DEBATE: Has WDW been built haphazardly, too quick and without proper infrastructure?

[stlphil]

I usually wouldn't feel comfortable trying to second guess "What would Walt do?", but this case is special. Think about this- without Walt's dream to develop and showcase creative and novel transportation and other infrastruture elements, there would be no WDW. And now we are debating if the system is "adequate". How depressing!

Putting down the guests and calling them dogs or sheep (or fill in the blank with your favorite animal) for their typical patterns misses another key point. Creative design and planning doesn't just consider bricks and mortar and wheels and routes. It also considers human nature/behavior, and doesn't just work around it but uses it to advantage.

 

[caseymaureen]

I didn't have enough time to read every post on this subject, but I'd like to clarify my position from the post that inspired this one...
Be careful, this is going to be a loooong one! I may have used the term infrastructure incorrectly, but I meant it in terms of human structure, of the CMs needed to run things, of the management, of the general space provided for mass groups of guests. What the correct term for that is, I'm not sure, but that is what I meant.
I felt that the problems arose in matters of crowds trying to squeeze through small areas, of no longer secret magical places (which, although no one seemed to believe it, did relate to the previous topic ), and of (relatively) shoddy resorts being put up just to make an extra buck and hold thousands and thousands more people. The lines at the attractions, the crowds on Main Street, the transportation system, it's all related!
Having worked at several resort food courts (POFQ, PORS, AS Sports, AKL, and last but not least, Gasparilla at the Grand) there is a major space problem. I don't particularly understand the cause of it though. When imagineers (or engineers, or whoever planned the things) built these resorts they knew, generally, how many people would be staying there. And, at least on these later resorts, they should have known peak times, etc. However, there are still major crowds. Lines back up to 50 people in length, it takes 15 minutes to get a hot dog, and then you wait in the 50 person line, orders are forgotten in the rush. It can get so crowded that you can't even move much less have a pleasant experience. Lots of problems. Management should be able to see these things coming, but, for some reason they never seem to plan for it despite the fact that it happens every morning for breakfast and around 6 every evening for dinner. And imagine being the lowly CP CM who has to explain to these guests why we're out of donuts, or why there are no empty seats. We're wondering why too!
I'll tell you straight up, from both working there and from staying there as a guest, I don't like the AS. I feel like they are a poor excuse for a Disney hotel. I feel like they are lowering their name value by letting them have anything to do with Disney. And I'm not saying this because they are lower priced resorts, because I completely understand that alot of people can't afford the prices they charge for everything else. I'm saying this because the company shouldn't have used the lower price as an excuse to build gigantic hotels (has anyone had to walk from the country music section to the lobby? Quite a distance to get some food or get to a car...I'd pity any family with young children trying to make the journey.) with minimal, off the shelf themeing, and an as far away as possible location. They built these hotels to hold huge amounts of people in one spot, people which majorly contribute to the problems elsewhere. Once again, it's a people problem. Guests really get no personal service at the All Star, plain and simple. And I assume that it will be the same at Pop Century, although I hope they make some managerial decisions and prove me wrong. I'm not saying that guests at AS and GF should have everything equal, but people are people and deserve to recieve what they pay for (and the AS prices are higher than average in the outside of Disney universe.) They shouldn't be treated like sub-par guests and be expected to take whatever bones the company will throw them.
In case you can't tell, I have a lot of very strong feelings on the state of the company and I feel like we're justified in making criticisms. The company looks at these boards and maybe they'll actually take some of our advice. Even if they don't, what does it hurt to discuss? I understand looking at the bright side of things, but sometimes there are alot of bad things that need to be discussed too. Besides, the good things don't make for such interesting conversation.
Casey

 

[DisneyKidds]

Where did I say that there is a system that will keep EVERY guest happy? (Don't spend too much time, because I didn't say that).

Maybe you didn’t MEAN to say that. Let’s look at what you did say.

