Do the funky chicken?

[airlarry!]

Excellent post, Sir Baron, excellent.

What I have always been curious about in our previous postings under the AS threads from days of yore is exactly where you stood on that issue.

In other words, I don't mind 'Value' resorts in that I don't mind disney offering a place to stay that is economical to the pocket book as long as they don't sacrifice quality. Yes, I know, I can see you squirming again in your seat asking me what level of service below the Poly/GF would be considered *not* to be a sacrifice in quality.

Roll with me for a minute.

Can't you have Disney service without all of the amenities? Can't a Disney hotel have a food court instead of Boma? Can't a Disney hotel have bus service instead of water taxi or Monorail and still be considered Disney quality? Can't a Disney hotel have 3000 rooms out toward the interstate instead of 300 rooms overlooking the Boardwalk but still be considered Disney quality? Can't the rooms be only 260 sq feet with one sink instead of 360 feet and a double sink and still be Disney quality?

I say yes. IF they have the CMs there still treat every guest as #1. If their design and decor are themed to take the guest away and immerse them in Disney Magic. If their pools all are at least like CBR/PO etc. (the AS pools are really not anything special -- that was my only complaint about AS at the time after staying at CBR and DxL).

When you and I say that we are Disney snobs, aren't we talking about the quality of the experience and of the service and of the ability of the hotel to let us escape from the mundane (and I argue, connect back to the parks) not necessarily the fact that the Poly is priced at $250 a night?

Tell me if I am wrong.

 

[JeffJewell]

Seems I've done more damage than good here

Well, if by "damage" you mean you keep inspiring me to post, you might be on to something... and now you've gone and done it again.

people on the Rumors boards that are fans of the All Stars

You and I are talking a little bit apples and oranges here: I maintain that being a "fan" of something can have nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of that something. I'll always lump Pop Century with the All-Stars because they were guided by the same principles, you'll likely always have an affinity for the All-Stars, whereas the Pop Century (whatever happened to the name "Decades"? I liked that a lot better than Pop Century) seem to leave you cold, thus far. I think we're both legitimate minorities in this case... you actually seem to _like_ the All-Stars, and I say they are evil for even existing.

affordable, value resorts that were plussed quite a bit

That's the crux of it: what you just described simply does not add up to a Disney resort, in the Disney tradition of creating Magic, as practiced from the 1920's through, well, sometime in the 80's, I guess. If it makes you feel any better, that "lump" with the values in it also contains all the moderates, OKW, and AKL. None of those qualify as a Walt Disney World resort. And WL & VWL and some the Boardwalk area stuff only _barely_ qualify (I say this despite the fact that I'm a huge fan of the Wilderness Lodge and normal-sized fan of the Dolphin)...

If you want to make it cheap, just make it like Days Inn.

I hate that defense. Honestly, is that a worthwhile definition of "Disney quality:" "still better than a Days Inn?" I agree with you that that is the standard Disney applied, here, I just disagree that we should accept it.

Jeff

 

[Another Voice]

Since we seem to offering up good, concise summaries of our positions, here I go –

I have nothing against “Value” resorts at WDW. In fact, I think they should have been there from the very beginning and Disney’s finally catching up about 25 years too late. There certainly isn’t anything wrong with the people staying in them; in fact it’s exactly the opposite. The most obnoxious people (and the saddest story) I’ve ever seen at WDW have happened at the Grand Floridian.

In fact, I don’t consider the “amenities” offered at the deluxe hotels all that special. Maybe because I travel too much, maybe I’m too familiar with WDW – but the resorts don’t offer all that much compared in “hotel stuff” that hundreds of other hotels don’t offer. I’ve eaten in plenty of hotel restaurants that are better or more unique. There are many, many hotels with larger and better rooms. Even Vegas resorts offer more detailing and decor than WDW resorts.

But they lack the one thing that keeps people going back to WDW – an experience that can’t be had any where else. There is something about Disney’s ability, when they put their minds to it, to make walking into a hotel feel like you’re walking into a movie. It’s the “realized ideal” found in Dixie Landings, Yacht & Beach, AK Lodge, and even the Contemporary (“the future come to life right here in 1975!”) that works. In a lot of ways, even the All Stars have a touch of that (although the original “movie set” concept would have worked far better). The feeling is found in every decision about design, service, attitude and performance throughout every aspect of the resort. And it can’t be bought; it has to be consciously created.

