Do You think DISNEY has gone down hlll the last few years?

[MickeyMinnieMom]

Sorry what you call conclusive results amounts to sheer opinion.Note the part where you say" it suggest to me that" that in itself says opinion!

Yup - bingo! In the sense that all analyses -- i.e. interpretations of facts -- by definition have a measure of "opinion" interjected. Thus I used "this suggests to me..." (and note that I NEVER called anything that I was positing a "conclusive result" - makes no sense). This is my little mini-ANALYSIS of this little set of FACTS. Anyone is free to suggest that I interpreted the data inaccurately, in their opinion...

When Morningstar issues a report "analyzing" a company's results, they are interjecting their professional opinions and conclusions regarding the collection of facts. Analysis always involves some opinion -- but at least it is BASED ON FACTS and not PURELY one individual's OPINION/PERSONAL EXPERIENCE.

I am paid for my analyses of companies and data sets. This doesn't mean that I'm "right" by ANY means -- there is NO objective way to tell that today. I'm just offering up my very-mini-analysis of this limited data set - that's all.

 

[KSDisneyDad]

Yup - bingo! In that all analyses -- i.e. interpretations of facts -- by definition have a measure of "opinion" interjected. Thus I used "this suggests to me..." (and note that I NEVER called anything that I was positing a "conclusive result" - makes no sense). This is my little mini-ANALYSIS of this little set of FACTS. Anyone is free to suggest that I interpreted the data inaccurately, in their opinion...

When Morningstar issues a report "analyzing" a company's results, they are interjecting their professional opinions and conclusions regarding the collection of facts. Analysis always involves some opinion -- but at least it is BASED ON FACTS and not PURELY one individual's OPINION/PERSONAL EXPERIENCE.

I am paid for my analyses of companies and data sets. This doesn't mean that I'm "right" by ANY means -- there is NO objective way to ever tell that. I'm just offering up my very-mini-analysis of this limited data set - that's all.

Good post. I think it conveys exactly what I was trying to say. Everything in this thread has been and continues to be opinion.

We can support our opinions with facts, but they remain just that - an opinion.

Although I tend to enjoy looking at the "facts", my opinion about whether or not Disney has gone downhill was formed purely on emotion. I didn't study annual reports or attendance estimates. Instead, I simply formed my opinion based solely on my own personal experiences and satisfaction with our Disney vacations based on the prices we paid. I think most people make the decision the same way. Your own personal experiences and perspectives influence your opinion on whether or not Disney has gone downhill or not. I would bet that occupancy rates, attendance estimates, average price per night, segment operating income, etc. make no difference in most people's conclusions.

As someone posted earlier in this thread, trying to change others minds on this issue is futile. But it's still an interesting discussion.

 

[WDSearcher]

By the way searcher,you wondered a while back if I knew how much rack rates were and here you state the difference wasn't as dramactic as I said it was in your opinion.Now what do you think.I gave you figures,yet you still haven't said that the difference is quite drastic.I think 299(portofino) versus what the three deluxes at disney charges at rack rate(avg about 450) is alot more drastic than what you gave credit for.50% more is quite substantial IMO.

I think you mean 50%, not .50%? Since a .50% difference would be pretty small!

But yes ... 50% is significant. Although it actually came out pretty much what I'd expected. A little more. I figured the difference would be about $100 between Portofino and the Grand. My guess is that some of that difference you're paying is for name / brand recognition. So part of that upcharge at Disney is because you're at Disney. Whether the rest of it is appropriate depends on what else you get.

I don't really have experience staying at either, so it's hard for me to know if the difference is drastic based on what you get. You've stayed in both, I'm thinking (based on your earlier comments about your travel history in central Florida) ... how do you compare the two? Are the rooms comparable?

 

[mightyexplorers]

Wow this is a long thread, and I admit to not reading every word in it, but this situation with Disney reminds me of a Steve Jobs quote (there are not shortage of these the last few weeks) I read where he talks about how he dealt with "The Innovators Dilemma". Something in his thinking reminded me of what I imagine would be the same thinking of Walt Disney, and why Disney parks carry a magic that other theme parks miss.

