Dear Eisner

[cristen]

Originally posted by DisneyKidds
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 don't think that is what he means. You have talked with him enough, I think you know that is not what he means exactly. It's the thought process that goes into making these hotels. Different does not mean less, you can have different and still have something of quality, of value. PO is different, but I think it still is of quality, much more than the values.

"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. "

Why couldn't they build a group of hotels that are comparable to PO and make it valuable? There really is no place for the values in WDW. They are not themed, they do not tell a story.

My question is, if Disney sits down and says, OK, we can afford to give rooms for X amount with the AP discount, then why can't they just price them that way all the time? I have heard of people getting PO for 88.00 a night! That is quite a value to me. The resort looks beautiful, and it is on-site, for only 88.00 a night. WOW! The room I am getting at WL is 290.00 a night, but with AP discount it will be 154.00. Why such the discrepency? If they can "afford" to give these rooms at 154.00, (I know there is only a certain amount of rooms they give at this price) then price the rooms at a bit more. 200.00 a night all the time.

 

[wtg2000]

My question is, if Disney sits down and says, OK, we can afford to give rooms for X amount with the AP discount, then why can't they just price them that way all the time?

Probably because they can't afford to sell all the rooms at that price. Why would they give away all the rooms at reduced rates when they can sell them at rack rates? It's bad business. Why don't companies put products on sale all the time? The limited number of AP rooms encourages people to buy APs and helps fill up empty rooms at certain times of the year. I'm not sure how many AP rooms there are but there can't be many. We called first day to get rooms for Feb-Mar and there was hardly anything available on AP rates.

Other chains do this as well. There are all kinds of special rates. Companies put things on sale to move products, or fill rooms. It's not unique to Disney at all.

What subsequent buildings at the Contemporary???

I've read that some wing rooms were built later. I guess that's wrong. I guess only the Poly expanded.

 

[cristen]

Originally posted by wtg2000
Probably because they can't afford to sell all the rooms at that price. Why would they give away all the rooms at reduced rates when they can sell them at rack rates? It's bad business.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that they probably could afford it. And they can't sell them at rack rates. On another thread, it said that they have a 51.9 hotel occupancy rate there last year. Half of the rooms are going empty. It wouldn't be that way if it were a bit more affordable to go.

And charging 200.00 a night is hardly "giving it away".

 

[DisneyKidds]

I think you know that is not what he means exactly.

Oh, but it really is. He loathes the whole structure of differeing price levels. As he says, the "pay less and get less" idea is not "Disney". As he views it, when you stay at a mod or a value not only are you getting less hotel room, you are getting less of a Disney experience. I sincerely doubt that pricing the mods at $88 would rectify that situation for Baron. Would it LB? Sure, they would be more of a value, but I doubt that Baron will fess up to the mods being just as wonderful a Disney experience as the Poly but for the price. So that is exactly what he means...................whether he will admit it or not .

PO is different, but I think it still is of quality

Hey, Baron might even agree that there is some quality there.....................just not full Disney quality. He has said often in this forum that the mods are not "Disney", and not just for price. In another forum he did say that Dixie Landings came close, but wasn't quite there..................and again, I don't believe that assessment was dependent upon price and price alone. So what do yo think? Put the price of POR aside, do you consider the experience you get there to be a "Disney" experience? Baron sure doesn't.

I actually agree with you. I think Dixie Landings was an incredible resort. Great story, fully immersive, and quite "Disney". That is why I think there is a place for the differeing levels of hotels at WDW. Perhaps they could have been priced differently, but the concept itself is a good one. You'll never get Baron to agree to that.

I know full well about Baron's belief in the motives behind the implementation, but that is a pointless discussion. Whether the mods were developed out of a altruistic desire to truely make a Disney experience affordable to a wider range of people, or if the motivation was to simply strip mine wallets, it doesn't change the fact that the system, had it been held in check, was a good one for the business and for guests.

$88 or $188 for a mod shouldn't matter to Baron based on all his arguments. Sure, $88 would make a bad thing more palatable, but it would still be a bad thing. I disagree and I think you do too.

