Frommer article full of WDW misinformation

[BRERALEX]

 

[Another Voice]

You are kidding, correct?

I'd be suspicious if I thought the Roadway Inn could afford to pay kickbacks...”
Just totally incapable of having fun.
Pauline Frommer is clearly clueless.
She was so snobby.
we want to go to WDW despite Ms. Frommers incorrectly stated advice.
Ayone with issues about vacationing at WDW can always go somewhere else on vacation and quit lurking on the Disney forums.
The fact that she is still clueless is what bothers me the most...
Well, that's a matter of opinion, but my opinion is that this a whacked opinion.
I could see that this woman was horribly biased against Disney.
Yes, we on the Dis, know better.

And that’s just the high minded, honest and straightforward discussion I found on pages 10 and 11. All I’m really reading is a bunch of people whining that their own opinion is not be echoed.

Sorry – but I think the guidebook is probably a much better description of how the normal, average vacationing American sees WDW than internet posters. The average American does see a seven dollar hot dog, they do see the Pop Century as a cinderblock motel, they do look at what a one day admission costs and really don’t care how “cheap “ it is to add days nine and ten (and by Disney’s own admission, nearly a third of all admission at WDW are one-day tickets).

It is actually possible to have different opinions, to have different tastes. It actually is possible for children to like SeaWorld more than Epcot – gee, it’s even possible that adults might like Seaworld over Epcot.

That’s normal.

Sorry to barge into the private clubhouse here. This just seems like more and more of a trend here – you’re either 100% in lockstep with the collective mentality (“run to get your Dole Whips!!!!”), or you’re evil. Too bad Disney can’t survive on just princess dinners alone…they do have to appeal to a wide audience if they want to stay in business.

 

[mking624]

I'd be suspicious if I thought the Roadway Inn could afford to pay kickbacks...”
Just totally incapable of having fun.
Pauline Frommer is clearly clueless.
She was so snobby.
we want to go to WDW despite Ms. Frommers incorrectly stated advice.
Ayone with issues about vacationing at WDW can always go somewhere else on vacation and quit lurking on the Disney forums.
The fact that she is still clueless is what bothers me the most...
Well, that's a matter of opinion, but my opinion is that this a whacked opinion.
I could see that this woman was horribly biased against Disney.
Yes, we on the Dis, know better.

And that’s just the high minded, honest and straightforward discussion I found on pages 10 and 11. All I’m really reading is a bunch of people whining that their own opinion is not be echoed.

Sorry – but I think the guidebook is probably a much better description of how the normal, average vacationing American sees WDW than internet posters. The average American does see a seven dollar hot dog, they do see the Pop Century as a cinderblock motel, they do look at what a one day admission costs and really don’t care how “cheap “ it is to add days nine and ten (and by Disney’s own admission, nearly a third of all admission at WDW are one-day tickets).

It is actually possible to have different opinions, to have different tastes. It actually is possible for children to like SeaWorld more than Epcot – gee, it’s even possible that adults might like Seaworld over Epcot.

That’s normal.

Sorry to barge into the private clubhouse here. This just seems like more and more of a trend here – you’re either 100% in lockstep with the collective mentality (“run to get your Dole Whips!!!!”), or you’re evil. Too bad Disney can’t survive on just princess dinners alone…they do have to appeal to a wide audience if they want to stay in business.

How the average American "sees" Disney World is not the same as what is actually accurate. Which is why responsible journalism needs to come into play here. When you're writing a travel piece, be it book or article, on a specific destination in order to give people information on that destination, it is your responsibility to give accurate information. Of course the dining plan will seem like a bad deal when you quote a price higher than it really is. Of course EPCOT will seem like a bore to kids when you don't say a thing about what is available to the children (and that's not to say all children will fall in love with EPCOT, but it's not someone's place to give no info and then say the kids will hate it without even knowing those childrens' tastes). Of course Disney's one day ticket seems way more expensive when you conveniently leave out the prices of one day tickets to the other Orlando parks and conveniently leave out the fact that they, too, view the "adult age" as 10 and up. The average vacationing American tends to do at least basic research for their vacations, so when a writer misleads the reader by either skewing the facts or completely getting them wrong, that continues the prejudice against WDW (and I use the word "prejudice" as a pre-judging before anyone takes that term and twists it around). If the writer was to give all the correct information and the average vacationer still decided it wasn't in their best interest, that would be one thing...no vacation spot is a one size fits all. But that isn't what happened here and that's irresponsible.

