Dear Eisner

[DVC-Landbaron]

Vacations are structured much differently today. They are market driven and variably price oriented.

What a crock!! I totally disagree! “Market driven”??? “Variable price oriented”??? What kind of double-speak is this!?!?

We understand this. We deal with it at every turn from the moment we decide to travel.......... and we plan and spend accordingly.

Who’s we? Certainly not me!

What you want does still exist - at the "park properties" in Hershey, Pa.

First you tell me that this mode of business went the way of the dinosaur and now you say it is alive and well. Make up your mind!! Either it is dead or it isn’t!

Sounds pretty high doesn't it?

Yes. It does.

Now that place differs substantially from the Poly.

Then why are we discussing it and why are you bringing it up? What does it have to do with Disney!?

In other words, the lodge is to Hershey less than what the moderates are to Disney at a fixed price of $189.00 +tax. So what do you honestly think the rates for Disney's deluxe resorts should be set at in today's market considering the added amenities?

Are you seriously trying to compare Hershey to Dinsey!!?? Have you lost all sense!? Again! What has Hershey got to do with Disney??!!

Look. Just because this place boasts year round prices (although that even sounds unlikely given the “peak season” you mentioned) it is no reason why it should be compared to Disney. It doesn’t make sense and it isn’t logical. It’s the old “There is a man named Sam. He is blind. Therefore all blind people are named Sam.” Or is it, “Therefore all people named Sam will go blind.”

The point is one example of a third rate park does not prove a bloody thing!!

Lastly, what added amenities!? What have they added that wasn’t there when the Poly was built?

That's exactly what Disney was back in the day when the "big 2" were it. Look closely at Hope's numbers and you'll see a proportionate comparison between the on-site and the off-site rates. In other words, the competition was capitalizing on the overflow.

Did it ever occur to you that Disney was keeping the competition’s prices down!? Look close at the numbers. They didn’t dare raise their prices above Disney’s. You see, without all the evidence, the numbers can say anything you like. And my version is just as valid as yours. Heck more so, if you believe the so called incompetence of Miller/Walker and their pricing structure!

Don’t you see that every other company in the world was doing business as you suggest even in the early seventies. I don’t know how to break this to you but this isn’t new. The ancient Greeks probably did it to all them sightseeing barbarians! Everyone was doing it! Absolutely everyone! Except Disney, that is! They decided not to! Hmmmm. I wonder why!?

 

[crusader]

Mr. Baron:

Obviously you are not familiar with the philosophy and business practices of Milton S. Hershey but I can assure you he is cut from the same mold your beloved Walt is.

So exceptional was this man, an entire economic empire runs today on the foundation he set. It's right up your alley - quality/craftsmanship/dedication/commitment/drive/ambition/risk/guts/talent/etc............etc............etc..............

Who’s we? Certainly not me!

Really. Do you drive to Florida? Otherwise, you're bartering every step of the way beginning with the airline industry.

First you tell me that this mode of business went the way of the dinosaur and now you say it is alive and well. Either it is dead or it isn’t!

It's alive in a town with no competitors. It's dead everywhere else. Sorry for not making that point perfectly clear.

Are you seriously trying to compare Hershey to Dinsey!!?? Have you lost all sense!? Again! What has Hershey got to do with Disney??!!

Have I lost all sense? Man that's a loaded question for yourself as well. What is this comparison you say?

Very simple. There exists two geniuses from the same generation who built resorts around a park. Both operated with a fixed resort pricing structure so long as no competition cropped up. Now only one remains isolated enough to continue that practice and they get away with charging the consumer an inflated premium for accomodations because they can with limited capacity.

The point is one example of a third rate park does not prove a bloody thing!!

Hershey is not a third rate park. It never was.

BTW - the "added" amenities was in comparing resorts not simply in reference to the Poly. One has "added" amenities over the other. Relax.

Everyone was doing it! Absolutely everyone! Except Disney, that is! They decided not to! Hmmmm. I wonder why!?

What are you talking about?

Did it ever occur to you that Disney was keeping the competition’s prices down!? Look close at the numbers. They didn’t dare raise their prices above Disney’s.

I doubt it. Sure smells like price fixing to me.

