How do some hotels justify the cost?

[kilarney]

Can someone explain to me how off-site hotels are able to sell rooms when they charge more than $100 per night?

The most expensive (peak) standard room at the All Stars is $129 per night. I've been checking rates at many hotels that charge roughly this same rate, if not more. (e.g.: Hampton Inn, Courtyard by Marriott, Clarion, Holiday Inn, Ramada, etc.)

Why would ANYONE spend that kind of money to stay at a generic off-site hotel when they could stay on-site for the same price?

As you can tell from my signature, I'm a big fan of staying off site to save money. I just can't understand how the more expensive off-site hotels survive.

Note: I'm not suggesting that the Gaylord Palms can't charge more than the All Stars Resort. I'm talking about hotels that aren't true resorts.

 

[Brian Noble]

Well, let's take the Courtyard as an example.
http://www.marriott.com/hotels/trav...ndo-lake-buena-vista-in-the-marriott-village/

I've never stayed there (I'm a condo person myself), but it looks nice. Here are some things that the standard rooms there include, that the Values do not, and that I would find desirable:

• High speed internet
• Coffee maker
• A microwave
• A pool partially indoors (for those rainy afternoons)
• A "splash zone" in the outdoor half of the pool.
• A fitness center
• Interior corridors
• A full service cafe/restaurant
• Newspaper
• Refrigerator
• A business center
• 300 count linens.

I'd consider that more comparable to a Moderate than a Value, and in some ways superior. It is partially booked for my upcoming week of 2/23-3/1, but the nights that are available are $165 a night.

On the other hand, Pop has plenty of rooms for my week. So, it would appear that your hypothesis---that such hotels can't possibly be preferable to a Value room---is incorrect.

 

[kilarney]

The problem with the above example is that the Courtyard charges rates that are comparable to a Moderate Resort. So to compare it with the All Stars isn't quite fair. Keep in mind, most people have to add parking and rental car costs if staying off-site.

Once again, I'd rather stay at a Moderate Resort any day over a Courtyard with the above amenities.

Sorry, but the Disney magic is worth more to me than 300 thread count sheets. And this is coming from someone who routinely stays off-site! I can totally see staying in a cheap off-site hotel. I just can't see spending Disney $$$$ to stay off-site.

 

[Brian Noble]

Well, that's why Baskin-Robins has 31 flavors.

But, again, for that week, the Courtyard is booked, and the Disney resorts (mods or values) are not, so you can draw your own conclusions about what "most" people would do.

You are the one who wanted to compare it to a Value resort. What's more, the Courtyard charges quite a bit less than the Mods, which are $189-$199 during the same period that the Courtyard is $165.

 

[4Seasons]

Basically different strokes for different folks.

Not everyone comes to Orlando to go to Disney. I know plenty of people who regularly go there for business too, not to mention the many other attractions in the area.

 

[kilarney]

What's more, the Courtyard charges quite a bit less than the Mods, which are $189-$199 during the same period that the Courtyard is $165.

Just keep in mind that you have to factor in the cost of a rental car and parking.

I will admit that if you're going to get a rental car anyway and you have an annual pass, the price difference is more meaningful. But how many people does that really apply to?

My guess is that a lot of people use points for free nights at places such as this.

Also, you can't say that more people want to stay at the Courtyard because it is sold out. You do realize that Disney has thousands more rooms, no? That's just poor logic.

I guess there really are different strokes for different folks. I'll never understand it, though. Most people here are rabid about the experience of staying on-site. I'm not. So if even I can't justify it, it's got to turn off a lot of potential customers.

 

[Frothy]

Agree with 4Seasons. Not everyone wants the cheapest, not everyone wants the most expensive. Personally I have certain standards that I like and if a product or service fits my needs then I'm prepared to pay the cost of it.

I've stayed at $39/night motels and I've stayed at $1,000/night hotels. I know which I prefer. Also, take a look at the cruise industry..some folks are happy with the cheaper inside staterooms and some prefer the suites with butler service. Not everything in life comes down to money... it's nice to treat yourself and your loved ones occassionally.

But back to the question about offsite hotels.... some folks just don't want the Disney experience. Staying onsite is certainly not cheap... food is the next biggest cost and when you are offsite you certainly have more choice.

Having stayed onsite and offsite in previous trips, I have to say that the best value for my family is a vacation home rather than a hotel (either onsite or offsite). We love doing what we want, when we want... certainly not having to get up for breakfast by a certain time is one our major considerations. The other is being able to take a dip in the pool that is only a few paces away rather than the hike to share with others that are a feature of so many hotels.

 

[MattM]

Actually, parking is free at the Marriott Village.

