Pop Century: Yea or Nay?

[airlarry!]

DB, have you ever been to the MK? They've got gold paint on the horses there. Chandeliers in the burger joints. Real steam engines refurbished from Mexico. Roller coasters built indoors instead of exposing the tracks to the queue'd up public (well...at least they used to.)

Disney vacations weren't cheap. They provided experiences that weren't cheap.

But they were value. How could Disney afford to spend the money it does on what you may call useless extras? Because they wanted to treat EVERY guest as special.

I see no problem, and if you know Land Baron you know that he has slowly been convinced of this too, that there is a place for tiered pricing in resorts. Not every wants or needs a monorail running right next to their room, or five restaurants overlooking the lake.

But every person who stays at Disney deserves a magical experience. For $59 a night, it is poppycock to believe that the All Stars and Poop Century give you anything more than a cheap place to lay your head inside the World.

Let's inject some common sense here.

Those of us who have stayed at the AS or Poop stayed there because it was almost as cheap as staying off-site, had reliable Disney transportation, and had smiling CMs at every turn. We felt like we were part of the world.

We were satiated.

Is that Disney's goal today? To satiate the customer? Or to wow the guest?

Please do not misunderstand our venom here. It is not against motels at cut-rate prices. It is the blase attitude that people who spend $59 a night don't deserve some of the same perks people who spend $109 a night get.

It is, contrary to your assertions, not impossible to provide even the 'moderate' experience for that price. At least it used to be.

Oh yeah, I am railing against the tackiness of the Poop Century resorts. And that's a personal opinion, of course. Others may disagree. When we drove by there in December, I just couldn't help thinking to myself, "This is the best idea they've got?"

Before the internet, I used to get the Birnbaum each year just to see what the newest resorts were. Dixie Landings, Coronado, Caribbean, Port Orleans, Grand Floridian, even the AKL and Wilderness Lodge, all of these evoked a desire to see 'em as soon as possible.

All Stars? Poop?

Well, at least it's better than staying on I-drive.

Hey, that could be the new marketing slogan:

"Stay at the Poop! It's A Little Better Than I-Drive!"

 

[Captain Crook]

Stay at Poop! It's a Little Better Than at the I Drive!

At least this is funny.

 

[BRERALEX]

WDI helped with Pop Century. It was not completely a WDI project, but it certainly had WDI involved

Yeah two guys drinking beer called up their parents asked them what they used to do in their youth then they'd googled every era and came up with those great icons. Anyone of us could have come up with the unimaginitive Poop century's decor layout and the oh so hard icon logistics.

 

[DC7800]

Originally posted by DancingBear
Oh, please. Disney charged what the market would bear then, just as they do now. If it was so cheap to stay on Disney property back then, just why was 192 loaded with Econolodges?

Because there were so few (less than 2,000) rooms on property, not counting Hotel Plaza, through the mid-80's! With just the three Disney resort hotels, Fort Wilderness, and the WDW Village Villas, a majority of guests are just going to have to stay off property. Now, certainly the demand was there to support a higher priced Polynesian, but the point is they didn't do it. Those resorts were very modestly priced.

Today the situation is reversed. There are plentiful (perhaps too many) Disney resort rooms available, yet various chains continue to thrive along 192. They often don't go for significantly less than Disney's own lowest-priced option (say, $40 for some Day's Inns & $59 for PC), so I have never been able to understand why Disney cannot fill its own rooms (note PC's opening delays, and other resort closures) with guests who would otherwise have stayed off property.

 

[DancingBear]

Originally posted by airlarry! Please do not misunderstand our venom here. It is not against motels at cut-rate prices. It is the blase attitude that people who spend $59 a night don't deserve some of the same perks people who spend $109 a night get.

So you think that people that spend $109 a night don't deserve MORE than the people who spend $59?

 

[airlarry!]

Of course. Don't you?

Otherwise, we could move that chandalier out of the burger joint right into Dancing Bear's House of Expensive Quisine, right?

