Guy with no kids spends a night in Cinderella's Suite

We were just there a month ago. Crowds were light, but I guarantee you that adding a bunch of photographers standing in the middle of Main Street (all the way from Town Square to the hub) and at the bottleneck which is the bridge entering AK, made things worse. And it's one thing to dodge fellow guests--its another to dodge another person trying to sell me something. Believe me, I never complain when the Dapper Dans are holding up traffic on Main Street.



But the thing is the Photopass people are not trying to sell you anything, they don't even try to sell you something in the store where you buy it, its one of the most no pressure sells in the world lol. Most of the time they don't even ask if you want pictures, because they already have a line. They are there to serve, not to sell. I can't imagine it takes away from anyone's vacation. If you don't like them don't use them. And I refuse to believe that they hold up trafic down main street. it is way too wide to even make that claim, not to mention the mass amounts of people that stop and take pictures of the castle, stop to listen to performers, etc... you can't tell the difference between pockets of stalling made by photopass and pockets made by guests. And if it is a dead time of the year, then walking around a photopass photographer is pretty easy, it requires two more steps. Now the AK bridge is just placed poorly, every guest stops there. I don't think the addition of two photographers makes it that much worse.... however, I have never seen it but if they do attract a line, i can see that being harder to get around. But half the guests stop there, so blaming two people on causing the mess is kinda ridiculous.


I just think its foolish to say that photographers ruin peoples vacations... if you don't like them don't use them. THey don't bother you more then perhaps *gasp* ask you politely if you want a picture! it only requires a polite "no thankyou" in return, and to continue on your way. And if you are looking for a vacation of complete solitude and the absence of human interaction, you are in the wrong place!

(that wasn't directed to you dancingbear just the thread in general)
 
But the thing is the Photopass people are not trying to sell you anything, they don't even try to sell you something in the store where you buy it, its one of the most no pressure sells in the world lol. Most of the time they don't even ask if you want pictures, because they already have a line. They are there to serve, not to sell.
Then I guess all of those stores along Main Street, and at the end of so many rides, are just there to serve, not sell, also. I mean, none of those cashiers ever tried to hard-sell me either, so they must be just generously giving me the opportunity to part with my pocket money.

I just think its foolish to say that photographers ruin peoples vacations... if you don't like them don't use them. THey don't bother you more then perhaps *gasp* ask you politely if you want a picture! it only requires a polite "no thankyou" in return, and to continue on your way. And if you are looking for a vacation of complete solitude and the absence of human interaction, you are in the wrong place!
Who here said the photographers ruin vacations? Or that they wanted complete solitude and the absence of human interaction? I'd be happy to wind my way through Dapper Dans, Jamitors and streetmosphere characters any day.
 
I'd be happy to wind my way through Dapper Dans, Jamitors and streetmosphere characters any day.
Amen to that.

Dogbots, I do commend them for not making the Photopass product a hard sell. For a time they were more aggressive about it, but they have backed off, and that is a plus.

But it is still a product. The act of them taking a Photopass picture of you does not add any value to your experience. Only the picture itself can do that, and you have to pay for it, hence its a product, not a service.

As I said before, that in and of itself is not a bad thing. Any company must have products. But while they do use a soft sell approach, they are in the way and they make prime picture spots more congested. Not as big a deal on Main Street imho, because there is actually quite a long stretch of prime space, and there are people all over anyway. But in some of the smaller but still crowded places, like the bridge in AK, they do have a significant negative impact at times.

The only part of what they do that can be considered a service is that they will take a photo with your camera. Experiences seem to differ on how frequently they offer to do this, but they will still do it and do it cheerfully, so that is another good thing about the program.

But all in all, I would still rather they invested elsewhere in the parks than in this product. If that weren't the choice being made, then I would be more supportive of it, especially with a few more tweaks to how they do it.
 
I like the photopass guys. It's hard to get pictures of the two of us together without handing our camera to some yahoo who doesn't know which end to aim. I think it's a fair price and a pretty cool low pressure setup. As far as placement, where else would I want them...I want pictures of the memorable spots of the park - therefore theyre going to be in the way a bit.
 


Amen to that.

Dogbots, I do commend them for not making the Photopass product a hard sell. For a time they were more aggressive about it, but they have backed off, and that is a plus.

