Pop Century: Yea or Nay?

[DancingBear]

Originally posted by Stitch 03
The one thing that I feel dictates how POP looks is what I refer to as 'The List'. Thie is a theory that I came up with on my last WDW visit. The theory is that there is a list of things that each class of resort can and/or cannot have. Examples:

1) Thou shalt not have interior corridors in moderate and value resorts.

2) Thou shalt not put full-service restaurants in value resorts.

3) Thou shalt not have pool slides at value resorts.

4) Thou shalt not have a moderate or value resort provide transportation other then bus to a theme park.

5) Thou shalt not include concierge services in a value or moderate.

And the list goes on.

Theme aside it is kind of amazing how, for the most part, all properties within a class are similar. It is almost as if Disney feels they need to have the class of hotels clearly distinguished to justify the price differences.

Why is this so amazing? Isn't it possible that these guys maybe know quite a bit about what the costs are in constructing and operating hotels and motels? Do you find it amazing that many of these distinctions also appear industry-wide?

 

[cristen]

These examples show me that the claims of these several posters are nothing more than "hypotheticals"--to today's regime...and the regimes which came before.

Of course it's hypothetical. But are you trying to say that they couldn't come up with something new and different than fiberglass icons even on the smaller budget they get?

WHy are the mods and deluxes so different in what experience they offer, but not the values? Are you saying that they are not capable of offering that kind of variety on a budget?

 

[DancingBear]

Originally posted by SnackyStacky
That's EXACTLY my point. The theme was totally cast aside as part of the seperation - the caste system if you will. The budget folks don't get a theme. It's like one of the amenities at a deluxe resort that was thrown to the wind. And the theme is what made Disney....well.....Disney! (And just so we're clear, I'm talking about theme in relation to a transporting experience - not a few decorations)

Seems to me the folks at the Disney Golf Resort didn't get a theme, or a "transporting experience" either.

 

[All Aboard]

But are you trying to say that they couldn't come up with something new and different than fiberglass icons even on the smaller budget they get?

Isn't it possible that the guests at the All Stars and Pop just might find those big icons to be more interesting and more appealing than whatever new and different the posters on this board might think is better for the guests of the All Stars and Pop.

 

[Phoebesaturn]

Originally posted by DancingBear
Precisely. Who goes to Pop Century expecting the same experience as the Poly?

Exactly...so your saying that its ok to know up front that because the movie is half-price you won't be getting the great movie you were expecting?

So Room is half-price and now you expectations of what will be offered next time are even lower.

 

[Captain Crook]

Man! I'm kind of scared to jump back into this one...What with the first string out in full force and all.

Snacky, don't quit on my account. I may just be overly sensitive or something. Your points are valid but I think we were kind of discussing different aspects of a like subject.

It's good to see most of my points being bandid about, although perhaps more eloquently than I ever wax.

Basically I think it isn' so much success (in numbers) that warrants Pop's being considered a success in this case as it is the type of positive reviews Pop seems to be getting. Yes, Greg and I and probably many other floridians use these resorts and their cheap rates to help us financially but for myself I would never consider it if it just didn't feel Disney and believe me Pop feels Disney. Like Greg, Pop is now substitute for AKL for our family but variety as well as cost considerations are necessary when visiting so frequently.

 

[DancingBear]

Originally posted by Phoebesaturn
Exactly...so your saying that its ok to know up front that because the movie is half-price you won't be getting the great movie you were expecting?

So Room is half-price and now you expectations of what will be offered next time are even lower.

Yeah, my point is that price matters. There are movies that I would go see at the half-price late-run theater, or at a discounted matinee, that I wouldn't pay full price for. I have watched many a movie on cable that I thought was enjoyable enough to kill an evening at home, but that I was glad I did not pay to see at the theater.

That fact doesn't lower my expectations for the times when I do choose to pay full price (and get a babysitter, and buy the expensive popcorn and a drink) and go out to the movies.

 

[airlarry!]

All right, let's reverse the statement.

Is anyone willing to stake a claim, that given the same money and goals, WDI could not have come up with a better set of value-priced hotels than the hotelineers came up with? That basically, as Scoop has tried unsuccessfuly to argue, Poop Century is the best that could be built for the price and with the goal of value price?

Anyone? Sign the pledge card right here...

I won't.