I'm not advocating that Disney build the Venetian and price it at $29 a night. That would be a little silly, don't you think?

What I am advocating is that:

a. The themes of AS and Poop are at best tolerable, and at worst, creatively bankrupt.

b. Disney can and should provide resorts value priced grouped around the parks, with magical transportation in addition to the busses. Monorails? Not for Value resorts, of course. Train rides, safari vehicles, water transportation etc? Ah, now that could be magical, if done right.

c. No resort, none, no matter the price, should go below the Caribbean/PO/Coronado standard. That is the MINIMUM pool required to be a Disney pool. I would hate to be forced to explain why the AS and Poop pools do not meet the Disney standard...just check out my earlier post on the Cheap resorts Disney could build next.

DB, you must agree that it is economically feasible to design a resort that caters to the value minded guest who does not need a monorail nor an exclusive restaurant, but who wants a great pool, wonderful theme, decent choices at food, and something more than the belching buses.

Don't you?

 

[YoHo]

Actually, I would have to search for the info, but I believe at that "other" board, we got some info from amanager at Yacht and Beach club that said that the operating expenses for the Deluxes while higher then the Values were not in line with the price premium. I want to say we worked out that $180 a night would be the correct rate to charge to be in line in terms of profit margin with the Values on the Deluxes. Further, you forget that the original Deluxes were built highly modular and the newer ones are just as modular (although not via the same technique) Sure, there are costs associated with the decorations, but the actual structures are the same, And I have to believe AV when he says the huge Fiberglass Icons are of a similar price-point. Unles syou have some actual numbers to back up your position, I'll stick with AV and the Y&B manager.


I have no problem charging what the market will bare, but then I have to ask, if that's what the market will bare, why did they have to build lower cost alternatives?

Whoever just said it is correct, people didn't stay on I-drive, becuase Disney was super duper expensive, they stayed on I-drive, because there was a two year lead time on bookings, because there were relativly few rooms.

And even if we allow that Disney could and should provide lower cost alternatives, that doesn't equate to the Allstars or the Poop Century being the acceptable end results.

Honestly, if you think that the phrase "I can't think of anything better, the Imagineers must have done the best possible" justifies anything, then this argument isn't going to go anywhere. Given the brain drain at WDI and the general crappiness of most of what's been produced over the past couple of years (with some exceptions) one wonders how you could believe that the Hotelineers could possibly produce ANYTHING of value? Unless it's based on that wonderful Wilderness Lodge Blueprints.



So, to sum up, Disney sells an experience. I have no problem with them charging what the market will bare for that experience, HOWEVER, not giving people that experience, telling them, NO, the Emperor really does have some nice clothes (or the Resort really does have some brilliant themeing.) And then charging them more for the real deal is NOT what this company made its reputation on.

It would be like Apple Computing Making Beige IBM clones and saying they are Macintoshes.

 

[EsmeraldaX]

Here is my take on this.

I COULD afford to stay at a moderate. I am staying at POP because it's kitschy and I , and a lot of other people, really like kitsch. I would prefer to stay at Pop and pay $70 a night and have the extra money for nice meals in the World Showcase etc. I rarely spend much time at the hotel when I am in WDW. It is really just a place to sleep.

If I was going for the "resort" , I'd probably choose to stay at a deluxe. Granted that would mean less meals out in fancy resteraunts etc. I'm on the very low end as far as salary goes. I can't have it all, so I have to have priorities for the things I want on a WDW vacation.

I want to stay in the parks as much as possible. Stay out at PI as late as possible. Eat most of my meals sit down at nice places. Be able to afford a rental car so I don't have to use busses (except for the nights at PI, thank you, in which case everyone should either designate a driver or take the bus!). Be able to buy some nice Disney figurines/snowglobes to take home.

I do not care about spas, sit down meals at the hotel, pools, babysitting services, kids club (we don't have kids), being on the monorail, views, concierge service.

