Pop Century

[JeffJewell]

Even with my recent car #2 defection, there are still so many more threebies (or is it threeophytes?) here on the RB

With a nod towards Captain Pirate, I'd have to say I prefer "Screaming Three-Mees."

To me, that's the drawback of the Car analogy: despite the fact that folks sometimes get into heated arguments, it's not my intention to use Car 3 as a weapon to bump anyone else off the road. Indeed, the most heated I've ever gotten, myself, was with a person whose posts suggested to me a view of WDW similar enough to mine that I thought he misunderstood the question and actually belonged in here with me. Somehow, it came across as me trying to push people from their car into the ditch. I'm a much poorer communicator than I wish to be, at times.

In the final analysis, Cars 1, 2, and 3 are all still heading _to_ WDW. Everyone (except that poor lonely b*****d in Car 4) agrees that as it exists at this moment, WDW is a worthwhile place to be. If I seem to sing a gloom and doom tune, it's only because I'm concerned that there is a business philosophy in Disney's upper echelon that I see as leading us someplace bad.

Clearly the business side to the decision is - why lose business to the outside? But the other side is that the offering be well received. Which I think it is, just not here.

Fair enough point of view, even though it comes from a different direction than my own.

Let's imagine a wonderful restaurant, with unique food, over-the-top ambiance with spacious booths, and a staff that can't wait to make sure you have the best meal you've ever had. The restaurant enjoys great success.

As a matter of fact, it's _so_ successful, that it turns out people sometimes have to wait hours for a table. McDonald's and Jack-in-the-Box toss up restaurants nearby, and end up doing a nifty bit of business off of the folks who think hours is too long to wait for a meal, no matter how wonderful it is.

From a business point of view, there are two ways to go, if you want to avoid "losing business to the outside." The first restaurant could expand, offering more tables with the same experience. Or, they could push the tables closer together, have the servers wait on more tables at once, and offer a Value menu that looks suspiciously similar to the bill of fare at the Jack-in-the-Box.

I believe that the first method maintains the original appeal of the restaurant, which will continue to become more popular, and that the second method will only serve to undermine all the wonderful things that made the first restaurant such a success in the first place.

Ya know what I mean? I don't think McDonald's or Jack-in-the-Box are _bad_ places, but they're pretty much the same places that exist every seventeen feet in every major metropolitan area. By trying to compete with them, the first restaurant simply does not offer the same experience that gave it its success. I don't think the people who eat at McDonald's and Jack-in-the-Box are inferior people in any way, they simply have a different set of priorities than I when it comes to choosing a restaurant. By catering to that different set of priorities, the first restaurant is _less_ attractive to the set of priorites important to all those customers that gave it its success (with the unfortunate side effect that those folks who loved the "old" first restaurant now have no where to go to get that experience).

It'll be difficult or impossible to prove or disprove the following, but it's how I feel: the first restaurant would be better served to ignore what the fast food restaurants were doing in every town, village and hamlet, and continue to offer that unique dining experience upon which they built their success.

I'm playing under the assumption that my analogy is sufficiently transparent.

Jeff

 

[YoHo]

But JeffJewell, What if the Buisness opened a new veture that did compete with the McDonalds at its level. It offered the services and expectations of that McDonalds, while maybe adding glint of the originals personal Charm.

Landbaron likes to harp on the current price of the Deluxe resorts, the "True" Disney resorts, but the fact is that they are quite competitve for the experience offered. There is perhaps a different type of vacationer now, lets call them the fast food type. In a world of park hoping and shows and different meals and everything else. These people want a bed to sleep on, but they also want the park related advantages of a Disney resort. Certainly Disney can and should offer them.
My gripe is that the themeing of those resorts is a sick joke. (which now that I look at it may be the point of your analogy) I would prefer that Disney offer the perks of on-site with the look of off-site then try and give me half-hearted themeing. As an example I gave the Disneyland hotel which is priced as a moderate-Deluxe for its convience formost. This resort could be built today for the price of an Allstars and would be a better looking place to stay.

 

[All Aboard]

Jeff, your analogy makes one big assumption that I think is incorrect:

Applying your analogy to WDW resorts - the presence of the All Stars cheapens or reduces the experience Grand Floridian guests are having. I disagree.


