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

[Another Voice]

So, when was the company running right, and how was that measured?

Simple – did the place have show, or was it just a hotel/ride/restaurant.

In 1971 the Contemporary was the future. The Polynesian was the first themed hotel and it wowed everyone how stayed there (it would take Las Vegas decades to catch up). Fort Wilderness was the west with a steam train and horse drawn carts and .

Remember – Michael Eisner ran WDW almost twice as long as Card Walker & Ron Miller did (and he ran Disneyland twice as long as Walt did). All the “original intent” of the place has now been buried under two decades of neglect and disinterest.

If you want to know what the standard was, look up the plans for the Asian and Persian Resorts. Find out how the Contemporary was run (the garden wings allowed Disney to set wide price points in a single resort, allowing more people to have the experience – unlike today’s “keep those poor people away from me” attitude of today’s “Deluxe” caste system).

Look at the Cheyenne Hotel at Euro Disney (which started life as WDW’s Buffalo Junction). See how a “Disney Value” resort was supposed to have been designed before the concept was turned into chattel houses for poor with fifty foot “Groovy Man” signs glued onto the cell blocks.

There are bits and pieces of Real Disney around if you look for them now. But a lot of time has passed. People’s memories are short. And Disney has spent billions to lower everyone’s expectations. It’s taken its toll.

You really have to wonder – what if Disney World consistented of nothing but what was built after 1984. How many would show up today to see Disney MGM Studio, to shop at Downtown Disney, to watch the ‘Stitch Encounter’ or to stay at All Stars Music? Would people go to the Magic Kingdom is 'Splash Moutain' was the biggest, most elaborate attraction there (think of a bigger one built since 1984).

Not many.

Walt Disney World exists today only because of what was built before – what was built to Real Disney standards. Pop and All Stars exist only because they are cheap. No one buys a single day ticket to Animal Kingdom – it’s a freebie when you buy a ticket to the Magic Kingdom. Downtown Disney exists only because the Magic Kingdom closes at 9pm instead of midnight these days.

WDW strip mines its past to support the weak efforts of its present. People drop thousands on a trip to see the Castle, not the Tree of Life. But the more Disney destroys what really attracts people, the less desirable the place becomes.

WDW has never had a slump in attendance as long and deep as what it is suffering today. It’s direct competition – Hawaii. National Parks, other destinations – are now beating all time records. Disney has yet to even come close to a “9/11 recovery”.

There’s a reason for it. It’s not going to be solved by chopping off bits of property and selling it to the highest bidder (it didn’t work at Euro Disney either). No budgeting scheme, no cleaver investment strategy, no brand management plan is going to do it.

It can only be solved through the age old art of showmanship. Amaze your audience and they will beat down the doors to throw money at you. Treat them like consumers to be squeezed, and you get a company that has to sell off 900 acres to prime real estate.

 

[MassJester]

Simple – did the place have show, or was it just a hotel/ride/restaurant.

In 1971 the Contemporary was the future. The Polynesian was the first themed hotel and it wowed everyone how stayed there (it would take Las Vegas decades to catch up). Fort Wilderness was the west with a steam train and horse drawn carts and .

Remember – Michael Eisner ran WDW almost twice as long as Card Walker & Ron Miller did (and he ran Disneyland twice as long as Walt did). All the “original intent” of the place has now been buried under two decades of neglect and disinterest.

If you want to know what the standard was, look up the plans for the Asian and Persian Resorts. Find out how the Contemporary was run (the garden wings allowed Disney to set wide price points in a single resort, allowing more people to have the experience – unlike today’s “keep those poor people away from me” attitude of today’s “Deluxe” caste system).

Look at the Cheyenne Hotel at Euro Disney (which started life as WDW’s Buffalo Junction). See how a “Disney Value” resort was supposed to have been designed before the concept was turned into chattel houses for poor with fifty foot “Groovy Man” signs glued onto the cell blocks.

There are bits and pieces of Real Disney around if you look for them now. But a lot of time has passed. People’s memories are short. And Disney has spent billions to lower everyone’s expectations. It’s taken its toll.