The only thing they have at the Deluxes I'd miss is the boats, but I can always go downtown to rent a boat.

I think POP is a fun, bright, interesting place. Granted I haven't stayed there yet (will be staying in Dec.) I am interested in the history of pop culture in this country and I really think I'll find the place fun.

Not everyone has fun at fancy big time resorts. Don't get me wrong, if I was going away just to be pampered in my hotel, the GF, or Poli would be great. But when I'm on vacation to go to WDW parks, I don't care where I stay.

I know some people want the whole experience of the pampering hotel and everything else I want and if they can afford it - good for them. I can't. I don't know a lot of people who can. I think the budget hotels are great.

And for those who think the statues are tacky , please remember , one person's "tacky" is another person's "fun".

 

[raidermatt]

The pricing is dictated by supply (including off-site competitors) and demand. They couldn't have raised the prices for the "deluxe" resorts unless the market allowed it.

As was alluded to, Disney did not charge what the market would bear. As I understand it, they sold out far in advance. Clearly, if its a simple case of supply and demand, they could have charged more, still filling up their rooms, and therefore making more profit.

But they didn't.

We were all taught the law of supply and demand in high school. Then there's the point where marginal cost meets marginal revenue, etc, etc, etc.

All very important concepts to understand.

But using only these basic economic concepts to form a business strategy is woefully inadequate.

Clearly there is a demand for even lower priced rooms than the Values. If we only look at supply and demand, Disney should build them.

When it gets down to it, they should build anything for which there is a demand.

Certainly we can all agree there should be more to Disney's business strategy than that, right?

And if there is, then we can't just look at s/d and say that's where Disney should price their resorts. The resorts exist as a piece of a complex entertainment complex. Their pricing impacts the rest of the system both in the short term and the long term.

But how Disney prices their current resorts is a smaller piece of the big picture.

I got no problem with this position, only with the idea that WDW could have done much better with their "value" options.

Well, don't get me wrong, I know they could have done better. They may have had to spend a little more, but the long term benefits would have been significant.

We need to get rid of this idea that Disney can't afford to invest more than they do in parks/resorts. The company has plenty of money to invest. They have just chosen to invest large chunks of it in other ventures, like Go.com, Fox Family, airplane leases, etc.

 

[ShadowWind]

Many people don't know what the difference is between a US-192 hotel/motel with a Disney resort. To many, the motel or hotel is just a place to lay your head down after a long day at the park Whether that pillow is $74 (the non-florida off season rate) or $25 doesn't much matter, except to the wallet. Also staying at Disney resort requires you also to pay Disney prices for food. On US-192, food prices are anywhere between $4-$7 a person (for more), versus $9-12 at a Disney resort (for much less). When I stayed off-site it was much, much cheaper to do a week at Disney than it is now that I stay on-site.

However, because of the value resorts, we were able to discover the wonders and magic of staying on-site and how such added price is justified. We discovered it's not just a bed to sleep on, but an experience. We stayed at the Hyatt Orlando that was $89 a night and after 7pm, if you saw anyone walking around the hotel, you were doing good. At a Disney resort, people continue the fun back at the hotel, swimming in the pool, playing in the arcade, hanging out at the pool bar, whatever. There is activity and life. They just don't go back to their room and sleep, so the extra price justifies the fact you get more from the hotel, beyond just decor. It's also psychological that you are in the world, Disney World.

I've noticed in this thread that most of the people who are doing the most complaining stay at the Contemporary, or Polynesian. To me, it sounds like they want the same thing out of the values, because they could then save a lot of money on the hotel. Understandable. But isn't that why Disney doesn't create them all equally? How could they justify $200 for the Contemporary if a hotel with the same amenities was offered for $59? I don't see many people who have stayed at Pop Century complaining. In fact, the good reviews seem to outweight the bad, so Disney can't be all bad, even if your personal opinion of Disney salvation would seem to indicate.

