Regardless, depth of story is tricksy to define, and even so, depth is only one factor. To me, depth does not equal quality, particulary with respect to the way the story is conveyed. There are lots of incredible stories that get messed up in the translation to film.

 

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by Mr D I am just one voice. one person and with MY free will have decided to boycott Disney in any way possible, coincidentally I leave in just a few hours for a 5200 mile trip from Alaska to Orlando.

Originally posted by Mr D ... particularly Blizzard Beach that I purchased an annual pass for, just BB/Disney Quest no other part of WDW is in my itiniary for my 4 week stay here in Orlando. My son and I have been going there for the last couple of days ... .

Originally posted by Mr D Its true I said I was boycotting the parks but to me the water park is exempt ... Besides I bought an AP for the water park and DQ only, out of four weeks I may be there way more than a dozen times ...

Originally posted by Mr D I seriously doubt I'll spend any additional funds to go see M:S or Philharmagic like a park hopper, I'll wait till my next vacation when Everest is open, even if thats two years from now.

Now THAT's the way to boycott. State that you are boycotting IN ANY WAY POSSIBLE. Then ... to show your resolve, purchase an annual pass for a water park and Disney Quest (the two together are about $200) and visit often. Justify that purchase because of the great value. And then leave yourself an out for further WDW touring by saying you "seriously doubt" that you'll go elsewhere on property. All while still actually putting money into the coffers of the company you're boycotting AND planning your next trip.

Yup ... that's definitely going to have Disney shaking in their boots!

 

[Another Voice]

Showmanship is the ability to get people to spend money when they had no intention to so in the first place. Back in the dead guy's day people had no intention of spending an entire vacation around an amusement park. But through the showmanship of "wow - look at the hotels! There ain't no place like them on earth!!! You gotta see this!!!!" - Disney convinced millions and millions of people to consider something they never had before (I mean, who'd go to Florida an not go to the beach?)

Marketing is the ability to get someone to spend money on your products over the exact same products offered by your compeditors. It's marketing to get people to visit Blizzard Beach instead of Wet 'n Wild; it's marketing to get people to go to Pleasure Island over Church Street Station; it's marketing to get people to stay in the Pop Century instead of Elmer's Big YoYo Motor Lodge.

Disney used to be about creating places so new and different people wanted to travel to see them. Today, Disney is simply trying to redirect people already there (lured by the dead guy's stuff).

No one goes to Orlando to see Animal Kingdom, they go becasue of the Magic Kingdom. There's nothing different operationally different between AK and any of the 'gator farms, Mystery Houses or Boardwalk and Baseballs - they survive as "something else to do" when the main draw has been seen. Again, sit AK out on US 192 and it would be as empty as Great China.

As for California Adventure, when you build a place sooooo bad that it can't even siphon guests from a hundred yards away - you've really done something wrong.

 

[raidermatt]

I don't buy this argument because, if you apply the same rationale to DCA, then DCA's PAID admission should be growing too.

Perhaps you have info on AK's attendance you haven't shared... if so, give it up. Otherwise, we only have the Amusement Business numbers which show attendance falling each full year since AK opened. Hardly much in the way of acceptance.

However, I will grant that DCA is much worse.

If All-Stars were priced the same as the Deluxes, or even the moderates do you think they would have the same high return rate?

Moderates, Caribbean Beach Resort and Coronado Springs, yes because the pools and transportation are not that much better.

C'mon... if they could price them higher they would.

You may not believe it, but the stats show that there are guests who--even though they have the capacity to stay elsewhere--still choose to go back to All Stars or try Pop Century. I know because I've been told the info and because I fall within that info.

Of course there are. There are also folks who would prefer to go to DCA than Disneyland. However that doesn't prove your point.

Personally, I don't see that with the All Stars though (Pop Century hasn't been open long enough yet for me to make a call). Why don't I see that with the All Stars? Because they have some of the highest occupancy numbers on property. And they have a high returning guest number.

And based on your last post, we've determined that its because they are cheaper.... So if Hope's responses were off, what exactly was the point you were trying to make, other than the AS's can justify their cheaper price? If that's it, I'm sure we can concede it, but I'm not seeing the relevance.

I'm sure a lesser resort, say a "sub-value" resort, priced lower than the Values, could also acheive such numbers. Nobody has questioned that. But what does it prove.

To go back to DCA, if it had been priced and marketed as a lesser-value option/complement to Disneyland, I'm sure its numbers would have been better. But that wouldn't make it the right way to go would it?

 

[hopemax]

However, for being one who just found my DCA analogy flawed, this type of question is even more flawed.

