Dear Eisner

[crusader]

Originally posted by Another Voice
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.

Well if that is your implication, it certainly wasn't the context used within your previous post.

The Value resorts were being categorized as "non-Disney" cardboard boxes with stickers and magic&reg stamped all over them.

I would like to know how they are considered substandard work at premium prices? Last time I checked their prices were pretty darned economical. Is there some heavy philosophical inference I'm missing?

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).

It is not an insult to develop and offer affordable on-site accomodations.

It is an insult to exclude guests by outpricing them simply because some design artist feels that all Disney construction projects mandate the properties be fully staffed or expensively ornate enough to meet that "quality" standard of excellence achieved with other product offerings.

 

[Michael623]

Wow, I'm feeling a lot less guilt about my post slamming Samantha Brown. I personally don't see a huge difference, other than price, between the Moderates and the all stars. I think CBR is still a glorified Motel 6 but with less fiberglass. Does having a sit down Restaurant justify the price difference or am I missing something? I also have to be up front and admit that I have never stayed at the All-Stars.

 

[SnackyStacky]

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.

Well if that is your implication, it certainly wasn't the context used within your previous post.

The Value resorts were being categorized as "non-Disney" cardboard boxes with stickers and magic® stamped all over them.

I would like to know how they are considered substandard work at premium prices? Last time I checked their prices were pretty darned economical. Is there some heavy philosophical inference I'm missing?

The things in bold aren't essentially the same idea phrased in two different ways?

Perhaps in the Disney scheme of pricing, $77 a night for what they give is economical. But off property, you can get a fully equipped suite. (That's right....not a 280 square foot room, but a SUITE....) That's not economy.

It is not an insult to develop and offer affordable on-site accomodations.

As long as those accomodations are done well. And I'm not entirely sure that they are done well. There's a not-so-fine line drawn between theming and a story. The deluxes have both. The All Stars barely have a theme.

 

[DisDuck]

Good to see my old friends, the Baron & the Pirate are at it again. I go away, come back, go away again and come back. Nothing changes.

I have stayed at AS, Coronado, Contemp and Off-site. My family has agreed that if we are not going to pay alot for accomodations then AS onsite is preferable over any off-site.

So I find nothing wrong with building for a specific market. Disney is in the business to make money. Why should they give up an economic segment to the 192 corridor.

On the other hand, maybe it is time for Eisner to look elsewhere but the world turns to the same old argument. Who is to replace him? Maybe with the economy turning money will be spent on projects long on the shelf and suddenly it will be 1980's again and singing the praises of Eisner. Who knows? Should we consult the crystal ball in the Haunted Mansion?

A note to Baron, Pirate, etc whom I have been 'debating' with for many years. In my last incarnation about 6 months or so ago, I was still out of work. Now glad to announce that I am back at work. But it has been only a few months so I will only be able to pop-in now and again.

Have a Happy New Year from the duck.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

I just got home from work and checked the boards...

And lo & behold, what do I find?

MY FAVORITE DUCK!!!

HAPPY NEW YEAR Mr. DUCK!!

It's good to have you back!!



(I'll be back later with some more drivel about the resorts, but for now I just wanted to say hi to an old friend!)

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Random thought #1:

No wonder they ushered Miller and Walker out the door as they did.

Now, I may be wrong, but somewhere in the back of my mind I wish they had stayed somehow. Their way of doing business may have been a bit stagnant at times, but I certainly would have preferred that quaint little road to the crumbling super-highway built by their predecessor. Wouldn't you? Or do you really like things the way they are now? Both brick and mortar and philosophical ideals!

 

[wtg2000]

Their way of doing business may have been a bit stagnant at times, but I certainly would have preferred that quaint little road to the crumbling super-highway built by their predecessor.

The problem with that is that when Ron Miller was in charge, prior to Eisner taking over, plans were in the works for Marriott to build 20,000 hotel rooms on the property. Generic, non-themed hotels. Plans were also in the works for a water park - a plastic park bought from the same people who built WaterMania (or whatever it's called). There were also plans for industrial parks and housing developments.

Eisner scrapped the hotel deal and decided to build his own themed hotels. He insisted on a themed water park. He scrapped the industrial park and built D-MGM, AK, more golf courses, Pleasure Island, Blizzard Beach, etc.

And remember, it was the previous regime that built the non-themed Disney Village Resort, which Eisner apparently despised.

If the previous regime had stayed, it could have been much, much worse.

