Making the Caste System work within the Disney philosophy – A “What If” game

[DC7800]

It centered on the way to make the Moderate and Economy versions of resorts fit within the Disney philosophy. Or at the very least, less overt in the distinction of class, income, socioeconomic, etc.

There was absolutely no reason - and no excuse - that Disney's value resorts had to be built with "crimes against fiberglass" (AV). From a business perspective (as I understand it), those decorated motels had to be less expensive in every way (to build, operate, maintain, etc.) to meet some sort of "return on investment" criteria. Fine, but what in that business model dicates the Funky Chicken?

I don't know how much more it would cost (in 2004 dollars) to build one Polynesian longhouse, one Contemporary wing, than one Pop Century building. I'm only guessing, but I suspect that one of the unfinished PC buildings could be finished-out as a Polynesian look-alike for not significantly more - if any - than the oversize icons cost. PC has smaller rooms and exterior corridors, but basically it's just an adjoined rectangular shell with rooms in it, same as the longhouse. It would be a somewhat less elaborate "fake" replica, with wood covering the concrete shell of the building, but it's possible.

Now, obviously I'm not advocating literally duplicating the Polynesian. There are plenty of unbuilt themes for WDW resorts which could have been applied to this bare-shell "value" resort building. But, they weren't. Instead, we got decorated motel-6's when we didn't have to. Apply a minimum of creativity and effort, and the same money might have given us a themed resort instead of a tacky decorated one. I'm also not pretending the application of a "theme" to value buildings would suddenly transform them into proper Disney-standards resorts. My point, simply, is that getting rid of the tackiness is a necessary prerequisite.

There are things WDW could do even now to improve the standards of these resorts, for little money and hopefully without Burbank interference. Some portions of the All-Stars are already marginally better than others (or perhaps, slightly less tacky), such as Music's Broadway. Removal of the lettering atop the Pop Century would make those buildings look far better. When refurbishment time comes, introduce softer colors, improved furnishings, and replace some of the "icons" with more suble "theming". More amenities could - and should - be added anytime. Things such as room service, valet parking, and the like are services that pay for themselves. With almost 6,000 rooms a piece, PC and the combined All-Stars should have at least one full-service restaurant each.

I don't buy the argument that value-resort guests don't want full-service dining or other hotel services. That sounds too much like Eisner's "Wal-Mart crowd" attitude. Besides, there are 6,000 rooms in each value resort area. Even if there are proportionally fewer guests here who want these amenities, there are more guests total to make up the difference.

 

[crusader]

Are the bus stops at the parks set up in the caste system with their distances away from the gate?

I'm not really sure but it's a great intro to one of several things I've been tossing around for this discussion which is proximity.

Must every resort be strategically located within visual proximity to a park in order to fully achieve immersion in true philosophical fashion?

My first thought was absolutely. My second thought was not necessarily. And so the debate begins.

Baron, if you go back to that wonderful Eisner thread you'll notice that when I posed a question to you about absolutes, your reply did not include this as a must. (That mere omission has unfortunately left me in the lurch so to speak)

Because I wasn't approaching this as a scrap and start over idea. I was beginning where Walt left off - two resorts and a campground surrounding one park which is accessible only via Disney transport.

With respect to the resort itself, access has to be the key room distinction. Whether it be to the resort amenities or transportation depots or any other venue including the parks.

A value type accomodation has to be remotely located and noticeably inconvienent compared to the higher paying guest.

Otherwise, we'll all be waiting to get a cheaper room and wouldn't be the least bit concerned about how much time it takes.

 

[DancingBear]

Originally posted by DC7800 I don't know how much more it would cost (in 2004 dollars) to build one Polynesian longhouse, one Contemporary wing, than one Pop Century building. I'm only guessing, but I suspect that one of the unfinished PC buildings could be finished-out as a Polynesian look-alike for not significantly more - if any - than the oversize icons cost. PC has smaller rooms and exterior corridors, but basically it's just an adjoined rectangular shell with rooms in it, same as the longhouse. It would be a somewhat less elaborate "fake" replica, with wood covering the concrete shell of the building, but it's possible.

