Dear Eisner

[airlarry!]

Mr. Pirate:

I thought about you last week in Epcot, when I was walking with my family (who are not Disney 'geeks' like me -- that's what they call me of course) and as we looked out over the lake and could see the Swan and That Fish That Is Called a Dolphin, a bunch of them said (without me saying a word)...

"Now why would Disney put those hotels there...that just ruins the view."

And then my brother spoke up and said, "Yeah, the last time I came, I noticed that the hotels take the size perspective out of it. The Eiffel Tower doesn't look so big anymore cause there's this giant Swan sticking out the side."

Hmm....

And these are people that have never heard of a Land Baron.

 

[Peter Pirate]

Larry...Fair enough.

 

[Another Voice]

Best line ever about it –

"It's not a dolphin.

It is a carp that has been dropped from a great height."

 

[King Triton]

Michael Eisner destroyed Epcot by removing Horizons, the original imagination ride and World of Motion. Epcot lost it's imagination and charm. That is one of many bad choices Michael made. Michael lost Walt's vision and lacks imagination. I agree with Roy 100%.


:happy1:

 

[TravelinGal]

Originally posted by airlarry!
... and That Fish That Is Called a Dolphin...

Just a side note - that IS a dolphin - or dolphin fish at least... it is what is commonly known as Mahi-Mahi -

Mahi-mahi is a Hawaiian word that means "strong-strong" for dolphin fish. This species is found in tropical and subtropical waters throughout the world.

Dolphin fish are not to be confused with porpoises, which at times are also called dolphin. Dolphin fish (mahi-mahi) are cold-blooded members of the fish family, while porpoises are mammals and are protected by law. The mahi-mahi is a beautiful fish also known as "dorado". The fish has green and gold flanks that light up with a rainbow of iridescent colors that fade with time. Many retailers will display whole mahi-mahi because they are so striking and to help dispel the myth that they are related to Flipper.

Here is an image of one - still kind of a stretch from what they have perched on top of the Dolphin, but...

I've personally never noticed them when at EPCOT, but I'm sure I will notice them now. Sometimes ignorance IS bliss.

RE: the Grand Floridian - I think that, although highly overpriced, it has a very classic Disney charm. If I had that kind of money, I'd stay there in a heartbeat! I love the turn of the century theme - everything is so graceful there. I did not know that was a ME creation though.

It seems that ME has done quite a bit right - but he has also really messed up some things. Sounds like he's - oh, say....human? I certainly won't be casting the first stone!

 

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by King Triton
Michael Eisner destroyed Epcot by removing Horizons, the original imagination ride and World of Motion. Epcot lost it's imagination and charm. That is one of many bad choices Michael made. Michael lost Walt's vision and lacks imagination. I agree with Roy 100%.

:happy1:

I'll agree with you on the original Imagination ride, but not on the other two. World of Motion was fun and all, but really needed a change. I much prefer Test Track. Horizons was a favorite, but I'd have opted to put it into Tomorrowland, where they explore "the tomorrow of yesterday." There, it would have been at home. Mission : Space is a better fit, IMO, and it inches Future World closer to that edginess that they told us would be there. If they turned M:S into a full-out space pavilion, that would be even better.

 

[Planogirl]

All right, another round of the resort discussion! I still stand firmly on the side of Port Orleans Riverside but that's just me.

As for accomplishments, what about the Broadway shows? Where do they stack up?

 

[SnackyStacky]

As for accomplishments, what about the Broadway shows? Where do they stack up?

I'd have to say that they're definitely something that has been a wonderful thing for the Disney company.

I think that their Broadway division is in far better creative shape than any other division of the company. Beauty and the Beast is in it's...what? 9th year on Broadway? With Cats gone, I'd have to say that Disney now has a stronghold on the family audience for New York. Bringing in Julie Taymor for the Lion King was a stroke of sheer brilliance! (Although, visuals aside, they really need a lot more work on the book....it just doesn't work using the movie script almost verbatim...it gets boring, but that's just my opinion) And they branched out and created a production that is not based on a previously animated film.

It seems that ME has done quite a bit right - but he has also really messed up some things. Sounds like he's - oh, say....human? I certainly won't be casting the first stone!

The company was originally founded not to be a money-making machine, but as Walt's creative outlet. And even as the company grew and grew, he continued to insist upon the highest level of quality, both creatively, and in any final product.

That's what Roy was for. He took care of the bottom line, and Walt took care of the creative end.

Any good doing that Eisner has done was done when Wells was around. When he died, that's, in my opinon, when the company began to take a downward turn.

 

[All Aboard]

Landbaron,

First, I believe this is the first time in about a year that I have directed a post at you. Boy, how things have changed, eh?