 

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by DVC-Landbaron
Random thought #1:


Now, I may be wrong, but somewhere in the back of my mind I wish they had stayed somehow. Their way of doing business may have been a bit stagnant at times, but I certainly would have preferred that quaint little road to the crumbling super-highway built by their predecessor. Wouldn't you? Or do you really like things the way they are now? Both brick and mortar and philosophical ideals!

You mean the crumbling super-highway built by their successor, don't you? Because ... well ... wasn't their predecessor Walt?

 

[searlproudbottom]

I started reading this post because I really enjoyed reading all of your posts trashing the big cheese. Lets stay on topic shall we.

Searl Proudbottom

 

[WEDWAY100]

Originally posted by DisDuck
So I find nothing wrong with building for a specific market. Disney is in the business to make money. Why should they give up an economic segment to the 192 corridor.

I haven't seen anyone argue that Disney should ignore the low income market. What I have seen is that some of the posters think that PC and AS are not the best effort that Disney could have produced for the low income market. And I agree with that.

 

[wtg2000]

I haven't seen anyone argue that Disney should ignore the low income market.

I think we need to be careful in classifying people as "low income" who stay at the PC or AS. There are many reasons people opt to stay in different categories of rooms. Maybe they have kids who love the theme. Maybe they're saving money for something else. Maybe they love the 70s! Any trip to Disney can be costly even staying at the PC or AS, so I wouldn't classify these guests as "low income."

This thread is getting a little too class conscious with someone referring to the 'Wal-Mart crowd'. I've heard of famous rich people who eat at McDonald's including a former president!

 

[Mr D]

I wonder what class is the folks that refuse to stay on-site but are spenders, like the ones that pay $100-200 a night to stay at a luxury vacation home?

Are we more prosperous nowadays? I average 40K a year and thats actually low compared to same jobs here in Alaska in the construction industry, I am literally paying as much per night in a vacation home as I would at the Grand Floridian.

But because I am so deadset to protest Eisner I will NEVER stay onsite at WDW.

I am leaving Alaska tonight and arriving in Orlando tommorow evening and I'l be staying at a really nice vacation rental home...
for FOUR weeks

And most like visit only Epcot (M;S) MK and possibly BB once, very minimal Disney this trip.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

WDSearcher:

You mean the crumbling super-highway built by their successor, don't you? Because ... well ... wasn't their predecessor Walt?

Yes!! Of course you’re right! That’s what I get for posting with only minutes between getting home from work and going out to a New Year’s Eve dinner!! SORRY!!

wtg2000

I think we need to be careful in classifying people as "low income" who stay at the PC or AS.

I don’t think anyone is saying that specifically. I think it becomes easy shorthand because of the marketing and the price.

There are many reasons people opt to stay in different categories of rooms. Maybe they have kids who love the theme. Maybe they're saving money for something else. Maybe they love the 70s! Any trip to Disney can be costly even staying at the PC or AS, so I wouldn't classify these guests as "low income."

I am quite sure we all can agree with your take on this, however, by and large the main reason people stay there is price. The cost of the thing was utmost in the minds of the designers and the driving force behind the concept. So while, for a very select few, your postulation is no doubt true, for the vast majority it comes down to the cost of staying on Disney property.

The question is NOT what class of people stay there. Instead it is – should Disney be dabbling in that price range?

I say – NO!!!

 

[DisneyKidds]

Ask Mr. Kidds. He KNOWS. He will back me up!

I wouldn't bank on that my good Baron. I'm not going to get caught up again in rack vs. discount, whether the Poly had discounted back in the day, etc., etc., etc. I will only speak from personal experience. I have booked the Poly twice in the past year. Both times I paid less than the appropriately inflated 1972 Poly rate. So, I can only conclude that the Poly is an even better value to day than it was in 1972!!! And We're talking Baron-value . To be fair, rack rates today are in excess of inflated '72 rack rates, but who pays rack....................no need for that.

DisDuck......................welcome back. I know it may seem like things never change, but the DIS R&N Board is quite diffferent from the last time your ship headed out to sea. You just happened to pick an opportune time to come back.

 

[manning]

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!

I can remember getting a lagoon view for $45 a night at the Poly. It may have been as low as $25 in '72, But I do definitely remember 45. I was making middle income wages at the time and didn't think twice about booking lagoon view. I showed today's rates to a relative in his 30's making much better than middle income wages and asked him if he would stay there. He said "you got to be crazy". And he is not a tight wad either.

 

[Another Voice]

"This thread is getting a little too class conscious with someone referring to the 'Wal-Mart crowd'."

