Disney resorts rated #1 in customer satisfaction!

[G8RFAN]

So the point isn't that they don't live up to "Disney" standards, it's whether or not we are ok with it?

This seems to be a pattern, where you explain why Disney did what it did. I, and most others here, know exactly why they did what they did. That doesn't make it right.

If in a company like Disney, pointing out that compromising certain standards isn't acceptable and would get one fired, then THAT is a problem. As strong as Disney's marketing is, Disney's greatest long term successes have always been driven by creativity, not marketing. Allowing marketing (or accounting, whoever) to drive these kinds of decisions is not the optimal way to run a content-reliant company.

Ok, flipant answer aside, what you are saying is that a concept resort positioned below the moderates is below Disney "standards" or are you saying they could build better without dilluting the Moderate proposition or are you saying that everything built after 1984 is below Disney standards. And these standards are the same standards that allowed for prefab steel boxes for rooms? These same standards chose a architectural design that was outdated within 20 years? Sometimes I don't really follow the "glory days" remarks when clearly the cutting edge "creativity" of the past was flawed at times. I would like to see some examples of viable companies with history and staying power of this scale that have survived completely on creativity, because eventually, somebody is going to have to market the product. Harley Davidson? Nope. Google? Jury is still out.

 

[raidermatt]

I'm saying two things:

1- I believe they could have created better themed value resorts, possibly by integrating the different price points in the same resort.

2- If they did come to the conclusion that they could not create value resorts without compromising their standards, then they should have instead invested in something that didn't require them to make that compromise.


I don't really get your remarks about the Contemporary. The issue isn't the construction methods, which were actually very advanced. The issue is the end product.

I also don't buy the "outdated" idea. It's still a pretty unique structure, and certainly people don't walk into it thinking "outdated". Yeah, the rooms needed remodeling, but that was done.

Regardless, the point isn't that holding yourself to standards will always result in a perfect product. Only that it will result in a more consistent product. And Disney existed for over 50 years with those standards. No, not everything was perfect, but again, that's not the point. If perfection is the standard, then certainly current Disney is a massive failure.

I'm also not saying marketing doesn't have its place. But again, what had a greater hand in making Disney what it became? The products, or how they were marketed? Hopefully we can agree it was the former. So then why allow the latter to become the driver of the products?

 

[G8RFAN]

Is it the theming or the breadbox design? Some of the moderates could be classified as such. As far as a multi level concept, it could "cloud" the positioning of the product. We sort of see that at the CR where the garden view wing rooms are being offered at less than 2/3 of the tower rooms. Same room, different view and conveniences. Personally, I like the CR, especially with the renovations, but if you ask any architect, it is not a timeless design. Every other resort is one of timeless design. If you look at construction advancements such as tilt up construction over 3 stories, or post tension construction, they are advancements that are promoted on an ongoing basis because of cost or design benefits. Even Disney abandoned their colaboration with US Steel and the modular steel design after the CR and Poly.

I am still tying to ascertain what it is about the value resorts that doesn't meet Disney creative standards. It seems that it always goes back to theming. I know it is not just the icons but the overall presentation of the resort that everyone is getting at. Do you think they could keep the structures and create a better theme? Or do you think the breadbox design is beyond help?

 

[KMovies]

I guess what is being said here is this ...

Disney should have poured more money into the value resorts, better themed them, and then changed them to be equal to the moderates.

Disney then would have had to price them with the moderate resorts.

Then the moderate resorts would be the laughing stock of the company. They would all be upgrade to meet the Deluxe standards.

Of course, they would have then needed to be priced at the Deluxe standards.

Gosh, then they would have to be upgrade to the Grand Floridian level.

Then everyone would be happy except for people that couldn't afford the Grand Floridian.

Note: Everyone on DIS can afford Grand Floridan pricing since they demand Grand Floridan theming.

For what it is worth - the Value resorts are fine at the pricing level they are at. You can't expect CB when you are paying for Pop Century.

Disneyland doesn't have any value resorts, but they have all those wonderfully themed hotels across the street. Just kidding, one of those value hotels is nice looking.

 

[Lewisc]

I'm saying two things:

1- I believe they could have created better themed value resorts, possibly by integrating the different price points in the same resort.

Disney did that with WL and AKL. The standard rooms are smaller, and less expensive, then the deluxe rooms.

Some of the savings involve less landscaping and a more basic pool. Those savings would be lost if a value resort was part of a moderate or deluxe resort.

