DEBATE:Contemporary Observation Deck (All in all it’s just another brick in the wall)

[DisneyKidds]

But please!! Don’t confuse the two!!

ME confuse the two . ME confuse the two!! My bad, I guess, for staying on topic . Geez, last I had checked the thread was about the limited access to the CR observation deck.

Certain individuals hinted or implied that one cause for this was growth (more specifically overgrowth), and/or management's failure to come up with a more workable solution to the problem - the CR observation deck problem. Really, I may need AV to clarify his point, but in the context of the discussion was it not implied that 1) if there had not been such (over)growth in hotel rooms we wouldn't have the CR observation deck issue we are discussing, or 2) if Disney had focused on finding a better solution with respect to the CR observation deck issue in the face of such growth and crowding we would not have the CR observation deck issue we are discussing?

So, in discussing this growth issue relative to the CR observation deck issue I pointed out that the crowding is a byproduct of the growth we all clamor for. What do you say to this point regarding growth and it's effect on the CR observation deck access (that is what the discussion was about, right?)..............

As for myself, I think (I KNOW) that Disney grew too quickly, with no forethought, and totally ignored critical infrastructure changes and improvements that such growth demands.

Well, thinking that we were still talking about the CR observation deck issue I logically assumed that 1) you can accept the growth we were discussing, and 2) the CR observation deck issue (that is what we were talking about, no?) is a direct example of how management failed to properly deal with that growth.

I apologize for not realizing that we had stepped away from the CR observation deck issue, and stepped into a "bigger picture" discussion. However, I don't believe we made this leap until your "critical infrastructure" post. So, up to that point I don't believe we had two issues in this discussion to be confused.

Now that we have agreed that the CR observation deck issue is................

something silly

...................we can move on to the "BIG PICTURE", but I think this................

talk about WDW being built haphazardly, too quickly and without proper infrastructure support?

.....................will need it's own thread.

 

[crusader]

Crowds become difficult to manage - and put a few drinks in the mix we might just have a party. That spells R-I-S-K. Someone must have noticed that all these spectators weren't patrons. And Walt's not here anymore so why not redirect.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

… "Waltisity" (that one work better for you? ).

Yippee!!! Yeah!! That one’s great!!

Rather, its what I still consider to be a somewhat double standard. If built today as it is, I'd bet that that observation deck would receive many protests from yourself and other posters.

Scoop, my man, you are right!! I really mean it. You are right!!!

………………………………..

……… need a little time for that one to sink in.

………………………………..

………………………………..

OK! You are right. I’d be complaining that they didn’t have enough foresight to realize this ‘spot’ would become popular. And I’d moan that it was done on the cheap in typical Ei$ner fashion! 100% correct!! I haven’t a leg to stand on!! I’m guilty your honor!!

So, 1. you have something that used to be a pretty good secret (kind of like riding in the front car of the monorail and getting a certificate) but lost its secretness…

Right again! I agree 100%. Well, at least 90%. I really have to tell you that the two times I personally used it last July there may have been, at most, 2 to 3 dozen people on the deck and another dozen and a half in the lounge (but they were paying customers I assume, as they were at the tables). I have NOT witnessed, personally, the mob scenes that threaten life and limb as described on these boards. But I’m willing to accept it as true.

We can all demand that Disney "think outside the box" on this one, but even Imagineering has its realistic limits (especially on a concrete A frame structure).

Here’s where we disagree. And I’ll grant you it is really nothing more that “another brick in the wall”, but I can’t help feeling that the ‘old’ Disney might have tried to consider the popularity of the place and do something for the tradition and assumptions of return visitors and the loyal base. After all, these people who frequent the deck are NOT casual, one time slick marketing captured guests. NO!!! These people have been around the Disney block just by the mere fact that they KNOW this place even exists!! They are part of the CORE.

And at the same time I believe the ‘old’ Disney would have considered them I’m not surprised for a moment that the ‘new’ Disney cavalierly shut it down! “Heck!” They say, “We’ve got this group in our pockets!! They’ll gripe on the DIS, that idiotic ‘Barron will use too many explanation points, Mr. Head will try to explain but will only piss people off and AV will give us a history lesson, but Scoop and Mr. Kidds will defend us and in a month it’ll all be forgotten.”

And that disappoints me. Now, does it compare to some of the other issues we discuss (say like growing in a haphazard fashion)? Absolutely not! It’s just another (caviler, unmagical, easy-way-out, profit motivated) brick in the wall!! And I find that, well, ah, - disappointing!

