Disney reads DISboards - Fact!

[rantnnravin]

It IS a matter of opinion....and the problem is the number of people who feel the way you describe seems to be vastly outnumbered by those that are using the DDP.

And there's the rub: From a business standpoint, you have to look at it as which segment is going to fill your coffers more. I doubt, no matter how much people say they are willing to pay more, they are willing to pay ENOUGH "more" to offset what Disney is making, by pure DDP volume.

yes, I agree. but my point is that those of us who notice the decline in quality, while a minority for sure, are also frequent visitors / whether DVC or not.
As DVCers we are also in the peculiar position of being a "captive" audience, as it were.
however, the "majority" segment of the WDW visiting population view the trip as "once in a lifetime". If what Disney offers them is mediocre, how much repeat business is Disney garnering? The "volume" is a short-term gain. These OIALers are a potential long-term goldmine for the company so long as they are offered something that's better than the local six-flags; otherwise, when they learn than Disney is offering them nothing out of the ordinary, why pay the exorbitant cost to go to WDW? It becomes a been there, done that scenario.

Whereas, repeat visitors became repeat visitors because they've experienced "Quality Disney" rather than "Volume Disney" and were won over. I don't think mediocrity will win over any new long-term loyalty.

 

[3DisneyKids]

yes, I agree. but my point is that those of us who notice the decline in quality, while a minority for sure, are also frequent visitors / whether DVC or not.
As DVCers we are also in the peculiar position of being a "captive" audience, as it were.
however, the "majority" segment of the WDW visiting population view the trip as "once in a lifetime". If what Disney offers them is mediocre, how much repeat business is Disney garnering? The "volume" is a short-term gain. These OIALers are a potential long-term goldmine for the company so long as they are offered something that's better than the local six-flags; otherwise, when they learn than Disney is offering them nothing out of the ordinary, why pay the exorbitant cost to go to WDW? It becomes a been there, done that scenario.

Whereas, repeat visitors became repeat visitors because they've experienced "Quality Disney" rather than "Volume Disney" and were won over. I don't think mediocrity will win over any new long-term loyalty.

I definitely see your point and in fact it was once my argument as well. However, the trend is now repeat business. DVC is a perfect example of this as this is the main (or one of the main) areas of growth for the Disney Corporation. And article after article about the travel and tourism industry (many of which are posted here) state that the industry as a whole is seeing a major shift in going toward timeshares. Thus, when you consider such a push on ownership, you also have to agree that there is a push on repeat business.

Count me in the camp of wanting to see WDW as a place that is known for amazing dining as it once was....

 

[rantnnravin]

I definitely see your point and in fact it was once my argument as well. However, the trend is now repeat business. DVC is a perfect example of this as this is the main (or one of the main) areas of growth for the Disney Corporation. And article after article about the travel and tourism industry (many of which are posted here) state that the industry as a whole is seeing a major shift in going toward timeshares. Thus, when you consider such a push on ownership, you also have to agree that there is a push on repeat business.

Count me in the camp of wanting to see WDW as a place that is known for amazing dining as it once was....

yes, they're hawking their version of the timeshare quite vehemently.
but wouldn't you agree that many of the longtime posters here often state that purchase into the Disney timeshare system is much more expensive than others and requires that "emotional" buy-in in order to make it worthwhile?
so, given that element, wouldn't it logically follow that the price-driven, "Walt-Mart" consumer would be looking elsewhere where timeshares are concerned?

 

[pilferk]

yes, I agree. but my point is that those of us who notice the decline in quality, while a minority for sure, are also frequent visitors / whether DVC or not.
As DVCers we are also in the peculiar position of being a "captive" audience, as it were.
however, the "majority" segment of the WDW visiting population view the trip as "once in a lifetime". If what Disney offers them is mediocre, how much repeat business is Disney garnering? The "volume" is a short-term gain. These OIALers are a potential long-term goldmine for the company so long as they are offered something that's better than the local six-flags; otherwise, when they learn than Disney is offering them nothing out of the ordinary, why pay the exorbitant cost to go to WDW? It becomes a been there, done that scenario.

Whereas, repeat visitors became repeat visitors because they've experienced "Quality Disney" rather than "Volume Disney" and were won over. I don't think mediocrity will win over any new long-term loyalty.

It's a nice theory, and one others have championed in the past (me, among them, actually).

Again, look at Walmart. They have plenty of repeat business. They've build great brand recognition and "loyalty". When they've tried to branch out, offer different goods (higher quality, boutique type goods), they've fallen on their ear. So, obviously there is a consumer market out there who are fixated on savings.