But it is still a product. The act of them taking a Photopass picture of you does not add any value to your experience. Only the picture itself can do that, and you have to pay for it, hence its a product, not a service.

As I said before, that in and of itself is not a bad thing. Any company must have products. But while they do use a soft sell approach, they are in the way and they make prime picture spots more congested. Not as big a deal on Main Street imho, because there is actually quite a long stretch of prime space, and there are people all over anyway. But in some of the smaller but still crowded places, like the bridge in AK, they do have a significant negative impact at times.

The only part of what they do that can be considered a service is that they will take a photo with your camera. Experiences seem to differ on how frequently they offer to do this, but they will still do it and do it cheerfully, so that is another good thing about the program.

But all in all, I would still rather they invested elsewhere in the parks than in this product. If that weren't the choice being made, then I would be more supportive of it, especially with a few more tweaks to how they do it.

I respectively disagree here, about the whole service issue. but i think its on the principle of semantics more than anything else. Since you can pay for a service, then how is this not a service? It is a service to obtain a product... but anyway I won't argue it any more, and as we have both said, they will take your picture with your camera for you, hence people not having to spend additional money other than their entrance fee. If one does not want to be involved with the service, avoid them.




Dancingbear, no one said those things in their own words, i just have a nasty habit of sarcasm :)



Also does Disney need more shopping stores instead of the places where you can buy photos? if they were to remove these kiosks then we would just see more shops... I rather see some mini attractions, or small museums or something rather than another shop. actually the camera place at MK is like that, if you haven't explored it before do so! its pretty neat.
 
When I originally read the article, I thought it was sort of cute. Thought the author was a bit hard on himself, a tattoed no-kids 27 year old...that's how my now-DH was when I met him, after all. :D

As for the naked in Cinderella's bathtub thing, my mind does that...thinks of two images that really just do NOT go together, so doing a Cinderella greet, which is all very pristine and pure and clothed, when that night you will be bathing (which is usually done naked) in "Cinderella's bathtub" can lead to weird things in your head! :)


IWait a minute - I have to pay Disney for the rights to my own image!?!?!?!?! I thought that was kind of mine already. That's a great revenue enhancement right there - you're owned by Disney just by entering the parks.

And there is no "copyright" on taking a picture of the castle - Disney had made no effort to enforce its rights in fifty years; you loose those rights if there's no good faith effort made - especially when the pictures are for non commerical use. I'd love to see Disney sue John and Joanne Tourist for snapping an unauthorized picture!


In this case I’ve requested the picture, it’s being taken to my specifications and I’m paying directly for it. That falls under the “for hire” law and I own the copyright. It’s the reason the guy behind the camera when they were filming the movie doesn’t own Star Wars.


Would you go talk to my wedding photographer? He simply insisted on my paying him a TON of money for pictures that I had him take, of OUR faces, in places that I directed (and even poses that I requested)! And if I want, say, a 5x7, he still wants $30 for that.

So can you please go tell him that he's got it all wrong? :upsidedow


But it is still a product. The act of them taking a Photopass picture of you does not add any value to your experience. Only the picture itself can do that, and you have to pay for it, hence its a product, not a service.

I think that's a matter of who you're talking to. I'm the photog in our family, so very few pictures actually have ME in it. Therefore, someone coming up to me and offering to take pictures of my whole family, including me, is most definitely a SERVICE. To me.

To them it's a product. But it's mainly service, to me.



Did they have Photopass at DL last October? Is that what that thing I was handed was all about? We came through the gates and they handed me something, but gave no explanation (not that I could have heard b/c my brother had made us soooo late and I just wanted to get on with our one-day blast through the park)

This September, we are SO taking advantage of it!




Back to the castle...I've lost track of whether we're talking WDW or DL, but either way, does anyone else wonder if, AFTER the Dreams year is over, they will then start doing more of a tour thing? They spend a hefty year making it seem like a dream (fancy hotel suite for one night does NOT, to me, equal a "dream", but then neither do most of the things their marketing is calling "dreams", LOL), and then after that open it to the masses. Sounds like a good idea to me!
 
Back to the castle...I've lost track of whether we're talking WDW or DL, but either way, does anyone else wonder if, AFTER the Dreams year is over, they will then start doing more of a tour thing? They spend a hefty year making it seem like a dream (fancy hotel suite for one night does NOT, to me, equal a "dream", but then neither do most of the things their marketing is calling "dreams", LOL), and then after that open it to the masses. Sounds like a good idea to me!
Can't see that happening. You're probably talking about a pretty small elevator going up to a pretty small space.