Sure, WDW could have continued to build nothing by Deluxe quality resorts. It's not that folks aren't willing to wait in line long enough to experience them... it's that there are folks that cannot afford them.

So, should WDW have made the decision to shut those folks out from staying on-site. My thought is "definitely not."

 

[YoHo]

Perhaps a different analogy.
What if Morton's Steakhouse of Chicago owned Outback steakhouse and the Sizzler. (does the sizzler exist anymore?)

Would the quality of food at the sizzler or Outback affect the quality of the food at mortons? NO.

But, me thinks that JeffJewell meant something else. I think he was refering to theming. All Walt Disney world resorts are the resturant and themeing is the menu.
the Polyneisian is the Filet, the AK Lodge is the Salmon, DxL is the gormet Burger and All Stars is Chicken McNuggets. How would serving Chicken McNuggets enhance an already packed resturant.

 

[Eeyore2U]

I don't think that the All Stars affect the deluxes or the moderates, one way or another. But if my view from the CBR was of Pop Century I'd ask to change my view and view has never mattered to me.

I guess to me, what Disney has done, has nothing to do with theming. It has to do with what might be appropriate. I was watching a show about all different kinds of architecture throught out the US. Pop Century is like putting the hot dog shaped restuarant in a an average everday residential area. It doesn't fit with what it's around. It doesn't fit with "Disney Style".

 

[YoHo]

And some of us would argue that neither do the All stars.

 

[Peter Pirate]

And some of us (extremely happy people) will argue that both do!

 

[Eeyore2U]

LMBO, I'm so glad we can all agree to disagree!!!!

 

[hopemax]

I know most of you guys are "WDW people" but have any of you been to the "Value" resort at Disneyland Paris aka the Santa Fe?

I've been trying to find some pictures of the hotel, but aside from a couple on the official site I haven't had much luck. The inside shot shows a very nice looking room, and looks more pleasing to me than the shots inside the All-Star rooms. But the outside shots I can't tell much, other than it's going for the adobe South-west look?

 

[YoHo]

Based on the www.disneylandparis.com website, the Santa fe is NOT the cheapest, but even the cheapest ones look a million times more fanciful then 50' guitars.

 

[airlarry!]

Wow. Yoho! hit the nail on the head Again! This sums up a #3 car rider, IMHO. This statement should be on the Flag of every Threebie. Mr. Ei$ner should have hired Yoho! as his consultant for the PopCentury phase See for yourself:

I KNOW I'm an extremist in this sense. I love the concept of a "Disney" Motel. I just think that given the amount of money spent. ALl stars could have been better. Sometimes less is more.

Yes. I love the prices that we pay for the All-stars. But did the builders really build them to Disney specs, while still maintaining the value? To those that argue that there should not be a "Value" resort, I love Yoho!'s analogy of E ticket hotels and A ticket hotels. All we ask is that the A ticket and E ticket both have that...call it magic, call it quality, call it Wow!, call it Show, call it whatever, but both should have it...same should go for the hotel/motel.

 

[JeffJewell]

Applying your analogy to WDW resorts - the presence of the All Stars cheapens or reduces the experience Grand Floridian guests are having. I disagree.

...the timing of Animal Kingdom and the All Stars muddies the water, so I'm gonna switch horses in mid-stream here for the sake of the point I want to make.

I believe that the almost 6000 extra on-site rooms of the Pop Century will indeed affect the experience of those in the Grand Floridian, in terms of load on the transportation system, crowds during EE and E-nights, rental car traffic on property, that sort of thing.

Jeff

PS: That said, yeah, in hindsight I realize I kinda tied in some aspects of other conversations in my analogy. Oops.

 

[Peter Pirate]

JJ, some of what you're saying is a possibility...But as for transportation, no deluxe will be sharing routes with budgets and as for EE & Enights, perhaps (given full hotels), EE could be expanded with perhaps a rotating "other Park" on the MK days (since MK always sees the biggest crowds)...Or perhaps other Parks (MGM) could participate in an occasional e-night. I know this is speculation, and based on recent history you 'screemin three-mees' (thanks for the alteration!) won't acknowledge the possibilities...But it's as salient to discuss them as it is what might happen when the PC opens...

