If Disney were alive today, would he like or dislike want his going on in his company?

[Wishing on a star]

There's a huge difference between a parent getting drunk on a family outing and dad or mom enjoying a glass of wine in the France pavilion

Yes, we are making the exact same point!!!
I posted that I did not think that WDW should be alcohol free!
I don't think that the latter example should be used to justify a no-alcohol sentiment.

Then again, the alcohol service at the Parks should be, as I think they probably are, a non-focused sideline, not a prominant factor.
I would imagine that the price of drinks, and the fact that the Parks are not a 'carnivale' with bars on every corner, would be enough for most anyone to consider to be appropriate.

 

[vacationer1954]

I always love the argument that because some guests enjoy having a beer, cocktail or glass of wine at the parks means that they can't go without said beverage.

I agree. Whenever I see an argument made that overstates the case like that, it is a clarion call for me that even the person who is making the argument realizes that it is not valid with distorting things.

... Walt really never paid attention to the business or financial side of things at all, leaving it to his brother Roy. That might be slightly extreme, but the 'business' was not something he really bothered with.

I don't see that as extreme in the slightest; it's the actuality as far as anyone has ever relayed the facts. As a matter of fact, Walt likely disliked much of what was going on in the company while he was alive. He deferred to Roy because he knew Roy was better at making the hard decisions that have always had to be made in business. And if anything, Roy was successful for a long time at keeping Walt's tendencies from damaging the company, and in the end it was Roy's decline and death that ended up being the thing that put the company on the ropes.

Regardless, in the end, I think you've hit on a better way to answer the question: What would Walt have thought? He would has thought to ask Roy.

 

[luvsJack]

There is no rule that you have to spend several days at WDW. You may want too and that just means you pay more for it just like you would pay more if you wanted to go to 2 concerts, or 3 NBA games.
One day admission to WDW is comparable to (some) concert tickets and sporting events.
All the other costs associated with going to WDW can also be associated with any travel to any event or destination. The longer you choose to stay and the more you choose to do the more it is going to cost you.
If someone can't afford a vacation at WDW then chances are they can't afford vacations at many other places either.
A WDW vacation when compared to other choices for entertainment or vacations is not outrageous.

I just priced two vacations. Same week, same number of days. Both semi-comparable hotels. Both similar park tickets. Both including food.

WDW was $8000. The other was $5000.

That’s a huge difference. And I honestly wouldn’t say the prices are comparable. Plus the cheaper one is a nicer hotel and includes very attractive extras.

And anyone can ditch those two and go most other places in the US for half that amount.

Can you do WDW cheaper than $8000? Sure. And you can do the other for less than $5000. Sure. But comparing apples to apples.

 

[ThistleMae]

I just priced two vacations. Same week, same number of days. Both semi-comparable hotels. Both similar park tickets. Both including food.

WDW was $8000. The other was $5000.

That’s a huge difference. And I honestly wouldn’t say the prices are comparable. Plus the cheaper one is a nicer hotel and includes very attractive extras.

And anyone can ditch those two and go most other places in the US for half that amount.

Can you do WDW cheaper than $8000? Sure. And you can do the other for less than $5000. Sure. But comparing apples to apples.

Comparable is relative. What are you comparing WDW to?

 

[LSUmiss]

I just priced two vacations. Same week, same number of days. Both semi-comparable hotels. Both similar park tickets. Both including food.

WDW was $8000. The other was $5000.

That’s a huge difference. And I honestly wouldn’t say the prices are comparable. Plus the cheaper one is a nicer hotel and includes very attractive extras.

And anyone can ditch those two and go most other places in the US for half that amount.

Can you do WDW cheaper than $8000? Sure. And you can do the other for less than $5000. Sure. But comparing apples to apples.

It’s the “similar” park tickets though. What park? I’m not interested in any other theme parks & many aren’t. I expect to pay more for wdw b/c it’s better quality. Even with the quality declining IMO, I still think it’s better than any other. When I compared costs, I compare other types of luxury vacations & wdw is always similarly priced if not cheaper.

 

[bcla]

I agree. Whenever I see an argument made that overstates the case like that, it is a clarion call for me that even the person who is making the argument realizes that it is not valid with distorting things.

I don't see that as extreme in the slightest; it's the actuality as far as anyone has ever relayed the facts. As a matter of fact, Walt likely disliked much of what was going on in the company while he was alive. He deferred to Roy because he knew Roy was better at making the hard decisions that have always had to be made in business. And if anything, Roy was successful for a long time at keeping Walt's tendencies from damaging the company, and in the end it was Roy's decline and death that ended up being the thing that put the company on the ropes.

