DEBATE: Maintaining the Walt Standard

[DVC-Landbaron]

I see every argument I set forth debunked!

That is because they are debunkable!!

I'm starting to think you guys don't like me, sniff, sniff

Awe Captain!! We like you just fine! We even like the Pirate (well, for the most part I guess!)!! It is you logic and arguments that we don’t like!!!

As soon as Madame Cleo is out of jail I'm getting her to hook me up with Walt

Captain!! You bust me up!!! Again!!!:

p :bounce
:

 

[Captain Crook]

Well, now that I'm sober again...

I don't thnk my points are really any more 'debunkable' than the naysayer crowd...I just generally bore with the 'yes you do, no you don't' type debate...

I have no reason to doubt Mr. Voice in his recant of the drinking fountain caper, but I know I've read it in at least two places & I recall one of the books as being very compelling in my eyes. That doesn't mean the author didn't have an axe to grind wth Walt, but sometimes I think you guys pull from the other side of the spectrum.

I'm going to go where no man dares to go now and make a blanket statement that will probably get me banned from the DIS. Walt had it easy!

Walt's vision was his own. Walt had to answer to virtually no one. Walt was improving on something very basic and generic (the amusement park). Walt's commitment to quality was bourne out of his disguest with the messy conditions and general seediness of the 'competetion". Walt never would have got funding for his 'pipe dream' today. Walt's commitment to quality as in expensive chandeliers was a showmanship issue (personally). Walt used off the shelf rides (carousel & skyway) - and who cares about the story behind the carousel...It's still a merry-go-round. Walt reinvented the wheel many, many, many times. The dark rides are all basically the same with different stories attached (seems he used the synergistic approach as much as Michael). Certainly all are unique and well done but would current management get praise if they decide to clone 5 or 6 Soarin' rdes with different locales, ques and stories? I don't think so. Walt's innovation at DL was slow. You know the HM & Pirates didn't even appear until the very end of the 60's! Walt loved trains so he gave us trains and is revered for it. Eisner liked quality stage shows and has given them to us (where s the same appreciation?).

OK, I know a few of you are waiting to rip into this baby so I'll quit (with hopes that a few of the more like-minded here will see a point or two they can work from).

Walt was a genius who we are very lucky to have had but the circumstances surounding what he was doing & when he was dong it is very different that modern day business (the business is business theory is just oversimplification).

I'm not trying to downplay what Walt did as much as I'm trying to point how vital it was that he did what he did when he did. It would be very hard for a modern day theme park genius to make his name in the world today, would it not? Why? Because the premise is no longer new. It has been refined. Business, people & investors are a lot less likely to 'bet the farm' today. How many new and exciting theme park attraction ideas can there be? We keep clamoring for a new 'dark ride' but what will it be? It'll undoubtedly be a basic clone. The only new idea I've heard since I've been here is the concept for the coaster at AK that would have combined coaster, dark ride, story & thrills all in one (stop, go, stop, go)...

OK, I'm really quitting now!

 

[DisneyKidds]

Don't quit - I'm with you - oh Captain, my Captain .

Don't fret about Elvis showing up. He doesn't like to make too many appearances and he just showed up to give Nicolas Cage and Lisa Marie his blessing .

Mr. Kidds. You are interesting. You come very close to “Getting It”, and then suddenly – WHOA!! A left turn out of nowhere!!! And all because of some lousy compilation Walt was forced to do ONCE!!

You may have forgotten more than I have gotten to this point - but apparently one of the things you forgot was Walts use of 'package' pictures. There were indeed more than one. Dragon was the first circa 1940. The war years put a crimp in animation production, but it was around 1948 or so when Walt decided he needed to make some changes and moved ahead with Cinderella, which happened to be the first really successful feature (profit-wise) since Snow White. The 'package' pictures included Dragon, Make Mine Music, Fun and Fancy Free, Dear to My Heart, Melody Time, and The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad. These were not something he was forced to do ONCE. It was a medium that worked for the business at the time. A compromise if you will - Oh, wait Walt wouldn't do that! - Well, yes he would, and did! Another note - I did stay away from mentioning sequels because I know how Walt felt about topping pigs with pigs. However, the major reason he didn't do a sequel to Fantasia was because of the commercial failure of Fantasia - not his credo to not do sequels after that first mistake.