It’s not a matter of sit-down restaurants, the size of the toiletry kit or free valet parking. It’s a matter of imagination and creative effort. And that’s what wrong with Pop Century. Instead of trying to get as much “bang for the buck” out of the hotel, Disney is trying to get as many bucks for as little pop they want to produce. Instead of creating an imaginative “theme” that would give the place a story line and emotional underpinning, Disney has come up with a “décor” that can be manufactured by the lowest bidder. The other resorts show a sense of purpose and sense that they were created by artists. The Polynesian is the product of an artist drawing up his ideal island retreat; The Pop Century is the solution to some MBA’s return on investment spreadsheet.


And Mr. Jewell – sure there aren’t a lot of voices out here in the wilderness, but that doesn’t matter. An idea lives even if it is held by just one person.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

... But I think you'll thank me in the end!!


airlarry!,

I had every intention of answering your post, point by point. Yours was the last post I read before turning my computer at work and heading home. On the drive home I was considering how I would answer it. It’s a thirty-minute drive and it consumed almost the whole trip. To say it would have been my longest post to date would have been quite an understatement.

Luckily for every member of the DIS Sir Voice beat me to it! So to answer your very pointed and extremely relevant questions, re-read AV’s post. I agree with every single solitary word of it. Especially the bit about a movie set. And the Grand Floridian remark, which I touched upon once but was afraid to expand for fear of getting muddled in a concept that is, well, a little hard to explain.

It’s all about quality. “Disney” quality. And sometimes that includes price and sometimes cost doesn’t enter into it at all. Confusing?! You bet!! And even harder to explain. But AV did a great job. Please reread it. And if you can fully understand this post, you have got an inkling of that elusive philosophy I always talk about. And you will be one giant step ahead of Ei$ner!!!!

And Mr. Jewell – sure there aren’t a lot of voices out here in the wilderness, but that doesn’t matter. An idea lives even if it is held by just one person.

WOW!!!! What a couple of sentences!!! AV, I have this script idea……

 

[raidermatt]

AV, I think you've summed things up quite well. In fact, combined with his Airness, I can't really add much. But I'll at least summarize, so I feel like I contributed something...

1- Value resorts that carry a less expensive price are fine. They don't have to be 5-star by AAA standards. They DO need to provide a Disney type experience, one that makes it clear the guest is in a Disney resort. Maybe there isn't an upscale restaurant, or a spa, or whatever, but there is Magic.

2- The All-Stars may qualify, but it appears PC misses the mark by a mile. From reading the comments of those who have stayed at the All Stars, and seen PC, I would agree with this. However, I'll reserve a final judgement until I actually see PC (May/June), and there are some actual trip reports. I really am having a hard time understanding how the Funky Chicken could ever qualify as Disney Magic though.

 

[Planogirl]

I hear a bit of discouragement in a few of these posts. I see that some of you feel like "voices crying in the wilderness". I understand very well how you feel. I have seen a gradual change at WDW that is so apparent to me that I am constantly puzzled as to why so few people on these boards seem to notice. The WDW I appreciate seems to be gradually slipping away and it appears that hardly anyone minds. I see it in resorts (but not AKL, I disagree with that one), parks, movies, Disney stores, etc.

Then I remind myself that this is a community of fans. Fans who are much more forgiving than the average traveller and at the same time much more knowledgeable too. Joe Traveler out there will take his family to WDW and enjoy it for what it is just like he would enjoy Six Flags. These standards we bandy about mean very little to good old Joe IMO. Only the prices would probably give this poor soul a moment's unease but it's normal and good to take the kids to WDW after all so Joe will probably bite the bullet and accept this as the price of doing business. Budget hotels certainly do help!

As for the Disney fan who appreciates the Allstars, I see nothing wrong with that. A lot of devoted Disney fans stay offsite too. This all comes back to taste again. I just recognize that with the gradual change from the original monorail hotels, to the moderates, to the Allstars and now to PC, that a disquieting trend is taking place. If the PC Resort succeeds, what will be the next step? That's the most troubling aspect to all of this for me.

In other words, where does it all end?