I think the poor service at deluxe hotels is more of an issue then the theming of value resorts.

 

[G8RFAN]

I think rather than complaining how bad things are, I'd love to post suggestions on how they can improve their Value resorts. The things that I would suggest would be to somehow build a movie theater in Movies, a concert hall in Music and a sports complex (tennis courts, batting cages, etc). During the day and evenings, there could be an entertainment director keeping events going. I have never stayed at Pop, so I really haven't digested the exisitng theming concepts. At first glance, there seems to be a lot they can work with along similar "entertainment" lines. I think these improvements probably won't dilute the Moderates too much but maybe create more of a "club med" atmosphere. The Moderates and Deluxe hotels sell more on the ambience and I think they already have an activities director.

 

[DancingBear]

I guess what is being said here is this ...

No, that's not what's being said here at all.

I am still tying to ascertain what it is about the value resorts that doesn't meet Disney creative standards. It seems that it always goes back to theming. I know it is not just the icons but the overall presentation of the resort that everyone is getting at. Do you think they could keep the structures and create a better theme? Or do you think the breadbox design is beyond help?

I dunno, I'm not a designer, but yes you have an uphill climb when you are starting out with Motel 6 boxes, in large quantities nonetheless. Perhaps they shouldn't have gone lower than the POFQ.

 

[KMovies]

No, that's not what's being said here at all.

Perhaps they shouldn't have gone lower than the POFQ.

What about the people that can't afford POFQ? Shouldn't they have an on-site option?

They do - and they use it everyday - and scores of people are happy with the value and Disney Magic found at the Motel 6 "Disney" boxes.

More proof that what many are saying is that Disney shouldn't have lowered the "standards" to offer a value resort.

 

[G8RFAN]

What about the people that can't afford POFQ? Shouldn't they have an on-site option?

They do - and they use it everyday - and scores of people are happy with the value and Disney Magic found at the Motel 6 "Disney" boxes.

More proof that what many are saying is that Disney shouldn't have lowered the "standards" to offer a value resort.

I did not want to steer the dialoge in this direction. There are plenty of affordable options on I-drive. The question then begs should Disney have tried to lure that business away from them. The decision's been made and what's done is done. Tearing them down, particularly All Stars, is out of the question. If you were driving the boat, how would you fix it (assuming it really is broken)?

 

[Another Voice]

What about the people that can't afford POFQ? Shouldn't they have an on-site option?

Yes - now you've smoked us out. You and your superior goodness - standing up for the poor and downtrodden while us rich evil dooers try to prevent them having any Disney Magic at all!!!!!!

Considering a single day ticket to Disney's Hollywood Studio and Parking Lot costs more than a night in the values did - when you demand a lower price theme park be built!!!!!!

There is nothing - except size - that sets the "values" from any strip motel in any tourist trap in the entire country. Nothing. Set the 'Pop Century' in Vegas and the 'All Stars Music' in Nashville and they'd look right at home.

The only thing your defending is the sticker...if it's "Disney's" it's better.

Disney didn't try to build anything special at the values. They are a slick and cynical move by a compnay that knew it could take more money by offering even less. Disney is a way of doing things, not a consumer brand.

 

[DancingBear]

More proof that what many are saying is that Disney shouldn't have lowered the "standards" to offer a value resort.

No more "proof" of that was needed. If folks feel that way they have said so. What you claimed was that folks were saying the values should have been nicer and then the mods would have to be improved, etc. until you came to the conclusion that everything would have to be GF quality at GF prices.

 

[DancingBear]

GR8FAN, I like your thoughts about improving the Values at the margins with theme-appropriate activities and facilities, although those cost money also and I don't see any sign that Disney even perceives there is a problem that needs to be addressed here.

 

[patsal]

What about the people that can't afford POFQ? Shouldn't they have an on-site option?

They do - and they use it everyday - and scores of people are happy with the value and Disney Magic found at the Motel 6 "Disney" boxes.

More proof that what many are saying is that Disney shouldn't have lowered the "standards" to offer a value resort.

Maybe they should not have lowered to be affordable to all. US/IOA has not and all of those resorts are in many ways superior to the WDW Deluxe.

 

[patsal]

No more "proof" of that was needed. If folks feel that way they have said so. What you claimed was that folks were saying the values should have been nicer and then the mods would have to be improved, etc. until you came to the conclusion that everything would have to be GF quality at GF prices.

And even the GF at those prices isn't really a 5*. Just a perception of one since it is the biggest ticket item on the WDW menu.

