What I want: A new Star Wars theme Hotel.

[jcnewton]

I find this incredibly hard to believe. Do you have any numbers to back this up? Disney's hotels are huge, and are always pretty close to 80% capacity from what I understand. And much of the year, certain hotels are completely booked up. I find it hard to believe Disney is operating these hotels at a net zero, and non-disney hotels I stay at when I go anywhere else, that have day of availability and rarely more than a fifth of the rooms filled are making money, and charging far less to stay there. Not to mention the guests at Disney hotels are spending money on overpriced meals almost faster than the kitchen can crank out the food, on a consistent basis. Sure, Disney hotels require way more staff, but that's because they are dealing with far more guests who are paying much more money.

With all the additions coming in the next few years, you'd think capacity would only keep going up. I'm sure Disney doesn't want that $ staying off-property.

 

[Q-man]

With all the additions coming in the next few years, you'd think capacity would only keep going up. I'm sure Disney doesn't want that $ staying off-property.

I think it is more of an issue that when the property was bought there was no wetland preservation to worry about. Now there is and the amount of land on property that can be built on is now very small. Disney has to be very judicious in considering ROI before developing anything on property at this point.

 

[wareagle57]

I think it is more of an issue that when the property was bought there was no wetland preservation to worry about. Now there is and the amount of land on property that can be built on is now very small. Disney has to be very judicious in considering ROI before developing anything on property at this point.

There is plenty left to develop. As long as you do it in areas where it's not large enough for a theme park, it's not really a risk.

 

[DDLand]

It's possible that a Star Wars themed resort could be done, and it would be provided courtesy of Marriott, Hilton or Starwood. Hotels require staffing and that's something that Disney isn't interested in spending money on at the moment. The only money Disney is spending now is for conversion of existing properties to DVC.

This never made sense to me. The most compelling thing you could tell me is Disney doesn't want to take on more risk associated with hotel management. That makes sense. Another is perhaps Disney feels like they've hit a maximum hotel unit buildout already and it just doesn't make sense moving forward. This isn't quite as logical, but makes some sense.

The argument that Disney just doesn't want to hire more people or pay for hotel management doesn't make sense though. That's their business. Hiring people to operate and maintain expensive physical structures for the tourist market is what they specialize in. I mean it's one thing to say that compared to other ways they could spend 100 million that it's ineffective, it's another to say they just don't want to manage hotels. That's in their DNA. The WDW is all about encouraging guests to stay at their hotels, and the hotels are all about encouraging guests to stay at their theme parks. Profiting all the way they go.

Taking one of the All Star resorts and converting it to a Star Wars theme is another possibility. Naturally with an upgrade in price to a glorified moderate.

Same thought crossed my mind too. Heck, they have so many strong IPs that it would be exceptionally easy to implement a half and half SW and something else hotel. New giant props, paint, and some new interiors and you have a SW Resort. That's where all the fanboys can stay when they come to visit Star Wars Land!

 

[wallrock]

This never made sense to me. The most compelling thing you could tell me is Disney doesn't want to take on more risk associated with hotel management. That makes sense. Another is perhaps Disney feels like they've hit a maximum hotel unit buildout already and it just doesn't make sense moving forward. This isn't quite as logical, but makes some sense.

The argument that Disney just doesn't want to hire more people or pay for hotel management doesn't make sense though. That's their business. Hiring people to operate and maintain expensive physical structures for the tourist market is what they specialize in. I mean it's one thing to say that compared to other ways they could spend 100 million that it's ineffective, it's another to say they just don't want to manage hotels. That's in their DNA. The WDW is all about encouraging guests to stay at their hotels, and the hotels are all about encouraging guests to stay at their theme parks. Profiting all the way they they go.

It makes perfect sense, especially when you see Disney's current fixation on converting to DVC. Going the DVC route provides guaranteed revenue while requiring fewer housekeeping resources. As I've mentioned before, the paint isn't even dry yet on the Polynesian and they're already underway with the Wilderness Lodge conversion. If only Disney was so speedy with their construction in the parks...

And Disney's business on the parks and resorts side is selling trinkets in the gift shops with running hotels falling further and further down the priority ladder. The Swan and Dolphin are already on the campus and Flamingo Crossings is on it's way. No reason to see why this trend wouldn't continue. They can easily lease or sell the land to whatever hotel chain is willing to pay for the spot, sell a license to allow Mickey and Minnie to run around the lobby and everybody comes out a winner - Disney gets a check without having to hire additional staff or pay for construction and the hotel chain gets one of the most coveted spots in Orlando.

 

[horse11]

This needs to happen. I've stayed in both moderate and value resorts and prefer the value resort, especially AoA, because of the theming. It just feels more "Disney." Let's be honest though, we will likely see a Frozen resort before Star Wars though!