But, they might use it for promotions or something.
 


I think that's a matter of who you're talking to. I'm the photog in our family, so very few pictures actually have ME in it. Therefore, someone coming up to me and offering to take pictures of my whole family, including me, is most definitely a SERVICE. To me.

To them it's a product. But it's mainly service, to me.

Well, actually, it's still a product. It's just a product you like and I assume purchase. But that's still a product by definition.

As I've said multiple times, though, that alone does not make it a bad thing.
 
Maybe service vs. product isn't the right semantic argument, but the point is that it's not the equivalent of the Dapper Dans, or looking at a Zoetrope--the stuff you don't have to pay extra for that enhances the experience. It's a well-done thing designed to enhance revenue.
 
I am trying to understand this thread. The Majority on here seems to dislike the way that the "company" is going. They are saying that prior to 2000 everything was better.

So for those that have said it was better then, can you back it up and tell me how it was better?

I can see how things have improved just a few observations.

The Dining plan is much more affordable and easier to use.

The past 2 years they have offered the "Free Disney Dining"

Built more Value resorts and even added a few suite sections to one of them

Changed with the times added new attractions ie. Expedition Everest, How to be a Millionaire Play It!

Buzz Lightyears Space Ranger Spin

New Theme Park - Animal Kingdom
New Water Park - Blizzard Beach (not sure on the year though)

More timeshare

Now they may be very broad, but I think it was for the best. Those were just at the top of my head, now please do me the favor and tell me what the company has done that you have such a horrible taste in your mouth for them.
 
I am trying to understand this thread. The Majority on here seems to dislike the way that the "company" is going. They are saying that prior to 2000 everything was better.

So for those that have said it was better then, can you back it up and tell me how it was better?

I can see how things have improved just a few observations.

The Dining plan is much more affordable and easier to use.

The past 2 years they have offered the "Free Disney Dining"



Changed with the times added new attractions ie. Expedition Everest, How to be a Millionaire Play It!

Buzz Lightyears Space Ranger Spin

New Theme Park - Animal Kingdom
New Water Park - Blizzard Beach (not sure on the year though)

More timeshare

Now they may be very broad, but I think it was for the best. Those were just at the top of my head, now please do me the favor and tell me what the company has done that you have such a horrible taste in your mouth for them.

Actually, I think 1997 was the watershed year in terms of philosophy. 2000 merely represents when WDW hit it's record attendence.

And that's the point, The most fundamental measure we're taking is that according to unofficial numbers Disney has yet to hit their peak attendance from 2000. Not only that, but other destination locations, Vegas, Hawaii, etc have met and exceeded their pre-9/11 numbers. Disney is lagging behind. Why is Disney unable to achieve the success they did before when the tourism industry is clearly not the problem?


As for your specific points, going down the point by point road rarely gets us anywhere, but I'll offer you a different perspective.

The Dining plan is much more affordable and easier to use.
No, just no. The Dining plan has been around in various forms for most of the 1990s. In the form of food n' fun, credit on your room, wishes.
In it's various forms, you've definitely gotten more for your money then you do now. There are various features of the current plan that are more userfriendly, and some features that are really really bad, but it is not more affordable nor is it easier to use on the balance.
Unless of course you're referring to the fact that you could get it for free. If that's your point, then I refer you to my above point about their attendance and have to ask why they're now giving something away for free that they used to be able to charge for?

Built more Value resorts and even added a few suite sections to one of them
I'll ignore for right now the fact that I hate the values, because it's my opinion. They built more values, then they failed to finish the project, why is a half finished project a good thing?
They built values, but then they raised the price of the moderates. So now, the values rack rate is the same as what CBR's rack rate used to be. They give you less and tell you it's more. Even if you like the values, wouldn't you say you're getting more if you get the CBR at that rate?

Changed with the times added new attractions ie. Expedition Everest, How to be a Millionaire Play It!
How many years has WWTBAM been closed?

New Theme Park - Animal Kingdom
New Water Park - Blizzard Beach (not sure on the year though)

Both of these happened well before 2000. Blizzard Beach I think has been around since the mid 90s. The only thing they've done recently on this front is CLOSE a waterpark. Sorry, that's not a good thing.