But guess what? The well had run dry. And tough choices have to be made.

I do love when you help me make my points (if I actually have one .) But what is to say that Walt would not have faced more of these choices in the future. Just as he would have liked to have fixed the Prince, or gone right into production on Pan, or Alice, or another major feature instead of the 'packages' - might he have been put into a situation at some point that made him rethink the hotel thing. Given his track record I'm sure he would have found ways to put himself in more pickles that required him to make tough choices.

But never at the expense of his all encompassing QUALITY!!

Of course. The 'package' pictures were still quality, still 'Disney' - they were just something different - and that was ok. So, too, could a second type of hotel if that is what Walt felt was prudent at some point - and he would have done it with quality.

And there is nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that he ever built and/or priced that would lead me to the conclusion that he would condone the existence of the moderates, the economies or the ultra deluxe resorts and sanction them as “Disney”.

As you often say - I disagree!! The record speaks for itself if you choose to see it. So had the need or opportunity arisen Walt could have done a 'package' hotel.

How? How would it be possible to reduce those standards commiserate with price and yet maintain the same standard? How is that possible? You’ve got me baffled! I can’t see it how that could happen.

Ah…. But how, you ask. You know what – you sound a lot like Roy. I really don’t know exactly how, but if Walt felt it needed to be done he would have found a way. I think a time would have come, event would have transpired, that presented a need to Walt – be it a business thing, a personal thing, or a people thing.

It’s either a Standard or it isn’t!!

I have to say to you Baron that you are interesting as well. You are an advocate for the ‘standard’ and I like that. However, it is your view of the ‘standard’ that I am struggling with. With regard to hotels you say that the Contemporary and Poly are the ‘standard’. Likewise, you must feel that in animated features Snow White is the ‘standard’. But you know what – the ‘standard’ isn’t a hotel, or a picture, or a thing. As you pointed out, the ‘standard’ is really quality and adherence to 4 things….

1. Safety
2. Courtesy
3. Show
4. Efficiency

I think you set an arbitrary standard, such as the Contemporary for hotels, and discount anything that is not done like the Contemporary even if it is quality and adheres to those principle you hold dear. I just don’t understand that. Many of the films that came after Snow White did not live up to Snow White. But they still met the Walt ‘standard’. They were still quality. Likewise, there could be hotels that were not quite the Contemporary that were still quality, that met the real ‘standards’, not some arbitrary belief that everything had to be done like the thing before. Am I making any sense here?

Ok – to the caste system. Not sure I agree with your vacuums and voids, but let’s say for argument sake that I give them to you and concede a caste system under Eisner that was developed strictly to separate the consumer from their cash. But the caste system you describe is not necessarily a function of having different hotels, rather how they were implemented. When Walt did his new or different hotels that could be equated with the second generation hotels (read: ‘moderates’) of today, his motivation would not to have been to commoditize the hotels, but to make his dream available to more people (or save the company - he had to do that once or twice). No caste system involved.

SO!!! WHERE ARE THE MODERATES IN THIS COMPLETE PLAN??!!”

But it wasn’t in the Master Plan. Yes, you are right. However, it appears you are more of a black and white man than Walt ever was. Walt did a lot of things he might not have originally planned to. Things happen, opportunities present themselves. Walt capitalized on that, and not for greed or profit sake either. Sure, Walt may have finished the Master Plan first, but do you believe he would have stopped there? Well, that is a bad question because by the time it was realized he may have grown tired of the resort business and moved on to something else. But, assuming he didn’t, of course he could have added things outside the Master Plan. I think WDW has grown larger than Walt ever dreamed it would. I think he would have grown it larger than his Master Plan as well. He may have grown it differently, but I believe it would have grown. The Master Plan was developed, with great effort, but there is no way it could have accounted for every contingency or every opportunity or every need that might have presented itself as things grew.