 

[DancingBear]

What about the people that can't afford POFQ? Shouldn't they have an on-site option?

If it dilutes the long-term perceived quality of the brand overall, maybe not. Perhaps there is value in having a Disney resort being something that is aspired to and treasured all the more when achieved. I stayed off-site many times before our first on-property stay (at POFQ). Since still the only deluxes I've stayed at are the Contemporary Garden Wing and a couple of nights with a woods-view room at the WL, I still think "wouldn't it be cool to stay at the Poly/CR Tower/BC/AKL, etc."

There's nothing generally wrong with a company deciding not to be all things to all people. As A-V said, should Disney open up a lower-priced theme park?

Disney didn't build the All-Stars as an egalitarian measure, they did it to capture business that was otherwise going to the off-site hotels.

 

[KMovies]

I guess it is no win - which most debates are.

People bring up how Walt Disney wanted the parks to be affordable and often people say that they are now only for the rich.

So, Disney builds a value resort, and people complain.

Fact is - they have theming - Movies, Sports, Music, 50's, 60's, 70's. These aren't beach themes, a hotel of the future, a Wilderness, animal kindgom ... but they are nice for the price.

 

[raidermatt]

For the purposes of this discussion, they are decorated, not themed.

Decoration is putting a 70 foot dalmation up.

Themeing would be attempting to put you into the 101 Dalmations world.

It's the difference between Six Flag's decorating a park, and Disney using movie set designers to create a different time and place.

What about the people that can't afford POFQ? Shouldn't they have an on-site option?

What about the people that can't afford the values? Should we have sub-values? And those who can't afford that?

It's not about who should have an option and who shouldn't. It's about having a consistent creative vision and philsophy and directing investment accordingly.

 

[Lewisc]

Disney could say All Star movies is themed to famous (animated Disney) movies with Dalmations being one part of it. The pool is themed as is the main building. One could argue what is done at the deluxe hotels is just landscaping.

Disney has (had) enough land to dedicate resorts to different markets. Disney has decided the Western Way project will allow outside companies to build hotels that are sub-value.

The complaints about the value resorts would have a lot more merit, IMO, if building them prevented Disney from building other resorts.

The major hotel construction is now just DVC.

It's not really a question of making more resorts affordable. The moderate resorts allowed Disney to raise the prices of the deluxe resorts, while offering something to those guests who were priced out. Likewise the value resorts allowed Disney to raise the prices of the moderate resorts, while giving those guests a place to stay.

For the purposes of this discussion, they are decorated, not themed.

Decoration is putting a 70 foot dalmation up.

Themeing would be attempting to put you into the 101 Dalmations world.

It's the difference between Six Flag's decorating a park, and Disney using movie set designers to create a different time and place.



What about the people that can't afford the values? Should we have sub-values? And those who can't afford that?

It's not about who should have an option and who shouldn't. It's about having a consistent creative vision and philsophy and directing investment accordingly.

 

[DancingBear]

Where do you get that from? You saying that they could have been charging more for deluxes, but they waited until they had the Mods built to raise the prices on deluxes? I don't buy that. Rather, the Mods and the Values were built to bring folks on property who were staying off-property.

Also, ultimately Disney doesn't have a huge amount more land to develop, so certainly the Values end up displacing other possible development--if not now, in the future.

 

[Lewisc]

I'm saying having the moderate resorts made it easier for Disney to increase the prices of the deluxe resorts. Likewise having value resorts makes it easier to increase the prices of the moderate resorts. I understand the stated reason was to allow guests who couldn't otherwise afford an onsite experience but it also allowed Disney to retain existing customers as they increased the price of their resorts. Guests on a budget can still get a better deal offsite.

At the time POP was built Disney still had plenty of land for other resorts. One large chunk of land is being sold to Four Seasons and another large chunk of land is being dedicated to the Western Way project. I'm not 100% sure but I think Gaylord Palms and the Marriott village were built on land formerly owned by Disney.

It looks like Disney is out of the deluxe (non-DVC) market. Part of the AKL is being converted to DVC use. Rumor is an entire wing of guest rooms at the Contemporary is being converted to a DVC tower.

Where do you get that from? You saying that they could have been charging more for deluxes, but they waited until they had the Mods built to raise the prices on deluxes? I don't buy that. Rather, the Mods and the Values were built to bring folks on property who were staying off-property.

Also, ultimately Disney doesn't have a huge amount more land to develop, so certainly the Values end up displacing other possible development--if not now, in the future.