You really have to wonder – what if Disney World consistented of nothing but what was built after 1984. How many would show up today to see Disney MGM Studio, to shop at Downtown Disney, to watch the ‘Stitch Encounter’ or to stay at All Stars Music? Would people go to the Magic Kingdom is 'Splash Moutain' was the biggest, most elaborate attraction there (think of a bigger one built since 1984).

Not many.

Walt Disney World exists today only because of what was built before – what was built to Real Disney standards. Pop and All Stars exist only because they are cheap. No one buys a single day ticket to Animal Kingdom – it’s a freebie when you buy a ticket to the Magic Kingdom. Downtown Disney exists only because the Magic Kingdom closes at 9pm instead of midnight these days.

WDW strip mines its past to support the weak efforts of its present. People drop thousands on a trip to see the Castle, not the Tree of Life. But the more Disney destroys what really attracts people, the less desirable the place becomes.

WDW has never had a slump in attendance as long and deep as what it is suffering today. It’s direct competition – Hawaii. National Parks, other destinations – are now beating all time records. Disney has yet to even come close to a “9/11 recovery”.

There’s a reason for it. It’s not going to be solved by chopping off bits of property and selling it to the highest bidder (it didn’t work at Euro Disney either). No budgeting scheme, no cleaver investment strategy, no brand management plan is going to do it.

It can only be solved through the age old art of showmanship. Amaze your audience and they will beat down the doors to throw money at you. Treat them like consumers to be squeezed, and you get a company that has to sell off 900 acres to prime real estate.

Is it your contention that the company has been in a decline since the 1970's? That it hasn't been run right in 40 years?

 

[DisneyKidds]

For the record, I never said that the DTD hotels were an example of them "always" farming out hotel operations.

Come now, let's not mince words. You clearly state with your examples and the wording you chose that it was always, from the very beginnings of WDW, part of Disney's modus operendi to bring in other companies to build, own and operate WDW resort hotels. You throw that out with the implication that it somehow supports the arguments regarding Walt's lack of desire to be in the hotel business. Those arguments are misleading and incorrect. Yes, there are certain aspects of the hotel business that Walt wasn't interested in (the only thing the DTD hotels are indicative of), and later the Company wasn't interested in (thanks AV for clarifying the convention aspect of the Tishman-Starwood deal), but those facts do not support the faulty arguments that Walt wasn't interested in the hotel business, or that the Four Seasons deal is just another example of many similar outsourced resort projects that have existed at WDW from the beginning.

Fine, argue that increasing third party resort operations is a good thing, or at least isn't a bad thing, but don't argue that the Four Seasons deal is just a continuation of business as usual. Walt very much wanted to be in the themed resort business. I don't care how many hotels existed at WDW before Eisner exploited the underperforming asset that all that unused Florida swampland represented, the fact is that Walt envisioned five resorts surrounding one theme park. Specific types of resorts the likes of which didn't really exist previously. Resorts they designed and operated themselves so as to be able to provide a level of immersive service that hadn't existed elsewhere either. That clearly shows a committment to being in a Disney version of the hotel business. Being able to continue to do those types of things, Disney style by Disney standards, is the precise reason so much land was purchased for the Florida Project in the first place. Sure, times change, business is business, make money, etc., etc.. Those are all arguments that can be made, but you can't throw the baby out with the bathwater. You can't simply forget or ignore what was originally intended, a business philosophy that led to the success in the first place, when you make those arguments. the Four Seasons deal represents just another departure n what has become a long line of departures.

 

[DisneyKidds]

Is it your contention that the company has been in a decline since the 1970's? That it hasn't been run right in 40 years?

AV's answer is probably already in his post (1984) and Eisner was a turning point. But things really were lost when Frank Wells died in 1994.

 

[YoHo]

Is it your contention that the company has been in a decline since the 1970's? That it hasn't been run right in 40 years?

I can't speak for AV, has pretty consistantly, since he registered, illustrated what a terrible executive Michael Eisner was.

From my personal perspective, Prior to EuroDisney's failure, WED was able to spend money because it made Eisner looked good. Managment by ego stroking. Prior to the ABC purchase, Disney had no gigantic moneypit to throw it's profits into so the Parks could actually sink profits back into themselves.
Prior to Pearl Harbor, and escalating Animation costs and escalated expected returns, Disney was able to afford so much more.