I give more credit to Disney that they DO know how much more it would cost. Leaving aside thematic touches, aren't the differences between the Value resorts and the Deluxe resorts the distinctions between value and deluxe accomodations elsewhere in the hotel industry? Smaller rooms, more basic furniture, exterior corridors, no food service/valet/other amenities. It seems clear to me that this hotel industry thinks that this is where the savings are to be had.

As to the thematic elements, don't you think that, again Disney DOES know how much more it would cost to clad their buildings in some high-maintenance unique decorative style rather than stucco and paint, with low-maintenance fiberglass figures?

There are things WDW could do even now to improve the standards of these resorts, for little money and hopefully without Burbank interference.... More amenities could - and should - be added anytime. Things such as room service, valet parking, and the like are services that pay for themselves. With almost 6,000 rooms a piece, PC and the combined All-Stars should have at least one full-service restaurant each.

First, the more amenities you add, the less justification you have for higher price points at the Deluxe resorts. Second, I think you underestimate the costs and the practicality of such amenities. If these things pay for themselves, why doesn't EconoLodge do them? Room service would require (i) kitchen facilities designed for that purpose, (ii) cooks to prepare the food, (iii) somebody to deliver the food, and (iv) some way to keep the food warm when being delivered around a large exterior corridor multiple building resort. Re valet parking, one of the ways Value resorts are different is they minimize the size of the grounds/landscaping and keep the parking lots closer to the rooms. So, less demand for valet parking. Third, I think you over-estimate the demand. Folks are self-selecting for the Value resorts to save money (and many love them). Why would the guy that doesn't want to pay the extra $10/night for a premium building at the All-Stars want to pay for valet parking? How many times have I read on the Boards comments like "We just sleep in the rooms anyway, so I love the Value resorts."

 

[DancingBear]

Originally posted by Lewisc
AKL really does what you're talking about. Standard rooms, pool view rooms, savanah and finally concierage. Your price points and view differences are similar to a cruise ship.

A fair point, but the way they did it was to create a very unique view opportunity, equivalent to having the ocean and the islands outside of your balcony. Is that an idea that can be replicated? And is it really a good business model, or did Disney build this on the basis of overestimating what they could charge for the Standard rooms?

 

[Cricket2]

I'm going to "build" it (with your help of course )!

Look for a new thread coming to a R&N forum near you...

Make your list of things that need to be included if you will and I'll add them as you list them but wait till you see (that's right, see) the master plan first.

Hopefully I can get the basic layout done today.

Wish me luck, I'm going to need it with you guys looking over my shoulder.


JC

P.S. No food or drink in my office and please keep your hands and feet inside the boat at all times.

 

[Lewisc]

I'd say it's equivalent to a cruise ship in which some rooms have a view of the ocean (savanagh) and some rooms have a view of the parking lot (inside cabins). I suspect it's the nature of the beast, unless you access the AKL through a long tunel some of the rooms have to front the parking lot and not the animals.

Interior corridors don't just add to the construction cost but to the upkeep. You have the hallways to cool, carpet paint etc. You also have the balcony to furnish and upkeep.

I think the Disney does a pretty good job, Value appeals to people who want an inexpensive place to sleep, moderate for people who want a little more and then 2 levels of deluxe. At times of deep discounts Values go for around $60, moderates for $90 and deluxe (AKL) for maybe $130. Not really sure if there is room for additional classes of resorts or rooms.

Disney has determined that the huge icons are an inexpensive way to theme the value hotels. I'm sure they considered other options.

Originally posted by DancingBear
A fair point, but the way they did it was to create a very unique view opportunity, equivalent to having the ocean and the islands outside of your balcony. Is that an idea that can be replicated? And is it really a good business model, or did Disney build this on the basis of overestimating what they could charge for the Standard rooms?

 

[KNWVIKING]

I've never heard from anyone who has actually stayed at an AS that the Icons weren't cool. They thought they neat, their kids got a big kick out of them.

 

[Lewisc]

Originally posted by KNWVIKING
I've never heard from anyone who has actually stayed at an AS that the Icons weren't cool. They thought they neat, their kids got a big kick out of them.

Good point. I think the present icons may be MUCH better than attempting to come up with a budget POLY theming. The AS compare (favorably) to the offsite Econolodge, Days Inn type of places. I'm not so sure a value version of the POLY would compare favorably to the real thing.