 

[wtg2000]

On another thread, it said that they have a 51.9 hotel occupancy rate there last year

That was actually for the month of December, up until Christmas. I would imagine at peak times the occupancy rate is much higher. It would be interesting to know for sure and how the rate has been affected since 9/11. As I said AP rates for late-Feb, early March were very hard to come by. Of the deluxes the WL (or AKL) was all we could get.

I read that the national occupancy rate is just under 50 per cent. So do all hotels discount all their rooms all the time to try and fill them?

Disney wants to get guests on the property to buy theme park tickets and buy food and merchandise so it's to their advantage to get as many people into the rooms as possible. Thus, I would imagine they've set a price structure that attempts to maximize revenue.

And they can't sell them at rack rates.

Well, they can't sell them all at rack rates but then as I indicated above neither do other hotel chains. Nor to businesses selling other products which is why we have post-Christmas blowout sales.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that they probably could afford it.

Again, I would imagine they've set a price structure that attempts to maximize revenues. This is what all companies do I would imagine.

 

[cristen]

Originally posted by DisneyKidds
the "pay less and get less" idea is not "Disney".

I agree.

"when you stay at a mod or a value not only are you getting less hotel room, you are getting less of a Disney experience."

I also agree with the values. The mods, I would have to think about. In theory, they would work. Only if they did it up right. Not half-a$$ed, the values are definately that. I am sure there is some way for Disney to make hotels that are more affordable for some without making it look like they are. I know we all have faith in the Disney people that they could come up with some awesome ideas that would be full of Disney Magic, but still be considered a "mod". PO is a good example.

"I know full well about Baron's belief in the motives behind the implementation, but that is a pointless discussion. Whether the mods were developed out of a altruistic desire to truely make a Disney experience affordable to a wider range of people, or if the motivation was to simply strip mine wallets, it doesn't change the fact that the system, had it been held in check, was a good one for the business and for guests."

I disagree. I think that the whole resoning behind the resorts matter a lot.

I posted this on a seperate thread, but I think it relates to this discussion, and hits the nail on the head for me.

"I knew if this business was ever to get anywhere, if this business was ever to grow, it could never do it by having to answer to someone unsympathetic to its possibilities, by having to answer to someone with only one thought or interest, namely profits. For my idea of how to make profits has differed greatly from those who generally control businesses such as ours. I have blind faith in the policy that quality, tempered with good judgment and showmanship, will win against all odds." - - Walt Disney



"We have no obligation to make history. We have no obligation to make art. We have no obligation to make a statement. To make money is our only objective." - Michael Eisner


And you can tell.

 

[crusader]

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.

Not all founders have the unique ability to get in front of the cameras and promote thier products and most CEO's run the risk of looking desperate. That's why we have so many talented, well educated and gainfully employed individuals in the marketing field today.

I doubt you really believe having Disney lay off an entire department of employees and appointing Eisner to be the PR guy is "the best way to capture a market segment".

And charging 200.00 a night is hardly "giving it away".

I don't think this would be the bar on the deluxe lodging. Ten years ago Disney was able to collect around $250.00/night for these resorts.

The problem with fixed pricing is that there is a psychological limit a consumer is willing to pay for something and that has become a variable target in today's market. As the demand fluctuates, so too does our perceived value.

It isn't simply a matter of pure quality anymore. We have been willing to pay three times as much for the exact same room depending on certain events and conditions. (just look at the rates charged during the olympics or the millennium or new year's at Times Square)

We also expect the resorts to lower the prices when demand is low and will take advantage of those opportunities.

I don't see how Disney can go back to a fixed pricing structure when they no longer have complete dominance and control over this market. They should charge the absolute maximum the consumer is willing to spend for their products and offer targeted incentives as an added benefit.

 

[DisneyKidds]

I am sure there is some way for Disney to make hotels that are more affordable for some without making it look like they are.