It Goes ""My passion has been to build an enduring company where people were motivated to make great products. The products, not the profits, were the motivation. Sculley flipped these priorities to where the goal was to make money. It's a subtle difference, but it ends up meaning everything.""

I think walt and Disney as a company, has always put the experience ahead of profits. They created the most amazing magical experience and profits were the natural result.

When I think of Disney going "down hill" it isn't that it fails me or stops being magical, it is only when I see them make a decision that is clearly putting profits ahead of the experience, like the decision to remove resort specific merchandise, or serving a slightly lower quality of food.

However, those seem like minor things compared to the new Fantasy Land expansion I have seen, so it seems like Disney has not quite given up on the experience yet.

 

[WDSearcher]

Regardless, isn't that what the eh hem Disney Difference is supposed to be? Entertain the paying customer? That's why MOST people go to WDW because of the EXPERIENCE. Why not have the extra decorations for the MNSSHP, after all customers are paying a higher premium for it each year. If they keep taking things away, in this case decorations customers will start noticing and may skip a year or two....

I guess from a Disney standpoint, it would depend on where they can best spend their money to get the most positive Guest reaction. If, for example, the bulk of Guest comments they got back after MNSSHP were that people wanted a different candy mix or more characters, then Disney might put more funds into those as opposed to using that money for decor. If more people complain about decor than other things, that's where the money will go. I don't necessarily think that Disney should spend the money to put up extra decor if it's not something that people are clamoring for. Particularly if there are other areas that people want more. The EXPERIENCE, after all, is the sum of all the parts. If upping the decor package means cutting a character greeting, then I'm not sure I want more leaves on the buildings.

People are paying a premium for the party as a whole, aren't they? And that party has many different elements. That party also has a budget because WDW is a business and needs to make a profit on the parties.

I do know that the entire Town Square / Main Street decor package is new this year -- new garlands and bunting, as well as nearly double the amount of jack o'lanterns as last year. To me, that's not a cut in decor. But I guess it depends on what you saw this year compared to what you remember from last time.

 

[Laketravis]

Somebody posted good numbers on how resort occupancy is down but spending per room is up. And how Disney expressed a desire to keep upward pressure on prices.

What WE don't know:

Is occupancy down because it cost more, or does it cost more because occupancy is down?

The answer to that question would go far to settle this entire debate, yet I'm afraid only those deep inside Disney know that answer.

 

[Andtototoo]

Good post. I think it conveys exactly what I was trying to say. Everything in this thread has been and continues to be opinion.

We can support our opinions with facts, but they remain just that - an opinion.

Although I tend to enjoy looking at the "facts", my opinion about whether or not Disney has gone downhill was formed purely on emotion. I didn't study annual reports or attendance estimates. Instead, I simply formed my opinion based solely on my own personal experiences and satisfaction with our Disney vacations based on the prices we paid. I think most people make the decision the same way. Your own personal experiences and perspectives influence your opinion on whether or not Disney has gone downhill or not. I would bet that occupancy rates, attendance estimates, average price per night, segment operating income, etc. make no difference in most people's conclusions.

As someone posted earlier in this thread, trying to change others minds on this issue is futile. But it's still an interesting discussion.

I agree. I was reading an article about consumer decision-making this weekend in a professional magazine and a line really hit home for me:

People make decisions not based upon what they know to be objectively true or false, but upon what they feel or what they expect to feel as a result of the decision.

Vacationing is by nature all about the experience, which is all about the feelings one has while in the experience or in our memories of the experience. Those feelings can be affected strongly by our expectations and of course, our desires.

 

[flicx]

I think you mean 50%, not .50%? Since a .50% difference would be pretty small!

But yes ... 50% is significant. Although it actually came out pretty much what I'd expected. A little more. I figured the difference would be about $100 between Portofino and the Grand. My guess is that some of that difference you're paying is for name / brand recognition. So part of that upcharge at Disney is because you're at Disney. Whether the rest of it is appropriate depends on what else you get.

