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

[bicker]

I said that there is no evidence of a correlation. What do you want? "Look here --> <-- See? It's not there!" The proof of the absence of evidence is the absence of evidence itself. That's basic. If you claim what you said before is true, then show the evidence. But don't waste too much time: You won't find any because it isn't true.

Look: I get that you wish it was true. One of the several reasons I switched careers later in life is because it was so depressing being exposed to all this depressing reality of the consumer marketplace, hour after hour, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year. I'm much happier just discussing it as a hobby instead of it being my job and having to really worry about convincing people, like I used to. It now, literally, doesn't really matter to me anymore. But be sure, I do feel for folks frustrated by the reality; I went through it myself.

 

[Tiger926]

Start by considering and answering the questions. Really, everyone who advocated holding expectations beyond what is promised should consider and answer these questions.

No I got your reference. It seems you didn't understand the point I made about there being many guests glad to pay for what is offered.

WDW's success. Year over year.

Sure it does. It couldn't be any more related if it was the same words as you used.

And I was referring to that comment.

Then he didn't do what he promised!

Not at all.

Then project what I said in the direction of those other posters and what they said.

Correct, but if that's all people were talking about then there wouldn't be anything to discuss in this thread. That's not all people are talking about. They're going beyond the bounds of what is reasonable for the industry. They even admit it, claiming that because it is Disney that reasonable goes out the window vis a vis expectations and instead a whole different set of expectations, expectations beyond what is promised, should be applicable.

No, of course there isn't.

Someone who agrees with your position (perhaps you) claimed that perhaps, but if you're going to assume that everything you or someone who agrees with you is true, then you're having a discussion with yourself. The reality is that discounting is used to segment the marketplace, deriving from each segment as much as forecasts indicate that segment is willing to pay. This is basic Marketing 101.

How ridiculously circular that reasoning is.

Thanks, but once again, my head hurts. I'm not sure why you find enjoyment out of picking apart each and every discussion. You seriously will refute pretty much most of what every other poster has to say. It seriously gives me a headache. I've read voluminous student psych reports that are less confusing than your posts.

Tiger

 

[KellyNY]

Thanks, Lulu! I have some of the cookbooks downstairs. I must pull them back up one of these days.

Kelly, does the DP still save money over buying the same meals off plan? I think that would the comparison. If it does, then it still serves the original purpose, imo.

Original did, this one, not really, count everything and you will see.

 

[Indiana Rose Lee]

is there a place to get the food price info?

 

[brunette8706]

All over the place. Here's an example, for a standard-standard room at Animal Kingdom Lodge:

​

Absolutely explicit promises, and if any of those things are missing, you surely have right to ask for them to be provided, and to be upset if they're not provided.

Of course it is practical. You just have to be willing to learn what you're buying, and not project your own perturbations onto what is actually promised.

"Implicit promises" tends to be nothing of the sort, but rather just another way of saying, "What I want." That's the problem.

But you're doing the tricking to yourself.

So you don't have any evidence of a correlation. That's what I said.

**
LMAO!!! That "promise" is so generic it could be motel 8! That is ridiculous! So, you are saying Disney eh hem, promises the bear minimum to it's customers? That's it? LOL You're analogy is ludicrous at best.

 

[bicker]

You seriously will refute pretty much most of what every other poster has to say. It seriously gives me a headache.

Now I'm confused. Are you not contending your assertion as firmly as I'm contending mine? We actually do disagree so it shouldn't be surprising that if you try to assert something as defense for what you're saying, that as part of my disagreement I'll point out why your defense either is invalid or doesn't address the assertion I made. Let's stop talking about the discussion, please. I made some points, and asked some questions, in that message. If you want to discuss my message, let's discuss the on-topic aspects of it, okay?

 

[bicker]

LMAO!!! That "promise" is so generic it could be motel 8!

No not quite, and that was just one portion of what Disney promises. I don't have the time or space to essentially repost their entire website, and all the advertising materials and promotional materials that they publish. What I posted as a very small sampling so you could gain some understanding of what type of information constitutes a promise.

That is ridiculous! So, you are saying Disney eh hem, promises the bear minimum to it's customers? That's it? LOL You're analogy is ludicrous at best.

Not hardly. Rather what is "ludicrous" is refusing to grant service providers a place in telling customers what they're offering - putting one's own guesses over what the service provider actually says.