At least it is nice to have heard your complete theory on the caste system and it is interesting, but not all attempts to present a different hotel option would be destined to be a caste system. Hopefully that is all I have to say about that – but I’m sure you buy none of this and on we will go .

A few other notes....

So, your telling me, in your heart of hearts, that Walt would have built the All Stars? Be careful Captain. Think hard before you answer. The way others perceive your logic and sanity is at stake!!

I don't think Walt would have built the All Stars as they are. I'll give you that Walt wouldn't have considered them good Show. But that doesn't preclude a third generation (read: 'value') hotel from being built. If Walt saw that need to fill, the ability to have more families experience his dream, or whatever the motivation, he would have done it with more quality and better show. Heck, he would have operated them at a loss if he had to. I agree with mi Capitans comments re: PC.

I see every argument I set forth debunked!

...and Baron is head of the bunko squad . Never mind them .

As I see the whole DL drinking fountain thing..... The strike delayed things. Appears as though the choice was toilets or fountains. Walt chose toilets and made the comment that 'people can buy Pepsi-Cola, but they can't pee in the street'. Did this mean he chose toilets to sell cola? I don't think so. If the strike made it impossible to get everything in, obviously toilets come before fountains. Walt's words were taken out of context if someone alleged that he eliminated fountains to sell soda. That is if it happened as I read (in the Bob Thomas bio).

 

[raidermatt]

DK, with respect to the compilations, you either ignored my last post, or found it so inept it was not fit to be acknowledged. (Don't worry, you wouldn't be the first to do either...).

I repeat:

However, the point Baron makes still holds, as it does with Dumbo. And this is a point I didn't get at first either. These were not made to get at a different market, or just to increase profits. They were made because Disney was in a survival mode. They had to put out something on a budget that would sell, or likely face bankruptcy. Note that when the financial situation had stabalized, the compilations stopped.

The situation had to be quite compelling for Walt to make this sacrifice (I think you'd agree that bankruptcy is compelling...).

So its clear that Walt would have to be facing similar circumstances if he were going to compromise in the future.

Maybe the takeover attempts would have forced him to compromise again. However, I think his form of compromise, whatever it turned out to be, would still be closer to the Disney standard than what the Eisner team did.


Regarding the water fountains, I've also heard both of these stories, and since I'm mostly a "show me" kind of person, I find it difficult to buy into one or the other 100%. But, I have to lean strongly to the AV/Baron side of that equation, if only because that fits better with Walt's other actions.

Putting in fewer fountains to sell more beverages in the SoCal heat is pretty low and unimaginative, and I just don't see very many (if any) other examples of this kind of decision making from Walt.

I can't label Walt's decisions with regard to his business as altruistic. That would require a deep insight into his true motivations, and I don't pretend to have that.

What I do know is that his business style was one of producing quality that people would pay for. Skimping on water fountains just doesn't fit.

 

[raidermatt]

“The subterfuge of the Walt Standard, by purposely building different levels of resorts, and charging offensive, excessive and extremely exorbitant rates for these accommodations, with the sole purpose of creating a need for lower lodging rates, just to capture wider market segments, in a purely profit motivated maneuver, that ultimately led to the collapse of “Standard Disney Quality” and more importantly juxtaposed Profit over Show which led to ultimately replacing their primary product of “the SHOW” with the mere commodity of hotel accommodations!!”

Is that a little bit better?

Better, but I'm just not "feeling" it...

How about submitting 4 other proposals and we'll go from there?

 

[DisneyKidds]

DK, with respect to the compilations, you either ignored my last post, or found it so inept it was not fit to be acknowledged. (Don't worry, you wouldn't be the first to do either...).

Matt - neither ignored or inept . I read, I hear what you are saying - I just don't know that I agree.