 

[wtg2000]

"Storytelling" is about giving people new experiences.

Not really. It's about packaging universal themes in a cloak of familiar plot situations to trigger certain responses in the audience. Why do you think Pirates (the movie) was such an instant hit.

The Polynesian works because people already have an idea of what the south seas looks like. The Contemporary works because people already know what the future will look like.

Winnie the Pooh ride- re-live scenes from the movies.
Main Street USA - a "recreation" of a typical turn of the century town that most people have at least a sense of how it should look.
Frontierland - a "recreation" of the old west we've all seen in movies.

I think you're overstating the concept of storytelling at these hotels. They are recreations of hotels that exist in other parts of the world in excellent detail (except I guess the Contemporary which is trying to exact the future). The AS and PC don't recreate something that already exisits. They take a theme, a historical era, and try to recreate it. Judging from the reviews, it's making people feel something. That's the point.

Or worse yet, you blindly book a rack rate and then find out that much, much better deals could have been if only

I don't know about you but I find this is pretty typical of all hotels. There are tons of differrent rates. It's not just Disney. And how are you blindly booking a rack rate? There is tons of information out there about other rates, and I'm sure the typical traveller is savy enough these days to know that different rates exist for all hotels, not to mention flights and last minute vacation packages. We book at Disney a lot and I never feel ripped off. Besides, you can change rates if you find a better one (within a time frame). Try looking at other hotel chains. Varying rates, special deals and discounts is the norm.

Trying to say that Disney and only Disney is trying to stick to their customers is getting bizarre.

 

[DisneyKidds]

Kidds, what sort of view do you book, and HOW did you do that?!?!?!!

Standard view, lots of different ways. Our first trip (Honeymoon at GF) took advantage of a great Amex package, after that I had access to Shades of Green (and overflow rates) for a few years, but other codes were available, then just codes, then AP rates...................but ALWAYS a discount. Check that, I may have paid rack at a moderate once at Easter. But beyond that, be it school vacations (DW is a teacher), summers, Memorial Day, December................ALWAYS a discount.

Yes, you may have to book, and wait, and change, and work. To some that may be annoying, and that's fair enough. To me it would be annoying to call 20 months in advance of a vacation and not be able to get a room at all, as they did back in the day.

So Baron says booking two years in advance is not difficult or limiting, bit navigating and working available discounts today is? Sorry, I don't agree.

Personally, I'd rather deal with the discounts than have to book two years in advance. We plan way in advance, but two years? No way. What's that Baron? You say that that is just what you had to do if you wanted a room? Well, how's that so different from saying you have to work the discounts if you want a room? It isn't. There has always been some kind of limitation or requirement placed upon the guest in order to get a room. Back in the day it was advance planning. Nowadays it is knowing the discounts, but now if you don't them or they aren't available at least you can still get a room.

 

[SnackyStacky]

Kidds,

Sure, it's only once, but it only takes once to set a precedent. This past September, there was not a single discount to be had, the Fairytale Package notwithstanding.

My rooms are booked, the annual passes are purchased, and now it's a matter of waiting. But it really concerns me that this past September there were no room only codes, no annual pass rates, no nothing. I can afford what I booked, so I don't say that because I'm depending on codes, but it certainly would be great to take some savings and book the Illuminations cruise that my fiancée wants, or the keys to the kingdom tour that we both want.

I don't think I really have a point in the scheme of this thread, I was actually curious as to how you've always managed to secure a discount.

 

[hopemax]

Standard view, lots of different ways.

DK, then what the heck were you doing comparing your rate to the $85/$230 thing in an earlier post?

The standard view, "back in the day" was $75 which is more or less equivalent to $205.

And why does this discussion always go to: "It's either the current way, or the Landbaron way?" Isn't there a whole spectrum of alternatives in between that will lead to a more magical vacation?

The primary thing the Landbaron way shows is that it used to be done differently, meaning alternatives exist. Why not consider them?

 

[DisneyKidds]

DK, then what the heck were you doing comparing your rate to the $85/$230 thing in an earlier post?

Sorry Hope, I should have said "Garden". You see, "Standard" view really doesn't exist now. No need to bite my head off .