From MY perspective, yes, Disney has been mismanaged for at least the past 25 years. It simply took about 10 years of low hanging fruit, a tragic accident and a foolish merger for the bad managment to destroy what had been built up since the 1920s.

 

[YoHo]

AV's answer is probably already in his post (1984) and Eisner was a turning point. But things really were lost when Frank Wells died in 1994.

I've been reading AV's posts for years. I've always got the impression that he thinks well of Frank Wells for what he is, but doesn't paint him as any more talented or more mythical then he was. Prior to Frank Wells' Death, Eisner was a figurehead. Afterwords, Eisner really was in charge.

Wells had no particular creative talent, but he was an impecable media businessman.

 

[Another Voice]

Is it your contention that the company has been in a decline since the 1970's? That it hasn't been run right in 40 years?

The company was not well managed in the 1970s. That had dramatically turned around by the early 1980s - EPCOT Center turned WDW into a true destination, The Disney Channel and the return to network television brought Disney back into the public's living room, Tokyo Disneyland opened up a huge new market for Disney and Splash and Country proved that Disney could even make mainstream Hollywood movies.

Roy Disney grew greedy and threw out the people who had organized that turnaround. Frank Wells rebuilt the company's operations and finances. Michael Eisner allowed the changes already happening in Disney to continue - while the worst tendencies of his nature were held in check by Frank Wells and Jeffrey Katzenberg.

The company's problem began with the failure of Euro Disney. Until that point, everything that "Disney" produced had been a huge, gleeming success. Eisner took the disaster of the Paris park as a personal insult - the mad emproreer running around the palace screaming for the head of his generals after loosing a battle is the scene I'm most reminded of. Eisner simply became unglued and lost all confidence in anything "Disney".

The was nothing wrong with Euro Disney that couldn't be fixed. The problem was financial - Eisner got too greedy with hotel rooms and prices. Both were in the process of being fixed. But Frank Wells was killed and Eisner lost his "Jimminy Cricket". All the horrible traits that made him disliked at Paramount (and eventually fired) came rushing out full force. The midnight execution of Katzenberg removed what little outside control was on Eisner.

Disney began to loose its indentity and began to reflect that of Eisner. He forced the company into becoming a giant media conglomerate not because that made any business sense, but because Eisner saw himself as a Media Mogul along the lines of Sumner Redstone, Rupert Murdoch and (his old boss and nemisis) Barry Diller.

"Disney" used to mean a the work of people that tried to do something different in many fields - movies, amusement parks, hotels, retail, television. But under Eisner "Disney" became a comfort brand used to more easily sell products. Real Disney could do whatever they wanted to do; Magic Disney was limited to explotiting existing markets where easy profits could be had for minimal investment.

This whole Four Seasons mess is a result of that mismanagement. Disney has so poorly managed a business they've been in for 35 years - hotels - that they are now forced to sell land to a competitor to do it for them. And they have so throughly mismanged the brand that no one expects high quality from a Disney resort these days.

 

[MassJester]

"Disney" used to mean a the work of people that tried to do something different in many fields - movies, amusement parks, hotels, retail, television. But under Eisner "Disney" became a comfort brand used to more easily sell products. Real Disney could do whatever they wanted to do; Magic Disney was limited to explotiting existing markets where easy profits could be had for minimal investment.

This whole Four Seasons mess is a result of that mismanagement. Disney has so poorly managed a business they've been in for 35 years - hotels - that they are now forced to sell land to a competitor to do it for them. And they have so throughly mismanged the brand that no one expects high quality from a Disney resort these days.

Ok, so they've only been on a decline for the past quarter century or so.

I have to say, for a company that's been on a creative decline for 25 years, and only willing to make minimal investment, the record is populated with some anomolous behavior. MGM, Animal Kingdon, the Tokyo and Hong Kong Theme parks, Broadway musicals (some quite good), and the purchase of Pixar came with just the teensiest bit more than "minimal investment."

As for "no one expects high quality"--there are no facts to support such a sweeping statement. Disney provides the same relative quality that it has since Contemporary and Poly debuted. They have never offered a luxury option, and now have corrected that.

 

[MassJester]

WDW has never had a slump in attendance as long and deep as what it is suffering today. It’s direct competition – Hawaii. National Parks, other destinations – are now beating all time records. Disney has yet to even come close to a “9/11 recovery”.