The other problem is the definition of quality and how it applies to the perceptions of the mass market. YOUR definition of "Disney Quality" is quite different than the person on a "once in a lifetime" trip is (as you define the "majority"...I'm not sure that's true...I don't have numbers to show it's true). First off, you have comparisons to make so if things "slip", you have a chance to notice (look at what Al Lutz did with DL.....). Second, you're more informed, and more knowledgable, about WDW as a whole. Third, look at what the comparisons the "average" consumer has with which to compare WDW....I'd offer there isn't a family friendly, resort, vacation spot in the continental US that you could adequately use, except maybe Disneyland in CA...and even that's much smaller in scale. So you're left comparing WDW to places like Sesame place, the Six Flags parks, etc. And I don't think there is anyone that could, without smirking, say WDW quality has eroded to the point where you'd view those places on equal footing. Has quality declined? Maybe. Debateable, but maybe. But to that point? That'd be a very tough case to make.

You can't underestimate how much the dollar means to the average consumer. Disney has brand recognition and family "mystique" built in. It's gotten to the point where, if you don't take the kids to WDW every so often, society almost has attached a stigma to you (and no, I'm not championing that stigma). Disney is a known commodity, and until the quality decends so far that it forces the "average" WDW consumer to reevaluate the "value" of a WDW vacation, there's nothing to a) worry about and b) that Disney management is going to do about it. So far, given the occupany, theme park attendance, and profits Disney is seeing....you're not going to be able to convince them they will someday see a decline. They'll wait until they see it, THEN address it. That's the way the corporate ball bounces....nobody is "proactive" until market research and/or consumer ACTION and/or performance metrics taking a hit warrants them considering being "proactive' (which is a huge misnomer in the corporate world).

I also wanted to address the "fequent visitors" thing. Disney management doesn't care. Because to them you're a body through the turnstiles, and until you can prove (like they have at DL) that a significant portion of those "repeat visitors" are the ones coming through the turnstiles every morning....they just don't care. You see the "survey takers" outside the theme parks. They're there practically every day....they know, pretty much, exactly what types of patrons are coming through their gates. If there were more people like you and me, and most of them shared your opinion......maybe the Disney brass would make some of the changes or look at the issues through the same perspective you're espousing. But, lets face it....you said it yourself....the MAJORITY of Disney's guests are there for a "once (or twice or three times) in a lifetime" trip. That's as true on any given day as it is in the sum total. So it's THEM that Disney is going to target.

 

[rantnnravin]

Walmart's problem was that they'd courted the low-budget consumer for so long, that they were out of their element in trying to present boutique items to their clientele - who weren't interested.
If it is Disney's desire to continue to be, in the public's perception, the company that does it first and does it better than everyone else, then they will need to put their money where their mouths are and offer quality.
How is it that Apple Computer and BMW are able to sustain business in climates where they only capture about 3% of the market share. See, there ARE actually consumers who are willing to pay more for quality; these consumers become loyal to the brand. Whereas, if a person spends $500 on a Dell and when they're in the market for another PC, Gateway's got a deal for $100 less than Dell, they'll buy the Gateway. Six of one, 1/2-dozen of the other.
To that end, recent visits to WDW have been quite similar to our visits to Sesame Place with our daughter. There are negligible differences (size and scope not withstanding) in guest experience. Philly is closer and cheaper to get to, so we can go more often.
Sadly, i believe you are right. Disney will never realize they have created a problem until it is far too late.

 

[Budshark]

...
To that end, recent visits to WDW have been quite similar to our visits to Sesame Place with our daughter. There are negligible differences (size and scope not withstanding) in guest experience. Philly is closer and cheaper to get to, so we can go more often.
Sadly, i believe you are right. Disney will never realize they have created a problem until it is far too late.

Disney does realize they have a problem and it is LESS to do with decline at Disney as it does with the rest of the market catching up with Disney. Sesame Place is run by Busch, and the Busch Gardens/Sea Worlds had a certain market share. But in the last 5 years they have focused on building the destination and catering to FAMILIES, not just teens and animal lovers. Six Flags under its new management is absolutely focused on kids and downplaying the teen roller coaster side of the business. So in the past 5 years you have 2 major competitors who are challenging Disney's core demographic. This 'up-play' by Disney's competitors tends to lower Disney's differential.

I can also tell you that both (Six Flags and Busch) have put tremendous focus into their food offerrings - widening the scope and quality. Busch also is tremendously focused on landscape and cleanliness (which is why BG Williamsburg keeps winning "Most Beautiful" park).