I don't really have experience staying at either, so it's hard for me to know if the difference is drastic based on what you get. You've stayed in both, I'm thinking (based on your earlier comments about your travel history in central Florida) ... how do you compare the two? Are the rooms comparable?

Yes I meant 50%(the . was a typo). Never stayed at the grand or portofino,have stayed at poly,contemp,hard rock,and royal pacific.The rooms basically are equal in my eyes.The locations are great at both and the real plus at universal over disney I see besides the obvious price issue is front of the line access.

 

[WDSearcher]

Yes I meant 50% (the . was a typo). Never stayed at the grand or portofino,have stayed at poly,contemp,hard rock,and royal pacific.The rooms basically are equal in my eyes.The locations are great at both and the real plus at universal over disney I see besides the obvious price issue is front of the line access.

Yeah ... Universal gets a lot of play off FOL access. I think it would be almost impossible to offer that at WDW, based on the number of resorts and the number of guests staying there at any given time. Too bad! Thanks!

 

[vacationclub]

Free dining is awful. In a lot of ways it has ruined the quality of table dining.
I feel so bad for the poor servers who get stiffed on tips. I have talked to several and they absolutely hate the free dining promotion.

Watch the expresions of the servers when they find out its the dining plan during free periods, vs people who are paying for the meal. It's very obvious in most cases you see the servers expression perk up when a customer is not on the dining plan.

I had some friends inerested in free dining a few months back, and then when they crunched numbers they were surpised to find they were coming out ahead by not going with the free dining option.

I'd love to see Disney end this discount, but I suppose since there is a sucker born every minute, they will continue with it because it makes them $.

Just a shame others have to suffer because of it.

Oh please, oh please, oh please chime in on this thread about free DDP and it's affect on servers. Apparently some people don't get it.....

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?p=43179379#post43179379



Totally agree on the complete waste of money that is DDP. Amazing how many households either A: lack a calculator or B: don't know how to use it

 

[LarryNabisco]

Oh please, oh please, oh please chime in on this thread about free DDP and it's affect on servers. Apparently some people don't get it.....

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?p=43179379#post43179379



Totally agree on the complete waste of money that is DDP. Amazing how many households either A: lack a calculator or B: don't know how to use it

Exactly.

 

[flicx]

Somebody posted good numbers on how resort occupancy is down but spending per room is up. And how Disney expressed a desire to keep upward pressure on prices.

What WE don't know:

Is occupancy down because it cost more, or does it cost more because occupancy is down?

The answer to that question would go far to settle this entire debate, yet I'm afraid only those deep inside Disney know that answer.

I'll go with it costs more as the reason occupancy is down.

 

[flicx]

Just thought I would throw a few more numbers into the mix.All the talk of hotel prices got me wondering,so I looked in my old birnbaum books and did some comparisons. I found the best available rack rates(regular view) in 1994, 2005 and 2012 just to demonstrate how fast these prices are escalating. So here goes, 1994 rates cont:190.00,poly:195.00,YC and BC:205.00,GF:245.00.Now 2005 rates cont:239.00,poly:299.00,YC and BC:289.00,GF:339.00.Finally 2012 rates cont:315.00,poly405.00,YC and BC:335.00,GF:460.00.I think they are kinda staggering.IMO

 

[DisneyDanielle1]

I still love my Disney as much as ever!

 

[vacationclub]

Just thought I would throw a few more numbers into the mix.All the talk of hotel prices got me wondering,so I looked in my old birnbaum books and did some comparisons. I found the best available rack rates(regular view) in 1994, 2005 and 2012 just to demonstrate how fast these prices are escalating. So here goes, 1994 rates cont:190.00,poly:195.00,YC and BC:205.00,GF:245.00.Now 2005 rates cont:239.00,poly:299.00,YC and BC:289.00,GF:339.00.Finally 2012 rates cont:315.00,poly405.00,YC and BC:335.00,GF:460.00.I think they are kinda staggering.IMO

Yes, but remember in 1994 Disney only had 3 parks, Animal Kingdom still wasn't built, and DME wasn't available either; you were on your own for transfers. Also, figure in inflation, as well as a growing general population that puts supply/demand pressure on the limited Disney spaces. Those rates, while eye opening, aren't completely crazy over nearly a 20 year span. It would be interesting to see what kind of effect the introduction of DVC had on return visitors (since it was started about the same time) and if those increased DVC returning visitors created a tighter supply that allowed every other cost to go up.