You know Airlarry's post about lawyer cross-examinations, here's an example. Was it really that unclear that I was trying to determine what you thought the primary reason people were choosing the All-Stars, price or theme? Of course, there are more than one reason. I think that it's so obvious that there is more than one reason for choosing anything that any discussion about reasons would be to determine between primary and secondary reasons, which is why I didn't add, "Do you believe the primary reason for such is..."

You may not believe it, but the stats show that there are guests who--even though they have the capacity to stay elsewhere--still choose to go back to All Stars or try Pop Century

Now here I do think you are misunderstanding. I'm not disagreeing with this at all. I'm watching Oprah right now, and the subject is financial freedom. Oprah just got done talking about how Stedmond makes fun of her for brown bagging lunch, and even though she's a multi-millionare and could eat out every meal forever, she's still a product of her upbringing and she tends to pinch pennies, even now.

So even though the stats say that people with the ability to stay elsewhere still choose the All-Stars, does it clarify how many people are doing so for the same reasons Oprah takes her lunch to work? Do *YOU* agree that those people exist and could also be described as "many people," like DK used to describe the people who stay because they like it?

IMO, the All-Stars received a benefit in their rate-of-return by being the lowest priced hotel on Disney property. A benefit that is not received by DCA, since DCA isn't the lowest priced option at the DL Resort. I did not see any consideration of that difference and the effect it would have on rate-of-return in your post. And thus I felt the need to point it out.

 

[KNWVIKING]

***"No one goes to Orlando to see Animal Kingdom, they go becasue of the Magic Kingdom."***

You're right, people go to Orlando because of MK. The first time, maybe even the 2nd. But the 3rd,4th,5th or umpteenth time is because of AK,Epcot,MGM,BB,TL,PI,DTD,golf,resorts,DVC and all else that is WDW. Things not built by the dead guy.

 

[raidermatt]

You're right, people go to Orlando because of MK. The first time, maybe even the 2nd. But the 3rd,4th,5th or umpteenth time is because of AK,Epcot,MGM,BB,TL,PI,DTD,golf,resorts,DVC and all else that is WDW. Things not built by the dead guy.

Your point advocates a strategy of complementing what the dead guy started, as opposed to attempting to continue it. (No, I don't mean building Epcot City.)

Certainly a sound business strategy from many points of view, if executed properly.

However, its not the business strategy that the dead guy used to give them something to complement.

Again, its not whether or not WDW as a whole is "good".

Its whether an alternative strategy, one already in place at one time, would have produced something even "better", and more successful.

 

[hopemax]

So, it can't be all "price" because if it was

Again, I never said or even implied that people stay at the All-Stars because it's all about price.

Again, I was trying to point out that the All-Stars enjoy a pricing advantage that DCA does not have, and that shows up in their respective rates-of-return.

That's the discussion I was having.

If you want to turn this discussion into why people stay at the All-Stars instead of off-property, that isn't a discussion I feel like participating in again. The quick version is price, location and Disney ownership vs. not.

I did not include location and ownership in my earlier post because the All-Stars and DCA both share that same benefit in that regard, and I wasn't trying to start a "why people stay at the all-stars vs offsite" discussion again.

 

[hopemax]

But, that doesn't make any sense if you take the approach that the AllStars are no better themed than nearby off-site properties but cost MORE.

But that is not my position.

And I find it interesting that you find an implication about my position in my question to you. I was not trying to make a statement about my theory on price vs theme. I was trying to find out more about yours.

Only it seems I should have added an additional qualifier. And at the risk of being accused of moving the target again, here's a revised question, since you did not answer the one I was intending to ask. And the most frustrating thing is I suspect that you know that.

Of the people who choose to stay at the All-Stars, do you believe their choice was motivated more by theme or by price? Yes, there are other factors, but I am interested only in what you believe was the bigger factor: theme or price.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Theme. If it was price, they would have stayed off-site at a less expensive motel/hotel.

Wrong!! It cannot be theme. It isn’t themed. It is merely decorated!! I thought we had already stipulated to that.

And Hope. It isn't price either (although, contrary to Mr. Contrary, it goes a lot further than primary colored, giant decorations).

It is BRAND. Plain and simple. Haven’t the two of you been listening to AV at all!!??


And that's why it's sooooooo sad!

 

[Mr D]

The Adventurers Club? Don't go because its dripping with Disney magic? is that why Trish has such gorgeous shapely legs in her maids outfit?

That place is a hoot! The aviatrix was attractive, I didn't get her name, I've always liked tall woman.

 

[hopemax]

Landbaron,

Like I told Scoop,

I was not trying to make a statement about my theory on price vs theme. I was trying to find out more about yours.