Perhaps this is just another example of how things were done differently back in the day. As it stands now you have one of two choices at the Poly. Garden view, which would be a garden or pool view room, or Lagoon View. No "Standard" view exists. Last month I spent two wonderful nights in a Garden view room overlooking the pool at the Poly for $189 a night icluding tax. That is why I chose the $85/$230 combo, as I paid for a pool view room. That is why the heck I did that . $75/$206? I still came in under.

And why does this discussion always go to: "It's either the current way, or the Landbaron way?"

Good question...............althought that isn't my position. Certainly things could have been done differently, even better. I've said it before and I think there were lots of ways things could have gone. Perhaps Baron needs to answer why the old way is the ONLY way he will accept as being Magical or Disney.

The primary thing the Landbaron way shows is that it used to be done differently, meaning alternatives exist. Why not consider them?

I have no problem considering alternatives. I do think you misunderstand Baron's points. What he is trying to show isn't that alternatives exist that should be considered. He apparently is trying to show exactly how it was done back in the day, that being the only "alternative" that could produce a Disney result. Again, I accept and am willing to consider that there were dozens of ways in which WDW resorts could have developed...............all of which could have been good. Me thinks that Baron considers that there was one, and only one, way in which the could have developed in an acceptable manner.

 

[cristen]

"Yes, you may have to book, and wait, and change, and work. To some that may be annoying, and that's fair enough. To me it would be annoying to call 20 months in advance of a vacation and not be able to get a room at all, as they did back in the day."

Yes, but we can agree that it wouldn't be one or the other now. There were only the two big hotels and WDW was still new. Of course they were going to be sold out all the time. Now we have how many rooms in the entire resort? It would be much harder to sell out ALL the rooms ALL the time, even if they were to lower the rates to where they didn't have to give out codes all the time. If you look at Linda's thread about the parks, it says that the resorts have a 51.9% occupancy rate, so I think they would be able to handle the flood of people coming if they were to lower their rates, which they should do. I agree with Baron, they are playing games, and I don't like like it. I am patiently waiting for the AP's to come out so that my 323.00 a night room at the WL will go down. My room will be the highest expense on this trip. And I don't want to get an AP, I don't plan on going back this year, and I feel like I am cheating. But I also agree with Hope, that there has to be an alternative, SOMETHING, that has to be better than what they are doing now.

Cristen

 

[raidermatt]

Me thinks that Baron considers that there was one, and only one, way in which the could have developed in an acceptable manner.

Your literal interpretation requires Baron to have said that capacity should have remained at a point that resulted in rooms being booked to 100% of that capacity two years in advance.

I don't remember ever reading that from him. Yes, he would rather "un-Disney" resorts not be built, but that does not mean "Disney" resorts could not have been built in their place.

An increase in capacity, combined with the consistent pricing structure he espouses, would not necessarily result in no availability 20 months in advance. Consistent does not equal cheap.

So Baron says booking two years in advance is not difficult or limiting, bit navigating and working available discounts today is?

Again, who said capacity couldn't be increased?

I don't know about you but I find this is pretty typical of all hotels. There are tons of differrent rates. It's not just Disney.

If Disney had always done things as everybody else did, there wouldn't be fan sites like this one. The "different" way worked, so the more pressing question is why does Disney feel the need to change from what made them special (and more successful) to what everybody else does? .

Trying to say that Disney and only Disney is trying to stick to their customers is getting bizarre.

Admittedly, I skimmed over portions of the thread, but I didn't see anyone say that.

We understand this. We deal with it at every turn from the moment we decide to travel.......... and we plan and spend accordingly.

Some more willingly than others. That aside, as in every case, there can be benefits to a company that bucks the trend

I doubt it. Sure smells like price fixing to me.

Perhaps the 'ole honker is in need of a check-up...

 

[wtg2000]

If Disney had always done things as everybody else did, there wouldn't be fan sites like this one. The "different" way worked, so the more pressing question is why does Disney feel the need to change from what made them special (and more successful) to what everybody else does? .

Everyone has changed. The plethora of hotel rates is endemic across the industry with the internet, and the multitude of credit cards offering bonuses, plus things like AARP, AAA and a bunch of other letters which now have greater programs of rates. Besides, back in the day Disney offered different rates for shareholders (I once got 40 percent off at the Poly) and Magic Kingdom Club. So the entire industry has changed and Disney has changed with it.

