Again, Disney makes money strictly on 4S using their property, and ANY increase in park attendance, even if it's a relatively small % of those USING the 4S resort, is an affluent demo with lots of disposable income...which means more per capita spending. And again, it's risk vs reward. Disney is taking practically no risk and investing little to no capital on the project. Not to mention, if you look at some of Disney's recent marketing, it's obvious they're trying to tap into this demo so the 4S resort goes along with that plan.
That's the bean counter view, sure. Why risk anything when you can get somebody else to sign a lease and give you a guaranteed cut.
Problem is, that does not take opportunity cost into the equation. Your view of risk reward never would have built DL or WDW in the first place.
Yes, I'm well aware of Disney's recent marketing efforts, and I'm also well aware that its a market they have unsuccessfully chased before.
You misunderstand. What I'm saying is EVEN a $20 rate cut is a significant % savings.
No, I don't. There is not a significant enough difference in the price points to prevent significant overlap.
You're assuming all those units would be filled by WDW guests. I don't think that's remotely a valid assumption.
That's so far off from reality I'm not sure how to respond to it. WDW is the major draw in the area. Most vacationers in the Orlando area hotels make WDW at least a significant portion of their trip. And now you suggest it's not even remotely valid to say that the majority of units in a development right outside WDW's gates on Disney-owned property will be occupied by WDW guests?
Again, 4000 superbudget rooms, with less value, simply isn't enough to put much of a dent in the higher value 8000 budget rooms.
And again, this is where your argument suffers a significant breakdown. They aren't 4000-5000 "superbudget" rooms. If these are superbudget, what will you call the quality budget establishments without the location benefit? How about the less than quality establishments? The new rooms are going to be priced higher than these other categories, yet lower than Disney's "value" rooms and there isn't enough space in there to create a unique market.
Sure, but are you really going to assume, having no data at all, that the bean counters numbers are "bad"? If so, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. I think Disney conducts as much, if not more, market research than just about any company, and certainly any entertainment, media, or "tourism-base" company, on the planet.
I don't assume anything, which is where the heart of our difference on this subject lies.
On the Pop front, surely you can't be serious? You expect the bean counters to be able to predict 9/11 and the resulting demolishing of the tourism industry? I don't think that's a fair assessment on any level.
I never said they needed to predict 9/11. However, most other tourist destinations had fully recovered by 2005, and even WDW set new attendance records in 2006. Yet the 2nd half of Pop isn't even being worked on. Clearly there were significant miscalculations.
9/11 could explain a timing delay of a year or 3, but it doesn't explain why Pop2 still sits as it is.
On the GF front...again, I'm not sure that's a fair accusation, either. While the GF may have been envisioned as a 5 * resort when it was built, it wasn't built as what TODAY is considered a 5* resort....like the 4Seasons or the Ritz-Carlton resorts.
That's a weak excuse. The GF never reached 5 stars in any time period, while other operators acheived it then and now. Its not like the only resorts to get 5-stars are those built in the last 5 years.
It's facilities, now, peg it squarely at 4*...maybe 4.5*...
Its actually a 4 with
AAA and a 3 with Mobil.
In addition, Disney has one thing it simply can't overcome with the clientele that visits that sort of resort: Name.
Another ridiculous argument. Disney simply chooses not to try anymore, and instead take the "less risky", and therefore less rewarding way out. And again, the whole point to the GF tangent is that Disney's "bean counters" thought they could do it. Did you disagree with them then, or did you simply assume they were right?
Again, you're comparing demand pre-9/11, and decisions made then, with current demand. That's just not a fair comparison, nor is it an apt one. It's also not a fair picture of "demand not being there" as a reasoning for any decisions that are made.
No, you are ignoring the fact that 9/11 no longer impacts demand, and hasn't for several years. It was a valid argument in 2003, not now.
There have been far more successes than failures.
Disney Cruise Line, the Oriental Land partnership, ESPN, DL's 50th, DVC, etc, etc. Pointing out a few mis-steps isn't particually compelling when viewing the sum as a whole.
By and large, they get it right. I'm not willing to bet against them on this one because, quite frankly, there isn't enough evidence to think otherwise. Other than a general "doom and gloom" perspective, that is.
So many success that the stock languished for over 10 years, and even the recent uptick doesn't come close to making up for that.
And for successes, you include DL's 50th? A nice short term marketing promotion yes, but its a drop in the bucket compared to the opportunity lost with something like DCA or DSP.
You're main evidence continues to be that you trust them. If that works for you, fine, but it doesn't go very far in discussions.
Notice there is still a fear of terrorism, and effects from that fear, etc, that is having a lasting effect on the industry. Sure, they're dwindling but you have no further to look than political polls to see Homeland Security (or problems with it) are still primarily on the mind of the American people. So are gas prices. So are the increased energy costs. So are lots of things that discourage travel amongst the middle class family demo. None of those concerns, to date, have actually been resolved.
They are resolved enough for tourism to make a full recovery, and in many cases for it to have made that recovery several years ago. People may think about all those things, but they are back to taking their vacations and have been for several years.