If your offerings are perceived by your customers as inadequate....................your offerings ARE inadequate.

Let’s assume that a guest who feels the system is inadequate is, shall we say, unhappy. By your logic, the only way for a system to be adequate would be to have no guests who feel the system is inadequate (that would be no unhappy guests ).

I know, I know, you think I am being silly. But really, you have said that if guests feel your system is inadequate, it IS inadequate. Well, how many guests can feel this way until you abandon the “you can’t keep all the people happy” philosophy, and shift to the “if people feel it is inadequate, it IS inadequate” philosophy. 1? 100? 1,000? 10,000? 1%, 10%? What is it?

But I find very little value in bringing that up around here, because the pat response is that Walt's dead and things are different.

Frankly, I have no idea what Walt would do. Furthermore, I don’t resort to the “Walt’s dead” position. I like to talk about what Walt would have done. However, you are right that things have changed and it is very difficult to say what he would have done in today’s day and age. You are right, though. I think there are aspects of the current transportation system he would “fix”, but I don’t know that we would be bus free.

Good customer service looks for ways to keep the guests out of Guest Relations in the first place.

Again with these statements. You agree that no organization, no matter what they do, can keep every guest out of Guest Relation. After all, you can’t keep EVERY guest happy. So I ask again, how many guests can come through Guest Relation’s doors before Disney crosses the line and goes from an organization with good customer service to bad?

Casey……………

I generally agree with you on the All Stars. While Baron and I may disagree over the “moderates”, which I think were a good addition to WDW and provide good Show, I can’t say the same for the All Stars (or Pop). However, I don’t necessarily see those who stay there having to settle for whatever bones Disney throws then and not getting what they paid for. The fact that the All Stars is on site gives the guest an incredible benefit over a cheaper off site hotel of the same level.

 

[caseymaureen]

DisneyKidds~ Not necessarily. The location of AS and PC are both nearly off property, about as far as they can get from everything else and still be on property. There are many hotels and motels in Lake Buena Vista and Kissimee which offer free bus service to Disney from their lobbies. Plus, they're cheaper. I don't see how the giant footballs and mile-long walks to the bus stops can really be worth paying the extra, even for supposedly being on property. The other hotels sell Disney tickets in their lobbies, they have buses (which sometimes are more predictable and convenient than the Disney system) and many have nicer accomodations than AS.
Now, don't get me wrong, I love staying on property. But, that's when on property means all the things that Disney stands for, like service, and themeing, etc, that most of the moderate resorts have. If it really comes down to AS or a Kissimmee hotel, I'll pick the Kissimmee one.

 

[crusader]

I felt that the problems arose in matters of crowds trying to squeeze through small areas, of no longer secret magical places (which, although no one seemed to believe it, did relate to the previous topic ), and of (relatively) shoddy resorts being put up just to make an extra buck and hold thousands and thousands more people. The lines at the attractions, the crowds on Main Street, the transportation system, it's all related!

well said -

Expansion to accomodate increased capacity had to be considered in the initial framework of the WDW planning. I am certain this was one reason for owning so much property.

The experiences you are describing fall in line with the reality of WDW today. Many guests are left with these less than pleasant memories and have a difficult time reconciling their fantasy expectations with the truth - especially after spending thousands of dollars to fight crowds and deal with long lines.

I do not believe expansion was ever intended to be delivered at a rate of return slower than the population growth. Something more will have to be done and quickly to instill a positive feeling in the minds of your guests. One that will encourage them to return again sooner rather than later. Magic can only get you so far.

 

[DisneyKidds]

DisneyKidds~ Not necessarily.

Perhaps. It all depends on what "on-site" means to you. I believe it is about much more than proximity.

Again, I don't really care for the All Stars, but even when you stay there, you never step foot outside of Disney. There have been threads on other boards discussing what is so special about being on site. We can do that here if you like - I'm never one to shy away from a discussion .