Remember, Disney never used to advertise on TV or allow travel agents to book their rooms. They can't live in a time warp.

 

[Another Voice]

Of course things have changed.

You overbuild by thousands and thousands of rooms, you blow your "premium brand" status by hocking motel accommodations at hotel prices so you can gouge more money out of people you don't like anyway, you spend on slick but questionable advertising* instead of real additions & improvement to bring people in, you screw up the finances of the place to pay off network TV fiascoes…yea a lot has to change.

As for the shareholders rates - that was back in the day when shareholders mattered. Today, there's only one shareholder that matters and he's keeping all the goodies for himself.


* - you ever notice that a lot of WDW advertising is on networks and cable channels get a cut of? An interesting way of transferring cash from WDW to other areas of the business, ain't it?

 

[wtg2000]

You overbuild by thousands and thousands of rooms,

It would be interesting to know their occupancy rates year round. There have been two occasions in the past five years or so where we haven't been able to get a room on the entire property - once in April and once in February.

you blow your "premium brand" status by hocking motel accommodations at hotel prices so you can gouge more money out of people you don't like anyway,

It's interesting but Air Canada Vacation rates to spend a week at All-Stars is slightly more than their packages for 192 at Holiday Inns and Comfort Inns. You could argue that Disney are giving people a more affordable way of staying on property and not appearing elitist by having only premium brand hotels. The difference between Disney hotels and non-Disney hotels is that Disney hotels are on the property and for that you pay more. It's just the way the world works. Deal with it.

I'm sure if you're right people will despise the AS and PC so much that they won't return and eventually the numbers will dwindle and they'll be forced to close!

Disney doesn't like its guests? Are they the only corporation like this? I imagine every other hotel chain and corporation in the world does? Sorry, but there's that Disney and only Disney are out to get us paranoia again.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Really. Do you drive to Florida?

Yep! Every blessed time!!

It's alive in a town with no competitors. It's dead everywhere else. Sorry for not making that point perfectly clear.

No! You did make it perfectly clear! I was simply pointing out how on the one hand you are telling me that Hershey and Disney are near enough to be compared and on the other you seem to be saying that there’s no comparison! Which is it!? Are they (were they) the same? Or are they (were they) so dissimilar that no valid comparisons can be drawn? I’m afraid I really don’t understand what you’re trying to tell us here.

An increase in capacity, combined with the consistent pricing structure he espouses, would not necessarily result in no availability 20 months in advance. Consistent does not equal cheap.

Yep!! So well put. Unfortunately that little aspect always seems to get lost. There’s usually a lot of disinformation about past practices that need correcting and little ‘exaggerations’ about inflation and relative costs (always higher in the past than actual or lower today than even the most tenacious among us could consistently achieve!) always seem to overshadow this very salient point.

That was one of my MAJOR complaints in the late seventies!! I kept waiting for that promised “Asian” and it never happened! I would have gladly welcomed it. I gladly welcomed the Floridian at first. And I welcomed and even stayed at the Caribbean when it was first built. That is, until I understood that these two very structures, and the concept behind them, were undermining the very philosophy which I had grown to love and sadly, had take for granted.

The two tiered price structure was introduced. It was a very short jump to three categories and further refinement even created sub-categories, all geared to enter the guests pocketbook as painlessly as possible. But that wasn’t the most grievous of deeds. NO! It was the very basic philosophical change that naturally occurred in order to support this “sharp-pencil” practice. They began ‘selling’ Disney® magic as a commodity instead of providing a “Disney SHOW”. You pay less. You get less “Disney”. You pay more. You get more “Disney”. How sad.

If Disney had always done things as everybody else did, there wouldn't be fan sites like this one. The "different" way worked, so the more pressing question is why does Disney feel the need to change from what made them special (and more successful) to what everybody else does? .

OH!! Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you!!! You said that BEAUTIFULLY!!!

Remember, Disney never used to advertise on TV or allow travel agents to book their rooms. They can't live in a time warp.