I have more faith in what WDI could have built five or ten years ago. I don't guess or believe or think or hope....I KNOW that WDI would have done better with these projects than what the accountants came up with. If I am alone in these sentiments, then just drown me in mickey-headed butter right now and end my misery.

Scoop, you seem to know Matt O. and Greg E. et al so well. Call 'em up. Ask them if "Disney could (not) have done immensely better yet still served the less expensive price point that Pop Century does." Report the answer back to us. That way I can judge them for what they really are. I know the answer to that question. Do they?

******
Greg, I believe that you and I aren't far apart here. I've stayed there, too, on exactly the kind of circumstances you've talked about.

You are arguing that there should be a 'class' of hotels which caters to a lower price point. I'm agree with that. Walt sold hot dogs and pretzels and popcorn...and had sit down restaurants too. There is nothing inherently wrong with having a hotel with a value price in today's economy.

My problem with Poop and AS is not the price...its the lack of Disney touches that are apparent if you stay even at a moderate, the lack of transportation, the pitiful parking, and the 'decorations' as opposed to 'immersive theming.'

 

[cristen]

Isn't it possible that the guests at the All Stars and Pop just might find those big icons to be more interesting and more appealing than whatever new and different the posters on this board might think is better for the guests of the All Stars and Pop.

That's my point. We will never know, because they are not given any other option. If you go to WDW knowing you are going to stay at a value, then you had better like big icons.


But if I go with the idea of staying at a mod, then if I don't like the Southwesten feel, which I don't, then I can stay at New Orleans, or the Carribean. More choices for me at the mods.

I'm just wondering why they couldn't do that at the values. That's all I am trying to find out.

 

[DancingBear]

Originally posted by airlarry!
Is anyone willing to stake a claim, that given the same money and goals, WDI could not have come up with a better set of value-priced hotels than the hotelineers came up with? That basically, as Scoop has tried unsuccessfuly to argue, Poop Century is the best that could be built for the price and with the goal of value price?

The best? No, of course not. Could you even say the Contemporary was the "best that could be built for the price"? But....

[Could] Disney...have done immensely better yet still served the less expensive price point that Pop Century does[?]

Immensely better? I'm no hotel engineering and operations expert, but from my perspective of looking at what other hotel properties offer for what price points, etc., it seems unlikely to me that there is some room for "immense" improvement within the cost restrictions.

 

[Captain Crook]

I deplore the "they could have done better" argument. Of course they could have...On every single thing they've ever done from Walt to now.

But Pop seems to be fitting a niche, as Greg pointed out, extremely well. As I said, I saw many people who were as totally immersed in Pop as what I've seen with folks at AKL or the Poly (which was amazing to me, but true nonetheless). This seems significant in that while many may see the bar as being lowered the fact is it just may be different. Even the "could they have done it better" statement is only as good as whose making the judgement or setting the standard.

 

[airlarry!]

Scoop, I know you are going to say it isn't the same thing...but I've seen $200million dollar movies that were crap...and $20 million dollar movies that were Oscar worthy.

I've seen 'em spend a fortune on Mission:Turntable, without success, and spend a lot less on Pooh, with success. (Yes, I know Tokyo's better. I'm not forgiving them for giving it to Tokyo instead of us. But if you didn't know about Pooh in Tokyo, you'd say that Pooh was a nice little C ticket ride and a worthy addition to Fantasyland.)

I'm not giving up here, because you keep tweaking the hypothet.

We went from a $79-99 hotel to a $59 hotel. How'd we get there? Are you telling me that Disney Development (who you know actually implemented these hotels, don't you) planned for these hotels to only charge the $49-59 we've seen them charge lately?

I just don't believe it. These were intended to be $100 hotels, and I'm still waiting for confirmation that the WDI of 5-10 years ago can't build $100 a night hotels more like Dixie Landings than Poop Century.



Still waiting.




Still waiting.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

First an observation;

Phoebesaturn:
What a wonderful poster!! Way back on page #1 you were dead on!! Loaded questions and dismissal of all counter concepts. It is the standard MO for the Pirate!! But that’s why I love him!! He quite simply doesn’t see that he’s doing it!! He really thinks he’s debating!! And he tries to do it in such a polite way. Ain’t that cool? Like I say in every post – Long Live the Pirate!!

P.S. The Disneyland Hotel wasn't built by Walt (it remained outside of Disney's control until Eisner bought the Queen Mary). Then again, facts are difficult things to see when you're dazzled by the stickers, aren't they.

