Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << I'm truly hoping the Western Way development (AKA ... the white trash parkway) never gets started. It's a terrible move for WDW. >> Not so terrible if it migrates some of the value-oriented crowd west of Orlando and out of sight from International Drive and Universal Studios. That's the whole point of the development, really.
Originally Posted By danyoung >I'm truly hoping the Western Way development (AKA ... the white trash parkway) never gets started. It's a terrible move for WDW.< Why? Seems like a no brainer to me - a complex to go after the crowd that can't quite afford the values but is willing to stay in a Day's Inn type of room for a good price. And you'll still get Disney theming to the whole area. Sounds like a win-win to me.
Originally Posted By dshyates "other than he has only four fingers on each hand." Spirit, Papa Smurf really isn't all that well connected anymore. Does he still have that little problem with the sauce?
Originally Posted By mrkthompsn Radiator Springs wouldn't fit well in the Tomorrowland Speedway. Its desert westerm theme doesn't flow well Tomorrow or Fantasy. But then again, they are talking cars. Let's see what happens when the Wall-E movie comes out.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 >I'm truly hoping the Western Way development (AKA ... the white trash parkway) never gets started. It's a terrible move for WDW.< <<Why? Seems like a no brainer to me - a complex to go after the crowd that can't quite afford the values but is willing to stay in a Day's Inn type of room for a good price. And you'll still get Disney theming to the whole area. Sounds like a win-win to me.>> Why? Because WDW is OVERdeveloped as is. Because its roads are clogged with traffic, something old man Disney wanted to avoid in Florida. Because it means more greenspace goes under a bulldozer. Because it brings an even lower level to what once was a very PREMIUM 'brand'. Because any Disney 'theming' will be extremely minimal and be much more like the Crossroads shopping center in LBV that Disney built and owned until they sold it earlier this decade. And because it just plain isn't needed. This is what scares me about Jay Rasulo and Bob Iger leaving him in control. He brings an Eisner-like desire to be all things to all people ... and that was what got Disney into the spiraling mess of lower quality, cutbacks and lower share price. Disney doesn't need people who can't afford a $69 room. They just don't. I notice they're in no hurry to get this done, so I'm hoping it will die a quiet behind-the-scenes death.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<Spirit, Papa Smurf really isn't all that well connected anymore. Does he still have that little problem with the sauce?>> Yeah ... and it got much worse when he was caught with the tranny hooker in the Days Inn on the OBT last spring. He's spiraling out of control. Someone told me he's actually booked on Springer next month. Sad. Sad. Sad.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<Spirit, check out the TDR and HK sections please.>> YOU should KNOW I already have! Gotta get my fix until next spring But I just wanna give you another shameless plug ... folks, instead of wasting time here on the WDW Board, take some time and go check out TDLFAN's AMAZING pictorial reports on HKDL and TDL's Halloween festivities. I just am amazed at how much thought and quality goes into them. How everything from the parades to the merchandise to the food offerings carry through the whole seasonal theme. Just amazing. And, folks, it isn't just in parks owned by the OLC as HKDL proves. I admit I was impressed by the MK's efforts this year. The place looks better than in a long time. But then you see what they do in Asia ... and well, reality hits you like a cold bucket of water when you see what Disney is REALLY capable of. Great work again, buddy!
Originally Posted By TDLFAN Ok. What LP are we really talking about here? Inquiring minds want to know.
Originally Posted By TDLFAN #48 was a question related to post #46. And thanks for the plug, but don't take Spirit's word for it.. Go there on your own kiddies.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 46 was all I can say about P-Didy Smurf ... his personal life really shouldn't be fodder for a Disney fan forum ... after all, he isn't an exec, or Al Lutz or me! And, yes, everyone should check out the pics. Don't be afraid to open yourself up to the possibility that WDW really doesn't do things best ... or even close ... in the Disney empire!
