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.
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.