If I'm staying at the Super 8, at the end of the day I feel like I am leaving Disney. Sure, I'm close (maybe even closer than the AS) and I'll be back tomorrow, but I'm leaving nonetheless. If I'm at the AS - which room wise is no more than the Super 8, but does have nicer pools and decoration (note I didn't say theme ) - I never leave Disney. Just a feeling, I know - and not as much at AS as other Disney resorts, but I do believe it makes a difference. Of course, not everyone is going to feel that way.

 

[crusader]

If I'm at the AS - which room wise is no more than the Super 8, but does have nicer pools and decoration (note I didn't say theme ) - I never leave Disney. Just a feeling, I know - and not as much at AS as other Disney resorts, but I do believe it makes a difference.

This may be a confirmation of how the AS did succeed in getting a guest to consider staying there vs the competition. Value and on-site are good marketing tools.

 

[raidermatt]

I know, I know, you think I am being silly.

Glad you said it...

By your logic, the only way for a system to be adequate would be to have no guests who feel the system is inadequate (that would be no unhappy guests ).

No, DK, that is not a fair interpretation of what I have said.

Listen to any company talk about its goals with respect to its customers. How it plans to keep them happy. When they say they are going to give their customers what they want, does it mean they have failed as a company if one customer doesn't get what they want?

Of course not.

Yet it remains a part of the company's stated goals to make their customers happy.

Well, how many guests can feel this way until you abandon the “you can’t keep all the people happy” philosophy, and shift to the “if people feel it is inadequate, it IS inadequate” philosophy. 1? 100? 1,000? 10,000? 1%, 10%? What is it?

Good question. Of course you know its one that neither of us can answer.

Of course its difficult for even Disney to answer. That's why they get into trouble by letting guest satisfaction surveys make their decsions. Is 10% dissatisfaction too much? Doesn't sound like a lot, but if you use 10% as your barometer in every decision, you could find yourself losing 10% of your customers, which would be disasterous.

If they follow a philosophy of providing unique entertainment experiences, the answer would be simple: The current transportation system does not meet our objective. Therefore we must find a better system.


On a side-note, I really am perplexed by the difficulty in dealing with the "perception is reality" concept. Perhaps its because in some fields, customer perception rarely wavers from reality. I'm not sure. But in service organizations, this is a frequently used mantra. Ultimately, its the customer who makes the purchase decsion, and nobody else. Further, in retail environments, the decision is often based much more on emotion than in wholesale, or business-to-business environments (realtively speaking).

For example, you may think you provide the best tax services in the country, and maybe from a technical standpoint, you do. But if for some reason potential customers BELIEVE its Bob down the street who is the best, it does not matter that he is not the best. He will get the business. You then must accept this perception and do what is necessary to change the perception to meet reality.

In the Disney transportation case, its a case of understanding what the customers really want. Certainly "Magic" level plays a big part in that, as does efficiency.

But if you use efficiency only as your measure of effectiveness, you're missing the boat (or bus as it were). The level of appeal your product has is based solely on what your customers think. And if they want 10 units of Magic, and 10 units of efficiency, and you provide 5 units of Magic and 12 units of efficiency, your system is inadequate.

Of course you will find individual customers who have different opinions. This isn't about trying to find the exceptions to every rule, its about how you go about building your business. Do you give the customers what YOU think they want or should want, or do you give them what they actually want.

Now, the danger in this, and I think Disney has fallen into this trap, is that you focus on changing or managing expectations INSTEAD of meeting or exceeding expectations.

Rather than focusing on providing something Magical, you try to convince your customers that what you provided (Dinorama anyone?) is Magical.

 

[DisneyKidds]

No, DK, that is not a fair interpretation of what I have said.

I tried to quote to avoid the interpretation problem .

Let me paraphrase this, and you tell me if it is appropriate or fair. As you said................

Listen to any company talk about its goals with respect to its customers. How it plans to keep them happy. When they say they are going to give their customers what they want, does it mean they have failed as a company if one customer doesn't get what they want?