Yeah! Unfortunately a whole other topic! AV dealt with it pretty well. I yearn for those days. Every commercial Disney runs, every special they espouse, every secret code they offer, cheapens them. Both the perception of the public and the brand they represent. I know this isn’t a very popular belief, but I really think the company was much better off before the “marketing” concept took hold.

I’ll gladly talk more on the subject. Start another thread. I’m sure AV will join in too!

It would be interesting to know their occupancy rates year round. There have been two occasions in the past five years or so where we haven't been able to get a room on the entire property - once in April and once in February.

How far out? Two weeks? Two years? Somewhere in the middle? In either case I think most people (even Disney management) thinks they overbuilt the resorts. I thought that it was a given at this point.

It's interesting but Air Canada Vacation rates to spend a week at All-Stars is slightly more than their packages for 192 at Holiday Inns and Comfort Inns.

Two points. First: What in the world does this have to do with Disney!?!?! I understand you’re trying to draw some sort of parallel, but NOTHING can compare to Disney. Or at least that’s the way it should be. It used to be. They were not only head and shoulders above the fray; they were light years ahead (a mixed metaphor (I know), but I couldn’t get out of it!!) But they have allowed themselves to become so like their competition that the above example actually makes sense on certain levels!! HOW SAD!!!

Point two: How do you think those other resorts reach their pricing structure? Do you think they just pull up and number, never giving any thought at all about what Disney is charging? Or could it be that they are purposely just ‘slightly’ less than Disney? If Disney suddenly, but consistently, dropped their prices by twenty bucks a night, those ‘other’ resorts would STILL be ‘slightly’ less. You have the tail wagging the dog. I’m afraid that it is the other way around.

I'm sure if you're right people will despise the AS and PC so much that they won't return and eventually the numbers will dwindle and they'll be forced to close!

You make a common mistake. And one made all too often on this board. You are confusing ‘popularity’ for Disney! Worked one way it is certainly advantageous for Disney to be popular. But just because something is ‘popular’ doesn’t necessarily mean it’s good for Disney. And advertising on TV, capricious and unpredictable resort rates, three tiered (or more) pricing structure in order to sell “magic” as a commodity, and just about every other philosophical change brought on by this administration is simply not good for Disney! No matter how popular it may SEEM to be.

Disney doesn't like its guests? Are they the only corporation like this? I imagine every other hotel chain and corporation in the world does? Sorry, but there's that Disney and only Disney are out to get us paranoia again.

And because other companies do it, that makes it all right? Hmmmm. Sounds like you’ve been listening to my kids!! That’s the line they always use. “But gee dad! Everyone else is doing it!!”

Sorry. Again, it may be popular, but it ain’t good for Disney!!

 

[wtg2000]

They were not only head and shoulders above the fray; they were light years ahead

Your entire argument seems based on the notion that Disney used to be some utopian company that did everthing for the benefit of their customers and that no other corporation in the world (and they were a corporation before Eisner took over) could touch them for quality. Sorry, but this just isn't true. There are tons of other hotels, big and small, chains and private that provide excellent quality and service. This goes for other companies. I think people who think that Disney was the be all and end all are looking at the past with rose coloured glasses. I don't think Disney was that much different, people just developed a sentimentality about them. Believe me, if the Internet had been around in Walt's time there would be people on this board slamming him.

Original resorts - When the Poly and Cont. first opened people complained that the rooms were too small, that they had been built like business hotels and not for families.

Two tiers? - remember they built Fort Wilderness in an era when people tented but now with it filled with expensive motor homes, they built the AS and PC for people who previously may have braved mother nature.

Advertising on TV? What do you think Walt was doing everytime he appeared on the tube pushing his product?

This is a cronic case where people build up the past to knock down the present. I'm not saying that things weren't better, but the degree is certainly debatable. I imagine you would rather have had Ron Miller allow Marriott to build 20,000 non-themed hotel rooms.

How far out? Two weeks? Two years? Somewhere in the middle? In either case I think most people (even Disney management) thinks they overbuilt the resorts. I thought that it was a given at this point.

What difference does it make? If they were full they were full. Obviously they didn't overbuild in the Wal-Mart category or they wouldn't have bothered with PC.