 

[Safari Steve]

As far as the differences between the different levels of the resorts, I think that most of them (spas, intricate pools, suites...) make a bigger difference if you're spending more of your time at the hotel than elsewhere. The main thing that is common at all WDW resorts (Premium, moderate, and value) is excellent guest service. Aside from the monorail, what is the main difference between staying at ASMo and staying at the Contempo Garden wing? (I've stayed at both, and the only thing I noticed was price). I think the most on-target thing I've ever heard a guest say about their hotel (as far as many people are concerned) is "It's a bed." (this after I commented that they were in a really nice hotel). Do I think that there is no difference between the premiums and the values? No... that's not what I mean to say. What I mean is that regardless of what the outside of the building looks like, regardless of how much you're paying, if you're staying at WDW, you will have a clean room, you will get a free paper in the morning, and the cast will treat you wonderfully. That's what I look for first, the theme (while VERY IMPORTANT) is just gravy.

 

[airlarry!]

At the risk of describing what seems to be an Official Meeting of the Mutual Backslappers Club...

I would have liked to see that post, Sir Baron, if it would've actually beaten some of your doozies. But if your answer to my question is AV's post, then we wear the same jersey. I am 100% in agreement with AV's evaluation.

And here's the reason...

If the PC Resort succeeds, what will be the next step? That's the most troubling aspect to all of this for me.

What is the end of that slippery slope?

Just as an aside, does anybody who stayed a while back remember that each resort used to have its own 'newspaper' themed to the resort. I remember the one we got for DxL, it looked like an old Miss Riverboat Rag, which talked about the amenities and I think had all the special things going on for that week. Some suit in boorbank decided it would be cheaper to do a WDW-wide paper instead. Yippee. Saved a few shiny coppers for what?

BTW: Does it urk anyone else that we may be branded as Anti-Disney or elitist for demanding quality? NOT PRICE. I've never demanded price-snobbery. I just want Disney Magic (tm). And I am just foolish enough to think that a Marty Sklar or a Walt or a Tony Baxter if given the reins over AS would have taken it two levels above what we got. Not that I am bashing it, in fact, I've defended AS many times, but now with hindsight I wonder if it was the red flashing light I never saw that should have tipped me off to what was going on in the company's mindset.

 

[Peter Pirate]

While the backslapping & howdy-do's are fine & I'm very happy this discussion didn't degenerate, neither did it bring anything new to the table or from my perspective any better understading of the feelings from 'the other side'...

So much of what Disney is is a state of mind. Walt knew it and he fostered it. Eisner has fostered it for a generation of self-indulgent consumers, which is the way of the world but unfortuneately, not the way of the Disney we'd like to see. It'd be nice to have our cake and eat it too. It'd be nice for Disney to consider quality above all else and it'd be nice for them to do the right thing rather than just the profitable thing. But as I can't see that ever happening in this lifetime, I choose to continue to enjoy WDW while it still creates the magic I've always known. Perhaps this magic won't continue, perhaps they'll kill Walts goose and I'll look at Disney with the same nostalgia many of you already see. Lucky for me I still see hope & I still enjoy WDW...

I think I hear the Captain calling. Good night folks...Happy daysD
:

 

[Another Voice]

“Disney is a state of mind.”

Very true Captain, sir. It’s a state of mind not only on the consumer’s part, but also on The Company’s part.

The laws of economics were not suddenly replaced in 1990. The same forces that drive success or failure today are the same ones that drove the company in the past. Perhaps in a different form, but the pressures are still the same. Sure, Michael Eisner has to contend with Wall Street and stock prices, but Walt & Roy had to please the board of Bank of America in San Francisco who could (and sometimes did) shut off Disney’s cash with a power well beyond that of any talking head on CNBC.

Walt’s ability was to create beyond the vision of others around him. No one would sit for an hour long cartoon; Walt produced ‘Snow White’. Television was going to kill Hollywood; Walt used it to promote his products. Any amusement parks without games and a Ferris wheel was bound to be a flop; Walt gave the public a castle and wonder. You have to build the Florida project on the beach because that’s the only reason people go to Florida; Walt gave them another destination.

These days in place of that vision we’re offered McMagic®. A corporate, mass produced commodity designed to firmly sit within the safe boundaries of conventional wisdom. A fine-tuned generic product with maximum financial statistics and with just a large enough brand sticker to separate it from all the other similar products in the market. Creation is replaced by exploitation.

I too still see hope. People, by their nature, want to create good works. The limitations of resources, greed and talent may limit their ability to produce it, but every once in a while someone manages to complete the challenge. Good works need to be identified and encouraged. Bad works need to discouraged. But most importantly bad works should never, never, never be tolerated.