I'll paraphrase as..........................

Listen to any company talk about its goals with respect to its transportation systems. How it plans to provide adequate transportation. When they say they are going to give their customers adequate transportation, does it mean they have failed as a company if one customer doesn't perceive the transportation as adequate?

The answer is the same, of course not. However, that isn't what you said. So I'm the smuck today - but we have to be careful about what we say, or be willing to stand behind .

I really am perplexed by the difficulty in dealing with the "perception is reality" concept.

No difficulty here. I know what yo mean and I agree. But, as I said, you can only take it so far. You seem to agree that there is only so far you can go with it, otherwise you really would keep EVERY person happy. That was my only point.

But if you use efficiency only as your measure of effectiveness, you're missing the boat (or bus as it were).

Maybe, maybe not. It really brings up an interesting question - one which I think Tyler weighed in on. Do WDW guests really want or expect a knock-your-socks-off-entertaining transportation experience, or do they want to get from point A to point B (where the entertaining experiences they do expect are beconing) in the most efficient way possible? I know, I know - everything is part of the Show, but when I go to see a Broadway show I don't expect the bathroom to be a highlight. Yeah, the bathroom should be clean, even fancy as bathrooms go, but it is still just a bathroom.

 

[WebmasterCricket]

Originally posted by raidermatt
Ultimately, its the customer who makes the purchase decsion, and nobody else.

So in this case are you describing the purchase decision as:

1) Whether or not to make the trip to Disney or destination x
2) Whether or not to ride the bus or choose transportation method x
3) Whether to make a fringe purchase based on the transportation given (ie eat at the GF after 9 PM)
4) Other

If you are saying 1, then I'd have to say that while the provided method of transport is a part of the decision to go to Disney over destination x, it far too small of an issue to have any distinct impact on the overall decision either way. I'm not saying there are not a few extreme ends of the line, but the vast majority won't let it sway them to another choice.

If you are saying 2, then Disney is not out anything either way, so big deal.

If it's 3 you are thinking, I believe that’s a marketing issue and not an infrastructure one.

4?, well I'd love to hear what 4 could even be.

JC

 

[raidermatt]

You seem to agree that there is only so far you can go with it, otherwise you really would keep EVERY person happy. That was my only point.

Its an accurate point, but I still don't see why you felt the need to make it. There's no way anyone in there right mind would say that if there is ONE upset customer the whole system is a failure. If you don't think I am at least in my "right mind", I don't think you would be bothering to discuss this with me.

It just distracts from the meaningful parts of the discussion. (Sorry if that sounds too harsh, I don't mean it to be harsh, just trying to cut to the chase...)

Do WDW guests really want or expect a knock-your-socks-off-entertaining transportation experience, or do they want to get from point A to point B (where the entertaining experiences they do expect are beconing) in the most efficient way possible?

With all due respect to Tyler, guests do place a significant amount of value in the Magic portion of the equation.

What we have to keep in mind is that most people will rarely complain about a lack of "Magic". They will, however, complain about a lack of efficiency or common courtesy. If they just waited 20 minutes for a bus, that's what they are going to moan about to the bus driver, not some idea they have for a multi-faceted, Magical transportation plan. So, of course, if you are driving a bus, you are going to here many more complaints about efficiency.

But that doesn't mean there is no value in adding Magic to the transportation system.

Again, this is the problem you run into when you rely too much on guest satisfaction surveys instead of an overall philosophy. Disneyland is the classic example. There was no guest uproar at other parks for a Disney-type park in the 1950's. So based on guest surveys, there was no need for Disneyland. Wouldn't work. Nobody asked for it.

Look at DCA. Disney asks guests if they have a problem with a California theme, and most say no, not really. So, Disney says there is no problem with a CA theme.

Yet, they do not ask about alternatives. They do not give guests choices and ask which is the best.

The philosophy upon which the Disney empire was built says that the current system is inadequate. Therefore, alternatives should be sought.