I wasn't interested in knowing what role he felt brand played, I only wanted to know about theme and price concerning only the All-Stars and the people who stay there.

To which I FINALLY I got an answer!

BTW: Not that I care, but you suspect wrong.

This is good to know, because then I feel more comfortable asking additional questions, only I hope that it will not be this difficult to get an answer in the future.

 

[airlarry!]

Did I read that right? Did someone say that the All-stars are chosen more on the basis of theme not price?

No way, Scoopay. Besides the fact that there is no way to actually prove your theory, it just don't make no common sense.

There are two arguments here:

One. Do people chose the All-stars over the rest of Disney's resorts motivated more by theme or price? Price, of course. If the Poly and the All-stars were the same price, would people really chose the Allstars theme, smaller rooms, lack of restaurants, lack of magical transportation, lack of featured pools, etc etc yada yada yada? Give...me...a...break.

Two. Do people choose the All-stars (or heaven forbid the Poop Century) over the 192 motels motivated more by theme or price? Neither and both. People see the Allstars as being in the park...henced they are in the themed resort...and the price is just a bit more than the strip motels.

No way is there anything more than a very minor, minor group who says...."I want to stay offsite, and I can save money offsite.....but gosh darn it...I will sacrifice my love of staying offsite and money *strictly or for the most part* because there are foam and polyeurethene bowling pins stapled to the side of the building."

No way. I've stayed at the Allstars, heck in my old Ei$ner loving days, I applauded the fact that they brought 192 onto the property. They were cheap, had Disney transportation, Disney refillable mugs, and ostensibly were located within a 30 minute bus ride from the Magic Kingdom.

But give me a break, I had never stayed on site before! Once we stayed at the DxL, and saw what Disney could do, there was no way I was going back. (I was forced to do so one holiday trip for one night...and ugh was it an eyeopener).

Then to see Poop Century developed every day I stayed at the Caribbean. Man, you can complain all you want, Baron, about the Caribb, but wait till you see the Poop.


Anyway, that dog won't hunt.

 

[hopemax]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of the people who choose to stay at the All-Stars, do you believe their choice was motivated more by theme or by price?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Theme. If it was price, they would have stayed off-site at a less expensive motel/hotel.

Okay, then I have another question now.

Since you believe that theme not price is the greater motivator for why people stay at the All-Stars, you don't expect the All-Stars to experience a sustained (allowing for people to try the new hotel, because it's new) drop off in bookings, now that a lower priced, Disney owned, on property hotel exists, correct? And if the All-Stars do experience a sustained drop off in bookings, we can expect you to take the position that it is because Pop Century is better themed than the All-Stars?

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Yet, as great as Port Orleans is generally agreed to be around here, its occupancy is still way down compared to the AllStars even when the available rates are less than $39 per night difference in some cases. Sure, $39 dollars is $39 dollars but that's hardly a huge amount to pay for such a purported dramatic level of difference between staying at Port Orleans and the AllStars.

OK scoop!! Enough of this tripe!! BACK IT UP!! You’re throwing around numbers and stats as if they were gospel. Where’s your back up. How do you KNOW it’s “occupancy is still way down compared to the AllStars”? How far down. Two guests? Or Five hundred? A night? A week? A ‘season’? And when is it only a $39.00 difference? All of the time? The blue light special? With a code? AP rates? Rack rate?

Please offer some sort of documentation!!

Guests are not just picking between the Polynesian and the AllStars and Port Orleans when evaluating the best place to stay. They are also considering some serious rock bottom rates at the very same nearby non-Disney properties which some of you all are claiming are basically identical to the AllStars.

Again, I disagree. For a great many (I would even guess the greater majority) once they have it in their heads that Disney is within their budget, the “price” search stops right there.

It’s like a flow chart:

GOING TO DISNEY
|
|
Can we do a Disney Resort? --- Yes! Book it! {END}!!
|
|
|
|
NO (Look Outside Disney)
{continue resort search}

As for it simply being "Brand", well, that doesn't really say anything other than that maybe guests are just too brainwashed to make logical choices and see that the AllStars are allegedly no different than the half the price Motel 6 just a few miles away.

I really don't buy this argument that there are simply a bunch of Disney brand mesmerized junkies walking off the cliff with the rest of the herd.

Good God, Scoop!! This is EXACTLY what we’ve been saying!! Maybe if you take out the “I really don’t buy the argument” and write the rest of the paragraph 1,000 times, maybe it will finally sink in!!