 

[SnackyStacky]

Originally posted by wtg2000
Your entire argument seems based on the notion that Disney used to be some utopian company that did everthing for the benefit of their customers and that no other corporation in the world (and they were a corporation before Eisner took over) could touch them for quality. Sorry, but this just isn't true. There are tons of other hotels, big and small, chains and private that provide excellent quality and service.

I could very easily be wrong, but it seems to me that this wasn't Disney's primary goal in building his hotel properties. Sure he wanted them to be of the utmost quality and service, but that came AFTER the thing was built. First and foremost in the planning of any hotel was the story that the property was to tell.

This goes for other companies. I think people who think that Disney was the be all and end all are looking at the past with rose coloured glasses.

Who invented animated motion picture? Who invented the theme park? Who invented the dozens of progressions in animation (things like the multi-plane camera....)? Disney set the trend and everyone else followed.

Original resorts - When the Poly and Cont. first opened people complained that the rooms were too small, that they had been built like business hotels and not for families.

And when Disneyland was built, people complained that tacky restaurants and cheap motels were springing up on Harbor Blvd. Because of that, Disney WORLD came to be. When you're busy creating new things, you tend to make mistakes. And you learn from those mistakes. I don't think anybody is saying that Walt was perfect. I think what's being contended is the philosophy that was behind each and every decision the company made.

Advertising on TV? What do you think Walt was doing everytime he appeared on the tube pushing his product?

Do you see Eisner on TV selling a product that he believes in strongly enough to get in front of people and explain his plans? i don't. I see people that are paid to say they're having a great time at Disney World. There's a difference between someone who believes in his product so strongly that he himself will get on TV and sell it, and a marketing department deciding what's the best way to capture a market segment.

This is a cronic case where people build up the past to knock down the present. I'm not saying that things weren't better, but the degree is certainly debatable. I imagine you would rather have had Ron Miller allow Marriott to build 20,000 non-themed hotel rooms.

I don't think Baron has ever supported Miller in anything. As a matter of fact, I think he's said that they were more inept than Eisner. (I may be remembering wrong, but I thought he said that....)

What difference does it make? If they were full they were full. Obviously they didn't overbuild in the Wal-Mart category or they wouldn't have bothered with PC.

The WHAT category?!?!

 

[wtg2000]

Who invented animated motion picture? Who invented the theme park? Who invented the dozens of progressions in animation (things like the multi-plane camera....)? Disney set the trend and everyone else followed.

Here I agree with you. But we're talking Walt here. This is typical. A man with a vision founds a company but after he dies the company is taken over by bean counters and the original vision dies. I guess my point has been that we can't expect things to be done the way Walt did them. I was really comparing the current management to the post-Walt era. (It would be interesting to know what Walt would have thought of EPCOT. My guess is he wouldn't have liked it in the form he took). Many people call World Showcase a glorified shopping mall and that was built pre-Eisner, and they scaled back and cut plans to build more attactions just what we criticize Eisner for today (ie AK). And they scaled back on building PoftheC, something we would be raking Eisner over the coals for doing today.

The company wasn't agressive in its marketing plans or in its development of WDW because they had lost their leader and were floundering. (Remember, Roy died shortly after WDW opened). Thus, profits were dropping as was the stock and the company was in danger of being taken over and split apart. The way it was being done (not advertising, etc) wasn't working. Thus, I don't think it's fair to compare today with 1975 or whenever.

Also, yes Walt Disney did lots of wonderful things and was a visionary when it came to animation and theme park entertainment, but there were other people who did great things in other fields as well. Many of those companies floundered after their founder died. I never expected Eisner to be Walt, but it seems that some people do.

 

[DisneyKidds]

There’s usually a lot of disinformation about past practices that need correcting and little ‘exaggerations’ about inflation and relative costs (always higher in the past than actual or lower today than even the most tenacious among us could consistently achieve!) always seem to overshadow this very salient point.

Pish!! That's right, I said pish!!! . I could talk about people being blind to reality or the truth, but I won't (ooops, I just did ).

I know that LB isn't advocating zeo growth, and we've had that discussion in the past. What I believe he is advocating is that all growth would have been a differently themed resort on par with the Poly or CR. I don't recall if he ever difinitively answered how many "deluxe" Poly like resorts priced at $200 to $250 a night he thinks there should be. (I do think in the past he stated that the resorts should have been priced around $189? But even his corrections to exaggerated price claims couldn't get him that low. Hope put that to rest.) I don't think that 12 to 15 of that type of hotel would have necessarily been best for Disney's growth.