That is a term many people have heard Michael Eisner use to describe theme park visitors. One the most infamous utterances was when he said California Adventure failed because the "WalMart shoppers don’t get it" – meaning the wonderful postmodern ironic delights found in the park. He had also described DCA as "finally a place" designed so that his "wife and her friends" could enjoy (implying that people of taste do not currently enjoy Disney theme parks).

The value resorts were not designed to give more people the "benefit of staying on property". They were not built as an "affordable alternative" to the other resorts. They were most definitely not built out of any sense of morals or obligation.

They exist because Eisner thought he could take more of your money.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Mr. Kidds.

To be fair, rack rates today are in excess of inflated '72 rack rates…

That is all that matters! Thanks for the back-up!!!

I can remember getting a lagoon view for $45 a night at the Poly. It may have been as low as $25 in '72, But I do definitely remember 45.

Absolutely!! Me too! It was a little high for a night’s stay at the time, but nowhere near the outrageous prices we have now! And after all, it was DISNEY!! Full Disney!! Not just huge icons painted with primary colors, but honest-to-goodness Dinsey style and theme!! WOW!!! What a VALUE!!!

I can’t understand why some people don’t see that!

 

[hopemax]

I see I am being paged. Numbers...

From the 1982 Birbaum's Guide to WDW:

$75 Garden/Woods (Golf Resort)
$85 Pool view (Poly, Golf Resort Only)
$95 Tower/Lagoon

Dutch Inn (now Grosvenor): $84 off-peak, $96 peak
Travelodge: (now ?) $76 off-peak, $88 peak
Royal Plaza: $80, $86 or $92 (only 1 season though)
HoJo's (now Courtyard by Marriot): $75-$85 off-peak, $85-$95 peak.

Using TIA's "other lodging" Travel Price Index if in 1982 you were paying ___ for your hotel it would approximately = ____ in early 2003:

$75 = $205
$85 = $230
$95 = $260

One point I would like to make is that "value" DOES NOT equal "affordable." Example: If you find a car with an MSEP of 120,000 at a dealership for $80,000 the dealership would have good VALUE although it's clearly not AFFORDABLE to most of us.

Do I think that the hotel rates pre-Eisner were good VALUE? YES
Do I think the hotel rates pre-Eisner were AFFORDABLE to the average non-Disney freak guest? NO

Do I think the All-stars and Pop Century are AFFORDABLE? YES
Do I think the ALL-Stars and Pop Century are good VALUE? NO
Do I think any of the WDW hotels are a good VALUE? NOT WITHOUT A GOOD DISCOUNT

What would I like to see Disney offer?

Hotels that are both a GOOD VALUE and AFFORDABLE and able to sustain a certain rate 365 days a year so that I as a guest don't have to play the "Guess the rate today" game which means lots of extra phone calls, rebooking and cancelling, lots of pieces of paper mailed around, possible lost reservations and all the other nonsense that happens now. It's easier for me, it's easier for Disney.

 

[KNWVIKING]

***"The question is NOT what class of people stay there. Instead it is – should Disney be dabbling in that price range? "***

A CM explained to me a few years ago that AS was built for the WWoS complex. There supposedly were tons of families going to WWoS for softball,baseball,soccer,etc tournaments who were staying off site because the Disney deluxe and mods were too expensive to stay at just to go watch your kid hit a ball. Fact or Fiction, I have no idea.

Baron: back in '72- or whatever date you posted- what was your weekly income then as compared to now ? Has rack rate far outrisen your income rate. My only point is that for the most part, over the years, price increases have pretty much stayed steady with incomes. In 1981, the shop labor rate for the dealership I work at was $13.00 per hour. Today it's $66.00. Guess what people said back in '81 ? Same thing they say today- "holy ***t, you're killing me".

 

[hopemax]

Has rack rate far outrisen your income rate.

Using department of labor statistics for average hourly wage in various sectors:

Ave hourly wage in 1982 / 2002 / In 1982 hours worked to afford $75-$95 rate at Poly / In 2002,hours worked to afford regular season rack rate at Poly ( $334-$420)

Construction: $11.32 / $18.81 / 6.6-8.4 hours/ 17.8-22.3 hours
Manufacturing: $8.49 / $15.55 / 8.8-11.5 / 21.5 - 27
Retail: $6.46 / $11.83 / 11.6-14.7 / 28.2-35.5
Education/Health Services: $7.19 / $15.52 / 10.4-13.2 / 21.5-27.1

Is this what you wanted?