 

[Planogirl]

It's quite apparent what the DISers say about the Allstars and now, Pop Century. If you spend much time on the Resorts Board, you see over and over again "I would never stay offsite because I want to be part of the magic" or some variation thereof. I believe that this desire to be part of the "magic" takes priority over everything else for many people. Then finally comes price and of course, Junior loves the icons.

But it's really mostly about what people perceive as magic.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

But it's really mostly about what people perceive as magic.

Or could it be that it is the perception that Disney = Magic. No matter what! The kind of perception that the old Disney spent all its long years building up. And the new Disney® has spent a lot of time “marketing” and cashing in on.

Or in other words – Branding!

 

[DisneyKidds]

You posed the question Hopemax. It seems to imply that you think people return to the AllStars because of their price rather than their theme/decoration.

Sorry Hope...............I thought the same thing. Furthermore, your revised question........................

Of the people who choose to stay at the All-Stars, do you believe their choice was motivated more by theme or by price? Yes, there are other factors, but I am interested only in what you believe was the bigger factor: theme or price.

.......................doesn't seem to change my impression. You want to know if theme (decoration) or price is the primary reason people stay at AS/PC. I missed (and am having a hard time seeing) how this question related to DCA. Anywho..............to answer your revised question you can see my last answer. I think it is equal parts both theme (decoration..........maybe a little bit o' brand - but the brand is the decoration, no?) and price.

It is BRAND. Plain and simple.

Good God, Scoop!! This (there are simply a bunch of Disney brand mesmerized junkies walking off the cliff with the rest of the herd) is EXACTLY what we’ve been saying!!

Or could it be that it is the perception that Disney = Magic. No matter what!

Geez Baron, you really don't think much of the American public, do you? If only everyone could be a fraction as enlightened as you..............just think how much better off the world would be. I have a little different view of the American public, especially in todays economic times. They are a little more savvy than you give them credit for. Listen, most of us seem to agree that the Disney of today isn't the same as Walt's Disney. Philosophies, motivations, etc., etc. are somewhat different. Disney isn't producing Magic with the same consistency as in the past. However...........

For a great many (I would even guess the greater majority) once they have it in their heads that Disney is within their budget, the “price” search stops right there.

.................why is this? It is because they know that a stay on Disney property is going to be a better experience than a stay off property. As they say, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. But I suspect a great many who stay at AS and PC will come back. That's because the position that AS is no better than the Motel 6 down the road is flat out wrong. I know, I know.........Disney is not just about being better than the other guy. Disney should be a unique experience...........and the AS are in their own way. So what if it is just branding driven decoration that causes that. For that segment of society who enjoys the experience it is wonderful for them to have the option and I don't understand why you'd take that away.

Another question for you. Obviously you think that the AS is not a "Disney" experience. Does the lack of "Disney experience" they receive while at their resort detract from their experience at the MK or other parks and attractions?

 

[SnackyStacky]

Originally posted by DisneyKidds
Geez Baron, you really don't think much of the American public, do you? If only everyone could be a fraction as enlightened as you..............just think how much better off the world would be. I have a little different view of the American public, especially in todays economic times. They are a little more savvy than you give them credit for. Listen, most of us seem to agree that the Disney of today isn't the same as Walt's Disney. Philosophies, motivations, etc., etc. are somewhat different. Disney isn't producing Magic with the same consistency as in the past. However...........

.................why is this? It is because they know that a stay on Disney property is going to be a better experience than a stay off property. As they say, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. But I suspect a great many who stay at AS and PC will come back. That's because the position that AS is no better than the Motel 6 down the road is flat out wrong. I know, I know.........Disney is not just about being better than the other guy. Disney should be a unique experience...........and the AS are in their own way. So what if it is just branding driven decoration that causes that. For that segment of society who enjoys the experience it is wonderful for them to have the option and I don't understand why you'd take that away.

Another question for you. Obviously you think that the AS is not a "Disney" experience. Does the lack of "Disney experience" they receive while at their resort detract from their experience at the MK or other parks and attractions?

I can't really speak definitvely for Baron, whom you were addressing, but I can say that my argument is not so much that there's anything wrong with people actually enjoying the All Stars, and Pop Century, or that anybody is LESS enlightened than anybody else, but rather that it's really frustrating to think that Disney is charging money for a lesser experience, and that these people think that it's the best that Disney can do. They're paying a premium price for an experience that could be so much more.

The problem then becomes that people support it. They LIKE the All Stars, so they DO come back, which perpetuates the cycle of Disney churning out second-rate items that the crowds eat up. That doesn't bode well for Disney ever returning to creating first-rate, quality, truly magical products and services; not the magical® products that are Pop Century and the All Stars.