 

[brunette8706]

So have many other companies. You just happened to have chosen to elevate Disney over those others, perhaps because you're fan. However, Disney has contemporaries in many service sectors. But regardless of it all, there are only really one thing that matters - that has ever mattered in the common era: Are these premiums services worth the premium to enough customers?

That's unnecessary. It is necessary only to dig one level lower to get from a company to its owners.

With regard to #1: How much does it irritate you to receive what you were promised instead of what you expected, when you expected more than you were promised? What value does it add to your experience to base your expectations on something other than what your supplier is offering? How is it less irritating to be disappointed and disaffected, as opposed to cognizant of what you're promised and what you can reliably count-on receiving?

With regard to #2, the issue is that as long as enough people reward service providers for providing what they provide how they provide it for the price they provide it, they would be idiots to suddenly throw all that success away.

The assertion that it is ridiculous to expect what you're promised is a ridiculous assertion.

That's a red herring. Presumably your surgeon promised you their best efforts. If they didn't provide you that, then you have every right to be upset.

You can choose to perceive it as your service provide insulting you, but that's not at all what it is. They're simply not offering what you want.

What proof do you have for that? There is no correlation between confidence in products and the offering of discounts.

**
The proof is simple economics 101. When the economy is on a downward spiral and people are out of work, Disney has to fill hotel rooms. Afterall (FACT) Disney parks are down 8 percent from last year per CNN a few days ago. Hotels need to be filled. How? They offer FREE DINING or 40 percent of discounts. It's so bad now that Disney is offering FREE DINING for the whole year of 2011. They have never, EVER done this before. They're doing this to fill hotels and they want guests to spend money. At the same time they are raising prices on buffets and various food items, which makes no sense at all. Anyway, back on point, when the economy is good there was rarely any FREE DINING especially for the whole year.

 

[KellyNY]

I said that there is no evidence of a correlation. What do you want? "Look here --> <-- See? It's not there!" The proof of the absence of evidence is the absence of evidence itself. That's basic. If you claim what you said before is true, then show the evidence. But don't waste too much time: You won't find any because it isn't true.

Look: I get that you wish it was true. One of the several reasons I switched careers later in life is because it was so depressing being exposed to all this depressing reality of the consumer marketplace, hour after hour, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year. I'm much happier just discussing it as a hobby instead of it being my job and having to really worry about convincing people, like I used to. It now, literally, doesn't really matter to me anymore. But be sure, I do feel for folks frustrated by the reality; I went through it myself.

I see countless deals, can you explain why? I have my answer, my opinion. Do you feel that your opinion is superior then mine? You may disagree with me but please do not make your opinion sound like a FACT when you have absolutely no prooves, no evidence, and no access to Disney business plan.

 

[bicker]

The proof is simple economics 101. When the economy is on a downward spiral and people are out of work, Disney has to fill hotel rooms.

A discretionary income gap - which has nothing to do with what was asserted earlier, that it is because there was a value gap.

Anyway, back on point, when the economy is good there was rarely any FREE DINING especially for the year.

That's not true. Free Dining was both more plentiful and lasted longer in 2005 and 2006.

I see countless deals, can you explain why?

When weren't there deals? Regardless, I did explain why. Market segmentation. And Brunette graciously provided a secondary reason for some of this past year's deals: A discretionary income gap caused by the recession. (Now that we're in recovery, that reason won't apply next year, unless we have a double-dip.)

 

[brunette8706]

No not quite, and that was just one portion of what Disney promises. I don't have the time or space to essentially repost their entire website, and all the advertising materials and promotional materials that they publish. What I posted as a very small sampling so you could gain some understanding of what type of information constitutes a promise.

Not hardly. Rather what is "ludicrous" is refusing to grant service providers a place in telling customers what they're offering - putting one's own guesses over what the service provider actually says.

*
But what you are saying is that Disney promises a bear minimum of what, say motel 8 promises. I think that Disney promises so much more than that. People are in awe of Disney commericials when everything looks so magical and clean. And for the most part they are. But I think the poster in question and a few other folks are saying that they are paying a PREMIUM to go to Disney, because DISNEY is top notch that they should receive premium service. Such as shakes that were 16 oz or now 10 oz, turkey legs that were $4.99 in 2007 or now close to $8.00, buffet surcharges (in other words gouging people) CMs that should be more polite etc etc. All this is presented by their slogan "The Most Happiest Place On Earth". This is what's getting people frustrated about Disney. Yes, it's a GREAT PLACE but some of their offerings (food, value, strollers, attitudes) are going downhill/slipping.