So, all Disney can do is lean on what they do have that others don't. A mega-resort in Orlando, higher-quality services, and product tie-ins to the market. Disney went away from its core characters and fell in love with digital movies. Now what they have found is that doesn't work. Kids still connect with the classic characters and animated films (see Mickey Mouse Clubhouse and Frog Princess). In addition, when Disney has a hit they have to quickly tie that hit into the park (see Pirates).

Disney is responding to the challenges through movies, tie-ins, special events (Pirate and Princess Party is spectacular), and overall market appeal. BUT - I agree it doesn't differentiate as much as it used to - but I caution too much emphasis being put on Disney "decline" and not enough on competitors getting sick of playing second fiddle to Disney.

Chris

P.S. Sorry for the long post

 

[pilferk]

Walmart's problem was that they'd courted the low-budget consumer for so long, that they were out of their element in trying to present boutique items to their clientele - who weren't interested.

That's my point, exactly. Know who your prime consumer is, give them what they want (provided you can make money on it).

If it is Disney's desire to continue to be, in the public's perception, the company that does it first and does it better than everyone else, then they will need to put their money where their mouths are and offer quality.

I would argue they do that, up to the point that they don't feel the cost investment represents a significant ROI. In other words, they invest enough to ensure that their quality is viewed as a value to the mass market, and not the "boutique" market. And they price accordingly.

How is it that Apple Computer and BMW are able to sustain business in climates where they only capture about 3% of the market share. See, there ARE actually consumers who are willing to pay more for quality; these consumers become loyal to the brand. Whereas, if a person spends $500 on a Dell and when they're in the market for another PC, Gateway's got a deal for $100 less than Dell, they'll buy the Gateway. Six of one, 1/2-dozen of the other.

Because Apple and BMW exist to satisfy boutique markets. That's the way those companies are built, and it's why their prices are higher. What you're proposing would entail Disney "scaling down" WDW to be able to exist by appealing to a smaller market, or charging prices to support them. You say you're willing to pay more for quality. HOW much more? Because that's the issue here. Double or Triple what you pay now? Quintuple? Octuple? And are there enough of "you" to offset the lose of "them"...meaning the average consumer? At what factor? 10 to 1? Are you willing to pay enough to offset that factor? Because WDW, as a whole, "exists" already. With Apple and BMW, they can scale manufacturing to accomodate a smaller market. WDW can't effectively do that. I'd bet, and looking at the consumer market in general I don't think it's much of a risky bet, there are many more of "them" than there are of "you".

To that end, recent visits to WDW have been quite similar to our visits to Sesame Place with our daughter. There are negligible differences (size and scope not withstanding) in guest experience. Philly is closer and cheaper to get to, so we can go more often.
Sadly, i believe you are right. Disney will never realize they have created a problem until it is far too late.

I'll have to humbly disagree on comparisons to Sesame Place, both from a park standpoint and from a surrounding lodgings standpoint or a "foodie" standpoint. Sesame Place has bounced back from being in a deplorable state a few years back to actually being in decent shape. But comparing it to WDW? And size and scope CAN'T be "not withstanding"...it's all part of the same package that makes WDW (and SP) what they are. Again, if you're a local....it may be a nice day trip (for us, a nice weekend jaunt with the kids). But I can't see spending 7 days there...nor have I seen anything approaching the current level of Disney Service (or services) there. Add to ALL that the fact they're only open seasonally ('cause who wants to be outside in PA in the winter), as are many of the similar types of places. Again, when someone is evaluating a vacation with their family, that's the type of places left for comparison...which isn't much of a (fair) comparison.

 

[pilferk]

Disney does realize they have a problem and it is LESS to do with decline at Disney as it does with the rest of the market catching up with Disney. Sesame Place is run by Busch, and the Busch Gardens/Sea Worlds had a certain market share. But in the last 5 years they have focused on building the destination and catering to FAMILIES, not just teens and animal lovers. Six Flags under its new management is absolutely focused on kids and downplaying the teen roller coaster side of the business. So in the past 5 years you have 2 major competitors who are challenging Disney's core demographic. This 'up-play' by Disney's competitors tends to lower Disney's differential.

I can also tell you that both (Six Flags and Busch) have put tremendous focus into their food offerrings - widening the scope and quality. Busch also is tremendously focused on landscape and cleanliness (which is why BG Williamsburg keeps winning "Most Beautiful" park).

So, all Disney can do is lean on what they do have that others don't. A mega-resort in Orlando, higher-quality services, and product tie-ins to the market. Disney went away from its core characters and fell in love with digital movies. Now what they have found is that doesn't work. Kids still connect with the classic characters and animated films (see Mickey Mouse Clubhouse and Frog Princess). In addition, when Disney has a hit they have to quickly tie that hit into the park (see Pirates).