$80, $160, whatever the maximum average rate that delivers the most total revenue is what Disney SHOULD be charging for their resorts. Under- or overpricing resorts (for the sake of adding or subtracting "Magic") just plain isn't part of the calculation.

As Pirate wrote, it's simply a matter of microeconomics - as it is with just about any pricing / supply decision.

I've asked you this before, and I know the response. You'd prefer a scenario that has fewer resorts, all deluxe in the Contemp/Poly ilk, priced at the CPI (not entertainment or accomodation CPI, just the general marketbasket CPI) equivalent of 1970's prices.

As we already know, that would create "pent-up" demand for the resorts out the wazzou. Help me understand why that makes for good economic decision making? Disney, essentially writing checks on a daily basis to the Days Inns and Marriotts of the world. Here, we don't want to earn it, you take it.

And, just to crack open the whole "What makes it a "Disney" resort argument." Tell me again why the Grand Floridian isn't "Disney", yet that nice looking retirement village / apartment complex themed nothing like the real Key West is?

 

[wtg2000]

One could argue that AS and PC are the only Disney resorts that are "Disney." The other resorts - WL, AKL, GF, Poly, YC/BC, etc. are just transplanted ideas - they exist somewhere else whether in the northwest or on a beach in San Diego. There's nothing distinctly Disney about them. Whereas the AS and PC, with giant replicas of Roger Rabbit and 101 Dalmations are unique and very Disney-ish. Where else can you experience giant Mickey's or walkmans? But you can experience something akin to the AKL if you went to Kenya.

The argument of course is not the choice of theme but the way in which the theme is carried out that makes it "Disney". As an uncultured wishing-to-be cultured adult I appreciate the premium hotels I've mentioned above, but if I were still a kid I would love the AS or PC. I think there's room for both.

 

[Another Voice]

"Whereas the AS and PC, with giant replicas of Roger Rabbit and 101 Dalmations are unique and very Disney-ish"

So if I take a brown cardboard box and write "Mickey Mouse" on it - that makes it Disney? The box suddenly becomes filled with all the magic®, joy®, and wonderment® that Disney® magically gathers®?

As much as the marketeers of the world would love for that to be true (and as much as it's Disney's only visible business plan) - putting a brand sticker on something doesn't "make" it anything.

The core concept of all things Disney - real Disney - is to use storytelling techniques to produce an emotional experience. That's the key difference between a Disney park and an amusement park. The old rides provided only a quick thrill; Disney attractions were mini-stories that thrilled the imagination.

That difference was carried over to the original WDW resorts as well. They were intentionally modeled on the lands of the Magic Kingdom and were meant to create the same kind of experience. Wandering through Tomorrowland felt like being in the future for a few hours; staying at the Contemporary was like being in the future for a few days. By using the techniques of stagecraft, movement through a scene and playing off people's preconceptions Disney was able to create resorts that offered a movie-like experience in real-life.

The All Stars/Pop Century aren't Disney because they lack the required number of Disney® stickers, they aren't because they attempt to be nothing more than well decorated motels. There is no storytelling, no set craft, no movie there. It's a Motel 6 with crimes against fiberglass.

It's not about money either. Port Orleans & Dixie Landings are very much in the "storytelling" mode and do impart a feeling of a river journey through the old South. The Grand Floridian, however, is crushed under the weight, size and density of its buildings and destroys a real sense of Victorian splendor and charm. It comes off as a "nice hotel" rather than "the Vanderbilts will be arriving by private rail coach at tea time". It's all because of storytelling.

Disney is a style, a technique and an attitude. It is not just a collection of copyrighted intellectual property.

 

[DC7800]

Originally posted by Another Voice
It's a Motel 6 with crimes against fiberglass.

Thanks AV. What a catchy way of so accurately describing these resorts. And absolutely right, of course.

 

[wtg2000]

It's a Motel 6 with crimes against fiberglass.

How else do you construct a giant Pluto or whatever if not with fiberglass?!

So I guess we're arguing that Disney should not have built motels for this price target, or are we arguing that they should have made them better and with a greater eye to storytelling? I think it would be hard to sell a hotel with a giant Pluto as a deluxe even if Pluto had been sculpted by Michelangelo. Conversely, a budget hotel themed to a yacht club would seem incongruous. Perhaps the AS and PC are reflective of Fantasyland (as GF is to Main Street, Poly to Adventureland, Ft. W and WL to Frontierland, and Cont. to Tomorrowland). I bet Dumbo's made of fiberglass.

Most of the reviews I've read of the Pop Century are positive and many people seem to like the AS - for the price perhaps as much as any other factor. For me, they are to hotels what the Aladdin spinner is to theme park attractions. Someone argued to me recently that Aladdin was a very Disney-ish attraction that told a story. I don't see it at all.