Brunette

 

[KellyNY]

That's not true. Free Dining was both more plentiful and lasted longer in 2005 and 2006.

Economy was not that bad in 2005 or 2006. And before that, did you see free DP.

 

[Tiger926]

Now I'm confused. Are you not contending your assertion as firmly as I'm contending mine? We actually do disagree so it shouldn't be surprising that if you try to assert something as defense for what you're saying, that as part of my disagreement I'll point out why your defense either is invalid or doesn't address the assertion I made. Let's stop talking about the discussion, please. I made some points, and asked some questions, in that message. If you want to discuss my message, let's discuss the on-topic aspects of it, okay?

The difference is that I'm just chatting and discussing things that are of interest to me. I'm not dissecting posts and expecting others to prove each and every point that they made. I'm not grading my students' papers, nor defending my thesis either...but this thread sure makes me feel like I am...

Tiger

 

[bicker]

But what you are saying is that Disney promises a bear minimum of what, say motel 8 promises.

No I'm not. That's what you said. I disagreed with you. See above.

People are in awe of Disney commericials when everything looks so magical and clean.

Universal's commercials show two children actually flying through the air -- not in a roller coast, actually flying on brooms. Are you going to expect your children will actually fly on brooms, if you bring them to Universal?

Economy was not that bad in 2005 or 2006.

Precisely my point.

And before that, did you see free DP.

It wasn't thought-up yet.

 

[goofy4prez]

However, you're not digging deep enough: Businesses pursue profit, not for its own merit, but rather to further the financial interests of their owners, which again comes back to society, such as the folks in society who invest their savings, for vacations, for college, for retirement, etc., in stocks, mutual funds, etc. It still comes back to people - on you and me - no matter how you slice it. Those unreasonable expectations we collectively hold as consumers, well we hold comparable expectations when we're investors as well. And that's what drives the way things are.

I think you meant "stakeholder" The term "shareholder" and "stockholder" are synonyms "stockholder, bondholder, part-owner, sharer".

you are correct, typo error early in the morning. Don't need the yourdictionary.com to learn the synonym for shareholder or stockholder.

Again, I think your wording is problematic, and drive a misunderstanding of the reality. Consumers do not have a "vested" interest. They have a non-vested interest... precisely the opposite. That's one of the reasons why when the objectives of consumers and of owners clash, the objectives of the owners win - because the owners have a vested interest while consumers have a non-vested interest.

As mentioned before, you need to operate legally, which includes being honest about what you're offering and what you're going to provide. You also need to provide what you offer safely, and assuring security. Those are the only responsibilities to your customers that could trump the responsibilities to the owners, for the reason mentioned above. You do have other responsibilities to your customers, but those responsibilities are subservient to the responsibilities to the owners. If it doesn't make a difference to the owners, then surely you should be fulfilling those responsibilities to your customers. Indeed, many responsibilities to customers actually serve the interests of the owners, and as such are responsibilities that should be fulfilled because they satisfy the responsibilities to the owners.

I don't disagree, but if push comes to shove, there is a priority, and it is the long-term best interests of the owners, over the interests of customers.

Well, to be fair, I disagree with the premise, and am asserting that the premise actually stems from something other than what is claimed. There is no way for me to see this specific thing from the other side of the fence without refuting what I actually believe. I did say, many times in this thread, that I respect the right of the poster to feel differently. That is effectively "viewing the opinions from the other side of the fence".

Yes, there are. Some things I mentioned earlier in this message (such as the relative priority of vested interests over non-vested interests) are absolutes.

Absolutely. Understand that businesses almost universally do understand the consumer half of the equation, while by contrast consumers understand very little of the marketing, sales and operations management half of the equation.

I guess the best thing to do at this point is what others have done, just hit the ignore button. The only correct opinion or the only correct ideology or the only correct perception comes from the keyboard of Bicker who certainly appears to look at the world around him/her through rose colored glasses. It must be nice to not only have so much disposible income to view WDW as inexpensive, but also to have all the answers and solutions to this worlds problems. I commend you.

 

[brunette8706]

A discretionary income gap - which has nothing to do with what was asserted earlier, that it is because there was a value gap.