Hey, I'm not a big fan of the values and I do think that Disney overbuilt in the hotel category, but I think that the "caste system" as LB calls it has worked well for Disney.....................and Disney guests. I do disagree with Baron's view of "pay less, get less - pay more, get more". We've stayed with the surfs at the AS, mingled with the commoners at all the mods, and lived it up with the royalty in almost all of the deluxes...............and never once was our Disney experience anything close to "less". If Disney to Baron is all about the size of his hotel room and whether or not he can spy a parking lot or get to his room via interior hallways then he truely has missed something. Different does not mean less...............unless you have drawn a line in the sand and are only willing to consider one thing, one kind of experience, Disney.

I'm glad the "caste system" exists. Disney is glad. Stockholders should be glad. The DKidds clan is what Disney wants to create. Disney loving, DVC owning, multiple trip making Disney nuts dropping copious amounts of green annually. AV can put us down as the "ignorant audience" willing to "accept the brand" all he wants, but he (or was that she?) would be dead wrong to do so. We wouldn't be the knowledgeable Disney fans/consumers we are without the "caste system". Without the opportunity to experience and grow with Disney from humble beginnings to the blessings we are fortunate to have now we probably wouldn't have gotten to know Disney. No, I think the system as it stands now, while not perfect, is pretty darn good. Just think how much better it would be with a few less hotels in each category, all operating at 90+ percent occupancy. That would be sweet for everybody involved..............except those who believe that the experience they first had at WDW in 1972 is the ONLY one that can represent a Disney experience. That belief is what is sad.

 

[Another Voice]

"When the Poly and Cont. first opened people complained that the rooms were too small, that they had been built like business hotels and not for families. "

I would be extremely interested to see if you could possibly back-up this statement.

Go back and check the room sizes at the Poly and the Contemporary against the Disney® Magic® of the Winderness and the Animal Kingdom Lodge.

You can argue your case without making stuff up.

Unless, of course, it's simply more of the "Walt was a moron, today is paradise" brand blindless again.

The issue is that some people like the place the way it used to be, some people like the place the way it is now. Neither side is going to convince the other they are wrong.

The point, however, is about the long term survival of WDW. The place built a fantastic reputation by following a specific business model which was unique to Disney. That model has been trashed and new model - based on "standard" business concepts - has been put in its place.

The question is whether the new model will work at all, as well as the previous one, or better.

 

[wtg2000]

I would be extremely interested to see if you could possibly back-up this statement.

Me too. I've read so much on Disney over the years I can't remember the source for that. I wonder if subsequent buildings at the Poly and wings at the Cont. were built bigger.

Go back and check the room sizes at the Poly and the Contemporary against the Disney® Magic® of the Winderness and the Animal Kingdom Lodge.

Current low season rack rates: Poly $299, Cont - Tower $335, Wings $239, WL $199, AKL $199. Why would you expect WL rooms to be as big as Poly for $100 less?

You can argue your case without making stuff up.

Thanks for accusing me of lying.

Unless, of course, it's simply more of the "Walt was a moron, today is paradise" brand blindless again.

Who in the world is saying that? I can't believe anyone would think that Walt was a moron. Amazing.

 

[DC7800]

Originally posted by wtg2000
Me too. I've read so much on Disney over the years I can't remember the source for that. I wonder if subsequent buildings at the Poly and wings at the Cont. were built bigger

What subsequent buildings at the Contemporary??? The tower and wing rooms both date from the beginning, and were identical (no wing balconies, etc.) in size.

The Polynesian has had some additions, and the rooms were indeed slightly larger than the original (by about 50 square feet). However, the more expensive rooms over at the Grand Floridian are only 400 square feet - same as the older Polynesian rooms. People might well complain an All-Star room was rather small, expecially if their point of comparison in the Contemporary, but to make such a statement about the Polynesian or Contemporary just doesn't hold water. These must be the same people who "complain" there's not enough food at Chef Mickey's buffet or that there are too many attractions at Animal Kingdom.