The PC and AS are meant to jolt kids the way a toy store does. It's eye candy. They may not be what we'd like Disney to be, Disney as first-rate storyteller, but they are what Disney often is - assembly line trinkets, spinner rides and straight-to-video movies. There seems to be a market, and as that movie once said, "build it and they will come..."

 

[*Robin*]

Originally posted by wtg2000


The PC and AS are meant to jolt kids the way a toy store does. It's eye candy. They may not be what we'd like Disney to be, Disney as first-rate storyteller, but they are what Disney often is - assembly line trinkets, spinner rides and straight-to-video movies. There seems to be a market, and as that movie once said, "build it and they will come..." [/B]

I'd say jolt yes, but eye candy?

....well, are you considering those nasty candy covered crickets in the candy department?

I wish I could get excited about these places...

AV, I will forever more use and credit you with the line "It's a Motel 6 with crimes against fiberglass." So absolutely perfect.

We will be down there very soon and I'll see it for myself, but from what I can tell, it's so very sad for the resorts to have gone this way...

 

[Another Voice]

"…but they are what Disney often is - assembly line trinkets, spinner rides and straight-to-video movies"

And such is the tragedy of the last decade.

I'm of the opinion, however, that real Disney is not at the whims of a creativity-free, naked-emperor CEO's attempts to personally enrich himself by strip mining a company and turning it into a market gimmick.

Real Disney is not Disney®.

The Real Disney approach to the value hotels would have been "what's the best we can do for the resources we have". That was the traditional approach to everything in the theme parks - and look what was accomplished at Port Orleans/Dixie Landings using that method. The Disney® approach was "we're losing market share to International Drive and I don't want to compete on price - throw something together and brand the sucker so we can charge a premium and gouge the WalMart tourists".

The Polynesian is a Disney resort; the All Stars is a motel that happens to be owned by The Walt Disney Company.

Creativity and imagination are not dependent only on the money spent. Talent and effort can overcome a lack of funding, although sometimes an idea does require resources to become a reality.

'Aladdin' is a case in point. The concept is a good one - "take a ride on the Magic Carpet". It's a perfectly valid story line. However, the idea was executed using fifty-year-old technology and thinking. Is twirling around in circles the best Disney could do with a flying rug? The attraction's poor execution negates what story appeal it had - much like a bad movie can ruin a perfectly good idea.

The worst attitude, however the whole idea that "build it and they will come..."

Pop Century sat empty for a year because they couldn't convince enough people to move off International Drive. California Adventure begs and pleads for guests even when admission costs nothing. George of the Jungle 2 sits collecting dust on shelves right next to all those unsold copies of Treasure Planet.

There is nothing magic® about the Disney name.

Unless the company remembers that a brand name must be backed up by quality, Disney will join Pan Am, FAO Schwartz and other "great" brand names in the trash heap.


P.S. In the original master plan the Polynesian and the Asian represented Adventureland, the Contemporary was Tomorrowland, Ft. Wilderness was Fronteirland and the Persian was Fantasyland (as in '1001 Arabian Nights').

 

[crusader]

Originally posted by Another Voice
So if I take a brown cardboard box and write "Mickey Mouse" on it - that makes it Disney? The box suddenly becomes filled with all the magic®, joy®, and wonderment® that Disney® magically gathers®?

As much as the marketeers of the world would love for that to be true (and as much as it's Disney's only visible business plan) - putting a brand sticker on something doesn't "make" it anything.

This sounds great but it really misses the mark.

magic&reg - is a clever way to dismiss the quality aspect of a brand by applying it exclusively to the lower company offerings.

What you continually fail to mention is that there exists an enormous demographic of individuals who simply cannot afford anything beyond this tier.

The AS resorts exist for their benefit. They are given clean reliable accomodations at a very affordable price along with the opportunity to be on Disney property. By "slapping" the Disney sticker on it, the customer is granted assurance by the company that their room meets a standard which far outweighs other options within their budget.

The pool and transportation are a bonus.


Mr. Baron:

The Poly and Contemporary were values in their day?

I think not.

Otherwise I wouldn't have had to camp for all those years!

They were the "expensive" resorts reserved for the upper middle class families with 1.5 children - a small statistic for the times.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

It's a Motel 6 with crimes against fiberglass.

Well! How can anyone possibly top that!!!

Sadly, you can’t! But what the heck… Greg asked me a direct question, so…

Landbaron,

First, I believe this is the first time in about a year that I have directed a post at you. Boy, how things have changed, eh?