I don't believe Walts sole motivation for the 'package' pictures and Dumbo was to save the company from bankruptcy. Yeah, he needed to bring in some money at times. After the losses of Pinocchio and Fantasia there were only cash fumes left from the profits of Snow White. Yes, they were indebted to the Bank of America to the tune of $4 mil. That seems to have been par for the course for Disney. But they weren't on the bankruptcy ropes just yet. They weren't desperate at the time.

The way I read it, Walt realized that not every film could be a multimillion dollar production. He knew he needed to scale back his ambitions for some films. He didn't abandon the big budget. When he put out the first compilation Bambi was in production and he was still spending. He just knew that he needed to put out more types of films because it was good for the business, not just a stop gap measure to prevent an impending bankruptcy.

Likewise, Dumbo wasn't just a quick save your a$$ picture. Walt wanted to prove that a feature could be produced on a modest budget in a reasonable amount of time. Walt Disney Studios could not go through life putting out films once every three years, or have three multimillion dollar features in production at once.

Real bankruptcy problems faced the Disneys after the war. The market for their animated features didn't come back quickly and they had made little, if any, money on their war efforts. After the war, with the market for animation slow to come back and TV entering the picture, Walt realized that those threats required him to go back to the full length animated feature - "lick 'em with quality" (too bad current management doesn't think that way) - and Cinderella was it. It wasn't simply the removal of the threat of bankruptcy that made Walt move away from the 'package' pictures.

So, no I didn't ignore you. I thought about what you said but also thought that my last post was too long already so I refrained from discussing your thought - but there you have it.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

I don't think my points are really any more 'debunkable' than the naysayer crowd

SEE!!!

Another debunkable point!!

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

I'm going to go where no man dares to go now and make a blanket statement that will probably get me banned from the DIS. Walt had it easy!

OK. I was going to just leave it alone. But then I continued reading and I was struck by the thought that you may really believe this tripe!! So, OK!! Let’s run with it a bit!! On guard!!

Walt was improving on something very basic and generic (the amusement park)

GENARIC!! The one of a kind, never seen on the face of the planet before, experience that was Disneyland, and you call it ‘generic’!?!? Captain!! Come on!!

Walt never would have got funding for his 'pipe dream' today.

So let me get this straight. Back then, when he decided to build his park in the middle of nowhere, and use real crystal for lighting and live steam for his trains, and NO ONE in the industry thought it would make a dime and the ‘competition’ was far in the gutter compared to what he had in mind, he could get the funding. But in today’s climate of Six Flags, Universal, IOA, Sea World, Busch Gardens, he could not. Are you serious!?!?

seems he used the synergistic approach as much as Michael

Take that back!!! Them’s fightin’ words!!

Seriously though. Of course he would use synergy!! Every company, heck(!), every individual uses it when it happens. Naturally. In a good fit. They DON’T shove it into every stinking thought they have!! They don’t do something simply for the ‘synergy'. And they don’t reject something because they can’t tie it into something else (with SYNERGY!!)!!

Certainly all are unique and well done but would current management get praise if they decide to clone 5 or 6 Soarin' rides with different locales, ques and stories?

BRING IT ON!!! They won’t though!! And you know it. And I know it!! And EVERYONE knows it.

Eisner liked quality stage shows and has given them to us (where s the same appreciation?).

When he presents them like Pirates and Haunted Mansion I might consider it, but basically I would prefer a robot over a human being any day of the week!! If I want theater, I’ll go to the Chicago Theater or the Schubert (local venues). We have a great Theater District, professional, semi-professional and armature that would knock your socks off!! My wife and I (even the whole family sometimes) attend all three regularly. However, I have searched high and low and you know what? I can’t find anything like Pirates or Haunted Mansion in Chicago!! Hey!! Maybe that’s the point!!

OK, I know a few of you are waiting to rip into this baby so I'll quit

Look!! If you’re going to use a line like this, can I speak to the Pirate? It’s just doesn’t sound as good saying “Paranoid Captain”. It flows a whole bunch better saying “Paranoid Peter Pirate”!!