This isn't hatred, this is reasonable expectation.

 

[Another Voice]

What I see is that people are furious that the article was not biased in favor of Disney. The ticket price is the ticket price, the sneering "but Universal charges the same time" might make people here feel better, but it doesn't matter to normal, average tourist.

In fact - it proves one of her points. Why waste that amount of money on child-challegned Epcot when you can spend the same amount of money for child-friendly Sea World. Sorry to all the Kidcot card table fans, but most people do not think Epcot has a lot for children to do. For a family on a budget, it is sound advice to recommend one park over the other. Your opinion may vary, so write your own book.

Travel writing is, by nature, based on opinion. This author has her opinion of WDW, people here have a far different one. The real question that has to be asked is the people here have grown so far out of the mainstream that the "conventional wisdom" of the fanboards has any meaning to the average tourist. When people demand that everyone acknowledges $71 a day for an amusement park as "reasonable", I think the average just kind of shakes their head.

 

[boomhauer]

In fact - it proves one of her points. Why waste that amount of money on child-challegned Epcot when you can spend the same amount of money for child-friendly Sea World. Sorry to all the Kidcot card table fans, but most people do not think Epcot has a lot for children to do. For a family on a budget, it is sound advice to recommend one park over the other. Your opinion may vary, so write your own book.

First off, our 6 year old's favorite park is Epcot, but that's another thread.

Secondly, if you're spending a week in central Florida, what makes more financial sense - To buy a 6 day Disney park hopper and a 1 day ticket to Sea World or a 7 day park hopper to Disney? Obviously, the 7 day park hopper.

I think the issue is she's not stating opinions based on any sort of fact. She's basing opinions clearly on her personal dislike for Disney. If Joe Schmo reads that article knowing nothing about Disney, he's gonna go stay at the Rodeway Inn instead of All Stars or Pop which would be dense and thoroughly lessen his enjoyment of his Disney vacation.

As a writer, she's misleading the public (or attempting to.)

 

[Wick]

What I see is that people are furious that the article was not biased in favor of Disney.

You may be right, but you should also acknowledge that the article was laden with factual inaccuracies, many of which concerned pricing.

Other posts have ridiculed some Dis members for nitpicking over little things like hot dog price vs. hot dog meal price. At face value this may seem trivial, yet these critics are the same people who nitpick over paint chips on trash cans and whatnot.

 

[The Big Daddy]

This just seems like more and more of a trend here – you’re either 100% in lockstep with the collective mentality (“run to get your Dole Whips!!!!”), or you’re evil.

Amen, brother! And this coming from someone not going to be labeled as a "troll" because they have more than 1000 posts.

The atmosphere in these forums, which I've been reading for years, is definitely feeling like one of exclusion to new posters that go against the grain.

 

[grimley1968]

What I see is that people are furious that the article was not biased in favor of Disney. The ticket price is the ticket price, the sneering "but Universal charges the same time" might make people here feel better, but it doesn't matter to normal, average tourist.

In fact - it proves one of her points. Why waste that amount of money on child-challegned Epcot when you can spend the same amount of money for child-friendly Sea World. Sorry to all the Kidcot card table fans, but most people do not think Epcot has a lot for children to do. For a family on a budget, it is sound advice to recommend one park over the other. Your opinion may vary, so write your own book.

Travel writing is, by nature, based on opinion. This author has her opinion of WDW, people here have a far different one. The real question that has to be asked is the people here have grown so far out of the mainstream that the "conventional wisdom" of the fanboards has any meaning to the average tourist. When people demand that everyone acknowledges $71 a day for an amusement park as "reasonable", I think the average just kind of shakes their head.

Opinions are fine, and I frankly don't care what Ms. Frommer's opinion is. She can believe what she wants, even if unsupported by facts.

However, when you are writing for what was once a respected travel journal, and people are making vacation decisions based upon your supposed expertise and accurate fact-gathering, you have a responsibility to check all facts, and to at least visit the places you describe. Ms. Frommer's failure to do so invalidates the entire article, and indeed her opinions, since they are so heavily influenced by her gross inaccuracies, lack of fact-checking before publication, and blatant bias.