OK, so you agree that, while some of the WDW resorts could have been done differently or better, a tiered system of hotels could be a good thing. You would have stopped at two tiers. Hey, I agree. The system ain't perfect, but it was a step in a good direction and was good for the business. Baron ain't gonna join us in that camp . Your need to think about the mods means you may also agree that "pay less" does not necessarily mean "get less". "Pay less, get different" absolutely, but Baron doesn't believe that that different represents Disney. Too bad.

I think that the whole resoning behind the resorts matter a lot.

Lets look at one of those 'if pigs could fly' hypotheticals.........................the kind LB loves.

Let's just say that Walt lived to a ripe 'ole age of 100. Things developed a little differently around his World, but they did grow. Walt saw it. Walt also saw another thing. Families. Kids. People..................lots of them who just couldn't affort his beloved Poly. So he thinks, and he thinks....................................and a solution develops. By golly, Walt in his heart wants more people to be able to experience the Magic that his genius has produced. So Walt, out of this altruistic desire to open the experience to more people, builds...............................a resort just like Dixie Landings (which almost all of us, almost even Baron, would call worthy of Disney.) Walt doesn't do this for market share. Sure, he has to build resorts to support the growth, but he does it for the people and not the money. While he's at it he also builds the Asian and the Venetian, along with a couple other Walt-worthy, Dixie Landings-ish "moderates". So would that Dixie Landings resort, no different today under Walts motives for the people vs. ME motives for the almightly $$$, be any better?

 

[SnackyStacky]

Originally posted by crusader
Not all founders have the unique ability to get in front of the cameras and promote thier products and most CEO's run the risk of looking desperate. That's why we have so many talented, well educated and gainfully employed individuals in the marketing field today.

I doubt you really believe having Disney lay off an entire department of employees and appointing Eisner to be the PR guy is "the best way to capture a market segment".

I used market segment really tongue in cheek, meaning that Walt didn't advertise to a market segment. He advertised to everybody.

And I would have no problem seeing Eisner in a Disney commercial. Just because he's there doesn't mean that the marketing department would need to be gone. But if the marketing department asked Eisner to get in front of the cameras for an ad campaign, would he? Based on things he's said, I'd have to say that no....he wouldn't, but that's a completely random guess.

 

[cristen]

Yes, DK, there is a HUGE difference in your hypothetical.

Walt would have wanted as many people to enjoy it as possible. We know that from DL. He was trying to give everyone everything he could. The problem with what you are saying, is that I don;t think Walt would have them so highly priced that only a select could afford them. So if he would have created a "mod", you would not have noticed as much. Price differences would not be so drastic. It wouldn't stink of elitism vs. third class. There is also a huge difference in the way the two think. Walt would have done it genuinely and with heart, with truely wanting to please the guest and to make for GREAT show. Michael does not care, he is only looking at the bottom line. He could care less about show, or what the people might like. And it reflects in their work. You can not deny that. Yes, Walt had misses, and Michael has had hits, but overall, nothing Michael has done has even come close to what Walt has brought to life. It shows, and I know that if Walt was running things over there, you would definately see a huge difference. Because of the motive behind it.

That is why I put that quote from Walt there. Everything he said pertains to this argument, how different he was, and how different he ran things. He didn't care about how other businesses were running things, he cared about quality and making great things. He knew that if you give people great things, the bottom line would show.

 

[DisneyKidds]

cristen - you missed the essence of the question in my hypothetical. For arguments sake lets agree on the differences in motives. However, seeing that Dixie Landings is highly regarded by many, almost even Baron, as a Walt-worthy moderate, assume that Dixie Landing as Walt would have developed it is no different from the POR we have today. Same exact resort in every detail, just born of a different motives. Does that make it any better or worse than what ME put forth?

I agree that the difference in motives is very apparent in a lot of other areas..................but not necessarily resorts. Whether the mods were developed for the people or to fleece the people they could still be good for the business and the guest. ME just didn't know when to stop, but that doesn't mean the concept was bad.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

However, seeing that Dixie Landings is highly regarded by many, almost even Baron, as a Walt-worthy moderate, assume that Dixie Landing as Walt would have developed it is no different from the POR we have today.