Anyway, no one wants to “rip” you. At least I don’t. I like the conversation. I don’t feel ripped by Mr. Kidds, Bstanley, Mr. Matt (on the rare disagreement) the Pirate, yourself or even Scoop (well… there have been times with the Sco… anyway)!! I just like to talk. And if you really believe this, it is my duty to show you how very, very wrong you are!!!

How many new and exciting theme park attraction ideas can there be? We keep clamoring for a new 'dark ride' but what will it be?

Captain!! May I suggest that you head over to the MK. Proceed to Tomorrowland. There is an attraction there (not for long!) that you need to attend. It is call Carousel of Progress! It shows progress throughout the century as it affects one family. And at each stop, the current family just can’t believe it can get any better! “Where are all the new things going to come from?” they ask. “There’s nothing that can beat what we’ve got!”

I think you have the same syndrome. Thank God Walt didn’t think in those terms or we’d be stuck with carnival rides in Disneyland!!

 

[Captain Crook]

OK Landbaron...So you're scared to respond to me, eh?

I was struck by the thought that you might really believe this tripe.

Well, you should by now know that I always believe at least something about what I post. I figure that since you're sooooo good and knowing what Walt would do you surely can ascertain the true thoughts of a couple of sea-fearing souls like Peter & me...

GENARIC, the one of a kind never seen on the face of the planet before experience that was Disneyland...

Landbaron, I said that what came before Walt's innovative take on the material was the generic...But when you're starting with only vanilla the expansion to 31 flavors was easy for Baskin Robbins...But who expanded beyond 31? I know many new flavors have been produced but it's no longer a big deal. Or take the Snowmobile, when I left the frozen north we still called all snowmobiles Ski-Doo as if that were generic. They were the innovator, who cared about Polaris or Arctic Cat? Huge developments have been made, but they're still just 'Ski-Doo's. When Walt started there were only amusement park rides. Disney changed all that. How could Mike Ritchey (made up) come along and make a name for himself in the theme park history hall of fame along side of Walt? What radical form of innovation could possibly do that? (D) none of the above would be the correct answer...

Funding. Roy had trouble funding DL. The Disney's bet the farm. In today's environment who would bet the farm on a theme park innovation, betting they'll outdo Disney, Universal and all of the locals? (D) none of the above would be the correct answer.

So Landbaron, I will admit that I love talking with you as well...I just wish you could get something right occasionally. I know your heart is in the right place it's just that logic that causes you problems...

 

[raidermatt]

The sad part is that Disney now has the resources to truly innovate on the scale of an entire theme park without gambling the entire company. But they choose not to.

AK was a move in that direction, but DCA was a huge step backwards.

Even if they are averse to spending their own money on that large of an idea, they have enough parks already to test new, innovative ideas in without taking the risk of building a new park.

As much as I hate to believe it, the trend has been towards dressed up off the shelf stuff as opposed to true innovation.

(Though I do hold out some hope for Mission:Space. Call it guarded optimism).

 

[raidermatt]

Oh, and I absolutely disagree (with all respect of course, Captain, sir), that there is no room for innovation left in theme park attractions.

In your analogies of ice cream and snowmobiles, you chose two narrow categories. A fair comparison would be to spinners and flume rides, but not to the entire category of theme park attractions.

There is room for different flavors of ice cream, and improved snowmobiles, just as there is room for improvement on spinners and flume rides.

However, there is plenty of room for true innovation in food products and transportation, just as there is room for innovation in theme park attractions, and theme parks themselves.

 

[Captain Crook]

But my point is what's truly innovative in the theme park market? Spiderman, Indy, whatever...They're truly great but only innovative to a certain extnet but not innovative enough to 'build a house' around, so to speak...Which is what this whole argument is about. Walt had it easy, like Baskin Robbins and Ski Doo. Innovation from here is much tougher...Any head honcho's job is much tougher following a legend (and particularly a guy without imagination & with ego)...

 

[raidermatt]

The thing about truly innovative ideas is that most of us don't think of them until the truly innovative soul shows them to us.