I'm not sure why people continue to insist that those of us who are critical of this shoddy piece of supposed "journalism" are "haters", or are blind followers of everything Disney.

Read some of my posts with my criticisms of Disney things, such as the DVC, overpriced Photopass CD's, the constant cross-selling that goes on, and on and on, and you'll see I'm not a blind follower of everything Disney. I really don't think any of the other posters in this thread are either.

But I have a real problem with pieces of "journalism" like Ms. Frommer's article. Whether you like Disney or not, I'd hope you'd see the obvious bias (calling the Grand Floridian a "motel" is very biased or incredibly ignorant) in her writing, and how the grossly erroneous pricing she uses to make her points were used irresponsibly.

Responsible journalism involves fact-checking before publication, in-context price reporting, and a lack of real or perceived bias. Ms. Frommer's article had none of that. It deserves all the criticism we're giving it, and I would hope it would be criticized well outside the scope of this little website.

This kind of reporting and/or editorial writing is the biggest problem I have with modern journalism in general. Many hit pieces against people are written this way, with lack of context, made-up facts, little fact-checking before publication, and a bias which colors the conclusions. It's irresponsible of the writer to write this kind of stuff, and I frankly think it's also irresponsible of readers who care about honest and accurate reporting not to criticize it.

There, soapbox rant over.

 

[mking624]

What I see is that people are furious that the article was not biased in favor of Disney. The ticket price is the ticket price, the sneering "but Universal charges the same time" might make people here feel better, but it doesn't matter to normal, average tourist.

I'm not sneering about Universal ticket prices. I'm pointing out the fact that a Disney one day ticket price isn't exactly highly expensive when you compare it to the one day ticket price of UO or SeaWorld. But she leaves out that fact and instead comments on how the one day price at WDW "soars." She says that the upgrade is not a good deal, when you can get a 10 park hopper with water parks for cheaper than you can the 3 day base ticket and one day tickets to SeaWorld and UO. This is completely outside my preference for WDW, these are downright facts. She argues about what's a good deal but then advises for something that's more expensive. Many budget minded people would not consider the more expensive option to be the better deal.

In fact - it proves one of her points. Why waste that amount of money on child-challegned Epcot when you can spend the same amount of money for child-friendly Sea World. Sorry to all the Kidcot card table fans, but most people do not think Epcot has a lot for children to do. For a family on a budget, it is sound advice to recommend one park over the other. Your opinion may vary, so write your own book.

Sound advice would be to offer examples of what each park would provide and then tell the family to make their own decision based on what they know their children prefer. As far as what Epcot has to offer to children, you are now only giving your opinion on it. Have you surveyed every last WDW traveler to know that "most people" do not think Epcot has a lot for children to do? I would guess no. You may know people who don't prefer Epcot, but that doesn't make it "most people." It's the same way if I said that most people do prefer it. Unless I polled everyone who traveled there, that statement has no ground to stand on. So the best option is to simply give the facts about the park and let people decide for themselves if they'll love it or hate it. I don't care for MGM myself, but I would never tell someone "oh you'll hate it!" and leave it at that. I can share MY opinion on the park, but also provide all the facts of what the park offers so that the person is more informed rather than just being given a blanket statement.

Travel writing is, by nature, based on opinion. This author has her opinion of WDW, people here have a far different one. The real question that has to be asked is the people here have grown so far out of the mainstream that the "conventional wisdom" of the fanboards has any meaning to the average tourist.

You're right, much of travel writing is based on opinion. However, Ms. Frommer is also attempting to address factual things. And therein lies the problem.

When people demand that everyone acknowledges $71 a day for an amusement park as "reasonable", I think the average just kind of shakes their head.

I said it's reasonable expectation to be accurate. That said, why is it not ok to accept $71 for a one day WDW ticket, but it's perfectly fine for her to suggest purchasing a one day ticket to UO or SeaWorld, both of whom have one day prices very similar to WDW? If they want to purchase those tickets, good for them! I hope they do enjoy themselves! I personally can't wait to visit SeaWorld myself! BUT, my point is that it seems rather backwards to complain about the cost of a one day ticket to WDW and then turn around and suggest spending about the same amount of money for a one day ticket to another Orlando park.