Besides, is it not creative to base a hotel on pop culture? Do you know of any other hotel in the world that has such a base? And if you are going to do a hotel based on such culture, wouldn't you research the time period and get icons that people will relate to? As I said, in Sci-Fi Diner, they just took the concept of a drive in and turned it into a restaurant. Not that creative considering that food basically was a staple of the drive-in while watching the movie. Creativity does not have to beat someone over the head with theme to still be creative.

I don't understand the whole thing here anyway. If you don't like Pop Century or All-Stars, there is certainly plenty of experiences to choose from at WDW and I'm sure you can find one that fits your family's dream vacation. The fact that Disney put in value resorts that are not the same immersive experience as the moderates and deluxe is no surprise and certainly something that they would have had to eventually consider or miss out on a huge market. And as people's income and lifestyles change, the value resort guest of today could very well be the deluxe resort guest of tomorrow. Like everything in Disney culture, the earlier they can get you hooked, the more you'll grow to love the world.

 

[raidermatt]

I do not care about spas, sit down meals at the hotel, pools, babysitting services, kids club (we don't have kids), being on the monorail, views, concierge service.

Most of these things are not what we are talking about when we speak of Disney doing more with their Values.

Its about story and show.

Think of the attractions in the parks. They aren't Disney because they are the biggest or fastest.

The attractions we think of as Disney are the ones that go out of their way to tell us a story, and immerse us in the experience.

That's what we are talking about with the resorts. Most of the differences you describe could still exist, differentiating between "values" and "deluxes".

But story and show should be non-negotiable.

 

[raidermatt]

How could they justify $200 for the Contemporary if a hotel with the same amenities was offered for $59?

For the most part, the amenities aren't the issue...

 

[JKanownik]

Here's my take on the Value Resort theming:

Let me preface this by saying that I've stayed onsite 4 times, twice at CBR, once at ASMo and once at ASMu. I have also visited all of the resorts with the exception of Pop (our Mears bus did stop there though, so I did get a look) and the DVC ones. I've stayed at the value resorts our last 2 trips because they allowed us to lengthen our stay while experiencing the magic of staying onsite. While I would prefer to stay at a moderate or deluxe, I simply cannot justify the price difference.

When I consider that I make decent money and don't have any kids, I can't imagine what it is like trying to plan a trip to WDW for people who make less money and have kids. With those people who are on a limited budget the only choice you have when designing a hotel is to create a value resort. You either build a hotel for that people can stay at for $77-$126 a night, or these people stay offsite. It's that simple.

Now, lets say that Disney took the advice of people on this board and came up with a great idea for a new Value resort. How the heck do you expect to get people to continue to pay for a premium for the moderate and deluxe resorts? In many cases the answer would be that you don't. There would be a tremendous downsizing of resort guest into the new resort.

So, what I'm trying to say here is there is a portion of the population that would only consider a value resort. And if you want to build a resort to suit their needs you can't cannibalize guests from existing resorts. These are facts. Now lets get into the fuzzy part of all of this.

When I think of the value resorts, 3 words come to mind: Disney, fun and tacky. Each of these serves an exact purpose and I don't think Walt Disney himself could have done it any better.

Disney: The value resort definitely respresent all that is Disney. There is tremendous attention to detail that Disney is known for. There are little Kanine Krunchies bones sculpted into the pavement in front of the 101 Dalmations buildings at ASMo. There are the music notes on the railings of the ASMu that are the actual notes from songs. These are details you won't find at any other hotel, let alone one this is considered a value. The service is also excellent and goes well beyond what you expect at a "value" resort and is very much in line with what you would expect from Disney.

Fun: The design of the resorts is fun, escpecially for kids. The buildings are bright and cheery. The large sculptures and facades are always of something fun and family friendly.

Tacky: This is genious! The large fiberglass sculptures serve their task of looking slightly tacky perfectly! The "tacky" design as it is seen by many is what keep the people who would normally stay in the moderate and deluxe hotels away from the values.