As for Animal Kingdom, it's 10 years old. It's missed it's attendance numbers, Beastly Kingdom died. It's widely considered a half day park. I was more tolerant of it back when it started out (plus I was ignorant) but after 10 years, this place should be so much more. In 1965, after 10 years, how much had been added to Disneyland?
 
Yoho,

But you aren't giving me reasons why there is such disgust with Disney.

They didn't have to continue to build the Value properties because everyone was complaining about the cost being so high.

I have been in the travel industry for 13 years, so I am well aware of how much things cost 10 years ago.

Since I sell alot of Disney the past 2 years I have customers who have never been able to travel to Disney be able to because of the low cost. It was not during the Free Dining mind you.

I read on several threads about Disney that now even the "LOW season"
is very crowded and Disney closed their parks over the Christmas Holiday because of attendance so why are people saying Disney is lagging in numbers?

Marketing is how businesses work, especailly with a business such as Disney.

Again, please give me your points as well.
 
No, just no. The Dining plan has been around in various forms for most of the 1990s. In the form of food n' fun, credit on your room, wishes.
In it's various forms, you've definitely gotten more for your money then you do now. There are various features of the current plan that are more userfriendly, and some features that are really really bad, but it is not more affordable nor is it easier to use on the balance.

OK, just to quibble (I won't argue with your other points), the newest incarnation of the DDP seems much more affordable than the previous versions (at least since I've been looking at the prices from ~1998 on).

Ignore the "free" dining - all the anecdotal evidence says that there's a tremendous response (maybe too much) to the DDP - lots of people are buying the plan. Certainly far more than were buying the former plans. That is, lots of people are now finding this plan more affordable/usable than the previous versions. I know I analyze these things to death for my own trips, and we never found the previous plans to be even close to a good value, but we have bought the DDP each of our last 2 trips, and felt we good a very good value each time.

Of course, this is all kind of beside the point. Even though it might be a better value, I don't think Disney put it in place to say "how can we give our guests a better experience," but rather "how can we maximize our profit from our visitors." Fortunately, sometimes those two lines of thought will coincide.
 
But you aren't giving me reasons why there is such disgust with Disney.
Because some people see "Disney" as what they buy from the Walt Disney Company, they see value, they see Mickey, they see a great family vacation.

Other people see "Disney" as the creators with a unique vision, a company that created products with a differnet take on "how things are done", a organization that did things no one else could possibly have dreamed of doing.

I don't hate the values becasue they are inexpensive hotels. Nor do I think they are good just becuase they allow families to afford to stay on WDW property.

I dislike them becuase they lack the imagination I expect from Disney. They are decorated cement boxes - they lack the thearticality, they lack the story telling, they lack the "you've just walked into a movie" feeling of the true Disney resorts. It's not a matter of budget, it's a matter of design and effort. The Disney I supported would have worked long and hard to the Pop Century the same kick-in-the-pants feeling as when you walk into the lobby of the Grand Floridian. A different form, perhaps, but the same feeling.

Yes, people have more to eat, people have more to do, people have more places to stay - and that's fine for some people. They don't see Disney the way we do. There is no magic in free food, but there's incredible magic to be found eating on a Mexican plaza in the shadow of an Aztec pyramid while a volcano rumbles in the distance.

Some of us want the real "magic" of Disney.
 
OK, just to quibble (I won't argue with your other points), the newest incarnation of the DDP seems much more affordable than the previous versions (at least since I've been looking at the prices from ~1998 on).

Ignore the "free" dining - all the anecdotal evidence says that there's a tremendous response (maybe too much) to the DDP - lots of people are buying the plan. Certainly far more than were buying the former plans. That is, lots of people are now finding this plan more affordable/usable than the previous versions. I know I analyze these things to death for my own trips, and we never found the previous plans to be even close to a good value, but we have bought the DDP each of our last 2 trips, and felt we good a very good value each time.

Of course, this is all kind of beside the point. Even though it might be a better value, I don't think Disney put it in place to say "how can we give our guests a better experience," but rather "how can we maximize our profit from our visitors." Fortunately, sometimes those two lines of thought will coincide.

Actually, I'd suggest that it's being advertised more heavily. Why is that?

Disney's website now sucks more then it ever has in the past, so it's hard to find actual numbers, It just gives a vague statement of up to 40% off your meals.

