New Four Seasons Timeshare on Disney Property and Value Oriented West Side

[paulh]

with this anouncement it seams more likely that disneys ony hotel expansions will be only dvc add ons to dellux hotels.So how soon will they anounce dvc at contempory, poly and grandfloridian.Not to forget the disney land hotels
Paulh

 

[Another Voice]

Please tell me, what do you think the REALISTIC answer is?

I want the place to be unique.

I want it to be different. I want to be able to walk the grounds and think to myself “this could only happen here”.

I want the real magic of group of talented and dedicated people to show through everything they do. I want whimsy, I want fun, I want something I have never seen before.

I want Walt Disney World.

I want to dream of flying through outer space, not of 800 thread count sheets on my hotel bed. I want my son to imagine he’s on a safari deep into the wilds of Africa, not about which Happy Meal toy he wants. I want to be share the excitement with people from all over the world, not some fat### corporate larva rich enough to buy 1/12th of a luxury home and is already bored with the place.

I want space for future generations to dream. I want potential to remain – and the idea that “the future will be better than today” can remain alive.

I want Disney to have the confidence it once had. I want it to believe in itself again. I want it to have faith they can create a place people want to see, that it can treat guests as they used to, and that Disney will be successful.

And I want a Disney that’s willing to do the hard work to make it all work.

I want “Disney” to stand for more than just a brand name.

 

[Maistre Gracey]

I want the place to be unique.

I want it to be different. I want to be able to walk the grounds and think to myself “this could only happen here”.

I want the real magic of group of talented and dedicated people to show through everything they do. I want whimsy, I want fun, I want something I have never seen before.

I want Walt Disney World.

I want to dream of flying through outer space, not of 800 thread count sheets on my hotel bed. I want my son to imagine he’s on a safari deep into the wilds of Africa, not which Happy Meal toy he wants. I want to be share the excitement with people from all over the world, not some fat### corporate larva rich enough to buy 1/12th of a luxury home and is already bored with the place.

I want space to for future generations to dream. I want potential to remain – that the idea of “the future will be better than today” can remain alive.

I want Disney to have the confidence it once had. I want it to believe in itself again. I want it to have faith they can create a place people want to see, treat guests as days they used to, and that they will be successful.

And I want a Disney that’s willing to do the hard work to make it all work.

I want “Disney” to stand for more than just a brand name.

Very nicely written, and I agree 100%.
Now, is that realistic? I mean, it takes more than hard work to achieve this worthy goal. It takes lots of money.

As I said earlier...

Look, I know everyone's dream is for Disney to build monorails around the entire property, have 6 theme parks, buy more land and build anouther 20 deluxe resorts (and fill every room), massively increase the maintenance budget, and add 3 billion in new e-ticket attractions.

MG

 

[Maistre Gracey]

Na-ah, you.

I can't imagine falling in love with 6 letters no matter how the meaning of those letters changes. Slap Disney on the box and certain people will fall all over themselves to praise it.

Heck, now, Disney doesn't even have to be the box.

You may lack the ability to evaluate decisions on their merit and simply praise them based on the name on the box, but some do still think for themselves.

I'd like to say that when I use the word "you", I'm not referring to anyone in particular, but rather the board optimists in general.

I do think I evaluate things pretty critically. That doesn't mean my perspective parallels yours.

There are many things "Disney" that I don't care for, don't care about, or don't think are done correctly.
With that said, on balance I do like Disney.

MG

 

[larry_poppins]

This 4seasons announcement is really just the latest nail in the Disney coffin which for me began with no swimming in the Contemporary and Polynesian Beaches and the removal of Mickey butter. It has been ten years of lowering my expectations. These two new projects are not only not the Disney of old, but they are boring. Who cares about another 4seasons or a Comfort Inn on the Western edge of the property? With the exception of Tokyo DisneySea every project Disney has worked on since 1995 has been a big bore. I am certainly not flying to Florida to have dinner at the 4 Seasons.

My question is why would anyone buy fractional ownership at WDW 4 Seasons? The parks are crowded with dated attractions. Maintenance is forgotten. Will there be a monorail to the 4Seasons? Certainly they won't have to take busses? I bet they will have boat service and it may put the WDW boat service to shame. Otherwise why stay there? Why not stay at the Grand Floridian? Sure it will have an elitist golf course, but so do half a dozen other Central FLorida locations. There are already Ritz Carltons, JWMarriotts and soon a Waldorf Astoria in Central Florida.

What a big bore!

 

[Maistre Gracey]

MG, is there anything you care about regarding Disney's past? And I don't mean that the Tiki Room is sacred or anything, but is there anything you value about the philosophy and vision on which the company was built?

