The future of WDW: Only DVC resorts???

[KNWVIKING]

The mid 80's, early '90s saw a massive build up of on property resorts, including OKW. Do to any number of factors- ME,economy, 9/11,war,SARS,weather,disinterest- pick your favorite, resort occupancy numbers at the Mods and Value sites have been so bad they delayed the opening of PC, shut CBR and then PO for major refurb. The Deluxe resorts seem to be holding there own but to my knowledge no new ones are planned.

But then you have DVC. Since OKW sales caught fire back in the mid '90s nothing has slowed them down. Not war,terrorism,economy,SARS. NOTHING seems to phase DVC sales. We all know the financial upside these resort generate for Disney. Paid for resort at a huge sale price,interest from in-house financing,cost of staff and up-keep coming from our dues, guaranteed high occupancy regardless of outside factors ( does low occupancy even bother them anyway,they've got our money wether we come or not), park media sales,dinning dollar income. And in 39 years they get to do it all over again. There is virtually no downside to a DVC resort.

All this has me wondering if Disney's next move might not be to raze PO as they did DI, and build another DVC resort there. Or maybe one or more of the value resorts. Would it be ideal to have nothing but Deluxe and DVC resorts on property ? IMO the people that can afford to pay cash for the deluxe resorts are always going to be able to afford it...regardless of economy. So Disney can pretty much always count on the upscale crowd spending the big bucks. Then you fill up the rest of WDW with your Disney fanatics looking for a lifetime of great vacations at an affordable, virtually inflation free, rate. Disney wouldn't need to put out discount packages in the down times, they would have a much more stable resort workforce with far less layoffs. The more I play this theory out in my head,the better it looks.

Is this just a foolish concept ??? Or something we may be seeing the beginnings of with SSR ??? Whadda ya's think ?

 

[spiceycat]

WDW is for families - not just the rich....

right now they need to come with a better option that the value resorts - these are getting too expensive for an average family of four.

boy am I glad I brought DVC when I did!

 

[KNWVIKING]

I'm not rich,not even close to being rich. But buying DVC was cheaper then staying at PO over the long haul. GF,Poly,CR,Y&B, they are for the "rich", DVC is ideal for the family.

 

[anniet]

RAZE other WDW resorts?

I hope not!!!

I wouldn't mind if they dropped the points value of some of those resorts though, I'd be likely to stay there on occasion, but I know that's not their way of thinking. They could care less if I stay there or not.

I also think this is cyclical for Disney. They've seen low occupancy rates before. I think when the economy bounces back the first place people will go to vacation will be WDW.

 

[JimC]

I believe Disney is better off with a spectrum of offerings. They need to appeal to a mass audience with a broad range of income and spending abilities and travel preferences. Limiting to only deluxe or DVC resorts may look good right now, but resort investment decisions require a view in the order of 50 to 75 years of use.

 

[Maistre Gracey]

I don't think it will ever happen, but it sure would be great! Just imagine the Poly, AKL, YC ect... all with 2br villas, and all for the standard amount of points for a DVC resort. It would kinda be heaven!

 

[SAKPEG99OKW]

I have know idea what the answer is. DW and I purchased our DVC back in 1999 while on our honeymoon. Thank god we did back then, I had to talk my wife into it, and she thanks me every time we go (which is atleast two times a year). For us DVC is the best value at WDW. Last month I did the math and since we purchased back in 1999 we have made back all are money. The accomdations are excellent as are the locations. For a family who goes to WDW every year IMHO there is no other option but DVC.

Scott

 

[Dean]

While there are many families that own DVC, a certain level of means is required to enjoy WDW and/or DVC. While there are ways to hit the world on the cheap, it's all relative and Disney will never be a cheap option. Nor will it be affordable for a large segment of the population. Disney's goal is to make money and they will never do so by providing slums nor would I want to see that.

 

[KNWVIKING]

***"Disney's goal is to make money and they will never do so by providing slums nor would I want to see that."***

Slums ???? Are we refering to PC and AS resorts ?

 

[Dean]

Originally posted by KNWVIKING
***"Disney's goal is to make money and they will never do so by providing slums nor would I want to see that."***

Slums ???? Are we refering to PC and AS resorts ?

No, just the idea of making WDW more affordable.

 

[KNWVIKING]

So, you're saying too many DVC resorts would be the equivelant of slums ? I guess it's late or I'm extra dense tonite because I'm missing the point you're trying to make.

 

[CaptainMidnight]

Originally posted by KNWVIKING
***"Disney's goal is to make money and they will never do so by providing slums nor would I want to see that."***

Slums ???? Are we refering to PC and AS resorts ?