A.V. and DisneyDude10171,
Thank you for setting the history straight on the Disneyland Hotel. I really get tired of having to repeat this to the same posters over and over and over again!! Mr. Show: I really don’t know how you could have missed it before when Scoop tried the same ploy. Anyway, I hope this FINALLY ends this silliness!!

And while I’ve singled out Mr. Show...

I won't even go into how unimaginative and boring the contemporary, the golf resort, ft wilderness, or even the Polynesian is.

YOU CAN’T BE SERIOUS!!!??? ARE YOU!?!?!

I mean I must have missed some sort of sarcasm, irony, trenchant wit in your post… I must be the blame for not rising to your sophisticated humor!!

If that’s not the case let me know and I’ll start another thread regarding the unimaginative and boring Poly!! OK?

It will, I guarantee, be a first on this board!!!

Scoop!

just like it did in the 1980s following the creative lull of the mid to late 1970s.

Do you mean that creative lull that ended in 1981 with the accomplishment of EPCOT? Yes sir!! That was quite a creative lull! Just because you don’t instantly see something doesn’t necessarily mean that “CREATIVE” activity isn’t going on. Unless your position is that EPCOT took only a year to develop!! Is that what you’re saying?

No, the difference I will readily admit is that Today's Disney puts out more crap than yesterday's Disney.

My point exactly!!!

That's not a matter of "I like it"...but, if the vast majority of guests really do love their stay at Pop Century, it's hard to entirely dismiss its success out of hand.

Why?

I’m afraid this is something I’ll never understand. Just because something is a success and it happens to carry a Disney® on it, doesn’t necessarily make it something that Disney ought to be doing!

That is really what this is all about. Not if the huddled masses “like it” or not. Not whether Peter Pirate or the Captain had fun there. And especially not if the Curling family can afford it every other weekend. But instead the question should be whether it should have been built in the first place. It is a “Disney” concept – PHILOSOPHICALLY!?!?

Eventually, if a dominant critical mass of guests enjoy something, that something has to be considered a success in my book. Not THAT many people's opinions can be ignored.

So what you’re actually saying is: No matter how low, no matter how uncreative, no matter how base, if the public likes it, Disney should do it? I’m I getting that right?

You remind me very much of the loyal Cubs fans who go to Wrigley every year, get so mad a the Tribune company, but just can't let it go.

Not quite! Unless you live here, living and breathing the Cubs you really don’t have the complete picture. The Cubs have never had any quality (or very rarely at least). It is something that we have grown up with. It is something we have been born into. We know this. We complain, but we all know that this is simply a fact of life. We don’t have any expectations. We have a ‘wait until next year’ attitude in April. And if we happen to win in the early season the “wait until next year” is replaced with, “Well, it ain’t August yet!” We are true blue defeatists that are hooked! It’s like a dependency. We all our drug of choice is bad for us, we just can’t kick the habit without a 12 step program!!!

Disney is vastly different! It is more like the people of a medieval England yearning for the return of Camelot!! Only the Camelot is not a simple myth, but a real, honest to God, tangible thing!! That really and truly once existed!

It is not like some pie-in-the-sky pipe dream of a Cubs World Series!!!

See the difference?

Like you, I too don't like Cheez Whiz. Heck, I hate the stuff. I think its an abodimination to all those who believe in the quality of real cultured cheese.

Yet, I can neither begrudge those who do nor dismiss cheez whiz as the ugly step-cousin of Brother Feta who warrants nothing more than condescion.

But should Disney be in the Cheez-Whiz of resorts business? That’s really the question. Can you answer that one?

Or stated another way (which you left unanswered)…

Phoebesaturn said:

There is apparently a huge audience for McDonalds hamburgers too. Imagine the audience for a better burger at the same price and you got a smile and a thank you along with it.

Seems like a rather silly point to argue for what people will settle with and still be happy. The Disney we all know and love....wanted you to be surprised, delighted and have your expectations blown out of the water.

DancingBear:

Precisely. Who goes to Pop Century expecting the same experience as the Poly?

Everyone should. The Disney experience IS the Disney experience! Plain and simple! And that experience should NOT be watered down, diluted or ‘less’ reflective of price! Don’t you see the dichotomy in that! It is nothing more than turning Disney MAGIC or the "Disney Experience" into a simple and mundane commodity. And that’s a fine way to go for any other company on the face of the planet. But it isn’t what brought me to the dance in the first place. Philosophically it is diametrically opposed to the Walt “IDEAL”. Wouldn’t you agree?