People can like or dislike WDW all they want. But it should be based on accurate information...not just because someone made up some numbers and then said "you'll hate it!" And the fact for me is that I would be just as turned off by her if she did this with any other travel destination. And something tells me that WDW is NOT the first travel destination that she was inaccurate about....so too bad for her, because DH and I enjoy traveling and we have no intention on trusting the information that she provides now that we see that there was a lack of research on things easily found.

 

[YoHo]

This thread still gives me a headache.

Was it a rumors and news thread originally or did it get moved here?

 

[WillCAD]

The sheer amount of hate in this thread is fascinating.

I don't see hate. I see rhetorical bluster on both sides of the issue, a complete polarization of the two sides, and lots of emotional arguments where facts should rein supreme. Including your posts - post some facts instead of opinions and emotional reactions, and I'll gladly have a sane, civil discussion with you on teh relative merits of WDW, Universal, SeaWorld, on-site vs off-site, and car rental vs WDW transportation. You'll find that my opinions on these subjects do not, in fact, fall 100% in lockstep with the prevailing opinions on the DIS Boards, but I don't use that as an excuse to berate people for having different vacation styles than me.

This thread is giving me a headache.


The day I feel the need to email a tarvel writer because they were somewhat inaccurate about my favorite Multi-Billion Dollar international media conglomerate's overpriced multibillion dollar Themeparks that have been in constant decline and have changed from a fundimental part of our national identity to a laughing stock akin to crazy cat ladies is the day I eat a bullet.

In either case, I'm sure emailing your displeasure will have an impact on Disney. Yes, I'm sure it will, it must I mean, they only brought in 45 Million ish visitors (industry estimate) last year. a couple thousand people may have read that article. Think of the implications man!

Yes, it certainly is amazing how much free time some people have on their hands - writing to complain that you didn't like something that somebody else wrote, and deriding them for not liking it, without presenting any concrete facts to support their opinions or presenting a logical arguement... but I digress.

I'd be suspicious if I thought the Roadway Inn could afford to pay kickbacks...”
Just totally incapable of having fun.
Pauline Frommer is clearly clueless.
She was so snobby.
we want to go to WDW despite Ms. Frommers incorrectly stated advice.
Ayone with issues about vacationing at WDW can always go somewhere else on vacation and quit lurking on the Disney forums.
The fact that she is still clueless is what bothers me the most...
Well, that's a matter of opinion, but my opinion is that this a whacked opinion.
I could see that this woman was horribly biased against Disney.
Yes, we on the Dis, know better.

And that’s just the high minded, honest and straightforward discussion I found on pages 10 and 11. All I’m really reading is a bunch of people whining that their own opinion is not be echoed.

Sorry – but I think the guidebook is probably a much better description of how the normal, average vacationing American sees WDW than internet posters. The average American does see a seven dollar hot dog, they do see the Pop Century as a cinderblock motel, they do look at what a one day admission costs and really don’t care how “cheap “ it is to add days nine and ten (and by Disney’s own admission, nearly a third of all admission at WDW are one-day tickets).

It is actually possible to have different opinions, to have different tastes. It actually is possible for children to like SeaWorld more than Epcot – gee, it’s even possible that adults might like Seaworld over Epcot.

That’s normal.

Sorry to barge into the private clubhouse here. This just seems like more and more of a trend here – you’re either 100% in lockstep with the collective mentality (“run to get your Dole Whips!!!!”), or you’re evil. Too bad Disney can’t survive on just princess dinners alone…they do have to appeal to a wide audience if they want to stay in business.

Maybe you haven't read the posts in this thread, including mine, that acknowledged those parts of the article that Pauline actually got correct, such as the off-site accomodation options or renting a car instead of depending entirely on WDW transportation. If you think those posts don't exist, I suggest you go back and read the thread again, because while you are complaining about how "everybody thinks alike and nobody is allowed to have a different opinion!", the rest of us have been calmly and rationally discussion the ways in which our opinions differ, without feeling the need to denegrate each other for their differing opinions.

What I see is that people are furious that the article was not biased in favor of Disney. The ticket price is the ticket price, the sneering "but Universal charges the same time" might make people here feel better, but it doesn't matter to normal, average tourist.