Before Walt did his wonders with animation, wasn't the general feeling that animation was "max'd out", much as you say the theme park industry is?

And what was the general consensus about amusement parks when Walt built Disneyland?

You see, the only real way I can "debunk" your statement about theme parks was if I had that truly innovative idea that could revolutionize the theme park industry, AND I could convince you it would do just that. But if I had that idea, and could sell it, well, I'd probably be doing something else right now.

All I can do is provide examples of how so often innovation has been deemed not possible, or not practical. And how time and time again, somebody has come along to prove everyone wrong.

Disney has (or at least had) the creative talent to come-up with these truly innovative ideas. Maybe nobody is around who can be "the Man", like Walt, but collectively, the talent exists.

And honestly, they wouldn't really have to come-up with an all new idea for a radically different kind of park. If they could just do what you describe, take the small steps with attractions like Indy, Spiderman and Soarin', AND combine that with quality AND THE SHOW, the detractors would be few and far between.

For if that kind of environment existed, the current parks would forge ahead and continue to evolve, just as Walt envisioned DL would. And every once in awhile, maybe every 10 years, or maybe 20, a grand innovation would spring out of this environment, and surprise us all.

Walt laid the groundwork for that kind of environment. His job was much more difficult than current mgmt, who really only had to nurture that environment.

 

[Another Voice]

“Walt had it easy because you can’t be innovative today!!!”

I’ll put that thought right in between the guy who said the Patent Office should be shut down because everything useful had already been invented (he said in about 1890) and the Hollywood suit that said “George – no wants science fiction with talking robots and laser swords, it ain’t ever going to sell tickets”.

Ya, Walt bet the farm on each of his projects and had the talent and determination to make sure the winners far outweighed the losers. Eisner doesn’t have the talent or the determination – and we’re supposed to think he’s courageous for producing lowest-common denominator dreck?

As for truly innovative in theme parks – gee, Sea World seems to have done alright with Discovery Cove and you should have seen some of the concepts for Animal Kingdom, Port Disney and WestCOT. Or even some of the concepts for the super water park Disney had thought about (don't worry, the Japanese my still build it).

The hard part isn’t coming up with innovative ideas – it’s finding someone with the courage to actually get them built.

 

[Captain Crook]

raidermatt, you hit the point I was hoping to elicit...We cannot ever predict the when the truly innovative will arrive. It always seems that we have it all until that point. That being said do the truly innovative ideas generally come on top of a previously innovative idea? Is it reasonable to think that something 'mind blowing' will be added to the theme park venue? I would certainly guess no...Not as we know it.

Voice, I never said anything good about Eisner, now did I. In fact I specifically said he lacked imagination & had a big ego & therefore couldn't be counted on in this arena. But did you seriously offer Discovery Cove as innovation? We've been swimming with this sea-life for years here in the keys...None of this was new...It's just packaged better and more complete. Perhaps the others you mentioned would have been innovative, but again, to what degree?

The other salient point is that I'm sure Walt wasn't trying to be innovative, he just was. But I stand by my original thought that innovation is most likely to be bourne where it is least expected. I believe we have an "expectation" in the theme park arena that will pretty much preclude any real innovation...

 

[SnackyStacky]

Originally posted by DisneyKidds
Yes, the original (I will use that instead of 'deluxe') hotels were a value. I think they still are today - given what you get for your dollar.

WHAT?!?!

If you have the planning video, check out the brochure that has a chart listing each resort and what amenities each one offers.

When I was looking to book a room for my September trip, I had a budget of about $75 - $80/night, including taxes. I did my research. POR and Courtyard Marriott in DTD were ABOUT the same price. $87.69/night at the Marriott, $84/night at POR. Sounds like a good bargain. Until you look at what the resort offers. EVERYTHING that is offered in terms of amenities in a standard view room at the Animal Kingdom Lodge is offered at the Courtyard Marriott, where only a fraction of that can be had at POR.

I completely understand where Landbaron is coming from, I could just NEVER verbalize it the way Landbaron does.