With food n' fun, you got 2 table service meals plus I think 1 or 2 cards for use with the water sprites and such for $55 a day. Those table service meals were any appetizer, any entree and any desert with non-alcoholic drinks free. Even the big group appetizers were included.
There were more restaurants included in the plan and all restaurants cost the same number of points.


Mickeyistheman, I'll get back to you in a minute.
 
I am trying to understand this thread. The Majority on here seems to dislike the way that the "company" is going. They are saying that prior to 2000 everything was better.

So for those that have said it was better then, can you back it up and tell me how it was better?

I can see how things have improved just a few observations.

The Dining plan is much more affordable and easier to use.

The past 2 years they have offered the "Free Disney Dining"

Built more Value resorts and even added a few suite sections to one of them

Changed with the times added new attractions ie. Expedition Everest, How to be a Millionaire Play It!

Buzz Lightyears Space Ranger Spin

New Theme Park - Animal Kingdom
New Water Park - Blizzard Beach (not sure on the year though)

More timeshare

Now they may be very broad, but I think it was for the best. Those were just at the top of my head, now please do me the favor and tell me what the company has done that you have such a horrible taste in your mouth for them.

As YoHo said, 2000 is not the Magic year. I doubt you could really find a specific point in time where things "changed", unless you want to point to either the hiring of Eisner or the death of Frank Wells.

What happened was that Disney's assets, specifically WDW in this case, were underutilized prior to 1984. One of the primary goals of Eisner/Wells was to change that. Disney was sitting on a lot of valuable land and not doing enough with it, and by most outside standards they were undercharging for their products (park admission, room rates, parking, etc).

It's debateable whether the undercharging really was an issue or a good long term strategy, but that point became moot.

So for quite awhile, growth and improvement was acheived through new hotels, fee/price increases, etc. But as they got into the 90's, the low hanging fruit was pretty much gone. That's when cuts started. Cuts to hours, maintenance, services, part-time workers replacing full-time, reduced training, etc.

That's why its hard to pin a date on it. The philosophy changed long before things really started to show up in the products. Customers won't squack too much about price increases as long as they still perceive things to be fair. But as other chinks started showing up in the armor, people did begin to notice.

2000 was notable in that Disney hit its peak attendance due to the economy peaking in late '99, yet small cuts were still being made. Then came 9/11 and some rather drastic cuts were made. The fans said don't worry, they'll return everything when attendance starts going up again. But the company was telling investors that long term profitability would be enhanced because some cuts would remain permanent, and they did.

To address the specifics of your list:

The Dining plan is much more affordable and easier to use.

The past 2 years they have offered the "Free Disney Dining"
Depends when you go and whether its one size fits all mentality works for you. It has increased demand for TS restaurants, but capacity has not been added which makes ADRs more difficult to get. Disney has also responded by genericizing menus to improve efficiency. I believe they have also moved more restaurants into the "signature" category, requiring two TS credits. I remember them starting with 7, and now there are I believe 11.




Built more Value resorts and even added a few suite sections to one of them
Just building something doesn't make it "good". Remember, we are talking about this in terms of the quality of Disney's offerings and whether Disney is really operating in a "Disney-like" manner. They've added more rooms, yes. I don't see what they've added as really being good examples of "Disney" quality, but that's another debate I guess.

Changed with the times added new attractions ie. Expedition Everest, How to be a Millionaire Play It!
Buzz Lightyears Space Ranger Spin
Millionaire was actually born out of a carpet bombing strategy that almost took ABC down. It was only open a few years and was a way to capitalize on a fad.

E:E is a good attraction. All things considered, a plus.

Buzz is fun, and reasonably popular, but even on this they went pretty cheap. They relied on the interactive aspect (i.e., its a video game) and didn't do all they could have with the sets and effects. Not a dud, but it's also not exactly a example of Disney imagineering at its best.

Then there's Mission:Space, Stitch's Encounter, Two Imagination re-do's, Tiki Room Under New Management, Chester and Hester's, and various attractions left without updating or even at times basic maintenance. If we go west, there's DCA and Tomorrowland.

In fairness, a few other winners have come out that you didn't mention.

New Theme Park - Animal Kingdom
New Water Park - Blizzard Beach (not sure on the year though)
Blizzard Beach opened in '95, AK in '98.