Hmmm, you've said this a few times but the last time figures were posted that didn't jive. I seem to recall that WDW had in fact recovered from post 9/11 slump. Do you have other figures?

 

[DisneyKidds]

I have to say, for a company that's been on a creative decline for 25 years, and only willing to make minimal investment, the record is populated with some anomolous behavior. MGM, Animal Kingdon, the Tokyo and Hong Kong Theme parks, Broadway musicals (some quite good), and the purchase of Pixar came with just the teensiest bit more than "minimal investment."

Well, MGM and Animal Kingdom aren't nearly as successful as the MK and Epcot, and both parks, while I think still good, aren't great because they were conceived and executed with a we can do less and add later mentality. The Tokyo and Hong Kong parks operate on a different business model. Disenyland Tokyo is owned and operated by The Oriental Land Company under license from The Walt Disney Company. Another 'let someone else do it and take a slice' arrangement. Fortunately for Disneyland Tokyo, The Oriental Land Company has been willing to invest in the parks in a way that The Walt Disney Company hasn't for years. Case in point: Tokyo DisneySea. A much better conceived and executed park than MGM or AK. In Hong Kong the park is not owned and operated by Disney, but rather Hong Kong Interenational Theme Parks, which is jointly owned by Disney and the Government of Hong Kong. Once again, someone elses money is being put to use and you have management outside of Disney making a lot of the decisions. We've talked about the whole animation/Pixar situation, which was a mistake that cost a bundle to fix. So you have a couple of successful Broadway shows, but you can see Disney starting to coast on the brand with that as well, putting forth Tarzan, something that has been widely viewed as less impressive than the previous two long running hits. So your shining examples of Disney investment and quality over the last quarter century ring a little hollow. I still think Disney has done some good things, but it could have been, should have been, so much more.

I've been reading AV's posts for years. I've always got the impression that he thinks well of Frank Wells for what he is, but doesn't paint him as any more talented or more mythical then he was. Prior to Frank Wells' Death, Eisner was a figurehead. Afterwords, Eisner really was in charge.

Wells had no particular creative talent, but he was an impecable media businessman.

I agree Yoho. I don't think he ever held Wells out to be a genius, but he very much was a guiding influence on Eisner. Kept him in check and they did do some good things together. Without that influence Eisner was free to spiral downward.

 

[Another Voice]

They have never offered a luxury option, and now have corrected that.

As I must repeatly write - Disney was never interested in offering a "luxury" hotel - they want to offer show.

You keep on swinging at straw agruements without ever bothering to answer any of the real issues. WDW is not suffering because millions of Americans are demanding 600 thread count cotton sheets on their rental beds or anyother place to have a sea salt facial while having their toes steam cleaned.

People want the Real Disney again. People want to be amazed, people want to be wowed. That's why people are lining up for hours to ride 'Soaring' while 'Mission Space' begs for riders. That's why the Magic Kingdom is crammed to the rafters while Animal Kingdom closes early.

The name "Disney" used to be the label for work produced by a group of creative people - a group that could make anything they desired. From movies to theme parks to hotels.

But the Company is trying to make "Disney" a comfort brand for the overly indebted middle class. Slap the Mouse on it, it must mean "quality". The people aren't buying it. They is plenty of the low grade, corporate quality about the Disney represents these days.

But too many people still remember when Disney meant "magic" as more than a marketing slogan. That's what people really want in their lives. All the joint ventures, all the marketing, all the ferns on the Internet aren't going to change that. Millions don't find that at WDW anymore, and the trend is growing.

 

[DancingBear]

Hmmm, you've said this a few times but the last time figures were posted that didn't jive. I seem to recall that WDW had in fact recovered from post 9/11 slump. Do you have other figures?

I think your recollection of previously posted figures is flawed. Do you have figures that say WDW is back to pre-9/11 attendance?

 

[YoHo]

DB is correct, there are no published figures......And there are no guestimates that indicates they have recovered.

Attendence has improved, but it has not recovered to pre-9/11 numbers.
Whereas the other mentioned travel destinations have not just recovered, but exceeded their pre-9/11 numbers.

