Originally Posted By fkurucz >>Absolutely. Disney has rooms that are going at cut rate discounts now, so they obviously don't NEED more rooms. But look at the percentage of the average crowd that stay on property vs. off property. Disney is specifically targeting those off property folks, the crowd that wouldn't stay anywhere but the cheapest property. Disney will NEVER get them to stay at even a value resort for $75/night when they can stay on 192 for $50/night.<< They are looking for ways to grow, and a way to do that is to tap into new markets. They figure that these people are visiting WDW, so they might as well stay on property than on I Drive. >>The Disney magic should be accessible to everyone, and if you think it should be restricted only to those who have the coin for upscale establishments I think you have a serious misunderstanding of the target audience for Disney entertainment during the past 80 or so years.<< I think that this is the heart of the matter for some people, who like the "exclusivity" of being able to afford to stay on property. I don't see why it bothers them so much. The "trailer park" will be far away, out of sight of any Deluxe or Moderate resort and all theme parks. I could understand people being upset if they built a Super 8 next to MK on the monorail route, but thats not going to happen
Originally Posted By disneydad109 I would never stay off site,not because I don't like "trailer park" folks We just like to stay "in the magic" it makes it seem like your in the parks for the whole time. That's worth the extra money for me.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip What makes all this WDWisgoingtohellinahandbasket.com thing rather amusing is that WDW attendance continues to grow year after year. The guests are the most important judge of whether or not WDW is headed in the proper direction. Do I think things could be improved? Sure. I wish the restrooms were cleaner. I wish the grounds were cleaner. I wish that menu selections weren't being reduced. But would I be willing to go back to a two-park WDW in exchange for having perfection in those other areas? Heck no!! Joe Tourist LIKES WDW being built out. We've got a week to 10 days to spend there and you can only ride Small World so many times. I like having four parks. I like having many resort choices, and the many dining choices that they bring. Most of the really good dining at WDW is in places that did not exist back in the "glory days" you remember. Yachtsman Steakhouse Flying Fish Spoodles Artist's Point Boma Jiko Hollywood Brown Derby I think Florida residents just don't get what tourists want and expect from WDW. You think we want Disneyland. We don't. If we wanted Disneyland we'd go to Disneyland. Which I do. If I want to spend a few days at a jewel of a park I go to Disneyland. If I want to have a 1-2 week vacation I go to WDW for all of the great options that it offers. (Even if the restrooms are a little dirty)
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <You think we want Disneyland. We don't. If we wanted Disneyland we'd go to Disneyland. Which I do. < I'm not sure I've ever heard it explained better
Originally Posted By mrichmondj << What makes all this WDWisgoingtohellinahandbasket.com thing rather amusing is that WDW attendance continues to grow year after year. The guests are the most important judge of whether or not WDW is headed in the proper direction. >> I have to disagree with this somewhat. Attendance is influenced by a number of factors that have nothing to do with guest satisfaction. Disney park attendance for 2007 is already appearing to be soft due to macroeconomic issues related to a weakening U.S. economy. However, attendance by foreigners is booming thanks to a dollar that has been weakening a lot over the past year. Neither of these issues really have anything to do with whether or not guests are satisfied with their WDW experience. I think it is too simplistic to say that growing attendance (or weak attendance) is a sign of overall guest satifaction. I think you would have to look at attendance trends that span multiple economic cycles (likely 5-10 years) to make this sort of judgment. By that measure, WDW attendance has been relatively flat since the late 90s. Recent gains have largely come from a rebound after 9/11 and a surge in vacation spending by families benefitting from a booming housing market and home equity loan cash. Personally, I think attendance at all the Disney parks is going to fall off the cliff if the economic downturn kicks into full gear later this year. I don't think there is any amount of guest satisfaction that can mitigate the effect of a bad economy.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>Personally, I think attendance at all the Disney parks is going to fall off the cliff if the economic downturn kicks into full gear later this year. I don't think there is any amount of guest satisfaction that can mitigate the effect of a bad economy.<< Who knows? While they will no doubt lose middle class customers, they might pick up people further up the food chain who are also economizing (sorry kids, we aren't visiting southern Europe this year, but we will go to WDW).