 

[raidermatt]

Mr. Cricket, EVERYTHING that Disney does inside the gates has an impact on customer purchasing decisions. In what they are willing to pay to visit, how much they spend while inside, and if and when they will return.

Upgrading any aspect of the experience increases the value of the experience to the customer. An increase in perceived value increases demand. Increased demand translates to increased revenue, either through higher prices or increased volume.

You can't look at every piece and ask if it is a deal-breaker for the customer, then let the answer be the basis for your decision.

I guess I shouldn't say can't, because Disney is doing this, but instead I should say you SHOULD not do this.

This is the classic defense for deferred maintenance, allowing paint to crack and peel, etc. Nobody's going to cancel if we don't paint Mickey's house this year, and we can't prove anybody will visit because we painted it, so why paint it?

But it all adds up...

 

[DisneyKidds]

It just distracts from the meaningful parts of the discussion. (Sorry if that sounds too harsh, I don't mean it to be harsh, just trying to cut to the chase...)

No need to worry about being harsh - cut to the chase all you want . I will . On this one you are wrong. You are so worried about being distracted from what YOU think are the meaningful parts of the conversation that you don't even realize that your whole position could be a house of cards (as could mine ). The fact that you can't keep everyone happy, be it a single person or a thousand, is very relevant. You have determined that the WDW transportation system is not working, that it is not magical, that it is not what people want. You have determined that it is inadequate. Based on what? A handful of people? You haven't even considered that maybe, just maybe, overall the vast majority of people have no problem with the system.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

You haven't even considered that maybe, just maybe, overall the vast majority of people have no problem with the system.

You’ve really got to be kidding! Please! I can’t stand it!! My sides are hurting from the gales of laughter and rolling on the floor!!!

Please tell me that you finally ran out of things to say! That you finally just reached the very bottom of the idea barrel and you thought five pages just wasn’t quite enough!! Please tell me that this is why you postulated this ridiculous concept! Please tell me you don’t really believe this drivel!!

Oh Mr. Kidds!!! Thanks for the laugh!!!



PS: It was very frustrating today!!! Sir Matt and Mr. Head said EVERYTHING there was to say on the subject!! There was nothing to add at all!! Ahhhhhhh!!!!!!!

PSS: Scoop is sooooo close on this one!!!!! If he’d just back down on the monorail things a wee bit, he’d have it!!!!! You are right Scoop, my man!!! Unique!! “Disney” unique!! It certainly does NOT mean monorails!!! But it certainly doesn’t automatically rule them out either!!!

 

[crusader]

Upgrading any aspect of the experience increases the value of the experience to the customer. An increase in perceived value increases demand. Increased demand translates to increased revenue, either through higher prices or increased volume.

It's just not that simple. The perception for a guest in terms of value at WDW is a bit of a stretch from reality. Value implies getting your money's worth. Upgrades do not necessarily convert into revenue especially in this case where they may be more maintenance driven than marketing driven.

If WDW could move the consumer away from the stereotypical perception that a visit there is too expensive and too frustrating to frequent then they have that increased demand. Once you've spent literally thousands for that "convince me I'm relaxing and enjoying myself while I'm exhausted, feeling miserable and broke" experience, you will not be returning anytime soon even if there is an upgrade.

 

[DisneyKidds]

You’ve really got to be kidding! Please! I can’t stand it!! My sides are hurting from the gales of laughter and rolling on the floor!!!

Laughter is healthy for you - glad I could entertain you and help you at the same time .

When it come to WDW, I know two sets of people.

I know the fine folks on these boards. I'll call them my e-friends. These e-friends seem to be split on how they feel about the WDW transportation system. Beyond my usual e-friends around this board, I am attempting to assess how other e-friends feel about the system.