Mr. Kidds. Don’t you see that this is a foolish supposition? Do you really think, in you’re wildest dreams, that Walt would have built Dixie Landings as it stands today? With none of the “Walt” touches? Come on, Mr. Kidds.

And even if we were to strain our brains and think for a moment that Walt would build such a place your argument falls apart rather quickly. “Highly regarded by many”. “Almost even Baron”. Pretty lame.

And once we move away from the one lucky stroke that was built in spite of Ei$ner, where do we go? To his first abomination, the Caribbean? Or perhaps to… ah… well… there’s always… now just give me a minute… I know we can think of one… there has to be… I guess I’ll have to think on it a bit… I might try back later… or not…

 

[cristen]

No, I understood your case, and what you were trying to get at. So OK, for sake of your arguement, no it wouldn't be any better. Because it would be the same resort, you can't say it's good for one but bad because the other did it.

But I think what I was trying to get at, is what Baron said better. Walt would probably have done a much better job. Because he loved what he did, we would have gotten a better product.

And I would have to agree that the arguement is a bit foolish. If Walt were alive, we wouldn't have the need for a tiered system, I think he would have managed to make everyone afford what he had to offer. I don't think he would have intentionally excluded anyone.

 

[wtg2000]

If Walt were alive, we wouldn't have the need for a tiered system, I think he would have managed to make everyone afford what he had to offer. I don't think he would have intentionally excluded anyone.

Are you saying the current management is? Haven't they included everyone by building value, moderates and deluxes? I don't think there's a tiered system, there's simply something for everyone (well, not everyone as many people can't afford a trip to Florida at all).

You've got deluxes, moderates, values, standard rooms, conceirge, honeymoon suites, presidential suites, campsites, cabins, timeshare, there were even houses for rent at one point.

You say Walt would have found a way to make everyone afford it. Well, I think that's what they've tried to do by building values. We'll never know what Walt would have come up with as he didn't build any hotels at DL (I think he got his friend Jack Wrather to build the Disneyland Hotel) but as for the current hotels it's a matter or opinion I suppose. I like the CBR and many people like the AS and PC.

 

[DisneyKidds]

Mr. Kidds. Don’t you see that this is a foolish supposition?

Maybe................maybe not. Curious as to the "Walt-touches" that you think Dixie Landings could have had. I bet once you add those "Walt-touches" you pretty much be back to a resort on par with the Poly and CR. I know we'll never agree whether having a mix of higher and lower priced resorts is a good or bad thing...........but I know how you like to talk about your favorite subject .

And once we move away from the one lucky stroke that was built in spite of Ei$ner........

I agree that the implementation could have been better in some cases, but I still maintain that the concept was good for Disney and it's guests. Another item we will never agree on, but that's ok.

If Walt were alive, we wouldn't have the need for a tiered system, I think he would have managed to make everyone afford what he had to offer.

Boy cristen, talk about your foolish arguments and rediculous suppositions!!!!!!!

I assume by "what he had to offer" you mean the Poly and CR...........and eventually the Asian and Venetian or whatever else he might have envisioned on Preliminary Plot Plan #5? I'd love to see you produce a scenario that would have Walt pricing the Poly today at $77 a night..................either that or giving rooms away for free to those that couldn't afford the inflation adjusted 1972 rate of at least $200 - $230 a night. If not that you must mean that what Walt had to offer would have included something different that could be made more affordable to the masses. What might that have been if not something along the lines of a "moderate" resort, or a second tier, even if implemented differently? Please indulge me.....................

 

[cristen]

Originally posted by wtg2000
Are you saying the current management is?

Well, I think that's what they've tried to do by building values.

No, that is not what I am saying. And we know all about the values, that is what we are talking about.

What I am trying to say is that with Walt, he never would have done something like the values. NEVER. He hated things done on the cheap, and the values, whether people like them or not, are cheap. You can not argue with that.