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Originally posted by DisneyKidds
ME confuse the two . ME confuse the two!! My bad, I guess, for staying on topic . Geez, last I had checked the thread was about the limited access to the CR observation deck.

You know better than that!! You've been around long enough to know the difference between a side issue and the main topic!! Come on Mr. Kidds!! How many times do we really stay 'on topic'!! Especially in a thread that involves you or me!! No! Sorry!! I'm not falling for it this time!

 

[d-r]

Thanks Hopemax-

I think it seems like there must have not been something there between top of the world and Ca. Grill after all, based on all the different responses. I guess technically I was "wrong" because I said that it had been Ca. Grill ever since it was top of the world, when in reality there was a time gap between closing top of the world and opening Ca. Grill, I assume when they were remodeling it - of course I meant that there wasn't something else there, but maybe that is what Baron meant when he said I was wrong.

Anyway, I'm editing this question out because I realized I didn't really want to push it further and should have let it die, but I'm going to say one thing that is just my opinion:

To me, in my perception, the whole place up there was California Grill. I guess some perceive a distinction between the lounge area and the restaurant area, I just never realized it. It did not occur to me that people were making a mental distinction; to me, everything on the 15th floor is the Ca. Grill, including the Ca. Grill lounge, bathrooms, etc. So to me, there was no big change, especially since there is still a lounge area there. However, I can see that this seems like a change to others, in that I recognize we did not perceive the space in the same way in the first place. I don't agree with that perception, but I think I now understand that people had it. I still believe, however, that restricting access to partrons of the Ca. Grill would have been a good way to handle a problem situation in a good way, but I respect that others believe that it should have been done differently. To me, my perception was that this was a potentially dangerious situation that needed to be controlled. I am willing to concede that I surely do agree that if there could have been a different approach that would have made everyone happy, it would have of course been preferable. Again, it is a real shame that they closed it down altogether, and I am sorry to hear that.

DR

 

[hopemax]

The Top of the World closed September 30, 1993. California Grill opened May 1995

From my 1997 Birnbaum's "The Official" Guide

"California Grill Lounge (Contemporary): The companion lounge to the California Grill restaurant offers what amounts to box seats for the Magic Kingdom fireworks in a casual setting that does California wine country proud. What more could you want? Doors close: 1AM"

 

[DisneyKidds]

How many times do we really stay 'on topic'!! Especially in a thread that involves you or me!! No! Sorry!! I'm not falling for it this time!

Oh, I know what you mean. Boy, do I know what you mean . We hadn't completely gone OT before your infrastructure comment, but that's ok. Someone's got to take us there - and it is usually me . No desire to get you to fall for anything. Hopefully you'll give me more on the infrastructure thread than your first post .

 

[d-r]

Melissa here -

One thing that puzzles me about all this is that for some of us we try to look at the positive side of what's going on in "the world" and for others it seems that no matter what Disney does it won't be correct. Nothing is ever good enough.

I thought that making money was a good thing for WDW right now - if any restaurant could add tables and add profit why wouldn't they??? Because it takes away from non-paying patrons guest experience? - Doesn't make much business sense to me. I can somewhat understand about the argument of guest magic having a positive effect on return attendance, but MOST people aren't return guests. We often forget that "we" are regulars and most people don't see things or take things the way "we" do. You may lose a few potential return guests by not allowing them to view the fireworks from the observation deck or it may be so crowded that it deters them from coming back. By limiting access to the deck to CG patrons only - you may get more repeat customers as the dining experience has been enhanced.

Baron - you contridicted yourself by saying that the deck experience was something that seasoned patrons and return patrons were used to, but then stated in a later post that someone with no idea could be told by a CM - so which is it? Its both and both can make for a crowded and unpleasant experience.

In all honesty I don't think some people are ever going to be happy with Disney - its almost as if they thrive on finding things to complain about. If that is the view people want to take - go for it, I'd rather find what positives can come from it and enjoy my vacations. If its so miserable people need to quit going - then I'm sure Disney will get the message.

As far as some people making a big deal about being an "old timer" - I can assure you that as I have been to Disney at least once a year since I was 6 mos old, and I am approaching 30 quickly - I remember the old days and I think WDW is as magical as ever, but I firmly believe "magic" can be found when you want to find it. It may not be the same as always or in the same places, but its there. Sometimes its free and sometimes you have to pay, but its there. But I imagine if you walk into the parks only trying to find ways to be disappointed you'll miss it for sure.