But again, these are new products. Whether they are "good" or not depends on how they were done. BB was over 10 years ago, but as water parks go, it's nice. AK was a shell of a park when it opened, and STILL struggles to keep customers' attention past 4pm. Sure, they've made some additions, some good, some not, but there was no excuse for a Disney with the resources it had at its disposal to open a park like AK in the state it was in, or even MGM when it opened. Throw in DCA as well. Now, those parks are 9, 17, and 6 years old respectively, and they STILL aren't called full-day parks by many. Never mind something that actually matches the scope of DL, MK and even Epcot.


More timeshare
Good if you can afford to buy in and like the value proposition. I'm not going to call it bad at this point, but the jury is still out on what kind of long term impact this growing segment will have on the resort as a whole.

Also, always keep in mind that every investment comes at the expense of other investments that are consquently never made.
 
Actually, I'd suggest that it's being advertised more heavily. Why is that?

Disney's website now sucks more then it ever has in the past, so it's hard to find actual numbers, It just gives a vague statement of up to 40% off your meals.

Are you trying to say that it's mainly more popular because of marketing? I think you're way off base here. Just look over at the dining board and you'll see that many people analyze these things quite a bit. The old plans I remember were not difficult to understand, either, but far fewer people purchased them.

With food n' fun, you got 2 table service meals plus I think 1 or 2 cards for use with the water sprites and such for $55 a day. Those table service meals were any appetizer, any entree and any desert with non-alcoholic drinks free. Even the big group appetizers were included.
There were more restaurants included in the plan and all restaurants cost the same number of points.

Exactly. You're paying less, now (i.e. more affordable). Plus, you're not paying for things that don't get used or you wouldn't want (e.g. the water sprites). Not to mention that I expect very few people would want to eat two sit-down meals every day. The new plan is much closer to what people actually want - as Mickeyistheman said, it's easier to use. The point is not "can you squeeze as much value out of the new plan as the old" - it's "which is going to be more affordable and easier for visitors to make use of." It seems clear that the new plan does this better than the old, and it's not just a matter of marketing.
 
Raidermat,

I do agree with some of your points, but what more do you want Disney to do for you?

I feel from reading these posts that just because you like millions of other spent money so I should get everything.

Inflation happens, I mean that is common sense is it not?

There were several years where Disney did not raise the per night cost, I remember back when the All Stars first opened and it was $69 a night, what is the cost now $79, I don't see that as a big increase.

I am curious how much gas was back then compared to today. I live in NJ and in the past 2 weeks gas went from 2.19 to 2.50 a gallon. THAT is a big price increase.

My first trip to Disney was in 1987 and I recall Dumbo being closed and it rained almost everyday, we went in September.

But, I thought it was the greatest place in the world. I went in Oct. 2001 with my younger sister and we did fly. The Park was empty no one was really there execpt many from Europe. That was a very sad time.

Now come 2006 into 2007 and I definately see a major increase in people going down to Disney.

I am getting off topic here.

My point is, no business is perfect and they will do things that not everyone will agree with, but why can't you just enjoy what they do offer instead of always complaining about "What they should do or could do....?"

Disney is about "The Magic" (and their bottom line) just like the business I work in as well as yours.

There is so much negativitiy in the world especially today, which is why I think many people like Disney because it does give them a chance to be a kid again and have fun and not worry about life outside those gates.
 
Raidermat,

I do agree with some of your points, but what more do you want Disney to do for you?

I feel from reading these posts that just because you like millions of other spent money so I should get everything.

Inflation happens, I mean that is common sense is it not?

There were several years where Disney did not raise the per night cost, I remember back when the All Stars first opened and it was $69 a night, what is the cost now $79, I don't see that as a big increase.

I am curious how much gas was back then compared to today. I live in NJ and in the past 2 weeks gas went from 2.19 to 2.50 a gallon. THAT is a big price increase.

My first trip to Disney was in 1987 and I recall Dumbo being closed and it rained almost everyday, we went in September.

But, I thought it was the greatest place in the world. I went in Oct. 2001 with my younger sister and we did fly. The Park was empty no one was really there execpt many from Europe. That was a very sad time.

Now come 2006 into 2007 and I definately see a major increase in people going down to Disney.

I am getting off topic here.