Regardless, in the end, I think you've hit on a better way to answer the question: What would Walt have thought? He would has thought to ask Roy.

Roy named and built Walt Disney World after Walt's death. Much of it was built to his specifications.

 

[Spencer Wright]

....What would Walt have thought? He would has thought to ask Roy.

I totally agree!

 

[Spencer Wright]

.....How can they compare Disneyland prices with anything else because there is nothing else like it.

At the very least, that I have to agree with! I will say collecting tickets for books and trading tickets seems like something which would be great fun.

 

[luvsJack]

It’s the “similar” park tickets though. What park? I’m not interested in any other theme parks & many aren’t. I expect to pay more for wdw b/c it’s better quality. Even with the quality declining IMO, I still think it’s better than any other. When I compared costs, I compare other types of luxury vacations & wdw is always similarly priced if not cheaper.

But you are one person. You can’t say ”it’s not comparable” because you don’t want to compare.

It was WDW and Universal. Universal stay at Hard Rock and WDW at a value. 2 adults/ 3 kids. 6 day park hoppers at WDW. Unlimited 3 park tickets at Universal. Dining plan at both. Universal actually included tickets for the the entire time of stay (Saturday-Saturday) and at WDW it was 6 days tickets.

Hard Rock is head and shoulders above the value resorts. Much more of a luxury resort. And includes unlimited express pass.

Have you been to Universal? I fail to see how anyone can say WDW is better quality. The same perhaps, not better.

 

[LSUmiss]

But you are one person. You can’t say ”it’s not comparable” because you don’t want to compare.

It was WDW and Universal. Universal stay at Hard Rock and WDW at a value. 2 adults/ 3 kids. 6 day park hoppers at WDW. Unlimited 3 park tickets at Universal. Dining plan at both. Universal actually included tickets for the the entire time of stay (Saturday-Saturday) and at WDW it was 6 days tickets.

Hard Rock is head and shoulders above the value resorts. Much more of a luxury resort. And includes unlimited express pass.

Have you been to Universal? I fail to see how anyone can say WDW is better quality. The same perhaps, not better.

Yes. I’ve been to universal. It’s just not my thing. I say quality in the overall Disney product itself...movies etc. I understand that I’m one person but so are you. So I’m saying they’re many on both sides. But I think wdw can still get away with costing more even if it’s just marketing. I don’t anyone who has a once in a lifetime trip to universal. It’s just a place you go.

 

[luvsJack]

Yes. I’ve been to universal. It’s just not my thing. I say quality in the overall Disney product itself...movies etc. I understand that I’m one person but so are you. So I’m saying they’re many on both sides. But I think wdw can still get away with costing more even if it’s just marketing. I don’t anyone who has a once in a lifetime trip to universal. It’s just a place you go.

You may not know anyone that does that but many do. A lot of families do not want to spend thousands on a trip before their child can remember (I took Dd when she was that young so I am not one of those people), then their kids become huge HP fans or crazy about Dinosaurs or Cat in The Hat or whatever so they spend their once in a lifetime trip and go to Universal. Not all children are all about Disney characters or even like them. Doesn’t make them wrong.

Both Disney and Universal are destinations for most people. Neither are just “a place you go”.

$3000 is a lot more. Like a whole vacation more. And actually for less. Disney May get away with charging more from now on. And they may not. We don’t know the future. But quality has nothing to do with it.

I love both places. Next Orlando trip will most likely be to Disney. But I see the high quality of both. Universal isn’t just a place to stop off while in Orlando.

 

[LSUmiss]

You may not know anyone that does that but many do. A lot of families do not want to spend thousands on a trip before their child can remember (I took Dd when she was that young so I am not one of those people), then their kids become huge HP fans or crazy about Dinosaurs or Cat in The Hat or whatever so they spend their once in a lifetime trip and go to Universal. Not all children are all about Disney characters or even like them. Doesn’t make them wrong.

Both Disney and Universal are destinations for most people. Neither are just “a place you go”.

$3000 is a lot more. Like a whole vacation more. And actually for less. Disney May get away with charging more from now on. And they may not. We don’t know the future. But quality has nothing to do with it.

I love both places. Next Orlando trip will most likely be to Disney. But I see the high quality of both. Universal isn’t just a place to stop off while in Orlando.

My point is not about comparing the 2 & what’s better. We are a Disney family so we would pay extra even if universal is cheaper. Those that like universal like you know probably wouldn’t price wdw if it’s not important to them. I doubt ppl make a decision of where to go solely on price. It’s more about interest. Mk is still the most visited theme park on the world so there are many ppl who aren’t pricing the 2. I think wdw & universal both charge what they can get away with.

