Disney hotels - different attitude from a different time

[EdmondD]

Reading a thread about Disney being "hostile" to offsite guests made me think of this line from Card Walker, CEO between Roy and Eisner, regarding building hotels on site.

"We do quite well with the theme parks and the hotels that we already have. So why not let some money flow back into the local community? After all, we wouldn't want the public to ever get the idea that Walt Disney Productions was getting greedy. Our good name is all we have."

Can you imagine that attitude today!?

I'm not blaming Disney for building hotels - we certainly stay at them - but this mind-set is just so fascinating to me and sounds like it's coming from an alternate Disney universe.

 

[Farro]

How is Disney hostile to off-site guests? How do they even know they are off-site guests?

If anything, Disney is taking away from on-site guests and giving to off-site guests at this point.

 

[KenHutch]

With so many off site hotels getting EMH and 60 day fast pass if you want to stay off site there are many attractive options.

 

[PSUGuy]

How is Disney hostile to off-site guests? How do they even know they are off-site guests?

How? 30 day FP+ window vs 60 day, no EMH vs extra park hours, free transportation to and from MCO, luggage included, resort to park transportation vs drive & pay $$ to park.

And they know you via your MB.

Bill From PA

 

[MakiraMarlena]

The thread was closed, but the poster was complaining that too many early EMH were added to Animal Kingdom and it prevented them from getting a second ride on FOP.

I don't see how that qualifies as "hostile." Giving perks to onsite guests is not "hostile." They are trying to encourage people to stay at Disney resorts. No reason they shouldn't. Add this to the threads saying they are now "hostile" to onsite guests by charging them for parking and by doing room checks and by offering perks that used to be only for onsite guests to certain offsite guests. So I guess they are hostile to everybody.

I don't understand this post and that quote in that context. Is it talking about giving to charity or lowering their prices or not having perks for staying onsite or is it a note that they shouldn't be building so many hotels, or what?

 

[Farro]

How? 30 day FP+ window vs 60 day, no EMH vs extra park hours, free transportation to and from MCO, luggage included, resort to park transportation vs drive & pay $$ to park.

And they know you via your MB.

Bill From PA

I don't see that as hostility towards off-site guests, just perks for on-site guests. Big difference.

Besides, off-site guests can now get 60 days fast pass at certain hotels - which is a take away from onsite guests.

 

[gillep]

My definition of hostile is clearly quite different, I see nothing hostile here, these are perks.

 

[EdmondD]

Sorry....this was not an attempt to rehash a discussion of Disney being hostile to off-site guests. Forget that part.

It was more about how striking the difference was in terms of attitude toward raking in money. I mean, they were saying, "We could make money with hotels, but nah, let's let some of Orlando have the hotel-stay money."

I'm not saying that attitude was better or worse. It's just such a stunning quote you have to read it a couple times to see if you're reading it correctly.

 

[Sparkly]

Disney giving the people who pay more for the onsite hotels more perks? Get out of here!

 

[Tink-osophy]

Reading a thread about Disney being "hostile" to offsite guests made me think of this line from Card Walker, CEO between Roy and Eisner, regarding building hotels on site.

"We do quite well with the theme parks and the hotels that we already have. So why not let some money flow back into the local community? After all, we wouldn't want the public to ever get the idea that Walt Disney Productions was getting greedy. Our good name is all we have."

Can you imagine that attitude today!?

I'm not blaming Disney for building hotels - we certainly stay at them - but this mind-set is just so fascinating to me and sounds like it's coming from an alternate Disney universe.

Alleged "hostility"aside, that's an amazing quote! Thanks for sharing it.

Now, if only we could, somehow, send it subliminally to today's Disney decision-makers.

 

[Farro]

Sorry....this was not an attempt to rehash a discussion of Disney being hostile to off-site guests. Forget that part.

It was more about how striking the difference was in terms of attitude toward raking in money. I mean, they were saying, "We could make money with hotels, but nah, let's let some of Orlando have the hotel-stay money."

I'm not saying that attitude was better or worse. It's just such a stunning quote you have to read it a couple times to see if you're reading it correctly.

Alleged "hostility"aside, that's an amazing quote! Thanks for sharing it.