 

[LuvDuke]

Disney provides the same relative quality that it has since Contemporary and Poly debuted. They have never offered a luxury option, and now have corrected that.

Huh? "Disney provides the same relative quality that it has since Contemporary and Poly debuted." Again, huh?

Disney doesn't even provide the same quality it did 5 years ago. Every year, for the last 7 years, my family and I made 3 trips to WDW and stayed at the PO-FQ with some detours to AKL and PO-RS. Last June, we stayed at the PO-FQ and it was a dump. For a 5 night stay, our room was cleaned twice because the other 3 days, housekeeping came at 4:00PM or later after we had been to the parks and were resting. Service was surly or non-existent at the Food Court. The place was dirty.

And for the privilege of no-housekeeping, lousy service, and a dirty food court, we paid $158 per night because Disney did not offer a discount for Florida residents of AP'rs. Yes, I do expect a little something extra for being a loyal, longtime time. Call me entitled.

Bottom line: We have not and will not renew our AP's nor will we be going to WDW.

As far as Disney selling to Four Seasons, if they can't do the job, let someone handle it who can.

Btw, I stayed at the Polynesian in 1982 and it was paradise.

 

[Mickmse2002]

......everyone step away from the dead horse.

 

[MassJester]

DB is correct, there are no published figures......And there are no guestimates that indicates they have recovered.

Attendence has improved, but it has not recovered to pre-9/11 numbers.
Whereas the other mentioned travel destinations have not just recovered, but exceeded their pre-9/11 numbers.

If there are no published figuires, where is this information coming from?

 

[MassJester]

Huh? "Disney provides the same relative quality that it has since Contemporary and Poly debuted." Again, huh?

Disney doesn't even provide the same quality it did 5 years ago. Every year, for the last 7 years, my family and I made 3 trips to WDW and stayed at the PO-FQ with some detours to AKL and PO-RS. Last June, we stayed at the PO-FQ and it was a dump. For a 5 night stay, our room was cleaned twice because the other 3 days, housekeeping came at 4:00PM or later after we had been to the parks and were resting. Service was surly or non-existent at the Food Court. The place was dirty.

And for the privilege of no-housekeeping, lousy service, and a dirty food court, we paid $158 per night because Disney did not offer a discount for Florida residents of AP'rs. Yes, I do expect a little something extra for being a loyal, longtime time. Call me entitled.

Bottom line: We have not and will not renew our AP's nor will we be going to WDW.

As far as Disney selling to Four Seasons, if they can't do the job, let someone handle it who can.

Btw, I stayed at the Polynesian in 1982 and it was paradise.

I have had different experiences. My stays have been comfortable, and the service has been consistent.

I'm sorry you didn't enjoy your stay.

 

[MassJester]

I think your recollection of previously posted figures is flawed. Do you have figures that say WDW is back to pre-9/11 attendance?

I don't have any on hand, but the repeated assertion here is that attendance has not recovered--where are the facts upon which this assertion is based?

 

[MassJester]

As I must repeatly write - Disney was never interested in offering a "luxury" hotel - they want to offer show.

Ok, well say that is true, although I find "never" a glaringly large word in your assertion. Why is it wrong ot offer one now?

But too many people still remember when Disney meant "magic" as more than a marketing slogan. That's what people really want in their lives. All the joint ventures, all the marketing, all the ferns on the Internet aren't going to change that. Millions don't find that at WDW anymore, and the trend is growing.

So you say, but you cannot back that up with any facts or figures. The only thing we have is your "Eeyore's View of Disney" to validate the contentions. Well, if annecdotal expression of satisfaction or not is to carry the day, then these boards are filled with people who are happier customers. You make sweeping statements about attendance being down, customers being disatisfied and people demanding more/different--according to who? You?

 

[YoHo]

Amusment business used to publish estimates of yearly attendence. Disney itself has never released numbers.

Last year AB stopped publishing estimates, so we only have numbers through 2005, but Disney has made it clear through the grapevine that attendence was lower then expected at WDW for the 50th and constant rumors about bad attendence in 2006.


As for the AB numbers, they've been quoted repeatedly in numerous threads on this board including one that was going on concurrently with this one a few weeks ago. You can feel free to find them yourself, or wait for someone less ornery to copy and paste them with a golden invitation to read them.