Melissa

 

[hopemax]

I can somewhat understand about the argument of guest magic having a positive effect on return attendance, but MOST people aren't return guests.

Are you sure about this? Do you have a source, or is this just a feeling?

I've read in places that in Disney management classes from the late 1990's, Disney was touting that 70% of it's annual visitors were repeat guests. And I thought, during the roll-out of DisneySea in Japan there was a mention of the WDW return rate because they were comparing it to TDL which is up around 90%.

I'm looking...

 

[raidermatt]

Nothing is ever good enough.

Likewise I could say that for some, it seems ANYTHING Disney does is good enough.

Is either a fair assessment?

 

[raidermatt]

I've read in places that in Disney management classes from the late 1990's, Disney was touting that 70% of it's annual visitors were repeat guests.

I'm not sure about the number, but I've read and heard multiple comments that the majority of WDW's guests are repeat visitors.

Of course, some of those are once every 4 or 5 year visitors, so it might not be fair to call them "regulars".

I think we determined on another thread that DVC alone makes up over 5% of the room inventory, and more than that in "bed" inventory.

 

[d-r]

I never said that everything Disney does is always good enough, just that I personally try to find the positive things about it. If I ever come to the decision that it isn't "good enough" to warrant what I am willing to pay, I simply won't go. Posting nothing but negative comment after negative comment seems fruitless to me for someone who really wants changes made. But this is a discussion forum and people are free to post whatever they want. Sure there are lots of things I wish were different, but none have ever been enough to ruin any magic for me and I'm certainly not so disgruntled that I would say regardless of the circumstance that anything Disney does these days is crap or if they had done it it would be crap (as has been stated in many threads). Again this is my personal opinion.

As far as the actual number of repeat guests - in all honesty I'm not sure and I don't know how its defined exactly, like Matt said - what constitutes repeat - once a year or once in the past 10 years? What I mean was that I don't think the majority of WDW guests go as often as some of the regular posters do. If DVC is 5% of the room inventory - that leaves 95% plus all the off property people. "Repeat" can be defined in a million ways, my point is that I don't think most guests take everything Disney does as personally as some people here do.

I don't expect WDW to always give me free pixie dust or perks like the observation desk. As the supply is limited and the demand has increased if someone is willing to pay for it - I think that is perfectly fair. Given that I am a fan of CG and willing to pay to dine there I am thrilled that the observation decks will be controlled. Some people want to pay "value" rates, but get "deluxe" benefits - and expect it to be so because its Disney - it doesn't work that way.

Melissa

 

[raidermatt]

If I ever come to the decision that it isn't "good enough" to warrant what I am willing to pay, I simply won't go.

Nobody said WDW was not good enough to pay for. Some have just said that this is more a negative move than a postive one.

I'm certainly not so disgruntled that I would say regardless of the circumstance that anything Disney does these days is crap or if they had done it it would be crap (as has been stated in many threads).

I can only think of one regular poster who makes blanket statements like you describe, yet you lump anybody who has a "net negative" opinion on something with those types of blanket comments.

 

[airlarry!]

If I ever come to the decision that it isn't "good enough" to warrant what I am willing to pay, I simply won't go.

That may be why the Car3'ers are even bigger Disnoids than we think. 'Cause the few times that Disney disappoints me--by being not good enough for what I'm willing to pay--doesn't stop me from still planning the next trip.

Sure, I complain when I think the Company is losing its roots. What right minded Disney fan wouldn't?

Some people want to pay "value" rates, but get "deluxe" benefits - and expect it to be so because its Disney - it doesn't work that way.

Hmm. I smell a Land Baron aneurism coming. I think that was the 'Disney experience' that attracted him (and my family, too) to Disneyworld in the first place. EVERYBODY got the royal treatment, and it didn't matter how much you were paying.

In fact, there have been books written about the actual (or some say mythical) Disney Philosophy of giving the guest the perception that they were getting more than they paid for.

PS: Please don't throw Club 33 in here. How many people are like me and would never even have heard of Club 33 if it hadn't been for rumors. It's not like it is luxury box seats at a football game that everybody can stare at and drool when its 25 degrees and raining in the South end zone.

 

[crusader]

I think that was the 'Disney experience' that attracted him (and my family, too) to Disneyworld in the first place. EVERYBODY got the royal treatment, and it didn't matter how much you were paying.

This is an extremely difficult task to maintain decade after decade. There is an expectation with WDW unique to each guest. For some, a simple experience made the trip worthwhile. For others, the royal treatment could never be enough.