In fact - it proves one of her points. Why waste that amount of money on child-challegned Epcot when you can spend the same amount of money for child-friendly Sea World. Sorry to all the Kidcot card table fans, but most people do not think Epcot has a lot for children to do. For a family on a budget, it is sound advice to recommend one park over the other. Your opinion may vary, so write your own book.

Travel writing is, by nature, based on opinion. This author has her opinion of WDW, people here have a far different one. The real question that has to be asked is the people here have grown so far out of the mainstream that the "conventional wisdom" of the fanboards has any meaning to the average tourist. When people demand that everyone acknowledges $71 a day for an amusement park as "reasonable", I think the average just kind of shakes their head.

Firstly, let me repeat what I said at the beginning of this post:

post some facts instead of opinions and emotional reactions, and I'll gladly have a sane, civil discussion with you on teh relative merits of WDW, Universal, SeaWorld, on-site vs off-site, and car rental vs WDW transportation. You'll find that my opinions on these subjects do not, in fact, fall 100% in lockstep with the prevailing opinions on the DIS Boards, but I don't use that as an excuse to berate people for having different vacation styles than me.

And as to your assertion that "Travel writing is, by nature, based on opinion;" you'r only 1/3 right. Travel writing is only partially based on opinion - it is, first and foremost, a recitation of verified fact and personal experience, neither of which Pauline had when she wrote the original article.

There are three parts to a good review of any destination, be it a country, city, town, restaurant, sports bar, or theme park:

1) Preliminary research and fact-gathering
2) Personal (anecdotal) experience with the destination
3) Personal opinions based on parts 1 & 2.

Pauline Frommer's original article had only part 3, meaning that this respected, internationally published travel author, whose books will doubtless form the basis for thousands of peoples' very expensive vacations to Orlando, did only 1/3 of her job when crafting that article.

In point of fact, not only was she missing many vital and relevant facts, but many of those facts she cited were demonstrably incorrect. And she had little or no personal experience with the destination. All of this means that part 3, personal opinion based on parts 1 & 2, were crtitically flawed, because she didn't even have parts 1 & 2.

I don't know about you, but in my business, if I only did 1/3 of my work and tried to turn it in as a complete product, I'd be in deep kimchi.

If she doesn't like Disney, that's fine by me. I have lots of friends, family, and co-workers who don't like Disney. But a professional travel writer should be held accountable when she passes off baseless, uninformed personal opinion as genuine vacation spending advice.

 

[Another Voice]

What I see is an article that appears to be written from the point of the view of a more "average" traveler than the people on this board. A seven dollar hot dog is still a seven dollar hot dog whether paid with cash or an expensive "Dining Plan". Furthermore, the artilce seemed to be mostly aimed at saving cash for the typical vacationer with an interest in Disney that is short of the "I dress my cat like a princess" level. It is shocking to many, but I think if ask most travellers they will tell you that they think SeaWorld is more interesting to childern than Epcot. So it doesn't matter if a 10-day ticket is "cheaper per day" when most people have no intention of spending 10 days at WDW anyway

Frankly - how many average Americans can afford a ten day vacation?

People here have appear to have more bias than the author of this article and fewer real facts about vacation spending. I'm just amazed by the level of bile and hated being spewed. To me, it just fits into a long term - and disturbing - trend I've seen among "Disney fans". The parks are becoming more and more the private clubhouse and less and less appealing to the general public.

That's a serious danger to the future of the company.

 

[grimley1968]

This thread still gives me a headache.

Was it a rumors and news thread originally or did it get moved here?

I believe it started out in the Theme Parks forum, then got moved.

If this thread gives you such a headache, why on earth do you read it, let alone post in it, thereby perpetuating it?

 

[YoHo]

Because, as AV says, it's facinating.

I'm always facinated when the rest of the Dis invades the rumors and news board.

 

[grimley1968]

Again - one does not follow the collective mindset and there she is either evil or mentally unfit. You know what, I call the Grand Floridian a motel as well. It is no where near the level of service or quality the would justify as calling it a "resort".

...

And a motel is a motel even with a fifty foot "Do The Funky Chicken" sign on the roof.

Oh, where to begin!