Originally Posted By mrichmondj << Who knows? While they will no doubt lose middle class customers, they might pick up people further up the food chain who are also economizing (sorry kids, we aren't visiting southern Europe this year, but we will go to WDW). >> I suppose that's a possibility, but it's never happened that way before.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 ^^^^^ agree -- but that is where the 4 Seasons seems to fit the bill....especially if tied to a land / sea -- 4 Seasons / Disney Cruise line from agents for the $$$$ crowd.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 >There simply isn't ANY NEED WHATSOEVER for this project other than ABJECT GREED. PERIOD.< <<Absolutely. Disney has rooms that are going at cut rate discounts now, so they obviously don't NEED more rooms. But look at the percentage of the average crowd that stay on property vs. off property. Disney is specifically targeting those off property folks, the crowd that wouldn't stay anywhere but the cheapest property. Disney will NEVER get them to stay at even a value resort for $75/night when they can stay on 192 for $50/night. >> Recently, you could regularly snag rooms at the All Stars and POP for as little as $49 a night. Last summer, Disney tossed Music and Sports rooms on Priceline.com for $36 a night. Those places on 192 aren't all $25 a night flea bags. Most charge closer to $100 than $50 ... so again, this is just Disney trying to get every last guest to stay on its property and never leave. <<But if Disney can go into business with these cheaper resorts and build a central area that'd be fun for the guests to stay in and also let Disney get their hands on a portion of this money, well, what's not to like? As I said, the money should be going to fixing the MK, but until Lasseter directs his all seeing eye east, that just ain't gonna happen.>> First, I doubt these places will have many Disney touches beyond standardized signage at entries and such ... I wouldn't look for much else. And what could be better? Seriously? Empty land. Because that can be used for better ideas in the future. Once a hotel is planted, it is there for decades. Other than Contemporary North, which is gone for DVC expansion, when have you ever seen a WDW hotel get bulldozed? As for Lasseter, my strong opinion is his effects will be seen in animation first and foremost and DL/DCA secondly. After that? Maybe Asian expansion. He doesn't seem to have much interest in the Timeshare Kingdom of the World, and that suits WDW's cheap, inept managament just fine. You should have seen just how nervous InoverherheadMeg looked in his presence at Nemo: The Musical previews.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<You mean the upscale resort that featured overflowing toilets, mold-infested hotel rooms, and a front desk that couldn't manage to get rooms ready in time for check-in? >> That was never my experience in the 70s and 80s. Sorry you had so many bad experiences. Maybe you should have stayed off-property since you don't seem like the kind of guy who would complain to management when it does a bad job ;-) <<I've been visiting WDW for over 30 years, and those are the sorts of things I remember from my stays on Disney property. None of them bothered me all that much then, and to be perfectly honest, the hotels are run much better today than they were 20 years ago in comparison.>> Overall, I think you're right about this. <<I think it is pretty snobbish to reflect back on WDW's past as being more "upscale," when that has never been the case. It was certainly less accessible due to the scarcity of rooms available, but not upscale. The Disney magic should be accessible to everyone, and if you think it should be restricted only to those who have the coin for upscale establishments I think you have a serious misunderstanding of the target audience for Disney entertainment during the past 80 or so years.>> It had a more upscale, quality vibe to me ... not one that kept the dirty masses out, but one that aspired to be more ... Now, it's often hard to tell who's more slovenly ... the guests or the cast. That was NOT the case 20 years ago.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj << Empty land. Because that can be used for better ideas in the future. Once a hotel is planted, it is there for decades. Other than Contemporary North, which is gone for DVC expansion, when have you ever seen a WDW hotel get bulldozed? >> How about the Vacation, Club Lake, and Fairway Villas? They were all bulldozed. << Last summer, Disney tossed Music and Sports rooms on Priceline.com for $36 a night. >> There are certainly discounts to be found, but I wouldn't use Priceline as an example. Priceline heavily subsidizes its travel offering to entice first time visitors to the site. First time Priceline users can typically snag airfares or hotel rooms at rates far below what the airline or hotel is actually charging because Priceline considers it a marketing expense to gain new customers. When you go back to Priceline the second time around, the great deals often disappear mysteriously. That's not to say that the rooms weren't discounted at all, but it's hard to figure how much Priceline shaved off of the actual price in their "loss leader" promotion. That's their business model, plain and simple. For what it's worth, WDW averaged $210 a night per night for its hotel guests in 2006. That doesnt' indicate a whole lot of rooms were selling for $36 or $49 a night.