Forgetting the inferred politics using words like slums or wide-range equal opportunity or whatever ......

I hope Disney doesn't go the more economy route. The biggest reason is that I don't think they can be successful along these lines, there are too many offsite resorts that will always be able to undercut their prices with a nice reasonable selection of amenities which provide value to the consumers in thier price range, companies who don't put the investment in staff, training, theming and other Disney traits. I see it as a failed direction. The economy route is not one in which Disney will be successful competing. Disney needs to remain and focus on moderate to upscale resorts, that is their competitive advantage, they can do these types of resorts better. They can't compete successfully along the economy route.

 

[Dean]

Originally posted by CaptainMidnight
Forgetting the inferred politics using words like slums or wide-range equal opportunity or whatever ......

I hope Disney doesn't go the more economy route. The biggest reason is that I don't think they can be successful along these lines, there are too many offsite resorts that will always be able to undercut their prices with a nice reasonable selection of amenities which provide value to the consumers in thier price range, companies who don't put the investment in staff, training, theming and other Disney traits. I see it as a failed direction. The economy route is not one in which Disney will be successful competing. Disney needs to remain and focus on moderate to upscale resorts, that is their competitive advantage, they can do these types of resorts better. They can't compete successfully along the economy route.

Thanks for understanding my intent, it was late last night after a long day.

 

[KNWVIKING]

I don't have a problem with WDW offering SOME value resorts, but not on the scale of PC and AS.

 

[DemoBri1]

Wasn't the whole idea behind razing DI due to the fact that the occupany rate was so low? If PO is headed that direction then you may see one half of PO go the way of DI. I don't think they'd do away with both FQ and Riverside, just one.

I don't feel that Disney will in any means put up super value rate resorts. PC will more than likely be the last value resort to go up though.

What you might see is Disney freeze the rates at AS and PC, and then create a new level either in between the Value and Moderate resorts, or the Moderate and Deluxe Resorts.

I don't know if they could have pulled this off or not, but if they could have I think they missed the boat by not locating PC in the MK area off the monorail. Just think of it...all these families with young kids populating MK. They could've promoted easy access to the MK via monorail from right outside your resort entrance.

Brian

 

[tinkgrl]

Hi,

I don't think it would be a smart thing for disney to do. DVC is great but not everyone can afford it. If they want the masses to stay @ WDW & keep coming back they are better off with a wide vareity of resorts @ different prices. I think they do it pretty well myself.

Allison

 

[KNWVIKING]

....***I don't think it would be a smart thing for disney to do. DVC is great but not everyone can afford it. If they want the masses to stay @ WDW & keep coming back they are better off with a wide vareity of resorts @ different prices. ***

No,not everyone one can afford DVC, but so far DVC hasn't run out of us that can. Everything they build-sells. SSR will be the real test because this is the first resort they've built since OKW that isn't a prime location-(please, save the location debate for another thread). If it sells well, it may embolden them to try closing a place like PO or AS.

I'm not saying I want all WDW resort to be DVC, my thread is just me thinking out loud: Is this something Disney is/would/had/might consider because of the empty rooms in their Value and Mod resorts ?

 

[JimC]

When we first started to go to WDW, the moderates of today, then represented by CBR/PO/DL, were their "value" resorts. Later, the current value resorts were created, I suspect, to offer a resort class at below $100 per night and capture market share where they could still make an acceptable return on the investment.

We have been on and off property and find "on" to be far superior to being off. Particularly the advantage to get into the parks early (never did understand why they departed from that perk for a while).

I don't know the metrics for this sort of thing, but I wonder if they would build many more rooms without adding a fifth park. A fifth park green light might indicate future investment in rooms and I would expect DVCII resorts of which SSR is the new flagship.

Just my ramblings...

 

[KNWVIKING]

I've seen pro-con debates over this, but the one con argument that really seems to clinch it is length of stay.

WDW has so much to offer,just how much can you accomplish in your normal vacation week ? When they opened AK, they didn't see a sudden surge of people adding an extra day or two just so they could see AK, they simple skipped a day or two they would have normally spent somewhere else -Epcot or MGM perhaps. A 5th park would just raise the cost of UPH or other media tickets to a rate that might discourage guests from coming at all.

 

[PKS44]

i don't think the expansion of DVC and the drop in occupancy at the moderates are disconnected events---many of the people who have bought DVC would have been guests in those resorts if they were not in DVC--the success of DVC has been somewhat at the expense of the other resorts' guest base.,,this is the downside to DVC--they have cannibalized their market to some extent.