Originally Posted By danyoung >Disney doesn't need people who can't afford a $69 room. They just don't.< That's an interesting point.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Indeed, I hate to sound snobby, but I noticed the real slips in WDW after the values started to open. WDW was just a huge disappointment last year. We did have a fun time, but we had an even better time at our last DLP trip. As for the love of DL vs WDW, well besides WDW being inferior IMHO, and believing DL should be the flag ship, there has been huge investments in WDW over the last 10 years vs at DL. Also, the rubes continue to go to the swampland, but DCA needs help (even if I hate most of the direction they are going in - toonisation)
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Disney doesn't need people who can't afford a $69 room. They just don't. >> Do you have any idea what percentage of WDW guests are staying with the grandparents in Florida's retirement communities instead of paying for a hotel/motel at all? This demographic is still a major component of WDW visitors. To say that WDW doesn't need the budget-minded visitor indicates a severe lack of understanding about why WDW became so successful in the first place, and the type of guests that are still essential to the overall business plan. It speaks volumes that one of WDW's most vocipherous critics doesn't even understand the primary demographic that generated WDW's massive success over the past 35 years. I guess there's a good reason why some people aren't making business decisons for WDW.
Originally Posted By danyoung And I have to say that Sport Goofy makes an interesting point as well. I agree with 74 that the quality of Disney facilities like lodging and dining has steadily trended downward (cheaper?) over the years. I especially don't like the fact that restaurants on property are more or less forced to simplify their menus as masses of diners aren't satisfied with the fine dining, and want a fancy burger & fries instead. But with all of that I can't fault Disney for going after a market that, as SG said, is already there and spending the bucks, albeit not as many bucks per capita as maybe in the olden days. If the people are indeed there, why not keep their money flowing into Disney's coffers instead of the hoteliers of Kissimmee? It's a tough one.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<Do you have any idea what percentage of WDW guests are staying with the grandparents in Florida's retirement communities instead of paying for a hotel/motel at all?>> Do you? This isn't something that is easily quantifiable despite the way you wish to paint it. <<This demographic is still a major component of WDW visitors. To say that WDW doesn't need the budget-minded visitor indicates a severe lack of understanding about why WDW became so successful in the first place, and the type of guests that are still essential to the overall business plan. >> Please. WDW became successful because it marketed to all ... it was a mass market product ALTHOUGH always aiming to be PREMIUM. But there are people who are squarely middle class who still can't afford it. The idea that by simply adding even cheaper, tackier places, they'll get the folks who are staying at grandma's home on the golf course in Four Corners is very naive. When WDW seeks to be all things to all people it tends to WalMart its product and muddy the waters. WDW's business doesn't require it to constantly lower its standards and dumb down its products to get every last person, while damaging the core value of the Disney name. <<It speaks volumes that one of WDW's most vocipherous critics doesn't even understand the primary demographic that generated WDW's massive success over the past 35 years.>> Yes. You're right. WDW has been the No. 1 tourist destination on the planet because it appeals to the trailer crowd and the ghetto dwellers. My mistake. Oh, and I am not a WDW critic. I am a WDW fan! <<I guess there's a good reason why some people aren't making business decisons for WDW.>> Yeah. Because they've got geniuses doing it today.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<>If the people are indeed there, why not keep their money flowing into Disney's coffers instead of the hoteliers of Kissimmee? It's a tough one.>> Not really. Disney either lowers its quality yet again in another unneeded money grab to put its neighbors out of business (hey, that WalMart analogy sure fits here!) ... or they say, 'We don't need to have every guest in Central Florida staying on our property. We need more reasons to draw people to our resort to begin with and help fill our empty deluxe and DVC accomodations.'
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << WDW has been the No. 1 tourist destination on the planet because it appeals to the trailer crowd and the ghetto dwellers. >> Perhaps if you will come down from your mountain and actually visit the ghettos or trailer parks, you might realize that you are making a broad characterization of a group of people who don't take vacations at all -- especially not to WDW. I know plenty of people of modest means who wish they could afford a weekend trip to a city down the highway, but don't even dream of taking a vacation to WDW or any "resort" for that matter. Your broad brush stereotypes of "trailer trash" and "ghetto dwellers" are insulting.
Originally Posted By danyoung >The idea that by simply adding even cheaper, tackier places, they'll get the folks who are staying at grandma's home on the golf course in Four Corners is very naive.< I don't know. Think about the components of a vacation. You can find great bargains on flights. The bus from the airport to the World is free. Tickets are still pretty steep, but with longer stays economies of scale kick in and make them more of a bargain. And a frugal family can always find a way to eat cheaply. The one area that Disney still doesn't provide cheaply is lodging, and this new area appears to resolved that lack. It seems to me that it comes down to your not wanting the lower income folks on property. But then, I agree that if catering to this crowd continues to lower the quality of the parks as a whole, then that's not a good thing. Why can't Disney offer very low cost lodging and still keep the quality of the parks and restaurants up?