And, more importantly, do you have any vision as to what Disney, and WDW might become in the future? Are you willing just to accept every decision of this nature?

Perhaps you don't care whether or not they closed the Hunchback show, or installed another spinner in Adventureland. But doesn't this sort of decision have any significance to you?

Can you respond to the concept that this is a major step beyond outsourcing backroom payroll accounting functions?

McDonalds wasn't founded on serving steak and lobster. Disney WAS founded on providing outstanding service, and an immersive experience.

This is really about something significant within the company. These decisions are about a philosophy of what Disney is about and what the land at WDW is for that is frankly depressing for many of us. What is your big picture view?

As I said in my last post, there are things that I don't care for and wish were done differently. The spinner in Adventureland is a prime example.
However, I still see much more good than bad. A prime example of recent good is Expedition Everest.

Although I have grown up going to Disney, and still go four times a year, I'm not a true historian like many of you here are. I do understand a lot of the initial vision, however I also realize a business must survive. In order to do that not all core principles may be exercised at all times.

I would rather see the "Everest/spinner compromise" than see WDW faultering because they refuse to adapt to today's business models.

MG

 

[Another Voice]

Now, is that realistic? I mean, it takes more than hard work to achieve this worthy goal. It takes lots of money.

The company was a fraction of its current size and had almost no available resources, yet Disney stunned the world in 1955, 1966, 1971, and 1982.

Yet today the company has billions and billions at its command and all we get is chain hotels and mildly amusing TV commericals turned into sitcoms.

The difference is guts. Disney used to beleive in itself. It used to beleive they could go out and build what ever they wished - they just had to figure out how. That kind of attitude, that kind of trust in themselves resulted in places that people in the millions came to see.

But Disney is dead. The creative heart stopped beating a long time ago. Instead of leading the public, instead of risking on something "new", Disney began to take the cheap and easy way out. It's pandering to people now.

Walt Disney World was the company's last hope. It was the last place Disney could really be creative and "wow" the world. Now they've turned it another stretch of Miami Beach. Chain hotels, chain restuarants, phony "upscale" experiences for people that can't afford the real thing. It's all gone so cheap now.

Yes, it's safer to let collect rent from Four Seasons than it would be try the high market again. Yes, it's faster to sell off land to developers rather than wait for a really good idea to come along.

But no one likes "Disney" because they're fast and easy.

 

[dunnhorn]

I actually don't see a problem with having a Four Seasons coming on board. If they couldn't get the Ritz, the Four Seasons is definitely a good choice. With no "pull" like that what else is going to encourage folks to go to Eagle Pines at Osprey Ridge? What if it was "just" another DVC? What would be the draw? I guess it could be a DVC golf resort - wait, don't we have that at Saratoga? How long has that taken to sell? Okay, so maybe not a golf resort, but *around* a golf course. Wait, isn't that OKW? So with two DVC resorts built around a golf course, and Saratoga being right next to DTD, what on earth would a DVC at Osprey have to offer other than golf?

Enter a name brand known for quality and luxury. A five star resort with standards known around the world... around a golf course, luring the (male) business travelers and conference goers who do not care about the parks.

Actually it does make some sense. This is not about the families and park goers (although there will be some.) This is about appealing to another (overlooked) clientele of Disney. My husband's uncle is an IBM exec and they stay at WDW during a yearly conference, but they go back and forth on ritzy places to stay. I suggested a tower room at Contemp, and they said they were booked and even the concierge was booked.

Also - adding more ritz and quality names to the property is going to do nothing but polish the Disney name. We have friends who stay in exclusive five star places. They were going down to Disney last year, and I suggested and heartily recommended Beach Club. They booked on my advice and know what? They hated it - said it wasn't as nice as they expected. Said they thought that it was a bit dirty... this last year they stayed at the Peabody. You think they are alone??? It costs MONEY to keep up five star stuff. All places can't be like the Floridian.

Okay - about the Value Development issue .... Really is it so bad? We have to get the All Star folks somewhere to hang out and eat so they aren't flooding the food courts. We stayed at a Value (All Star Sports) for the first time ever for 1 night in early December - it was the only room open on property - and we were there in an "off" time! The actual grounds were perfect for families and the room was adequate - - but the clientele there was anything but "family friendly." There were several young-ish groups of boys/men sitting around outside drinking what looked like beer - and the picture was cracked in the room. I remember when they were building the Value resorts, and the idea was that they would be a place for younger/budget families, but really they have become anything but. All Star is for groups and tours (and lets face it, they don't care where they stay as long as they are on or near the buses) and they have displaced the value families to Pop, which is almost always sold out. This "value" area is very far away from DTD, and really we don't want the value folks to innundate DTD anyway, because it is not built for crowds.