In fact I disagree with the premise. Other than the shampoo dispensers people I know who stay in the All Stars are very happy. Clean, good bus transporation. The people I know who are staying there prefer the food courts to full service restaurants.

 

[Cricket2]

Originally posted by Lewisc
Good point. I think the present icons may be MUCH better than attempting to come up with a budget POLY theming.

What exactly is all that different construction wise that would be so difficult to budget down?

AS=flat roof Poly=wood beams (could be easily faked)

AS=elastomeric paint Poly=wood

AS=trees minimal landscaping Poly=so much landscaping you feel like you need a machete to get to your car.

What am I missing? How much do you think it costs to make a 3 story metal Big-Wheel?

JC

 

[Lewisc]

I think you answered your own question. I suspect the landscaping expenses of a deluxe are much greater than the value resorts. Not just the expenses to landscape but the annual budget. I think the lifeguard requirements of a pool complex with a slide are a lot greater. Seeing a budget "POLY" with sparse landscaping would (IMHO) be worse than the 3 story icons we have.

Originally posted by Mr. J. Cricket
What exactly is all that different construction wise that would be so difficult to budget down?

AS=flat roof Poly=wood beams (could be easily faked)

AS=elastomeric paint Poly=wood

AS=trees minimal landscaping Poly=so much landscaping you feel like you need a machete to get to your car.

What am I missing? How much do you think it costs to make a 3 story metal Big-Wheel?

JC

 

[Experiment626]

Originally posted by Mr. J. Cricket
What exactly is all that different construction wise that would be so difficult to budget down?

AS=flat roof Poly=wood beams (could be easily faked)

AS=elastomeric paint Poly=wood

AS=trees minimal landscaping Poly=so much landscaping you feel like you need a machete to get to your car.

What am I missing? How much do you think it costs to make a 3 story metal Big-Wheel?

JC

But if you limit the trees, use paint to mimmick wood, etc all you will end up with is the resort version of dinorama.

There are really two seperate issues being debated here:
1. merging a value and deluxe resort into one (ie, the 'cruise ship' model)
2. creating something at the value price point that is more deluxe in nature.

Number 1 is up against the fact that when dealing with the resorts the price differences are based on ammenities other than room size/features.

Number 2 is up against the fact that if you attempt to offer more deluxe theming or ammenities the price points are bound to start to creap upwards, or you end up doing it cheaper (example: pizza delivery service at the AS resorts instead of full room service)

I'm probably the wrong person for this debate. I'm the one that stays at the Epcot resorts when I want 'deluxe' ammentities (larger rooms, direct access to the boardwalk, and ability to walk to 2 parks) and go to the All Stars for my solo trips when its just me and all I really need is 'a place to sleep at night' and a foodcourt. In the end I don't compare the All Stars with the deluxes... rather, I compare the All Stars with the off site resorts and for me they win hands down.

 

[YoHo]

I refuse to play this game. I've recently been told via "sources" that it cost about 1.7 time the cost of the the All Stars to run the Poly. Which means if it costs $75 a room at the AS, it costs $127.5 per room for the Poly.

I don't think you could do a Poly style hotel for less, but what I would suggest is that you COULD create a resort complex that has multiple levels of resorts within one themed area.

This is not my idea, it was given to me by a "different" source, but it was an original resort plan for Disney.

The trick is, you create a single theme and put different levels of resorts in that theme. Look, landscaping, maintainence and Laundry services are all centralized.


The concept was laid out for Animal Kingdom based on the Hamarabe market area. The marketplace is the central area and theme. The govenor's mansion was a bed and breakfest style theme at the high end. The old Hotel from Colonial days might be the typical Deluxe, the old Safari Lodge is a mod. You can live at the animal research center in sparce quarters and then you can actually live with the tribe in huts (communal bathroom/camping.)

The theming elements are centeral. Their costs spread out and spread out even across the entire world.

Room prices are based soley on the nature of the "room. Not on the number of plants in the planter space outside.

 

[crusader]

YoHo -

Given how great the Lodge is at AK, what would cause someone to pay more and book a B&B at Disney?

Wouldn't the upper end market prefer seclusion and privacy?

But I understand your point regarding the theme. It appears very similar in theory to the original blueprint for the MK resorts.