I would not mind a Frozen theme room especially in the HOT Florida summers lol!!!

 

[horse11]

I know they probably would never do it as it would freak kids out but anything with a haunted/scary theme would be at the top of my list for a new resort,it definitely would be a departure from anything anyone does and is probably not right for Disney,but Universal who has the super popular Halloween Horror Nights and such a great history of scary movies would be silly to at least not consider it for a future hotel.I think right off the bat as soon as you build something that unique you can easily charge a premium for rooms at an extensively themed spooky hotel.

They almost did a haunted mansion room but did the princess rooms at POR instead,

 

[writerguyfl]

I think future hotel development will be contingent on data collected via My Magic Plus. It will probably take a few more years, but eventually WDW leaders will have the kind of aggregate data of which most companies only dream.

There are many possible scenarios. If the data suggests that guests not staying at a WDW hotel spend as much as (or more than) an on-site guest, then there might be little reason to take on the risk of building any new non-DVC resorts.

Conversely, if the data supports the concept that on-site guests do spend more money, then a new resort becomes far less risky. The type of new resort (value, moderate, deluxe) will probably be selected based on a combination of My Magic Plus data and more traditional sources like rates/occupancy percentage. Example: If the highest spending comes from guests staying in a Family Suite style room at a Value resort, that's what they'd probably build.

 

[ajjoplin1]

Taking one of the All Star resorts and converting it to a Star Wars theme is another possibility. Naturally with an upgrade in price to a glorified moderate.

Interesting concept! I wouldn't mind this at all! I like the idea of a resort close to HS, although monorail access, as was mentioned earlier, it not likely, since HS HAS no monorail access! LOL

No timetable...so right now a "year after opening" could be the year 3047...

Get your delorean

Good point! And love Love LOVE the old-school delorean reference!

 

[ajjoplin1]

Since we're on the subject of resorts, am I the only person who thinks they should have a Twilight Zone Tower of Terror-themed resort? Would be perfect for a moderate, or deluxe....any thoughts?

 

[skier_pete]

If the data suggests that guests not staying at a WDW hotel spend as much as (or more than) an on-site guest, then there might be little reason to take on the risk of building any new non-DVC resorts.

Conversely, if the data supports the concept that on-site guests do spend more money, then a new resort becomes far less risky.

Oh come on. #1 - they clearly already have this data and #2 - the data already says that on-site guests spend more at Disney.

I don't even need to see the data to tell you that. If I'm staying at "I-Drive Resort B", I'm not eating breakfast at Disney, not eating some dinners at Disney. Much more likely to go over to Sea World, or Universal or play mini-golf or whatever. MOST people staying on-site (more than 50%) don't have transportation to go off site - and spend ALL there money at Disney. (Our family does - and I know I'm not the only one.)

If Disney reaches a high enough level of capacity at it's existing hotels - it WILL build more on-site ones. Heck everyone acts like they haven't opened one in forever. It's only been THREE years since the last one opened - which added 2,800 rooms to WDW or increased room capacity by almost 15 % on site.

If I had to guess - with the work at DAK and DHS, you likely won't see another resort for a few years, but I would bet within 5 years another on-site resort will be announced. And again, I wouldn't be surprised if it's a DHS focused resort.

 

[skier_pete]

Since we're on the subject of resorts, am I the only person who thinks they should have a Twilight Zone Tower of Terror-themed resort? Would be perfect for a moderate, or deluxe....any thoughts?

A somewhat limited appeal in that many small children would be frightened by it. My guess is this was the reason they nixed the Haunted Mansion themed rooms. It's bad enough going on a scary ride - but how many kids want to sleep in a scary hotel?

 

[wareagle57]

Oh come on. #1 - they clearly already have this data and #2 - the data already says that on-site guests spend more at Disney.

I don't even need to see the data to tell you that. If I'm staying at "I-Drive Resort B", I'm not eating breakfast at Disney, not eating some dinners at Disney. Much more likely to go over to Sea World, or Universal or play mini-golf or whatever. MOST people staying on-site (more than 50%) don't have transportation to go off site - and spend ALL there money at Disney. (Our family does - and I know I'm not the only one.)

Agree 100%. And when Star Wars opens and all the Star Wars fans start making their pilgrimages to see it, those are the type of guests who are going to stay off site, because they don't know any better. A very small percentage will think it's worth it to stay on site. They are certainly not going to invest in DVC. But if you build a Star Wars themed hotel... now you're going from almost none of them staying on site, to almost all of them wanting to.

 

[tup1830]

Does disney report hotel occupancy in conjunction with DVC? As in if X points are sold, then 1 room is occupied all the time and therefore occupancy is bumped regardless of a reservation/stay in that room? Or is hotel occupancy completely separate from the DVC inventory of rooms?