Disney soaks you for every penny you've got. If you want more magic, you're gonna pay! Especially with their "views". Less parking lot and more animals at AKL is going to cost you!!!!

For me personally, it is obnoxious and highly offensive the way Disney has their resorts setup.

 

[DisneyKidds]

WHAT?!?!

EVERYTHING that is offered in terms of amenities in a standard view room at the Animal Kingdom Lodge is offered at the Courtyard Marriott, where only a fraction of that can be had at POR.

Mr. Snacky - have you stayed at both of these resorts? I have and for the same price (POR is actually less in your example) I'll take POR 10 out of 10 times, hands down. The courtyard is a nice hotel, don't get me wrong. However, it pales in comparison to POR (or any of the moderates) when it comes to the overall experience. Funny thing about charts and lists - they often fail to tell the whole story. Been a while since I have looked at the planning video, but I'd be curious to take a closer look at those lists. Maybe you could post them. However, for the life of me I can't think of a significant 'amenity' that we received at the CY that was lacking in POR, CBR, CSR - at least anything of value or convenience.

Disney soaks you for every penny you've got. If you want more magic, you're gonna pay! Especially with their "views". Less parking lot and more animals at AKL is going to cost you!!!!

More to my point though - I couldn't disagree more. What are you going to pay for that Magic? Forget rack and look at rates comparable to what you listed above, realistically for the GF you shell out (including tax)$229, Poly and CR about $200, YC/BC/BW about $200, and WL/AKL about $170 or less (yes, AKL savannah view will be more - but you have a giraffe right outside your window for $200 - can you say WOW!). Just because you are trying to stick to $75 a night doesn't mean these hotels are not great values.

Case in point. We just returned from Cape May, NJ. For an EXTREMELY basic room across the street from the beach, with no amenities and ants in the bathroom, we paid $229 a night. Other hotels (they are really motels) with a parking lot view go for more. There are some that are less - but for good reason. The Seaview Marriott, a rather lovely resort that is comparable to say the GF runs about the same as the GF. We are going up to Cape Cod next weekend - the Courtyard in Hyannis - and the room goes for about the same as the GF. I defy the bunko squad to find any resort destination that has a hotel like the GF (or any hotel - moderates included) that is any cheaper than the Disney hotels.

Disney does not soak you. OK, rack rates if you pay them can be quite high. However, if you do have to pay them it is a supply and demand issue - not the fleecing of the WDW public.

You make Baronesque use of !!!!! regarding AKL savannah view. What do you think would be a reasonable charge for a nice sized room in an incredibly themed resort with lots of amenities and a giraffe right off your balcony? If you say $87.69 a night you better have your head examined - or go spend that night at the CY and tell me what you think. Oh, I see you did spend time at the CY - perhaps you should give a Disney deluxe (comparable amenities as you point out) a try to get a frame of reference for comparison. Admitted, there are times we have stayed at the CY as opposed to the GF because we didn't want to spend the $200+ a night. But that is only reflective of my wallet and not the value you receive for that $200+.

BTW - where is that bunko squad? That essay of those last posts of mine and not one debunking?

 

[SnackyStacky]

Mr. Snacky

Please! Call me Snacky!

Mr. Snacky - have you stayed at both of these resorts?

I haven't. And with good reason. The "experience" as you call it, is not worth that to me! If Disney can charge as low as $79 for a "value" room (god that term leaves a bad taste in my mouth), there is no reason that animals should be over $200 a night. The codes and discounts are horse puckey in my opinion, because the DIS represents a VERY small portion of the Disney-going public. How many times have we seen posts of "I paid $x, but that was before I found out about the DIS!"

I will respond in greater detail later. I have to get back to work!

 

[DisneyKidds]

Snacky - I look forward to your further reply (and the J-E-T-S, Jets, Jets, Jets beating the Bills twice this year).

When you return I ask you to consider......

If Disney can charge as low as $79 for a "value" room (god that term leaves a bad taste in my mouth), there is no reason that animals should be over $200 a night.