Now, if only we could, somehow, send it subliminally to today's Disney decision-makers.

I understand what you are saying - but I'm willing to bet Disney already boosts Orlando's economy more than anyone else - other than Universal. All of the off-site hotels (which way outnumber on-site), restaurants, grocery stores, gas stations, you name it benefit from Walt Disney World.

 

[DisneyWishes14]

I understand what you are saying - but I'm willing to bet Disney already boosts Orlando's economy more than anyone else - other than Universal. All of the off-site hotels (which way outnumber on-site), restaurants, grocery stores, gas stations, you name it benefit from Walt Disney World.

Totally agree. I'm willing to take that bet as well and would go even further to say, there would be no Orlando economy without the existence of WDW. WDW drives the tourist economy in Orlando. Everything else was built around WDW to profit off of the visitors that were lured there by the building of the resort. It does not appear the rest of Orlando's hospitality industry is suffering even with the building of new or the expansion of WDW resorts. As long as WDW can lure more and more visitors to Orlando, everyone there benefits, including Universal and the rest of the hospitality industry. There even building a new terminal at MCO to accommodate the numbers of flights and people coming to the area. That's a HUGE investment in infrastructure and jobs.

 

[Tink-osophy]

I understand what you are saying - but I'm willing to bet Disney already boosts Orlando's economy more than anyone else - other than Universal. All of the off-site hotels (which way outnumber on-site), restaurants, grocery stores, gas stations, you name it benefit from Walt Disney World.

I don't doubt that WDW is at the heart of Orlando's economy. That's not what I am referring to, though. I'm thinking about the way Disney has been charging Guests more and more (in very many ways!) for less and less. The part of the quote I underlined does not seem to match Disney's current attitude towards its customers at all!

 

[Jadyreen1282]

I'll go with greed in this case.

 

[Shanti]

Yes, they're no longer hesitant to appear greedy. That's the result of our "greed is good" corporate culture that exists nationwide. It's unfortunate, but WDW isn't really in a bubble. It's one expression of our society, and that includes some of the negative aspects of our society.

 

[Deb & Bill]

I understand what you are saying - but I'm willing to bet Disney already boosts Orlando's economy more than anyone else - other than Universal. All of the off-site hotels (which way outnumber on-site), restaurants, grocery stores, gas stations, you name it benefit from Walt Disney World.

There basically was no Orlando before WDW. Just a sleepy little town.

 

[bryanb]

Reading a thread about Disney being "hostile" to offsite guests made me think of this line from Card Walker, CEO between Roy and Eisner, regarding building hotels on site.

"We do quite well with the theme parks and the hotels that we already have. So why not let some money flow back into the local community? After all, we wouldn't want the public to ever get the idea that Walt Disney Productions was getting greedy. Our good name is all we have."

Can you imagine that attitude today!?

I'm not blaming Disney for building hotels - we certainly stay at them - but this mind-set is just so fascinating to me and sounds like it's coming from an alternate Disney universe.

Alleged "hostility"aside, that's an amazing quote! Thanks for sharing it.

Now, if only we could, somehow, send it subliminally to today's Disney decision-makers.

From a fan standpoint, there must be some happy medium though. Between Walt and Roy's death and Eisner's helm, Walt Disney Productions was not doing well financially. Its films were languishing. Despite the success of Epcot, the company was in a very weak position and under threat by corporate raiders who saw more value in breaking up the enterprise and selling off the land. Card Walker might have been a nice guy, but Eisner turned the company's focus to financials -- which allowed it to start making huge hit movies again and let the theme parks generate enough cash to build enormous new projects.

Unfortunately, Card is not the role model today's decision makers will listen to. I think Disney does have to be careful to avoid appearing greedy as it maximizes profits. But if Eisner had listened to Walker, they'd be a very different company.

 

[sbd78]

Disney has to walk a fine line...make it appealing to stay in their hotels over offsite competitors, but also not drive away people staying offsite from purchasing theme park tickets and spending in their theme parks and hotels. If anything, I think Disney is going in the opposite direction and making onsite less appealing. (Charging for parking because it's "industry standard" and at the same time extending onsite perks to Disney Springs hotels?)