 

[d-r]

Hey Matt-

I think I came up with the 5% dvc figure!! But I agree with Melissa, most every few year repeat visitors aren't like the folks on this board. But I've also met people in those AP lounges, and then seen them again on a different trip a few months later - there are some really really regulars out there, especially locals in a retiree time on your hands sort of state. But I really think that most folks are there because they want to bring their kids. They go the first time because they didn't want to wait until Child A was "too old" and they come back a second time so that Child B is "old enough to really enjoy it." Or they are repeast because they came when they were a kid, and came again to bring their kids. That is nothing but opinion and impression, but man, almost everyone has been to wdw or dl; if all those people were repeating a lot...well, thank about it. How many people do you know who have been to WDW or DL once? How often do they go?

Larry...back then we wouldn't have heard about club 33, but today a gazillion people would have heard about it in a flash.

 

[DisneyKidds]

Hmm. I smell a Land Baron aneurism coming.

Hehehehehehe

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

I really don’t like digging up old posts, but….

Melissa said something directly to me that I really thought needed an answer. But Mr. Kidds had me soooooo busy with his multiple threads that I forgot all about it. Until this rather slow Saturday afternoon. So, the answer!!

Baron - you contridicted yourself by saying that the deck experience was something that seasoned patrons and return patrons were used to, but then stated in a later post that someone with no idea could be told by a CM - so which is it?

I really don’t see how this is a contradiction. They don’t advertise it. It isn’t in a brochure that I know of. Most of the people who enjoy the deck have discovered it over the years. In other words, a ‘seasoned patron’.

Now, for everything in life there is a first time. I’m sure there are thousands of first time stories regarding the observation deck. Everyone had to ‘discover’ it somehow. The story I related happened in 1972. The father in the story was my father. I was seventeen at the time. This was the way we ‘discovered’ it. No contradiction. Just a story. Unless you see something that I don’t. Please explain.

Its both and both can make for a crowded and unpleasant experience

You may be right. But all along I’ve said that this was a fairly magical moment. For a lot of people. You evidently agree as this quote delineates. So, put yourself in management’s spot. You’re the top mouse. How do answer the apparent overcrowding problem? What is your ‘magical’ solution? I can think of hundreds!! (well at least ten!!) And NONE of them included closing the deck to non-paying customers. And yet Disney, with all their long years of creating magic and solving crowding problems took the one solution that just happened to add to the bottom line while totally disregarding the nonpaying masses. And to that I say – TYPICAL Ei$ner philosophy!!

In all honesty I don't think some people are ever going to be happy with Disney - its almost as if they thrive on finding things to complain about

You may be right. I don’t know for sure. I can only speak for myself and that statement does NOT apply to me.

It sure seems that “some people are ever going to be happy with Disney” on this Board sometimes. But I really think that if they changed their philosophy to mirror Walt’s philosophy, or what brought the company to greatness in the first place, many people around here would be thrilled beyond comprehension!!! But I guess you would see no change!! And then it would be my turn to be totally perplexed!!

 

[freediverdude]

Well I've sat here for several hours now, reading every single post in this thread (gee I must REALLY be bored LOL). So I'm going to add my two cents and then go to bed! I think this observation deck problem really boils down to the fact that a lot of the regular WDW guests who had discovered it considered it a perk of the hotel, not a perk of the restaurant. And when the current Disney management didn't seem to consider this when they solved the crowding or inconvenience problem by just shutting it off to non-restaurant or lounge visitors, it wasn't reminiscent of the old Disney. The old Disney would have looked at what was happening, and said something like, gee, this is getting really popular, but too many people are going up there now and it may not be safe, what can we do? And for something that so many guests liked, they would have looked at every possible alternative to trying to accomodate more guests wanting to have this experience - building a separate observation tower, trying to expand the observation area or provide more access to it, any number of other ways, while still preserving the view and peace for the restaurant customers, before just shutting it off like that. Just shutting off the access to non-restaurant and lounge guests would have been a very last resort, and probably only a temporary emergency measure until they could get their expansion in place. Even though Disney still has plenty of magic happening, and I'm happy with current experiences there, this is typical of some of the newer Disney management who maybe don't know what the older experience was like, or maybe just get caught up in corporate budgeting concerns, and can't solve everything the way the old Disney did. And this is directly a function of Disney now being controlled by a large corporation, instead of one thoughtful, caring man.

 

[caseymaureen]

FreeDiverDude~ Well Said!