Do you find it amazing that many of these distinctions also appear industry-wide?

How sad! Disney has been reduced to following the standards - industry-wide. Kind of makes AV’s point about the void of creativity, doesn’t it?

cristen :

WHy are the mods and deluxes so different in what experience they offer, but not the values?

Simple! Justification of price! Justification of the “Caste System of Resorts”©!! PERIOD!!!

DancingBear:

Seems to me the folks at the Disney Golf Resort didn't get a theme, or a "transporting experience" either.

AH!!! A little Disney history is needed!! It did indeed have a theme and a purpose and a direction. Read up on it. I’m going on too long as it is!!!

Scoop:

That does not make logical sense for, if it were true, it would have been done at WDW long before Eisner came along.

I totally disagree!! Please back this OUTRAGEOUS statement up!!

I too deplore the "they could have done better" argument because it is impossible to prove and therefore impossible to debate. As Captain very aptly pointed out, everything "could" be better.

I totally agree! I try really, really hard not to go there! HOWEVER!!! Replace the “Could” with “Should” and answer the question, even to the extent of “SHOULD” have done it at all!

To me that is far more important!






© Official LandBaron Copyright

 

[Captain Crook]

Oh Landbaron how you've changed.

I think I'm debating? No, how many times have I told you it's only discussion that I'm after? As for being dismissive, perhaps it appears that way but I read every thing that's written with an open mind and when it's done thoughtfully, as Voice has done a couple times here, it makes the discussion more fun. It doesn't matter that I'm right (although I am) or wrong, it's just fun. As for "trying to be nice"...Landbaron, you've met me, you know I AM nice.

Loaded questions again? It was my original post and my original hope was to determine if the apparant overwhelming guest approval of the resort equated success...But no, over and over again the 'other side' reads into the question what they wish to discuss. It's tiring from this side and you guys can't even see that you're dong it. Truly frustrating. It's true that I trolled a bit with my "element" comment but you guys are pretty easy really.

Next the "I like it" myth. No where has this comment been used as the qualifier. Not by me, Greg or Scoop. At best it has been a personal comment that supports the opinion we're trying to make but NEVER has it been the sole catalyst. Landbaron you know better than this slight of hand.

But instead the question should be whether it should have been built in the first place.

Yeah, but that WASN'T the discussion point I proffered, was it. It's easy to paint a broad stroke over my M.O. but not so easy to actually answer a question, I guess.

I totally agree! I try really, really hard not to go there! HOWEVER!!! ...

And then you go there anyway.

Look, for all of you "other siders" I wish Disney did better with their Value Resorts too...I'd like a Poly type experience for $49.00 but I just don't see it as realistic. Tell me how they could offer deluxe at value rates without cutting the throat of the deluxe?

Further, I'll admit that the Values aren't my cup of tea, even though our stays earlier this year were very enjoyable. I love the AKL & the Poly as my first choices but that doesn't change the fact that maybe, just maybe Pop Century COULD POSSIBLY BE someones ultimate experience. Is this not possible? Anyone? If so, does it not matter? What would Walt think of this exclusionary behavior?

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Originally posted by Captain Crook
...Landbaron, you've met me, you know I AM nice.

Yes sir!! You are nice!! Very nice!! Blinded by the brand... stupefied by all things Disney... loyal to ANYTHING that Disney does... But, very, very, very NICE!!!

Loaded questions again? It was my original post and my original hope was to determine if the apparent overwhelming guest approval of the resort equated success

OK! Let me get this straight! If I tell you, in answer to the narrow definition of your question, that PC is a success, can we then go on to the higher and more important philosophical question.

If so...

YES!!!! It seems to be a success!

---------------------End of original Question ---------------------

BUT...

See the above LandBaron post and answer the "should have" question!!


Also:

Next the "I like it" myth. No where has this comment been used as the qualifier. Not by me, Greg or Scoop. At best it has been a personal comment that supports the opinion we're trying to make but NEVER has it been the sole catalyst. Landbaron you know better than this slight of hand.

There is no slight of hand. You offered your entire postulation and related question to the fact that there were many smiling people there. That they seemed happy about it, and other such subjective nonsense. You may not have said “I” specifically, but the intent was a simple equation:

The public loves it = SUCCESS!!

That’s no slight of hand, my dear Pirate. It is as subjective as you can get!!