First of all, a "motel" is not just a "motel." The term motel was coined for the motor hotels that sprung up along Route 66 in the first half of the 20th century. It literally means a place where you can drive up to the door of your room. So, factually, calling the Grand Floridian, or any other "property" ringing the lake along MK, a "motel" is wrong. You simply do not drive up to your room in those resorts.

If you don't want to call GF a "resort", I guess that's your prerogative. I'm not sure what else it would need to have to be called a "resort" under whatever criteria you have. Maybe a golf course? Maybe a beach? Given that it is a) on the resort monorail loop to MK and b) on Bay Lake, those two other options would be difficult to meet.

Split the difference and call them hotels.

The pejorative way you describe motels in the last sentence is a big example of another reason why it was wrong of Ms. Frommer to refer to the Deluxe resorts near MK as "motels." I think she means it in a pejorative way as well, and wished to color those resorts in that way, even though it is factually wrong, and intellectually dishonest to do so.

All I see is that people are bashing the author for not sharing their point of view and for not properly twisting the facts.

That's a pretty myopic way to see it. I'm criticizing the author for twisting the facts. Period. I don't want facts twisted in any direction. I just want the straight unvarnished facts, so I can make my own decision, without bias getting in the way.

A seven dollar hot dog is still a seven dollar hot dog whether you pay for it cash or as through inflated "Disney Dining Points".

Hot dogs don't cost $7 at WDW. A combo meal with a hot dog might, but that's a lot more than just a dog. Did you not read any of the voluminous numbers of posts in earlier pages detailing this?

Yes, you pay a premium for eating anywhere onsite, but it's cheaper to the average consumer who's already inside a park to pay that than to pay for the fuel to get offsite to go to a McDonald's, and pay maybe 25% less for a combo meal.

 

[nick262]

People can like or dislike WDW all they want. But it should be based on accurate information...not just because someone made up some numbers and then said "you'll hate it!" And the fact for me is that I would be just as turned off by her if she did this with any other travel destination. And something tells me that WDW is NOT the first travel destination that she was inaccurate about....so too bad for her, because DH and I enjoy traveling and we have no intention on trusting the information that she provides now that we see that there was a lack of research on things easily found.

This is my point. Putting Disney aside, this writer did not do her research and stated false facts. I would too have a problem with any non factual article regarding any business, not just Disney. I am well aware that Disney has gotten very expensive on both coasts, but they do offer specials throughout the year that make it affordable to do and in some cases cheaper then off site. I am not apposed to others opinions, but when I am reading a news article, I want facts. When a reporter makes a mistake and is called on it by emails from the readers, the paper makes a retraction. Why is my writing MSN any different? I would expect the writer to do at least minimal research on the question asked and write an accurate article. Trust me, had she written an article going the other way, such as saying they should only stay on property and not do other things and misquoted pricing for US and SW, I would have still written the publisher. This may come as a shock to you but I am not only an AP holder at DL but I am also an AP at Sea World in San Diego as well as the Zoo. Yes I love Disney, but I am not blind to its faults. Had she written a inaccurate story about Sea World or the Zoo, I would have written the publisher. If the public does not point out these mistakes then that information will stay out there. If you don't have time to write, then fine, you don't have to. It only took me a whopping minute combined to write what I did to MSN. And IMHO, it was a well spent minute.

 

[mking624]

What I see is an article that appears to be written from the point of the view of a more "average" traveler than the people on this board. A seven dollar hot dog is still a seven dollar hot dog whether paid with cash or an expensive "Dining Plan". Furthermore, the artilce seemed to be mostly aimed at saving cash for the typical vacationer with an interest in Disney that is short of the "I dress my cat like a princess" level. It is shocking to many, but I think if ask most travellers they will tell you that they think SeaWorld is more interesting to childern than Epcot. So it doesn't matter if a 10-day ticket is "cheaper per day" when most people have no intention of spending 10 days at WDW anyway

Frankly - how many average Americans can afford a ten day vacation?