 

[luvsJack]

My point is not about comparing the 2 & what’s better. We are a Disney family so we would pay extra even if universal is cheaper. Those that like universal like you know probably wouldn’t price wdw if it’s not important to them. I doubt ppl make a decision of where to go solely on price. It’s more about interest. Mk is still the most visited theme park on the world so there are many ppl who aren’t pricing the 2. I think wdw & universal both charge what they can get away with.

MK is still on top, no disagreement there. Because of a lot of reasons.

You said it’s a higher quality. I disagree. Quality of a theme park, to me is quality entertainment and attractions, cleanliness, excited, over the top helpful and nice employees and quality food. Maybe it means something else to you?

Someone else said the price is comparable to other vacation destinations. Ok. But a $3000 difference is not comparable.

People do compare the prices. People so see what else they can do for the price they pay at Disney. Maybe not many here on a Disney fan site but they do.

In all reality I don’t think Disney is any danger of doing themselves in. Not going to happen at least for a long time. But who knows, Universal will soon add a 4th gate. Never know. A lot may depend on the quality of the upcoming new things at Disney or the way that quality is perceived.

There will always be people that don’t even consider going anywhere but Disney. And there will always be people who won’t even consider going to Disney. Just he way people are.

But the question was what would Walt think. I don’t know, hard to say. When Roy opened WDW, there was no competition. Now there is. I wonder what their take on that would be.

 

[Disney Doll]

I can't see him liking the poor quality and money grubbing that we see so often nowadays. However he might have been fascinated with some of the technology but hopefully not that pathetic website!

I agree.

 

[vacationer1954]

Roy named and built Walt Disney World after Walt's death. Much of it was built to his specifications.

Including all the sponsorships and how they were supposed to pay much of the operating costs of the park.

 

[bcla]

Including all the sponsorships and how they were supposed to pay much of the operating costs of the park.

Walt's history was all about using sponsorships to raise money and pay for part of the costs. But of course Roy probably had a lot to do with it. Apparently Disneyland had about equal parts ownership between ABC (which got it through a Disney production deal) and his company. The history says it was 34.48% ABC, 34.48% Walt Disney Productions, 16.55% Walt's personal ownership, and 13.8% Western Publishing (publisher of Little Golden books). A ton of restaurants and attractions were sponsored on opening day.

 

[vacationer1954]

Yes, and so when sponsorship no longer became an attractive proposition to enough sponsors, changes are expected, changes that are analogous to what happens when you take the commercial breaks out of television programs. We can see that impact directly on Hulu: They have two prices, one with commercials (sponsorships) and one without. Costs to the consumer increase when no longer subsidized as much by advertising.

Roy would have explained that to Walt, and Walt would have, as he did many times while they worked together, accepted the reality. Without Roy - well - that would have been a big problem.

 

[Hikergirl]

I just priced two vacations. Same week, same number of days. Both semi-comparable hotels. Both similar park tickets. Both including food.

WDW was $8000. The other was $5000.

That’s a huge difference. And I honestly wouldn’t say the prices are comparable. Plus the cheaper one is a nicer hotel and includes very attractive extras.

And anyone can ditch those two and go most other places in the US for half that amount.

Can you do WDW cheaper than $8000? Sure. And you can do the other for less than $5000. Sure. But comparing apples to apples.

And that is the point, you can do WDW for less than that, which is why I said WDW gives you plenty of options for a vacation YOU can afford.
If you can only afford a $5000 vacation then it is possible to go to WDW and have a great vacation.
The only thing that Disney forces you to pay for to walk into any of the parks are the tickets. You get to pick whatever mode of travel to get there you want, hotel you want, you get to choose your own way of local transportation and your own food budget.
If we are talking about being priced out, using your example, if $8000 prices you out, then change things around so it costs you $5K, if $5K prices you out then you aren't going to vacation at that other park either.

 

[GreatLakes]

If Disney were alive today he likely wouldn't be aware enough of his surroundings to have an opinion on his company. He would have just turned 117 and considering his years of drinking and smoking I doubt it would be a healthy 117.

 

[rickybobby]

Walt was a visionary, the kind of person that is so very rarely seen. Sure, Roy was the level headed brother who brought the stability to Walt's grandiose plans, but Walt had that knack for making whatever he set his mind to, into something spectacular. He probably wouldn't like what Disney is now, for one thing, because it is no longer his baby. He liked controlling things.
Steve Jobs also falls into that category. I don't see Apple as ever being the same without him.