Man, Eyore2U...Look at the volume on this seemingly harmless topic! You never know what we geeks, er, ah gentlepeople will find interesting!

 

[Eeyore2U]

And all I was pointing out was a truly ugly group of buildings.

 

[d-r]

fwiw, I don't think the point is "could they have made the value resorts better and still afford to charge value rates."

If the value resorts were as immersively themed as the moderate or deluxe, or if the rooms were bigger, or there were more transportation options, or more dining options, etc. (insert whatever downside of the values you would like) and the rates were value rates, why would anyone stay at a moderate or deluxe?

If they could theme it as well as the polly with motel doors etc. I might be tempted to stay at the cheap version of the polly rather than forking over $300 a night.

I've stayed at the all stars once, b/c we got a great rate and took an unplanned bonus trip. It beats staying off property, but personally, I hope not to stay there again. But then again, staying in the all stars for a weekend was better than staying at home in some ways.

I find the decorations to be tacky personally, but if they weren't why would I choose to stay somewhere that costs more? They are purposefully designed to serve a specific role: value accomodations on site. There are some people who will pay a lot of money to stay at a moderate or deluxe, and Disney wants their money. There are other people who wouldn't and would stay off property, but Disney wants their money, too. But the key for Disney is to keep getting the more money from the first group, and so the value resorts fit the bill - on site accomodations for those who refuse to pay for the extra theming / perks, but not so nice that they would cannabilize the other resort categories. For that matter, that's why there is a camp ground at ft. wilderness (Disney would rather have the money from the campers than have them camp off site), home away from homes (why rent a house off site) and DVC (don't let them waste their money on off site time shares). Heck, vero beach is to keep the money from those few extra nights that some families want to go to the beach.

It is simple economics, you don't charge what you can afford to charge, you charge what people will pay. And if there are different levels of what people are willing to pay, you can make the most by appealing to all of them.

DR

 

[KaraJade]

IMHO, the allstar resorts can be as tacky as they want to be. If it means I can get that great rate and save a TON of money during the times when my budget is pretty tight, yet STILL stay onsite at disney, I'm happy. Would I rather be staying in a much more elaborately themed room? yes. Maybe I can say this because I don't think its so bad. Besides, I LIKE the color purple. When I was a kid, I'd have painted the whole world that color if I could have, lol.
I suppose, ultimately, I'll hold out judgement until I see what more of it looks like.... the pool, the food court, how the food court is set up, what the rooms look like on the inside.

 

[SPAGo 98]

I haven't stayed at the All-Stars, but I've visited them...and they suprisingly weren't as tacky as I thought they'd be. I'd much rather stay there than any other similarly priced (m/h)otel offsite...and the prices are quite alluring. Just my thoughts.

Oh, and YoHo, the Hotel Santa Fe *is* the cheapest of the DLP hotels, not including the Davy Crockett Ranch, which is more of a Ft Wilderness thing.

 

[larworth]

I assume by the WOW that congratulations are in order. A boy or a girl?

 

[Eeyore2U]

I hope the new DISer doesn't get anything that resembles the Pop Century. It could be scarred for life.

Congrats!!!! I never thought this thread would get here!!!!

 

[YoHo]

Wow, I'm helping out car number 3?

Well, as the resident punk on the Harley with the Kaiser Helmet (German with the pointing thing) on. I have to spread my wishy washyness everywhere.



discoop, I myself am all for giving as many people the oppertunity to enjoy the world as possible and I'm willing to allow services to be reduced at the hotel to do it, but why do my Eyes have to burst from my skull in a searing uncontrollable pain every time I look at the buildings?

Every other resort at every Disney park in the entire world including DLP is lightyears ahead in terms of themeing. Why must central Florida be cursed with eyesores?

D-R, I don't mean to suggest that the value resorts be themed AS emersivly as the moderates and the deluxes. In fact I'd prefer less themeing. For instance, I don't consider Old Key West to be heavily themed. Wouldn't a typical motel that looked like that with miniml landscaping be better?
Also don't forget the lack of sit down resturant.