Originally Posted By danyoung >Recently, you could regularly snag rooms at the All Stars and POP for as little as $49 a night.< This is a case of reality vs. perception. I truly believe that there's a large market segment who would never believe that you could stay at a Disney resort for $49 a night, who whenever they can save enough to visit for a few days ALWAYS stay off property because that's their perception of the best value, who would jump at a Super 8 in a Disney-themed complex in a freakin' heartbeat! (Wow, long sentence!). As to wanting empty land, there's still plenty of it out there, although I am a bit concerned that Disney is nipping around the edges and selling off this totally unique property piece by piece.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<What makes all this WDWisgoingtohellinahandbasket.com thing rather amusing >> Hey, has that domain been bought yet? If not, maybe I should grab it? <<is that WDW attendance continues to grow year after year. The guests are the most important judge of whether or not WDW is headed in the proper direction.>> Well, how do we know that? Disney doesn't put out official attendance numbers and, frankly, I have found the unofficial numbers suspect when compared to TDL and DL. And numbers alone surely shouldn't be the determing factor of whether WDW is headed in the proper direction. That's the WalMart methodology at play ... frankly, when I talk to people at WDW (which is all the time ... that's why Disney likes my free consulting) I find that a vast majority of guests never visited before the 25th Anniversary and very, very few go back to WDW's first decade. In other words, they don't know a WDW where trash was picked up before it reached the ground, a WDW where the bathrooms were spotless on the busiest of days, when shops were themed and sold quality merchandise, when almost all transport was via monorails or various watercraft, not buses, when meeting the characters wasn't on most people's top 10 list of things to do, when Disney didn't talk down to its guests, when there was quality entertainment around every corner etc ... if I'm Road Y. Trip from Bumkinville, Mn. and didn't visit WDW until 2000 it makes sense that I'd think the place was great and near perfect. What did I first say on this site eons ago ... oh yeah, it all comes down to perspective. <<Do I think things could be improved? Sure. I wish the restrooms were cleaner. I wish the grounds were cleaner. I wish that menu selections weren't being reduced. >> Me too. And you well know that all of the above was true before the overbuilding happened. <<But would I be willing to go back to a two-park WDW in exchange for having perfection in those other areas? Heck no!!>> This is real toughie with me because the parks that bring me the most pleasure today BY FAR are DAK and Epcot ... and I sure would hate to lose DAK. I just dunno ... <<Joe Tourist LIKES WDW being built out. We've got a week to 10 days to spend there and you can only ride Small World so many times. I like having four parks. I like having many resort choices, and the many dining choices that they bring.>> Yet Joe Tourist never relaxes now. How often does Joe Tourist sit by the pool? How often does he spend the day on the Magnolia? How often does he and the wife head to the spa? How often does he take the kids horseback riding or boating? Seems to me the average tourist spends all their time running themselves and their brats raggard in some hopeless campaign to 'do it all.' 20 years ago you didn't have to ride Small World 10 times because you ran out of things to do. There was plenty enough to do ... and remember that the MK and EC were far fuller experiences than they are today. <<Most of the really good dining at WDW is in places that did not exist back in the "glory days" you remember. Yachtsman Steakhouse Flying Fish Spoodles Artist's Point Boma Jiko Hollywood Brown Derby>> Well, the Derby's been wowing me since '89 and that was definitely in the 'glory days' ... Yachtsman since '92 (still in the glory days for me) ... even AP ... the rest, no. But there were other places that no longer exist for fine dining too. <<I think Florida residents just don't get what tourists want and expect from WDW. You think we want Disneyland. We don't. If we wanted Disneyland we'd go to Disneyland. Which I do. If I want to spend a few days at a jewel of a park I go to Disneyland. If I want to have a 1-2 week vacation I go to WDW for all of the great options that it offers.>> That's truly a great summary, Trippy ... been book-learning lately? ;-) I would just add that in 1987 folks might spend a week or two in Central Florida, but the complexion of their vacations were far different. They spent time relaxing ... very rarely will I read posts on any Disney site advocating this at all now ... it's all about FastPasses and character meals, parkhopping and princesses ... back two decades ago, people would spend a day or two at the beaches ... they might take an airboat ride into the swamp to see real Florida wildlife ... they'd go to Sea World ... and Cape Canaveral ... maybe Daytona ... they'd take advantage of all the recreational opps ... not now. A WDW 'vacation' is just a complete run around with people doing planning on excel before they ever land ... printouts with plans for days right down to nap times ... I find it all mildly scary and not at all my idea of a vacation ... at WDW or anywhere else. <<(Even if the restrooms are a little dirty)>> Not me. I won't ever give them a pass on basic (yet very important) issues like cleanliness. Nope.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <You think we want Disneyland. We don't. If we wanted Disneyland we'd go to Disneyland. Which I do. < <<I'm not sure I've ever heard it explained better>> Hey, old tiara wearer, back so soon? Did I miss something? You gotta make the peeps want it bad ... like I did ... stay away for a year ... not like a week! Still, glad to see you!