 

[rteetz]

If I had to guess - with the work at DAK and DHS, you likely won't see another resort for a few years, but I would bet within 5 years another on-site resort will be announced. And again, I wouldn't be surprised if it's a DHS focused resort.

Actually I think the next new hotel will be a stand alone DVC possibly still DHS focued.

 

[skier_pete]

Actually I think the next new hotel will be a stand alone DVC possibly still DHS focued.

I am not sure about this. They've only ever built two of these. The very first one (OKW) and SSR - which was a conversion of the Disney Institute into something useful. I think they like sharing the infrastructure of existing resorts. Standalone DVC resorts need to be HUGE to be able to withstand supporting the entire infrastructure of the resort. In fact, they are so determined to do this that they are now returning to a resort that they already built DVC, and adding a second DVC resort to it. Not saying its impossible, but I think they much prefer to add on. Now, I could see them building a resort combined with DVC all together.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

A somewhat limited appeal in that many small children would be frightened by it. My guess is this was the reason they nixed the Haunted Mansion themed rooms. It's bad enough going on a scary ride - but how many kids want to sleep in a scary hotel?

Yeah...big fat "no" on that one

 

[skier_pete]

Does disney report hotel occupancy in conjunction with DVC? As in if X points are sold, then 1 room is occupied all the time and therefore occupancy is bumped regardless of a reservation/stay in that room? Or is hotel occupancy completely separate from the DVC inventory of rooms?

DVC and Resorts are separate groups. Resort reports occupancy rates independent of DVC. Resort occupancy 1st quarter 2015 was 89% which is really, really fantastic overall. From what I hear, occupancy rates at the values and moderates are generally slightly higher than this - while the deluxes tend to be lower. (Part of the reason that the portion of the Poly was converted to DVC was that hotel occupancy at the Poly was normally running in the low seventies - which is NOT good by Disney standards.)

DVC occupacy rates are pretty much 99% anyways and mostly irrelevant. The resorts are "sold out" whether they are occupied or not. (Disney needs to retain some small percent of these resorts - like 1% or something.) I've said it before, but DVC is genius for Disney because they take 50 years of profit up-front, while any change in operation costs are pass on the owners as maintenance fees.

FYI - the article I found had an interesting comment buried in it:

The Walt Disney Co.'s hotel occupancy at its domestic resorts spiked in its first quarter — 89 percent compared with 81 percent the previous year.

"It will probably be difficult to see it go much higher", Disney Chief Financial Officer Jay Rasulo said.

"I think hoteliers in general will tell you that to try to fill a hotel beyond 89 percent, 90 percent, 91 percent, is extremely difficult," Rasulo told analysts last week.

"To go beyond that, it takes too many match-ups of people who are staying three nights checking out replaced by five nights replaced in rapid succession, it becomes quite difficult. So … when you see occupancy in that kind of range, you are getting close to pretty much a full house and those were historically the numbers at which we started to think about expanded capacity."

So - maybe a new hotel is sooner than we think??

 

[skier_pete]

I am not sure about this. They've only ever built two of these. The very first one (OKW) and SSR - which was a conversion of the Disney Institute into something useful. I think they like sharing the infrastructure of existing resorts. Standalone DVC resorts need to be HUGE to be able to withstand supporting the entire infrastructure of the resort. In fact, they are so determined to do this that they are now returning to a resort that they already built DVC, and adding a second DVC resort to it. Not saying its impossible, but I think they much prefer to add on. Now, I could see them building a resort combined with DVC all together.

I should add to my own comment: The latest talk is that after the Wilderness lodge DVC, the insider plan is to add DVC capacity to Beach Club / Yacht Club by converting rooms to DVC. So again - more at existing resorts.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

I think the poster made an excellent point about the data and resort investment

The bands should provide more finely tuned/quantifiable data...

Does that matter? To walt Disney, card Walker, or even Michael Eisner...probably not...

But to Wall Street now? Yes...absolutely...and that can't be understated.

As far as the "profit" in hotels...I think "nickels or dimes, not dollars" sums it up brilliantly...

And do I "know"...yes...from a variety of resort/revenue positions and access to those figures under the old system. My data is dated about 12-15 years now...so perhaps they've figure out more.

But here's the thing...holiday inn never has 1,000 employees...plus shares of "common costs" charged to it.

Caribbean beach...does. That's why the small profits from the stuff at old port Royale and the lodging fees are mostly offset.

It's about the employees...it's such a beast. 65,000 wage earners - even at minimum - are a bear to handle.

So that's the nuts and buts of it. You can call it "tricky accounting" and that's fair...but the bill gets paid.

I also hate the idea that we describe anything in the swamp as "making money"

That term never applied. It should be "generating revenue" and "yielding profits"

That's the secret to understanding the place and it will always be.