Hi-a Greg!! It’s about time! Slow at work? Or has the urge to debate suddenly bitten you yet once again?

It kind of left me, but for old time’s sake…

$80, $160, whatever the maximum average rate that delivers the most total revenue is what Disney SHOULD be charging for their resorts.

Then kindly explain 32 bucks a night for the Poly in 1975 (I think it was ’75 at least). And…

Do you not think that price is part of the magic equation? I wish I had that much money!! But for me, the affordability of Disney was always part of the package. I never said it wasn’t slightly more expensive than most, but not outrageously so. It was definitely “middle-class’ affordable. Both the theme parks and the resorts. That, to me at least, was “MAGIC”!!!

As we already know, that would create "pent-up" demand for the resorts out the wazzou.

So? Learn to plan!! I never had any trouble, even in the most crowded of times, getting a reservation when Disney had only the MK! Yeah, you’d have to book two years out sometimes, but it was definitely worth it!!

And I really think it’s WAY better than leaving a resort empty or slashing prices with gimmicky “SPECIAL’ offers. It makes it sound cheap! And it smacks of ‘sharp-pencil-practices’.

Help me understand why that makes for good economic decision making?

I never said it was! It is a “MAGICAL” decision. That is the difference!!

Tell me again why the Grand Floridian isn't "Disney"

To tell you the truth, I really didn’t have the words formulated when I first read your question. I KNOW it! I feel it. But I really have a hard time articulating it. That is until AV said it for me!! Remember?

The Grand Floridian, however, is crushed under the weight, size and density of its buildings and destroys a real sense of Victorian splendor and charm. It comes off as a "nice hotel" rather than "the Vanderbilts will be arriving by private rail coach at tea time". It's all because of storytelling.

I would also add that it tries too hard. It is NOT relaxed. It is NOT comfortable. It IS stuffy. It IS pretentious. Again, they (He) tried to hard to become a five star resort (and missed the mark anyway). Disney was never about the “five-star” treatment. It was about elegance, story and theme. It was about sparing no expense, but not necessarily passing that expense on to the guest. It is NOT about opulence. Again, that is the difference!! (and after talking to you, I think you know it too!!)

yet that nice looking retirement village / apartment complex themed nothing like the real Key West is?

It isn’t either. But in a world of evils, it is the “lesser of”. In other words, it is more like Disney than the other offerings (with the exception of Riverside perhaps). And the price is right, if you own. (Funny how that price=magic equation rears its ugly head again!)

Mr. Baron:

The Poly and Contemporary were values in their day?

I think not.

Otherwise I wouldn't have had to camp for all those years!

They were the "expensive" resorts reserved for the upper middle class families with 1.5 children - a small statistic for the times.

I think not, Mr. Crusader!! We’ve been down this road before. It was not “cheap” by any means. But it was nowhere near what it is today!! It was, in fact, very affordable. Hope has the numbers. Maybe she’ll post!

 

[Planogirl]

The idea that a resort being on property means so much has always interested me. What if the Allstars and PC were off property? Would they still be better than all of the other budget establishments in the area?

Or if Holiday Inn suddenly came to an agreement with Disney and built a typical Holiday Inn establishment right next to PC? How would that be to the smitten Disney fan?

In my opinion, AS and PC will only continue to lure a lot of Disney fans while those fans continue to exist. Being onsite is of utmost importance according to many people and not the resort itself.

 

[All Aboard]

Then kindly explain 32 bucks a night for the Poly in 1975 (I think it was ’75 at least).

Sure. Disney was leaving money on the table, gobs of it in fact. Fast forward to 1982. Two huge theme parks and the business plan of the day called for the resort capacity they had at the low prices they were charging?? No wonder they ushered Miller and Walker out the door as they did.

 

[Another Voice]

"They are given clean reliable accommodations at a very affordable price along with the opportunity to be on Disney property."

You make it sound as if the All Stars were created as a charity for the teeming masses huddled in the cold rain outside the gates of WDW. How nice for the company to spend so much on alms for the retched poor.

One thinks not.

Magic® is when the company tries to pass off substandard work at premium prices. It's an attempt to con the public into saying "this is the Disney you remember" but giving them products that fall well, well short of those expectations.

As Ms. Planogirl suggests – put Pop Century on the Universal property and you'd be the screeching about its tackiness until you passed out. The only difference – "bonus" pool and all – would be the brand sticker stuck on it. By the same thought, transplant their Portofino Hotel to WDW property and you’d be screaming the high praises another brilliant Eisner hotel.

Disney® fails when it's relegated to nothing but a marketing gimmick – "granted assurance by the company that their room meets a standard which far outweighs other options within their budget" is an insult to everyone that tries hard to create something (which is what Disney used to do).