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<How about the Vacation, Club Lake, and Fairway Villas? They were all bulldozed. >> Good catch. But, to be fair, they were just bulldozed for newer accomodations of the same size but that fit the DVC quality model. If they had been removed for a park, entertainment complex, parking lot ... ore even just natural area, it would be different. <<There are certainly discounts to be found, but I wouldn't use Priceline as an example. Priceline heavily subsidizes its travel offering to entice first time visitors to the site. First time Priceline users can typically snag airfares or hotel rooms at rates far below what the airline or hotel is actually charging because Priceline considers it a marketing expense to gain new customers. When you go back to Priceline the second time around, the great deals often disappear mysteriously. That's not to say that the rooms weren't discounted at all, but it's hard to figure how much Priceline shaved off of the actual price in their "loss leader" promotion. That's their business model, plain and simple.>> I'm just going to (politely, natch) disagree. I was a PL skeptic when intorduced by a friend back in 1999 when it was being ripped by all sorts of people in the media. In the past seven years, I've likely saved $30,000 with them on travel ... and that's no exaggeration. Yes. The days of staying at the Anaheim Marriott for $15 a night are gone. But I'll still take the Anaheim Hilton Suites for $45 and call it a great deal. The $36 rooms that Disney dumped were dumped at that price-point, PL made all it's money on their fee (used to be $5.95 now they don't tell you and include it with tax ... it's about $10-12). I'm sure it was a test on Disney's part and may have factored into the Western Development now in planning. I remember telling a Disney VP a few years ago about how I booked 12 nights in June of 2004 at the WDW Dolphin with PL.com for $69 a night and he was both shocked and amazed, which shows yet again how behind the times Disney management is as the VP I was dining with just happens to be one of guys who was running the Disney Travel Company at the time. <<For what it's worth, WDW averaged $210 a night per night for its hotel guests in 2006. That doesnt' indicate a whole lot of rooms were selling for $36 or $49 a night.>> I don't doubt that for a second. But only once in my life have I crossed the $200 barrier for a Disney room, and that was a Poly concierge room and was well worth it. Most of my stays, BTW, are at the deluxe and moderate levels. I don't believe most WDW resorts should command $210 a night based upon poor service and very spotty Mousekeeping.
Originally Posted By Labuda "people doing planning on excel before they ever land" Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj << Yet Joe Tourist never relaxes now. How often does Joe Tourist sit by the pool? How often does he spend the day on the Magnolia? How often does he and the wife head to the spa? How often does he take the kids horseback riding or boating? >> Considering how miserably crowded the pools and recreation areas were during my last visit in May, I'd say that Joe Tourist is doing a lot of these things. I've never seen pools so crowded in my life. I also went to the hotel gym everyday and found it to be full of people, too.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj << I'm just going to (politely, natch) disagree. I was a PL skeptic when intorduced by a friend back in 1999 when it was being ripped by all sorts of people in the media. In the past seven years, I've likely saved $30,000 with them on travel ... and that's no exaggeration. >> Good to know there are folks taking advantage of the Priceline ponzi scheme. However, their business model is unsustainable because they subsidize their discounting way to heavily, and it's all document in their annual financial reports. This is a company that reports quarterly "profits," while at the same time accumuluating new debt every quarter that can be as much as 3 times the quarterly profit. It's an unsustainable business model, and I wouldn't be surprised if they went out of business in the not too distant future.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Yet Joe Tourist never relaxes now. How often does Joe Tourist sit by the pool? How often does he spend the day on the Magnolia? How often does he and the wife head to the spa? How often does he take the kids horseback riding or boating< are you peaking at my spreadsheet for my next visit -- seriously have all 4 on the list. But I admit, it wasn't always that way - I was a commando at one time also. The thing that changed me - being a DVC member and knowing I will attend at least once a year - every year.....quite the conundrum. If not for the VDC build out I would still be a commando on visits more than likely - yet I acknowledge the build out has caused other issues -- what a poser.