That's not true. Free Dining was both more plentiful and lasted longer in 2005 and 2006.

When weren't there deals? Regardless, I did explain why. Market segmentation. And Brunette graciously provided a secondary reason for some of this past year's deals: A discretionary income gap caused by the recession. (Now that we're in recovery, that reason won't apply next year, unless we have a double-dip.)

*
They never, EVER had FREE DINING for one solid, year (365 days). You're assertion is incorrect. They might have had FREE DINING for a few months throughout the year but not for a straight 365 days.

 

[Tiger926]

*
But what you are saying is that Disney promises a bear minimum of what, say motel 8 promises. I think that Disney promises so much more than that. People are in awe of Disney commericials when everything looks so magical and clean. And for the most part they are. But I think the poster in question and a few other folks are saying that they are paying a PREMIUM to go to Disney, because DISNEY is top notch that they should receive premium service. Such as shakes that were 16 oz or now 10 oz, turkey legs that were $4.99 in 2007 or now close to $8.00, buffet surcharges (in other words gouging people) CMs that should be more polite etc etc. All this is presented by their slogan "The Most Happiest Place On Earth". This is what's getting people frustrated about Disney. Yes, it's a GREAT PLACE but some of their offerings (food, value, strollers, attitudes) are going downhill/slipping.

Brunette

Right - plus, housekeeping and security are missing from that list that he provided? What about that? I expect my room to be cleaned, and muggers not to come in my room and attack me.

Sure housekeeping is listed elsewhere, but it's not on that list. PLus, the housekeeping blurb I found on my DVC stuff doesn't say that they are going to remove other guests' hair and food. So, there is an implication that rooms will be cleaned, but Disney doesn't in fact get super extensive in what or how they are going to do this (except for DVC as we have Trash and Towel and full, which extensively lists the services provided insofar as emptying of trash, making beds, replacement of towels).

So, based on this, I will in fact say that those of us who are concerned about Disney's direction, have valid reason to feel so. They don't explicitly list all of their services, and frankly, some things can't be listed. There are some areas in which Disney doesn't give specifics, so we as the guest, can't bring that back against them. Saying that they will clean your room, is very generic...my idea of clean, and their idea might not match, so whose cleanliness is going to win out? Again, if there is hair in my room from another guest, and leftover food, that is not reasonable, nor acceptable to me, yet nowhere in their guest literature does it say that they will remove these things for me. Now what?

Tiger

 

[goofy4prez]

**
heheheehe! Yeah, we have to put together another DIS meet! How bout inviting everyone on this thread!? LOL! Remember the golden rule what happens at Disney stays in Disney! LOL!

After this thread runs it's course, which I think will be very soon, (LOL) we'll have something else to discuss and then have to remember that golden rule.

 

[brunette8706]

I guess the best thing to do at this point is what others have done, just hit the ignore button. The only correct opinion or the only correct ideology or the only correct perception comes from the keyboard of Bicker who certainly appears to look at the world around him/her through rose colored glasses. It must be nice to not only have so much disposible income to view WDW as inexpensive, but also to have all the answers and solutions to this worlds problems. I commend you.

**
LOL! You and most everyone on this thread. He gives people:

headaches
click on IGNORE button (2 so far)
frustration
etc.

It's fine to disagree, but he will not let the person offer their opinion. It always has to be refuted, as if the person is a dope or doesn't know what they are talking about. We all can't be wrong. And for the people that do disagree, that's great! At least most give their opinion why. I don't think many here refuted other's opinons. Heck this thread would be boring if we all agreed! We all love Disney or we wouldn't be on these boards. But there are things that have gone downhill and need to be addressed. I hope he doesn't work in Customer Service, or better yet Guest Relations! LOL! Sheesh.

 

[TenderDonkey]

Ah, my old friend Bicker still arguing away from your mom’s basement. I’ve read through your posts and still cannot figure out what you are arguing.
My opinion, like many others, is that Disney’s overall product has declined over the last few years. Is your opinion that it has not? If it is that is fine as it is your opinion.

I have another example, I also used to live in Burlington, MA. In my opinion it was pretty trashy so we moved to Lexington. The move was based solely on my experiences and opinion of the community. You may disagree but there is no right answer. I thought Burlington was heading in the wrong direction so I moved to what I believe is a better community. I think Disney is decling so I react by going there less.