Tell me how they could offer deluxe at value rates without cutting the throat of the deluxe?

You see!!! The wrong question again!! It isn’t a case of “COULD”!! It is a case of “SHOULD”!!!

What would Walt think of this exclusionary behavior?

He would think of a way to do it right or… (all together now)

NOT DO IT AT ALL!!!

 

[Captain Crook]

There now! Isn't that better? No need to belittle or besmurch...Well, not much, but hey you're my oldest DIS bud so some lax behavior has to be allowed!

YES!!! It seems to be a success!

WOOOOOOHOOOOOO
WOOOOOOHOOOOOO
An agreement! Even if it means little...It's still nice!

As for "the above Landbaron question" I do believe I answered it but I'll try more. I'd be thrilled if they would stick to the high road all of the time. I'd like not to complain about The Studios losing shows with no replacements, or AK turning its back on animals for carnivals, DL's ridiculous Tomorrowland, or yes Landbaron, the Park hours. If Disney could once again gain the result of PIXAR's with the penchant for quality AND financial success I'm all for it. If that means Jobs in, Eisner out...Great. If that means Mugsy McGillacutty in and Eisner out...Great.

But to backpeddle (as you knew I would) this doesn't change how I view the successes of the current Disney (including Pop). Could they be better? Yes. Should they be better? Yes.

Happy Pappy?

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

An agreement! Even if it means little...It's still nice!

Peter!!! It means NOTHING!!!

So people like it!! So what!?!?! People like the Sopranos too. Is that or should that be Disney? People like Casinos!! Should Disney build some? People like x-rated movies! Should Disney release some? People like strip shows!! Should Disney replace the Hoop-Dee-Do with one!?!?

IT MEANS NOTHING!!!

The question was, is and will always be -- SHOULD Disney build them.

It is evident from your answer that they shouldn’t! Or did I misread something?

And if I didn't misread anything, then we shouldn't be discussing their merits (of which there are none!), but instead discussing the boneheads who drew up the plans, and how far they have strayed from the original philosophy!!!

THAT is what AV meant in the first place! He laments the loss of "Walt's" Disney. You seem to find any excuse to praise Disney®!!

 

[Captain Crook]

NO, NO, NO!!! Not praise, but enjoy. ENJOY!!! Disney still has a lot to offer and it's still within the realm of Walt's magical ideals...It is admittedly straying and I agree that it's too bad. But I still love (along with millions of others) what they've done with WDW. It's a family vacation mecca and an absolute joy to partake. Could it be better? Yes. Should it be better? That'd be great. But it's still unbelievable in its own right even if it isn't the way Walt would have done it.

Once again LB, it isn't that people (including me) simply "like it", but they may actually love it. They may actually be building timeless memories around it. Pop could be the memory of a lifetime for many, many families. This goes way beyond "liking it" and you simply have to be able to grasp this. Walt would not be unhappy with this development even if he wouldn't have built the resort himself. But stilll even Walt did things he didn't want to ... Heck, he HATED Donald Duck but couldn't get rid of him because why???? People loved him!!!

 

[DancingBear]

Originally posted by DVC-Landbaron
The question was, is and will always be -- SHOULD Disney build them.

If you don't think Disney should offer "Value" accomodations, then your answer to this question is no.

If you do think WDW should offer a "Value" alternative, then I say there is no evidence offered that Disney could do "immensely" better than the All-Stars and PC.

Whether you like the reference to "industry standards" or not, nobody at WDI has the ability to magically change the basic economics of the motel business.

If industry standards don't matter, then I guess it shouldn't matter also when folks point out that many of Disney's "Deluxe" resorts don't offer amenities offered by similarly-priced "luxury" accomodations elsewhere.

 

[crusader]

I do believe the Captain has nailed it!

Disney still has a lot to offer and it's still within the realm of Walt's magical ideals...It is admittedly straying and I agree that it's too bad. But I still love (along with millions of others) what they've done with WDW. It's a family vacation mecca and an absolute joy to partake. Could it be better? Yes. Should it be better? That'd be great. But it's still unbelievable in its own right even if it isn't the way Walt would have done it.

Very well said.


One quick note to Sir Baron regarding this little blurb:

Phoebesaturn:What a wonderful poster!!

Cut me a break!

(resorting to such blatant tactics to conceal one's identity doesn't deserve such praise) Unless of course you have a vested interest somewhere.