Anyway - my two (or make that four) cents on why this is not necessarily a bad thing for Disney. These are choices that cater towards clientele who use and visit Disney that are *other* than the family with 2.5 kids or the folks doing a Magical Gathering.

 

[DancingBear]

Very nicely written, and I agree 100%.
Now, is that realistic? I mean, it takes more than hard work to achieve this worthy goal. It takes lots of money.

Was it realistic in 1971? 'Cause it seems like they in fact used to do just was A-V was describing.

 

[BRERALEX]

I want the place to be unique.

I want it to be different. I want to be able to walk the grounds and think to myself “this could only happen here”.

I want the real magic of group of talented and dedicated people to show through everything they do. I want whimsy, I want fun, I want something I have never seen before.

I want Walt Disney World.

I want to dream of flying through outer space, not of 800 thread count sheets on my hotel bed. I want my son to imagine he’s on a safari deep into the wilds of Africa, not which Happy Meal toy he wants. I want to be share the excitement with people from all over the world, not some fat### corporate larva rich enough to buy 1/12th of a luxury home and is already bored with the place.

I want space to for future generations to dream. I want potential to remain – that the idea of “the future will be better than today” can remain alive.

I want Disney to have the confidence it once had. I want it to believe in itself again. I want it to have faith they can create a place people want to see, treat guests as days they used to, and that they will be successful.

And I want a Disney that’s willing to do the hard work to make it all work.

I want “Disney” to stand for more than just a brand name.

Thanks for that.

 

[DancingBear]

As I said in my last post, there are things that I don't care for and wish were done differently. The spinner in Adventureland is a prime example.
However, I still see much more good than bad. A prime example of recent good is Expedition Everest.

Although I have grown up going to Disney, and still go four times a year, I'm not a true historian like many of you here are. I do understand a lot of the initial vision, however I also realize a business must survive. In order to do that not all core principles may be exercised at all times.

I would rather see the "Everest/spinner compromise" than see WDW faultering because they refuse to adapt to today's business models.

Honestly, I don't think "today's business models" are really that different from days of yore. There is more pandering to short-term Wall Street expectations, but that's not about whether or not you make a profit, really.

It's not like Disney didn't have budgets before, or that they didn't make compromises. It's about what they were trying to do, vs. what current management isn't bothering to try to do.

 

[raidermatt]

I do think I evaluate things pretty critically. That doesn't mean my perspective parallels yours.

There are many things "Disney" that I don't care for, don't care about, or don't think are done correctly.
With that said, on balance I do like Disney.

MG

And likewise, those you accused of blanket criticism have varying opinions on different Disney decisions as well.

It would be one thing if nobody was offering any rationale for not approving of this decision, but that's not the case. Yet you focused on your pre-conceived, and inaccurate, assessment of the posters, not what they said in their posts.

That said, you do seem to have moved beyond that a bit with your last posts, so thank you.

Now, is that realistic? I mean, it takes more than hard work to achieve this worthy goal. It takes lots of money.

As others have said, the company made such decisions when it had much less to invest. Today's Disney is still reaping the rewards of such decisions.

Now they have far more capital at their disposal, but they choose not to do the things AV described. Yes, it takes, money, and yes, they have it.

If their strategy from the beginning was to look to other companies for investments like this, do you honestly think they would be anything close to the Disney we have before us today?

What if instead of building the Poly and Contemporary, they leased (or sold) the land to Hilton?

What if instead of all of the other deluxes, they leased all of that land to Sheraton?

What if instead of the All-Stars, they really did just turn the land over to Motel 6 or Holiday Inn?

In all of those cases the company had far fewer resources at their disposal than they do now, yet with the exception of the S/D, they made the investment themselves. How they executed on that decision is another matter, but the point is they did it.

So there's no basis for saying they can't do it now. What's more, would WDW hold the same meaning to most people if instead of the Poly, Contemp, AKL and Boardwalk there were Hiltons and Sheratons all over the place?

I'm pretty sure this decision isn't going to sink WDW financially in the near future, and it may even turn out to be a money maker in the long term. But the opportunity cost of making this decision is tremedous and largely permanent, even if it is a lease. And what's more, it puts things on the table that could make even the most pixie-dusted fan cringe.