DK,

I am not very good at typing what I am saying, forgive me. No, of course the "deluxes" would be more expensive, and no he would not price them at 77.00, that's crazy. But I don't believe they would have been priced at over 400.00 a night for a standard either. (Going by Poly's prices, since that is one of the original. WL is cheaper, but I am going by the originals and what might have been with Walt.) I also feel that he would have created something like a moderate that was a bit cheaper for others. What I mean by not having a tiered system is that you would never have known with Walt that it was cheaper. You obviously can look at the difference between the values and the mods or the deluxes right? You can SEE that these are the cheap ones. We know that there are people that can afford the deluxes and still stay at the values, so I am not saying that only the "poor" people stay there. But I feel like they are saying, "oh, you don't want to spend almost ALL your vacation money on a nice resort, here you will stay at this one with a big dog in the front. But if you are willing to be gauged, here we have the one's that have better views and are closer." Walt would never have made it so obvious, he would have given you the most he could for the amount you could afford. So there might have been a tiered system, but we have never have known about it.

 

[wtg2000]

What I am trying to say is that with Walt, he never would have done something like the values. NEVER. He hated things done on the cheap, and the values, whether people like them or not, are cheap. You can not argue with that.

I really don't know what Walt would have done. As for being cheap, that's a relative term. If you mean they are cheaply or shoddily constructed I can't really say.

What I mean by not having a tiered system is that you would never have known with Walt that it was cheaper. You obviously can look at the difference between the values and the mods or the deluxes right?...So there might have been a tiered system, but we have never have known about it.

I'm sorry, but this is a bizarre statement. Are you really saying that Walt would be able to build budget hotels that look and feel as nice as a deluxe hotel? Then what would be the difference between them? Walt may have had genius but I doubt even he could pull this off. Why don't $15,000 cars look like Ferraris?

Again, we'll never know what Walt would have done, but it's a major stretch to say that he could build hotels so that you couldn't tell the difference on a posh-ness scale. Are you saying he wouldn't even advertise them as such? You call up and say we'd like to stay at Hotel A - that'll be $300. Oh, how about Hotel B? - well, that's only $70. But they look the same. What's the difference? - oh, nothing. Then why the price difference? - you'd have to ask Walt on that one!

here you will stay at this one with a big dog in the front.

Judging from the reviews, people like the big dog, and the piano shaped pool and the giant tennis ball cans. Doesn't that matter at all?

 

[DisneyKidds]

Sorry cristen, I just don't see how even Walt could have.....................

created something like a moderate that was a bit cheaper for others

....................while having them be, for all intents and purposes, no different than the deluxe resorts. I'll let you respond to wtg on that one .

My fear is that you have fallen into a Baron trap. Idealistic thought without any realistic approach to be found . I suppose that Baron will now jump to the Ft. Wilderness/Poly comparison. One being significantly cheaper than and not anything like the other, but both being a unique Disney experience. However, to point that one out and not recognize that a moderate-like resort (or even a value) can also be a "different experience" seems to me to be double talk. Heck, by "different experience" standard even the values (which I'm not crazy about) make the grade. People can call them nothing more than a Motel 6 all they want, but that isn't true. At least I've never seen a Motel 6 remotely like the AS or PC. They truely are a unique Disney take on an existing concept......................much like Ft. Wilderness was back in the day.

 

[raidermatt]

Heck, by "different experience" standard even the values (which I'm not crazy about) make the grade.

We all know "different/unique" is only one aspect of "Disney".

First off, none of us can really say what Walt would have done. If we could, we'd be out building our own innovative, imaginative and immensely successful company.

However, I firmly believe that his business philosophies would never allow the building of the values, or even moderates. Those profits would be left to those who are better suited to provide those more limited experiences.

Yes, the "deluxes" as we now know them, would have been expanded, but not nearly to the kind of capacity we see overall in WDW today.

That does NOT mean Disney would be passing up on $$$, it just means they would have invested in something else that more closely fit their business model.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

That does NOT mean Disney would be passing up on $$$, it just means they would have invested in something else that more closely fit their business model.

Thank you for a wonderful post, Matt! I would have taken seven or eight times the words and still have missed the mark! Maybe they’ll finally “get it”!!

Anyway, here’s to hoping they will!!