While it is the tacky part that most people have a problem with, I see it as marketing genious. The fact that some people see them as being tacky is merely a matter of their own personal opinion. After viewing It's a Small World I don't see how anyone could say that Walt Disney would never allow a tacky resort to be built. As long as the hotel was fun and exceeded customer expections of service and amenities, I don't see how Walt could be against it. And you know for sure that Walt would support anything that made the magic of staying on-site accessable to more people without sacrificing his core values.

-Josh

 

[ShadowWind]

Pop Century tells the story of the pop culture of America from the 1950's to the 1990's, in all it's tacky and fun glory. It certainly has more story than Contemporary, which just looks cool. I'll agree that the All-Stars don't really fit this scenario as well, Pop Century which seems to be on everyone's nerves certainly does. It's full of story. It's the story of the things that we grew up on and enjoyed in our lives. To me, it's one of the few that has a story from the moment you drive in rather than just emulating a certain culture or location.

Amenities are apparently a problem because a poster above wants a value resort that has magical transportation like boats, trains, etc. And wants it to be close to the parks.

 

[ShadowWind]

I cross posted with JKanownik, who said it better than I ever could...Well said. I had forgotten all those little details at the All-Stars like you mentioned.

 

[All Aboard]

Discussion Ender ahead...

The finacial success / guest reception/response to the All Stars was great enough for Disney to conclude that they could double the offering. So, they did. The rest of the discussion is personal preference and the esoterics of "what would Walt do?"

The Value resorts at WDW work.

 

[YoHo]

Originally posted by gcurling
Discussion Ender ahead...


The Value resorts at WDW work.

This is true, That's probably why Walt had them on his early master plan docs isn't it?


That however does not justify the theme of said resorts. And yes, I know you and I have have wrestled over this one before, but I see most of your positive comments as nothing more then Shopping carts and escalators for Hotels.


There are a whole mess of people young and old that think WWE is the greatest form of entertainment ever. Should Disney therefore attempt to enter this market?

No, Disney should attempt to create things that are DISNEY and despite the people that enjoy 2 story tall primary colored "kitsch," that is NOT Disney and SHOULD NOT BE Disney.


Again, understand that you like them, understand that you see others that do, but that doesn't make it true Disney.

 

[EsmeraldaX]

Originally posted by raidermatt
Most of these things are not what we are talking about when we speak of Disney doing more with their Values.

Its about story and show.

Think of the attractions in the parks. They aren't Disney because they are the biggest or fastest.

The attractions we think of as Disney are the ones that go out of their way to tell us a story, and immerse us in the experience.

That's what we are talking about with the resorts. Most of the differences you describe could still exist, differentiating between "values" and "deluxes".

But story and show should be non-negotiable.

I see Pop as having story and show. The story is the pop culture of various decades and the show is the giant statues and pop history displays.

 

[EsmeraldaX]

Originally posted by YoHo
This is true, That's probably why Walt had them on his early master plan docs isn't it?


That however does not justify the theme of said resorts. And yes, I know you and I have have wrestled over this one before, but I see most of your positive comments as nothing more then Shopping carts and escalators for Hotels.


There are a whole mess of people young and old that think WWE is the greatest form of entertainment ever. Should Disney therefore attempt to enter this market?

No, Disney should attempt to create things that are DISNEY and despite the people that enjoy 2 story tall primary colored "kitsch," that is NOT Disney and SHOULD NOT BE Disney.


Again, understand that you like them, understand that you see others that do, but that doesn't make it true Disney.

By saying you don't like kitsch, do you also mean you dislike the 50's prime time, the sci fi drive in, and many other parts of MGM? Do you not like the Lego statues at the marketplace? How about the mimi golf course and the Polynesian Resort? The Poly = tiki gods = very much kitsch.

 

[YoHo]

When did I say I didn't like Kitsch. Kitsch is as much about how something is presented as it is about what it is.


And you're comment that Big fiberglass icons tells a story made my head explode.