There's a couple of factors to consider here:

1.) You're assuming that everyone that is coming to Orlando is going only to Disney. There are 3 other big time theme parks in Orlando. And using the Courtyard as an example, your right off of I-4 which allows easy access to Universal and Sea World, as well as Orlando.

2.) You're assuming that Disney hotels can meet the capacity demands. There are only so many hotel rooms on Disney property. Not everyone that wants to stay there can. So these off site hotels charge a lower rate, and you feel like you are getting a better deal, because you are.

3.) Most of the comparable hotels are nicer, in terms of rooms. No doubt that no hotel can compete with the themed lobby's, etc of the Disney hotels, but as far as their rooms, they are average at best. Even at the Resorts. And the rates are signficantly higher for what a lot would say may be an inferior product.

 

[kilarney]

Actually, parking is free at the Marriott Village.

But it's not free at the Disney Parks for people who are not staying at a Disney owned property. This effectively adds $11/day to the cost of a room.

Again... I've always been able to justify it if I'm still saving money compared to a Disney Resort. I'm just curious as to how people justify it if they aren't saving money. Getting a better/bigger room makes a lot of sense to me. Let's face it, you don't sleep in the lobby!

So these off site hotels charge a lower rate, and you feel like you are getting a better deal, because you are.

The whole point of my question was when they don't charge a lower rate.

Here is what's starting to make me think about staying on-site.

If you stay off-site, you are going to have to rent a car and pay $11 per day to park. This adds about $40 extra per day. If you stay at a real cheap hotel for $35 per night, your really paying about $75 per night. That's not too much cheaper than staying on-site.

It doesn't really work for us, though, since we'd want to rent a car anyway. We also don't pay for parking since we're always with someone who has an annual pass. We also don't have any real burning desire to stay at the All Stars, and can definitely save money compared to a moderate or deluxe. But I have to admit that Disney is really becoming competitive with the off-site options.

 

[QT Pooh]

This is a very interesting thread. There is a very valid point being made here, and that is...not everyone who goes to Orlando is going either on vacation or to WDW. Orlando has the second largest number of hotel rooms in the country next to Vegas.

Off-site hotels can charge more than a value resort at Disney because...quite frankly, they get it...maybe not from the family that's travelling to Disney during that time, but from someone who's there for business or someone who's there for doing something other than Disney. Hotel chains also offer loyalty programs, business facilities, free high-speed internet, quick access to tons of restaurants, free breakfasts and a lot of the other items that are listed in other posts.

So while the cost might not be justified for your situation, it can certainly be justified in other situations.

 

[Todd&Copper]

When I stayed offsite in 2006 I stayed somewhere that had a shuttle to both WDW and to Universal/SW, so we didn't bother with a rental car & had no parking fees. There were 3 of us on that trip, and we got a limo to & from the airport for $95 and we had a coupon for some more $$$ off of that. And we had a fridge and a micro in our room.

If and when I return to WDW with my DH, we may or may not stay on-site. He is not so much into Disney, and frankly I thought Pop was about a Motel 6 quality place and we can get a better deal using points and staying offsite (or using some Starwood points at the Swalphin).

 

[CPM]

If I had a choice between a value, moderate or a Hampton Inn, I'd stay at the Hampton Inn!

Brian Noble has many good points that also pertain to HI, one more is bed comfort!
We always have a car, so that is not even in the equasion!

Our favorite hotel to stay at is Embassy Suites!

 

[MattM]

But it's not free at the Disney Parks for people who are not staying at a Disney owned property. This effectively adds $11/day to the cost of a room.

Again... I've always been able to justify it if I'm still saving money compared to a Disney Resort. I'm just curious as to how people justify it if they aren't saving money. Getting a better/bigger room makes a lot of sense to me. Let's face it, you don't sleep in the lobby!
The whole point of my question was when they don't charge a lower rate.

Here is what's starting to make me think about staying on-site.

If you stay off-site, you are going to have to rent a car and pay $11 per day to park. This adds about $40 extra per day. If you stay at a real cheap hotel for $35 per night, your really paying about $75 per night. That's not too much cheaper than staying on-site.

It doesn't really work for us, though, since we'd want to rent a car anyway. We also don't pay for parking since we're always with someone who has an annual pass. We also don't have any real burning desire to stay at the All Stars, and can definitely save money compared to a moderate or deluxe. But I have to admit that Disney is really becoming competitive with the off-site options.