The other set of people I know are my real, flesh and blood friends. I know them and I know what they think of Disney and the transportation system. They aren't trying to make any points on a Disney discussion board, they aren't trying to score points in a debate, and they don't have an agenda. They simply use the system. You know what, all these people rather like the system. That is a fact. Sure, maybe they could get from resort to resort better, but overall they really like using the system.

That's the fact, Jack. *



* movie reference time.

 

[raidermatt]

You are so worried about being distracted from what YOU think are the meaningful parts of the conversation that you don't even realize that your whole position could be a house of cards (as could mine ).

Ok, lets try to sort this out...

Regarding my statements about customer perceptions being reality, and how if it doesn't fulfill all of their needs, the system is not truly effective. This became a discussion of whether its possible to please every customer 100%, and how if you miss one, how could that be considered a failure.

That was a pointless discussion, and yes, it distracted from any points either you or I were trying to make. Even those dart throwing monkeys you speak of know you can't please everyone, nor can you displease everyone.

The point you were trying to make, which could have been made without the "you can't please everyone" discussion, is that you believe a large enough percentage of people are satisfied with the current system to deem it effective, particularly if resort to resort busses were added.

The fact that you can't keep everyone happy, be it a single person or a thousand, is very relevant.

Again, it is not. You never can. In this case, no transportation system can. Not the current one, or any other proposed system. This is something ALL systems have in common. It does nothing to address the differences. It adds no more value than saying you can't dis-please everyone.

You have determined that the WDW transportation system is not working, that it is not magical, that it is not what people want. You have determined that it is inadequate.

I've determined that it does not meet all of the goals that a WDW tranportation system should meet. With that standard in mind, yes, it is inadequate.

Based on what? A handful of people?

Based on the concept that WDW exists to provide unique family entertainment experiences, and EVERYTHING that is visible to and/or useable by guests is a part of the SHOW. (Bathrooms are 'quite' the same as a transportation system.)

You haven't even considered that maybe, just maybe, overall the vast majority of people have no problem with the system.

Nice, well-worded accusation, but a false one. I have considered it, and I consider it unlikely. Possible, but unlikely. Further, there is a difference between having a problem with something, and something being the right thing for WDW.

You don't run a successful creative entertainment enterprise by basing your decisions on the answer to "Do you have a problem with X?"

That's how DCA got built. "Do you have a problem..." does not yield the same results as finding the optimal solution.

The other set of people I know are my real, flesh and blood friends.

We all got 'em...

I know them and I know what they think of Disney and the transportation system.

Well you got me there. I don't know your friends. But then again, you don't know mine, so

They aren't trying to make any points on a Disney discussion board, they aren't trying to score points in a debate, and they don't have an agenda.

Implying that those of us in your "e-friend" category are trying to make points here, and do have an agenda? Who are we trying to make points with? I can only speak for myself, but really, what agenda do you suspect I may have, other than what I think is best for Disney? Don't beat around the bush.

They simply use the system. You know what, all these people rather like the system. That is a fact. Sure, maybe they could get from resort to resort better, but overall they really like using the system.

(Lets forget for a moment that while I'm sure you have many friends, they are hardly a representative sample) Getting back on topic here, what it seems you are saying is "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

That really is a useful motto, and it can be succussfully applied in many cases. However, as with just about every motto/slogan/mantra, there are exceptions. And where this one frequently falls short is in the area of innovation. Look back at Disney's history and see how many times something wouldn't have been created if they had just said "Hey, the people like the way it is now, so let's not change anything!"

As a real simple test, one could ask two things of WDW guests:

1- Are you satisfied / Do you like WDW's transportation system.

Ask this as a yes or no question, and I'll agree that most will say yes.

2- Would you prefer to see WDW's transportation system remain as it is, or would you prefer to see an innovative mass transit system replace all or part of the existing bus network?

I'll bet you get a different answer from many people.

No this does not get to all the details needed about how customers will respond to various plans, but it will show that while people may not have a problem with the current system, it doesn't mean they wouldn't respond to a better one.

 

[raidermatt]

It's just not that simple.