Disney is responding to the challenges through movies, tie-ins, special events (Pirate and Princess Party is spectacular), and overall market appeal. BUT - I agree it doesn't differentiate as much as it used to - but I caution too much emphasis being put on Disney "decline" and not enough on competitors getting sick of playing second fiddle to Disney.

Chris

P.S. Sorry for the long post

On the above, we agree entirely. The "secondary" destinations like Bush Gardens: Tampa, Williamsburg, and some of the Six flags parks, HAVE made leaps and bounds. We have Six Flags: New England practically in our back yard and the changes have been staggering.

I'd still say Disney "wins" the comparison, due to many of the factors you outline.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

I don't.

What made Disney the place that we love was Walt. If Walt had made his decisions based upon financial outcomes there probably wouldn't be a Disney today. Walt was a dreamer and a, make it happen kind of guy who was not the best money manager. He left the finances up to his brother Roy. They new that if they did it right a reasonable profit would come some day in the future. They were in it for the long hall.

Today corporations want ridiculously high profits and they want it now. Left unchecked they will cut, cut, cut, until it breaks. The executive management team are rewarded with millions of dollars for cutting and there is very little pride in what they do. If on paper they can save a buck by having someone else do it, they will. They don't expect to be around for very long. They collect their bonuses, move on, and let someone else clean up the mess. Walt believed in keeping it within the Disney family. Even if it cost a little more. He knew that he could expect and receive the Disney level of quality from his own people.

There has to be a proper balance.

Walt made several bad financial decisions over his life (and good ones). He could be tough monetarily on those who worked for him (although often out of necessity when all too often money was tight).

I think your painting executive managements across the country with a broad brush. Yes, there are some bad ones, but most do have pride in their work.

Disney, today, has to look to the bottom line to a sufficient degree to be financially healthy to maintain, improve, and expand on the Dream.

 

[pilferk]

Disney, today, has to look to the bottom line to a sufficient degree to be financially healthy to maintain, improve, and expand on the Dream.

Exactly! You either function in the environment in which you exist, or you close up shop and go home (willingly or unwillingly).

And yes, there has to be balance because if there isn't, the consumers stay away because you don't have a product they want, and again, you're forced to close up shop and go home.

 

[keishashadow]

Dear Mr. Eiger

DVC at Contemporary
DVC discounts on MYWY tickets
Disney Magic to NY harbor
Bring back Timekeeper
Unlimited fast passes for DVC members

That's a start.

Both bear repeating , never thought of the FP idea; but I'll jump on that bandwagon

As for the complaints as to food quality, I have no illusions as to fine dining in an amusement park setting - whether in a resort hotel or not. IMO by reading current reviews, it's not hard to find a decent TS meal; judicious usage of the DP allows most of our meals to be paid for via a fair $ amount.

We are cautiously optimistic, looking forward to the California Grill in June -hope we're not disappointed with the ambiance, food or service.

 

[DisneyOCD]

Everyone goes to Disney World to experience a magical time. For some of us that includes pre-paying for meals through the DDP. I don't quite understand the reference to "DDP people" what does that mean? Are you implying that there is a higher class of Disney consumers because you don't use the DDP? Following that logic Disney should also limit or eliminate the Disney Dining Experience card discounts, stop providing perks to Disney Visa holders and eliminate theme park discounts for DVC owners. Maybe then they can add higher quality rides you are willing to pay more for.

 

[jarestel]

Everyone goes to Disney World to experience a magical time. For some of us that includes pre-paying for meals through the DDP. I don't quite understand the reference to "DDP people" what does that mean? Are you implying that there is a higher class of Disney consumers because you don't use the DDP?

Not at all. Trust me, I have a very elementary knowledge of basic cuisines (food good, me eat now) and when it comes to wine my only request is "make it good & cold". High class sophisticated diner... I don't think so.

I think the point about the DDP is that, due to it's popularity, some folks have noticed changes in both the dining environment and the menu selections at WDW restaurants and not for the better. The example of streamlining the menus is an attempt to move folks in and out at a quicker pace in order to accomodate more diners in a given time frame. It's understandable from the restaurant's point of view, but still it's more of a cafeteria feel now than before in many restaurants, IMO anyway. Plus having to make ADRs months in advance in order to even get into some of the restaurants is somewhat of a headache for us.

So we're now doing more off-site/DTD dining and yes, even making use of that big paper weight in the kitchens. (We always thought it was just a big holder for the clock, imagine my surprise when I found out one could actually prepare meals on it!)

Anyway, the comments about the DDP shouldn't be construed as anything personal against those that use it. It is what it is and can certainly save some money. The program is simply a victim of its own success. As with most things Disney, we always pine for the good old days I guess.

Have a great trip!