My point is, no business is perfect and they will do things that not everyone will agree with, but why can't you just enjoy what they do offer instead of always complaining about "What they should do or could do....?"

Disney is about "The Magic" (and their bottom line) just like the business I work in as well as yours.

There is so much negativitiy in the world especially today, which is why I think many people like Disney because it does give them a chance to be a kid again and have fun and not worry about life outside those gates.


The problem is that Disney is not about the magic anymore. Magic is just a word that they stick on normal things to get people that have a 4 foot tall mouse fetish to buy them.

As for costs, nobody is denying that inflation happens, that's not the issue. The issue is that Disney didn't simply follow inflation. When Disney built CBR, they raised the prices at the Contemporary and the Polynesian so it looked like it was a better value. Again when they built the values, Disney raised the prices of the mods and deluxes so that $69 looked like a better value.

If forget the exact number, I believe DisneyKidds calculated it for us, but if you were to take the Hotel industry rate of inflation over the last 30 years and apply that to the Cost of the Polynesian in 1980, you'd get a rack rate price of something like $180 a night in 2005.

Go to Disney's website, $180 is way under the rack rate for the Polynesian.

Though, I also notice that the other deluxes have taken a HUGE price cut though not that low.
Of course, that begs the question, why is the Polynesian still worth so much more?




But all of that is talking about specifics, and it's easy to get into an argument about specifics.

AV said it well, but I'll restate it.
The issue isn't WHAT, the issue is WHY.
The Walt Disney company and WED used to have a very very focused and meaningful set of rules about the when and the why of what they did. Walt Disney World was very controlled and a whole lot of thought was put in to what was built, why it was built. There was a distinct understanding of what Walt Disney World was about. WDW was about E.P.C.O.T. and I don't mean Walt's vision of an actual city. I mean the entire property was supposed to be about technical innovation. There was a distinct and important vision of what WDW was supposed to be both how it entertains and how it educates and innovates.

THAT is what is at issue here. Nobody is denying that Bob's gotta eat. It's the loss of that special vision. The vision that made Disneyland so much more then an amusement park.
There was a process a very important process. That process is dead, long live the spreadsheet.

This isn't about how much money they spend, or building E-tickets or building dark rides, this is about why they spend that money. It's about the uniqueness of Walt Disney World and Disneyland. Even after Eisner took over, WED still had the control to do a lot of good, but that eroded away.

Now we have a shell of the former company. Sure, WDW is fun, sure, they still make some neat attractions (Soarin "Over California" is awesome), but the entire creative dream of the place is dead as a giant fiberglass bowling pin.

And that's the real meaning of Christmas Charlie Brown......er, I mean, that's the issue.

There are corporations across the country and across the world that have corporate vision that extends beyond simply making a profit. The Artists that founded the major Hollywood studios certainly weren't out just to make a profit. Disneyland and WDW are Artistic creations. They deserve the attention that an artist lavishes on their work.
 
My point is, no business is perfect and they will do things that not everyone will agree with, but why can't you just enjoy what they do offer instead of always complaining about "What they should do or could do....?"

...

There is so much negativitiy in the world especially today, which is why I think many people like Disney because it does give them a chance to be a kid again and have fun and not worry about life outside those gates.

In all honesty, how much I personally enjoy what they do is largely separate from what I think they should or could do. For example, despite what I think about what they did with DCA, I can visit DCA with my family and have a fun day, pretty much free of any complaining of any kind.

It's not about negativity. It's about seeing something I care about, and deciding whether I want to ignore what I see happening to it or try to address it.

Look at it this way.... if this were a family member you loved, and you saw them making some bad decisions, what would be the best thing to do? Ignore those decisions or try to constructively work with them to get them on a better path?

Yes, I know this is just a company, and certainly they don't (or at least shouldn't) hold that kind of significance in our lives, and certainly Disney isn't going to listen to me like I was a family member. But the principle is the same.

Ignoring what goes on behind the curtain and just enjoying things for what they are is fine. We all do that with various things in our lives. But at the same time, it is important to understand that any product, widget, "Magic", whatever, is the result of decisions made by people much like the rest of us.
 

GET A DISNEY VACATION QUOTE

Dreams Unlimited Travel is committed to providing you with the very best vacation planning experience possible. Our Vacation Planners are experts and will share their honest advice to help you have a magical vacation.

Let us help you with your next Disney Vacation!





Top