Really, it is.

The perception for a guest in terms of value at WDW is a bit of a stretch from reality.

The guest's perception of the value they are getting IS their reality. This is based on the laws of market forces, and even Disney is not exempt. If Disney adds or improves something that the customers place value on, by defintion, it raises demand. The add does not have to be "real". If somehow you can convince customers that the same offering has greater appeal than in the past, you have increased the customers value perception, and you will increase demand. That's a dangerous and short-sighted way to try to increase demand, by the way, but it shows that, again, perception IS reality in this case.

Upgrades do not necessarily convert into revenue especially in this case where they may be more maintenance driven than marketing driven.

But I'm saying that a new transportation system utilizing more innovative forms of mass transit would not merely be maintenance driven, but would in fact, be PRODUCT driven. The entire guest experience while inside WDW is part of WDW's product. Some things have a direct revenue stream, like the parks and food, but some do not, like transportation and landscaping. Yet they all contribute to the experience, and therefore the product.

Incidentally, maintenance is necessary to "maintain" current value, and is still just as necessary. For example, you can add value in one area, but lose the net benefit by allowing maintenance to slip in another area.

If WDW could move the consumer away from the stereotypical perception that a visit there is too expensive and too frustrating to frequent then they have that increased demand

This is managing perceptions, and it is very important. However, it should be done in conjunction with, not instead of, tangible efforts to maintain or increase perceived value.

Once you've spent literally thousands for that "convince me I'm relaxing and enjoying myself while I'm exhausted, feeling miserable and broke" experience, you will not be returning anytime soon even if there is an upgrade.

True, fortunately for WDW, most customers leave with a better feeling. For if they didn't, WDW would have bigger problems than it has right now.

 

[DisneyKidds]

The point you were trying to make, which could have been made without the "you can't please everyone" discussion, is that you believe a large enough percentage of people are satisfied with the current system to deem it effective, particularly if resort to resort busses were added.

No, what I was trying to sa...................................................ahhh, phooey . Suffice to say that I disagree with the blanket statement that if x# of people perceive a transportation system to be inadequate, that makes it inadequate. Maybe x+1 does (everyone got their abacus out? ), but we can't seem to identify that x value.

Based on the concept that WDW exists to provide unique family entertainment experiences

Yes, busses are not unique. However the busing experience one gets when using the transportation system IS unique.

"Do you have a problem..." does not yield the same results as finding the optimal solution.

Well, I hardly think the WDW transporation was built using the "do you have a problem" approach. Given the number of people Disney needs to move, the number of locations they need to move them to, and available technology, it is quite possible they have darn good solution (heck, maybe optimal if they addressed the resort to resort issue) efficiency wise. Add in the fact that people can remember the jokes the driver told x months ago and you have more than your average bus system.

Who are we trying to make points with? I can only speak for myself, but really, what agenda do you suspect I may have, other than what I think is best for Disney?

Obviously we are trying to get one another to see points that we think they should be able to see - not that that happens often . Sure you have an agenda - to convince others that you are right in what you think is best for Disney. Not all agendas are bad you know . The point you missed, however, is that when I talk to my unrepresentative sample of friends who go to WDW they aren't concerned with convincing me of what is best for Disney. They simply relate their enjoyment of what WDW offers them, including the transportation system.

what it seems you are saying is "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

No. What I'm saying is that Disney should take a good thing and make it better.

they are hardly a representative sample

Niether is the group that you base your position that the system is inadequate and short of standards on.

Speaking of asking WDW guests, I do have a poll out there. Is it representative? Who knows, but in early returns the survey says................

100% of respondents find the system efficient and effective.
92% of respondents think the system add value to their WDW experience.
38% of respondents think the system adds Magic to their WDW experience.

 

[WebmasterCricket]

Originally posted by DisneyKidds
92% of respondents think the system add value to their WDW experience.

I wonder how many of those still drive themselves around.

JC