......why on earth not? Again I ask - have you actually seen the All Stars and the AKL? Please - go look if you haven't. I assure you, if you spend any time at your resort there is a world of difference in the 'experience', as well as the hotels themselves. Even our good friend Baron will give you that - the original (read: 'deluxe') resort vacation experience that is. I guess Baron is with you in thinking that the AKL should only cost $99. Of course, Baron probably doesn't approve of AKL - but it is probably harder to find a better Show when it comes to a hotel. An actual savannah as part of a resort, with wild animals from across the world right outside your door. Rather unique if you ask me, innovative in the hotel world - something Mr. Disney might have thought of. Quality, safety, courtesy, show, efficiency - it has it all (and that isn't even my favorite WDW resort!) Again, not everyone wants to pay for it - but that doesn't make it a bad value or a soaking.

See you soon .

 

[SnackyStacky]

Just because you are trying to stick to $75 a night doesn't mean these hotels are not great values.

And here is where I couldn't disagree more. I don't have that pamphlet in front of me, but I will post it when I get home. The original subject of this post was "maintaining the Walt standard". And from a man who didn't want to charge admission to the park at all to enjoy the atmosphere, the company that bears his name certainly has no problem charging for atmosphere.

(yes, AKL savannah view will be more - but you have a giraffe right outside your window for $200 - can you say WOW!).

Well, you have a point. I can understand the costs of keeping these animals is immense. So why is that the Animal Kingdom Lodge is the cheapest of all the "deluxe" resorts? Shouldn't it be more? Why is the Grand Floridian the most expensive? Forget the Animal Kingdom Lodge for a moment and look at the moderates. A "standard" view (meaning you can either end up with some lovely gardens, or a parking lot) is less than a room with a "water" view. Why does it cost more to look at water? Is the water a wow factor? And what about the people who decide they want the water enough to pay more for it, and end up looking at the corner of a pond, and more land than water.

Perhaps my standards are just different from everybody else's, but a hotel (or resort, as Disney likes to call them) is for sleeping.

Case in point. We just returned from Cape May, NJ. For an EXTREMELY basic room across the street from the beach, with no amenities and ants in the bathroom, we paid $229 a night. Other hotels (they are really motels) with a parking lot view go for more. There are some that are less - but for good reason.

Once again, if the question arises of maintaining the Walt standard, this was not his standard. His standard was to give everybody an equal chance.

perhaps you should give a Disney deluxe (comparable amenities as you point out) a try to get a frame of reference for comparison.

Why? I actually had a room reserved at BWI. For $193.14 including tax. I'm sorry. Neither magic, nor experience to me is not worth $165.39. In that statement alone, would Walt have EVER put WORTH on the "magic"? Actually, I'm paying $76.59 for the CY on the weekend, as $25 is only good for Monday-Thursday stays, but even with that rate, I'm still saving $116.55, and again, neither the magic, nor the experience is worth that much. Perhaps you'd say I could stay at an All-Stars for that much. Well, yes I could. And get limited pizza delivery. VALUE?!

You make Baronesque use of !!!!! regarding AKL savannah view. What do you think would be a reasonable charge for a nice sized room in an incredibly themed resort with lots of amenities and a giraffe right off your balcony? If you say $87.69 a night you better have your head examined

I'm assuming the head-examination comment was in good taste. Perhaps I would pay more for animals, but for ANY of the other deluxes, I won't pay it. No themeing, experience or magic is worth the exorbitant prices that Disney charges, even with discount codes.

EDIT: My final thought is that Disney charges the prices they do because people are willing to pay them. I am not. Both because I simply cannot afford them, and because I find it offensive that Disney limits the amentites, not to mention the magic based on what I can afford. I have not stayed in a Disney resort, but I have seen them. And nobody can tell me that the themeing, or if you will, the "magic" is not better at a deluxe than at the All Stars, which are basically glorified Motel 6s. That is absolutely ridiculous and nowhere NEAR matining the Walt standard.