What's amazing is that airlines haven't increased their rates at the same pace. People complain about airline tix (and I'm one of them) but compared to a lot of other things those airline tickets have not risen nearly as much over the years.

 

[WDSearcher]

Just thought I would throw a few more numbers into the mix.All the talk of hotel prices got me wondering,so I looked in my old birnbaum books and did some comparisons. I found the best available rack rates(regular view) in 1994, 2005 and 2012 just to demonstrate how fast these prices are escalating. So here goes, 1994 rates cont:190.00,poly:195.00,YC and BC:205.00,GF:245.00.Now 2005 rates cont:239.00,poly:299.00,YC and BC:289.00,GF:339.00.Finally 2012 rates cont:315.00,poly405.00,YC and BC:335.00,GF:460.00.I think they are kinda staggering.IMO

Interesting. Although these numbers don't really mean anything without something to compare them to. As I've said in the past, Disney does not exist in a vacuum. They aren't out there all on their own, and so you have to compare them to something to know whether they're outrageous or staggering or right in line or whatever.

The change in prices (on average for all the resorts you listed) in the 18 years from 1994 to 2012 at Disney is about 81%. Or about 4.5% per year.

What's the change at other local hotels / resorts during that timeframe? (That's still a little bit wonky, since Disney added a lot to its parks and resorts in the past 18 years, and some of those increases are directly related to additions or improvements in the parks, but it's still a relatively apples comparison.) It's tough to relate it to Universal hotels or SeaWorld hotels -- since Portofino et. al. haven't been open as long and SeaWorld doesn't have any branded hotels -- but I'm sure there's an average hotel rate on record somewhere for Orlando that can be compared.

I'm not looking at exact RATE so much, since whether Grand Floridian is worth $405 or whatever is very subjective. But if the percent of increase in the central Florida market as a whole has gone up 4.5% per year on average, then Disney's increase isn't staggering at all. If Orlando as a whole went up 1% on average, then it might be.

 

[Laketravis]

Yes, but remember in 1994 Disney only had 3 parks, Animal Kingdom still wasn't built, and DME wasn't available either; you were on your own for transfers.

Ahhh....but DME is a strategy designed to keep you in the parks for the duration of your stay. No rental car, no mobility. Simply brilliant.

Disney may be more expensive, they may be looking to make cuts, they may be sacrificing quality in some areas.

But they aren't stupid.

 

[phamton]

IMO you're still not comparing apples to apples. The last time Universal offered a $99 pass special (2009), it carried the following restrictions:

• Offer is valid on new purchases only. (No upgrades)
• Limit eight (8) tickets per transaction.
• Blockout dates apply to park admission: April 5-12; June 28-30; July 1-31; December 20-31

It wasn't available every single day -- if you wanted to go to Universal in July or between Christmas and New Years, for example, you were out of luck. You can argue that you wouldn't have gone there anyway during those times, but it's still not an apples to apples comparison with any other park's base ticket prices. It was just a really good deal for you at that time.

The regular $99 ticket (called the Bonus ticket) that was offered for quite a few years didn't have black-out dates. The $99 Mardi Gras special ticket did. It was offered during Mardi Gras for several different years but was a Power Pass (Seasonal pass). It required a coke can and you needed to be Georgia or Florida resident. It had black-out dates.

But the 5 day $99 ticket that used to be offered for many years until Harry Potter opened had no black-outs and no restrictions on purchase. You can also upgrade any ticket to that pass. The first time we went to Universal (many years ago) the 5 Bonus day ticket was $79. I miss those days.

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

Good post. I think it conveys exactly what I was trying to say. Everything in this thread has been and continues to be opinion.