To your last 2 paragraphs, it goes back to the fact that a lot of times, unless you book well in advance, there just arent enough rooms on property to meet the demand. I would venture to say that most times that non-property dont charge a lower rate is when they know that Disney hotels will tend to be full (peak seasons, holidays, etc). They have people that know how to determine that stuff. Pricing is a lot more complicated then we would tend to think!

The issues dont sway us either. We mix it up. We love staying on property, but there are some very nice hotels off property too. We actually live in Orlando and still choose to stay down by WDW. Kind of ridiculous, but my wife and kids love it haha.

 

[Figment22]

I have stayed on-site seven times at the Beach Club, Wilderness Lodge and at the Dolphin. If I can't justify paying the prices offered at any of those or some other deluxe, I would much rather stay off-site. To me, in terms of room quality, the values and even the moderates to a lesser extent are glorified motel rooms that just happen to be Disney hotels. For me, one of the main criteria I use in choosing a hotel to stay at wherever I travel (not just Orlando) is interior corridors. I don't even consider hotels with exterior corridors, so if my choice is a moderate, a value or a Courtyard or Hampton Inn, I'd rather the latter.

If I can justify the cost of a deluxe, I'd certainly do so.

 

[dis-happy]

Another factor in the equation: most of those other hotels offer a free breakfast for their guests (Courtyard is th exception). Stick 4 people in a room, buy a breakfast at the food court for each of them at around $7-8. per person and you've saved around $30. a day right there.

We are one family that would stay at a Marriott before staying at a value. Bigger beds, quieter rooms, free breakfast. We also drive to WDW and have AP's so no extra costs there. When we stay on-site we stay in the 1 b/r DVC's.

Thanksgiving 2006 we were able to book a 2 bedroom at the Residence Inn for $134. per night. That included 2 bedrooms, 2 baths, 2 queen beds, 1 king bed, 3 tv sets, a living room area, full kitchen, free breakfast and a view of the WDW fireworks from our window.

 

[dis-happy]

Also, families of 5 (of which we are one) cannot stay in a value, but Marriott is able to accomodate an extra person.

 

[calgarygary]

It doesn't really work for us, though, since we'd want to rent a car anyway. We also don't pay for parking since we're always with someone who has an annual pass. We also don't have any real burning desire to stay at the All Stars, and can definitely save money compared to a moderate or deluxe. But I have to admit that Disney is really becoming competitive with the off-site options.

The difference between Disney and offsite is at it's lowest in the value range, where typically, if you compare true onsite values with true offsite budgets, the savings are closer to $40/night after paying for parking. The savings widen as you compare the moderates with offsites but get incredibly large when you start to compare deluxes. In no way is Disney even close to competitive in rates against true deluxes offsite. For example, a club level at the Grand Floridian goes for $745/night from June 21 - 28th. A club level at the Ritz Carlton goes for $399/night during the same time. The GF does not even come close to the same level of luxury as the Ritz and their club offerings pale in comparison. So families have to decide if getting less for $346 + taxes more per night is worth being onsite. Obviously for many it is but I would hardly say that WDW is competitive with offsite options.

 

[kilarney]

Another factor in the equation: most of those other hotels offer a free breakfast for their guests

That's a good point. We usually get some groceries for breakfast and have a refrigerator in our room, but if you don't have a car because you are staying on-site, this is a large expense for a family. (Assuming you weren't going to get the meal plan anyway.)

 

[Frothy]

I still don't get why everyone is so strung up on money when this is their vacation? I know some people really do have to watch the dollars but the vast majority of us really don't have to nickel and dime everything....surely?

"Free breakfast"... there's nothing free about it IMO. You are paying one way or the other and usually it's pretty yucky! Most hotels I stay at smuggle in extra charges on the bill and you have to watch them closely.

As I said, nothing beats a vacation home to me. Last time, 14 of us visited and we rented a 6 bed vacation home for around $230 per night. That's $16 a night each. Staying in a hotel would have seen us rent 5 or 6 rooms... and that would have worked out over $600 - $700 per night.

Then we save on our food bills as we can go to Publix and do our normal shop and eat pretty much as normal as we would at home. That probably saves us $700 plus as we don't eat at restaurants for every meal.

The other consideration is the space...and the private pool. Hotel rooms aren't great particularly if someone like my DH wakes up early and then turns the lights on ... or if the kids want to watch something different to us on TV.

 

[QT Pooh]

I still don't get why everyone is so strung up on money when this is their vacation? I know some people really do have to watch the dollars but the vast majority of us really don't have to nickel and dime everything....surely?

Not sure what this statement is about...but saving money at ANY time is important. We don't HAVE to nickel and dime everything, but we do...this is what is going to enable us to send our kids through college without borrowing and retiring early and comfortably...all depends what your priorities are...