First of all, you're giving an opinion on the expense of the Dining Plan. Not that you can't have an opinion, but there are travelers out there who spend way more money on food per day during vacations. Not to mention that the fact remains she still gave the wrong price quote for it. As far as the 10 day vacation is concerned, you keep missing my point. My point is not who can and cannot afford it. The point is that she puts Disney down for their ticket prices and claims upgrading is not the best value, but then advises an option that would cost more than if she actually upgraded her ticket all the way up to a 10 day pass. It seems that Ms. Frommer's preference is to do a 3 day base ticket with two days split at SeaWorld and UO. But cost wise, it's still not the best value. And that said, it shouldn't matter who the article is aimed at...average vacationer or ritzy glitzy one, the article still has a responsibility to present factual information. And again with Epcot, I'm not arguing that some would find SeaWorld more interesting. But what I've been saying is that there is a lack of information and someone just imposing their own preference (without having personal experience) instead of just providing the information and allowing the reader to decide for themselves. And an unbiased opinion would do just that when personal experience is not involved. As far as "most people" not wanting to spend 10 days at WDW, well again I must ask you if you've polled every traveler to know that information. It would be no different than me saying that most people would want to stay there. They have plenty of people who do and who don't. But I think it's safe to assume here that the family in question is interested in spending the majority, if not all of the trip at WDW since that is the only destination the question brought up.

People here have appear to have more bias than the author of this article and fewer real facts about vacation spending. I'm just amazed by the level of bile and hated being spewed. To me, it just fits into a long term - and disturbing - trend I've seen among "Disney fans". The parks are becoming more and more the private clubhouse and less and less appealing to the general public.

That's a serious danger to the future of the company.

I'm failing to see how pointing out inaccuracies all of a sudden endangers the future of a company? I have no problem with people not liking Disney. It's not a big deal to me. Opinions about hotels and where people want to go on their vacation aside, some of this article is dealing with specific facts that she is getting wrong. I could hate a travel destination but I would still expect a travel writer to get their information right. And why it is "bile and hatred" when some of us point out the inaccuracies? Since when are people only allowed to just take things for whatever it says instead of saying "hmm, this isn't right, here is the correct info"? And how is putting down the people who are sharing the correct info not considered "bile and hatred"?

As far as these "vacation spending facts", please share your sources so we can share in this "real facts" that you tell us we are unaware of.

 

[Another Voice]

Hot dogs don't cost $7 at WDW. A combo meal with a hot dog might, but that's a lot more than just a dog.

That's the point, isn't it. The average traveller sees "seven dollars for a hot dog!"; Disney fans are screaming "She's evil because she didn't see the fries!"

People are trying to use nuance and spin to overcome the obvious and clear point of the article. WDW is expensive for the average, normal American family. You can yell and kick and scream about Universal and off-site and "feeling the magic" - but most people care about the hit to their wallet, not the goose bumbs they're supposed to feel when their motel room looks over over a giant bowling pin.

Most people are not so all enthralled with all things Disney to overlook or to even care about the difference between with drink or without. That's the point of view from the article. The piece was about get the most real value from an Orlando vacation. And for most people that means only a couple very expensive days at WDW and money to spend at the other attractions.

And that's what I find so interesting - the absolute hate directed at anyone who does not show Disney to proper amount of love. Like I said, Disney is becoming a private club that dislikes any outsider and out-of-touch with the desires of average people that might want to visit the parks.

Anyway... sorry for the interuption. Please resume the normal course of discussion.

 

[YoHo]

The point is that she puts Disney down for their ticket prices and claims upgrading is not the best value, but then advises an option that would cost more than if she actually upgraded her ticket all the way up to a 10 day pass. It seems that Ms. Frommer's preference is to do a 3 day base ticket with two days split at SeaWorld and UO. But cost wise, it's still not the best value.

No, cost wise it's not the Cheapest.
If spending 3 days at Disney and 2 days at other parks provides more enjoyment then 10 days at Disney, then it's still might be a better value.

In other words, value is determined by the desire to spend time in any place as well as the actual cost to spend that time.

 

[mking624]

No, cost wise it's not the Cheapest.
If spending 3 days at Disney and 2 days at other parks provides more enjoyment then 10 days at Disney, then it's still might be a better value.

In other words, value is determined by the desire to spend time in any place as well as the actual cost to spend that time.

Personal preference might determine what the better value of time spent is. However, in terms of money spent, the option that Ms. Frommer presented is more expensive. I bring it up because Ms. Frommer made it a point to mention how high Disney prices are getting while failing to mention that other ticket prices are pretty comparable.