We can support our opinions with facts, but they remain just that - an opinion.

Although I tend to enjoy looking at the "facts", my opinion about whether or not Disney has gone downhill was formed purely on emotion. I didn't study annual reports or attendance estimates. Instead, I simply formed my opinion based solely on my own personal experiences and satisfaction with our Disney vacations based on the prices we paid. I think most people make the decision the same way. Your own personal experiences and perspectives influence your opinion on whether or not Disney has gone downhill or not. I would bet that occupancy rates, attendance estimates, average price per night, segment operating income, etc. make no difference in most people's conclusions.

As someone posted earlier in this thread, trying to change others minds on this issue is futile. But it's still an interesting discussion.

I think that we agree... mostly...

I actually think that people here are answering two different questions...
1) is Disney worth it anymore TO YOU?, and
2) is an opinion that Disney is in decline one that is WIDESPREAD enough to actually be a sign of a firm in decline?

In other words, has Disney declined IN YOUR EYES and/or in the eyes of ENOUGH CUSTOMERS to be a sign of "a company in decline", if you will.

There is NO SUCH THING as proof for or against 1)... it's all a matter of us each sharing our opinions about how our family has appraised the value of a Disney vacation these days, as compared to the past.

With question 2), there are data to cite that can either strengthen or weaken a case that enough customers find the COST of a Disney vacation to have EXCEEDED IT'S VALUE over time. Here, this becomes a task for a business / financial analyst -- whom of course we can step in and take the place of IF we actually analyze the FACTS and not our OPINIONS.

For my piece...
1) For our family, the value continues to be there in a Disney vacation at current costs -- and even higher, quite frankly. The price we place - and are willing and able to pay - for a magical experience like no other is quite high. Still worth it in my PERSONAL OPINION

2) As someone who has conducted a thorough business and financial analysis of Disney about one-and-a-half years ago, and having reviewed the data posted in this thread, I see no objective evidence that Disney or Disney Parks SBU is in decline. The data simply don't support that thesis in my PROFESSIONAL opinion.


To be sure, business/financial analysis is not a perfect "science"... if it was, we could find the "best analyst" and routinely beat the stock market!! And as I said before, my professional analyst's opinion could prove to be COMPLETELY wrong in the long run. But it IS NOT "just a personal opinion" born out of personal experience or a hope or preconceived notion that Disney isn't going downhill.

Sooo... two separate things... 1) personal experience and opinion, and 2) analytical opinion based upon the data and analytical experience.

Whew!! Got it all out... here's hoping it makes some sense...

 

[flicx]

Interesting. Although these numbers don't really mean anything without something to compare them to. As I've said in the past, Disney does not exist in a vacuum. They aren't out there all on their own, and so you have to compare them to something to know whether they're outrageous or staggering or right in line or whatever.

The change in prices (on average for all the resorts you listed) in the 18 years from 1994 to 2012 at Disney is about 81%. Or about 4.5% per year.

What's the change at other local hotels / resorts during that timeframe? (That's still a little bit wonky, since Disney added a lot to its parks and resorts in the past 18 years, and some of those increases are directly related to additions or improvements in the parks, but it's still a relatively apples comparison.) It's tough to relate it to Universal hotels or SeaWorld hotels -- since Portofino et. al. haven't been open as long and SeaWorld doesn't have any branded hotels -- but I'm sure there's an average hotel rate on record somewhere for Orlando that can be compared.

I'm not looking at exact RATE so much, since whether Grand Floridian is worth $405 or whatever is very subjective. But if the percent of increase in the central Florida market as a whole has gone up 4.5% per year on average, then Disney's increase isn't staggering at all. If Orlando as a whole went up 1% on average, then it might be.

Actually searcher I think that the room rates show particularly how the prices have jumped at a much faster rate since 05.I personally have the theory in the last decade the most aggresive pricing and cutting of services has occured.Thus in my opinion the downhill thing makes sense to me.I haven't done a comparison for the other hotels in the orlando area,but I think a 1% increase for the area would be alot closer than the 4.5% that disney had.I would like to see the numbers though.