 

[DancingBear]

I actually don't see a problem with having a Four Seasons coming on board. If they couldn't get the Ritz, the Four Seasons is definitely a good choice. With no "pull" like that what else is going to encourage folks to go to Eagle Pines at Osprey Ridge? What if it was "just" another DVC? What would be the draw? I guess it could be a DVC golf resort - wait, don't we have that at Saratoga? How long has that taken to sell? Okay, so maybe not a golf resort, but *around* a golf course. Wait, isn't that OKW? So with two DVC resorts built around a golf course, and Saratoga being right next to DTD, what on earth would a DVC at Osprey have to offer other than golf?

So the universe of choices here was the Golf DVC vs. Four Seasons?

Enter a name brand known for quality and luxury. A five star resort with standards known around the world... around a golf course, luring the (male) business travelers and conference goers who do not care about the parks.

Actually it does make some sense. This is not about the families and park goers (although there will be some.) This is about appealing to another (overlooked) clientele of Disney. My husband's uncle is an IBM exec and they stay at WDW during a yearly conference, but they go back and forth on ritzy places to stay. I suggested a tower room at Contemp, and they said they were booked and even the concierge was booked.

Also - adding more ritz and quality names to the property is going to do nothing but polish the Disney name. We have friends who stay in exclusive five star places. They were going down to Disney last year, and I suggested and heartily recommended Beach Club. They booked on my advice and know what? They hated it - said it wasn't as nice as they expected. Said they thought that it was a bit dirty... this last year they stayed at the Peabody. You think they are alone??? It costs MONEY to keep up five star stuff. All places can't be like the Floridian.

So, again, we'll just concede that Disney isn't capable of making or running a 5-star hotel.

Of course, the more I think about this, the more I'm expecting a fairly small Four Seasons hotel, and more emphasis on the high-end timeshares. I don't see any mention of the size of the hotel in the press release. And if that's true, it ain't gonna be a big convention destination (as if Central Florida needs more convention space).

Okay - about the Value Development issue .... Really is it so bad? We have to get the All Star folks somewhere to hang out and eat so they aren't flooding the food courts. We stayed at a Value (All Star Sports) for the first time ever for 1 night in early December - it was the only room open on property - and we were there in an "off" time! The actual grounds were perfect for families and the room was adequate - - but the clientele there was anything but "family friendly." There were several young-ish groups of boys/men sitting around outside drinking what looked like beer - and the picture was cracked in the room. I remember when they were building the Value resorts, and the idea was that they would be a place for younger/budget families, but really they have become anything but. All Star is for groups and tours (and lets face it, they don't care where they stay as long as they are on or near the buses) and they have displaced the value families to Pop, which is almost always sold out. This "value" area is very far away from DTD, and really we don't want the value folks to innundate DTD anyway, because it is not built for crowds.

Wow. Just wow. So Disney invited these low-lifes onto the property when the built the All-Stars, but the amenities (food court) aren't sized properly and maintenance and management is poor. And the new "value" development is going to improve this situation how?

 

[Maistre Gracey]

Thanks everyone. I wanted you to know that I'm not running from this thread. I have quite enjoyed the banter.

I must bail out, as I need to go pack as we leave for the Grand Californian in the morning!

MG

 

[raidermatt]

I would rather see the "Everest/spinner compromise" than see WDW faultering because they refuse to adapt to today's business models.

There is no evidence that an "Everest/great dark ride combo" would cause WDW to faulter while an "Everest/spinner compromise" will result in greater success. The question is do you believe that if Disney made the effort to do better than the spinner portion of the equation, would people respond? If yes, then you understand what we are talking about. If no, then how is it they managed to create Everest?

To make this analagous to the current example, what if instead of trying to build Everest, they instead leased that part of the park to somebody else to build and operate the attraction under that company's brand name?

 

[k5thbeatle]

...To make this analagous to the current example, what if instead of trying to build Everest, they instead leased that part of the park to somebody else to build and operate the attraction under that company's brand name?

You know I can imagine (no pun intended) that actually happening someday in the future.

 

[Cobra B.]

When can I purchase some FSVC points?

 

[barreloflaughs]

Walt Disney Company, you're nothing to me now. You're not a brother, you're not a friend.

I don't want to know you or what you do.

I don't want to see you at the hotels....(I won't be there anyways)...

I don't want you near my house.

When you see our mother, I want to know a day in advance, so I won't be there. ....er....

You understand?

It's not personal...it's strictly business.

barreloflaughs

 

[MassJester]

To make this analagous to the current example, what if instead of trying to build Everest, they instead leased that part of the park to somebody else to build and operate the attraction under that company's brand name?

Like Exxon's Wolrd of Energy, or United Technologies the Living Seas?

 

[simzac]

I see the gloom and doom board is still alive and well