My only real concern is where you place the values in this model. They look to be camping in huts so to speak which would have been perfectly acceptable in 1972 but not now. People fly more, stay in hotels and have smaller families to accomodate on vacation.

So are we saying that Disney is only offering the option to camp to those on a low budget? That doesn't seem right for today's market.

 

[YoHo]

Crusader, the animal research center is the Value resort very sparce accomidaitons. The huts are the camp grounds pure and simple. the uniqueness of the setting would probably draw guests.

The way this was originally laid out, there would have been no AKL. AKL was chosen by Disney instead of this. I used the original setting of AK, because it was mostly a cut and paste post to do that.

Still, I find it interesting that you think that Deluxe guests want seclusion and privacy. Is that really ture? I don't consider the Poly to be particularly private. And how many people NOT staying at the Y&B go to Beaches and Cream?

Seclusion is the theory under which the Grand Floridian was built and I would suggest that theory was a failure since Grand Floridian failed to get it's 5 stars and you can still come and go as you please.

Heck, I would suggest that PO and Riverside are far more secluded then any of he the Deluxes with the exception of AKL.


In many ways, this concept is the logical extension of both the original resorts and the Boardwalk area.
In fact the boardwalk prior to Disney falling in love with DVC was supposed to have similar accomidations with Y&B as the Deluxes.

 

[crusader]

I should have chosen a better word.

I really was speaking in terms of the accomodations, not the location. In other words, a high end clientele would more than likely prefer to check in and disappear somewhere.

A Bed & Breakfast just isn't structured that way.

So yes, I do feel deluxe guests are looking to vacation with privacy.

That's an interesting theory on The Grand Floridian. It isn't what I'd consider secluded at all. (The Treehouses definately were.)
So I don't understand how seclusion became the premise behind that resort?

 

[YoHo]

Seclusion is the wrong word there as well. It should be Exclusion and exclusionary. In other words if you hadn't ponied up the big bucks to stay there, you don't get to even get off the monorail there.
That was the original conception behind it.

 

[crusader]

Exclusion eh?

Well then I'd argue it didn't fail to deliver on that message. What it failed to consider was the prejudice I would develop toward it from day one simply because they outpriced me.

Not because I couldn't afford it, but because I wouldn't pay for it.

 

[Cricket2]

Originally posted by crusader
Not because I couldn't afford it, but because I wouldn't pay for it.

Is that due to lack of value or disinterest in the resort itself?

JC

 

[crusader]

Value is psychological.

I've said before, there is a psychological limit a consumer is willing to pay for something.

When the Grand Floridian first opened, I seem to recall a pricing of $280/night. That was an aggressive move for this company in 1988 since it mimicked the cost of hotels such as the Four Seasons.

My first thought process was: what's so great about the Floridian that it can demand such a price? The only assumption I could come up with was luxury and that just wasn't enough of a selling point without prior knowledge.

It remains the case today. I have visited the resort and checked out the rooms and was surprised by the uneventfulness of the accomodations. Something's missing.

While the resort is certainly beautiful and I love the look of it - I don't like the feel of it.

So maybe, value and interest go hand in hand. If the price dropped would I jump? Good question.

 

[jenfur]

I am just a frequent lurker on this board and probably won't add much, BUT I don't think the caste system really works well at Disney at all. I mean, I would be considered on the lowest level with a yearly income of less than 25,000. My income level has not changed since I started going to Disney, but I feel completely free to stay where I want and plan to stay at the Grand Floridian this year. Wealthy people may cough up a large amount of money at once for a deluxe, and less wealthy people save for a year or more and want the best as well. There is nowhere in Disney for the elite to avoid the little guys. People with less yearly income are probably willing to spend more on the dream "once in a lifetime vacation" than wealthy people who go all the time. Of course, I have gone every year since my first trip and do not plan to stop. I pay no attention to cost but very much attention to theming and amenities. I then save according to what I want not what most people would say I can afford. I stayed at AS first because my kids really liked the theme, but as they got older they now prefer other resorts based on the atmosphere and pool. DD chose Poly and DS chose CSR. I don't know how typical I am but the people at the high end of the caste need to know that we on the low end really cannot be avoided, WE ARE EVERYWHERE