Not to pick on you Ms. Planogirl, but I must disagree with your comment that “these standards we bandy about mean very little to good old Joe…” They mean a tremendous deal to him and his family. They might not realize it consciously, they probably wouldn’t be able to articulate it, but they do feel them. Everyone likes having their expectations exceeded. And perhaps that’s the simplest explanation for the unease over Pop Century. People feel that their expectations will not be exceeded.

The place looks like the physical representation of the phrase “you get what you pay for”.

 

[OnWithTheShow]

I'm a fan of the All-Stars and Pop Century. Although Pop Century has some of its buildings completed it is far from "show ready".

 

[Tigger-fan]

When we were there in January we noticed this monstrosity on our way out of CBR to MGM. We were all just sitting and staring at it and could not figure it out. The cheap looking bowling pins just dont cut for a Disney resort. (Sorry but our honest opinion). We stay at picture perfect CBR.. note I say picture perfect because it is anywhere you look. What kind of aweful pictures are you going to get at PC. Who was in charge of the theming of this wretched place. And to our HORROR we could see it from CBR ughhhhhhhh. My gosh if this is the future of Disney I would rather stay at a Ho-Jo's than that place.

 

[KirstenB]

Okay, after some serious navel-gazing, I'm finally figured out why Pop Century bothers me so much. If you're going to build a budget hotel, fine, do it, and keep it simple. Don't try to get guests to buy into it's "theming". It's like driving down a street of modest homes, where most of them are well-kept and landscaped. Then you reach the one where the owner decides he likes the color scheme on the original Lifesavers candy. He's painted that same modest house in this glaring color scheme. If I don't live on the street, and have no emotional or financial interest in the house, I might just laugh it off.

However, if I were going to buy or rent a house on the street, it would not be that house. There's nothing wrong with budget---I just get mad when someone tries to sell me a budget product and tries to convince me it's "magical". There's inherent magic in a budget hotel that allows a family (I grew up with 5 brothers and sisters, and feel well-acquainted with budget!) to go on vacation, where they previously could not. On the other hand if you're going to charge folks 200-400 a night, there better be some serious theming "magic".

 

[daannzzz]

Why is it such a big difference between the AS and PC resort? Are the rooms smaller at the PC? Will the food court carry less. Will the quality of the bedding be lower? No. I think the quality will be the same , it is the chosen decoration that is offensive. I visited the CBR on my last trip and saw how close PC was and was agahst at the views. The colors and decor are to far out there. So ... maybe some people will enjoy it. Is it costing Disney less than the AS? But who is making the decisions on all this stuff? Dinorama? DCA? It almost seem that Disney is intending on creating everything value engineered and bighting the bullet for a decade whilst all the complaints come in. Then In 2010 the customers will have lived with and accept this new budget Disney. OR is it that the persons in charge and imagineers don't know how to use the money they are givine these days. I agre that I certainly have ideas for a budget resort that would be fun and nice. What is their excuse?

 

[larworth]

We sure don’t need any more examples of declining standards, but I think I need a little refresher course here. When we are dealing with sliding resort price points it gets a little more confusing for me.

I think we all agree that great service and cleanliness are mandatory for any Disney branded operation. It also seems we are willing to allow for some variety in hotel amenities, so people only pay for that bundle that most closely meets their vacation needs. So, does the issue really come down to a minimum level of theming?

Disney charges a premium for their experience. Some is needed to cover the added cost of providing it, and some might justifiably go into their pocket if done really well. If Disney had the same return on investment goal at all price points than we have a couple of scenarios that need some policy clarification.

A. Group of customer that won’t pay any theming premium

B. Group that will pay a small premium, which can only support a small theming component

I think part of the suspicion is that Disney is taking advantage of the brand by putting in minimal theming, while trying to garner a nice premium to fatten up results short-term. But let’s assume we were running the company what do we do for these two groups. Are we saying this is what off-site is for and we totally ignore this business because to try to service it will only drag down the brand?

It also seems that with the higher room density, there should be a scenario where the premium they take in per square foot is the same as the deluxe resorts, and this could justify heavy theming. In other words, why can’t a heavily themed value resort be a viable business case? If they make the same return as the moderates than no incentive to drive people up the ladder.


Scoop

You’ve got me a little confused about car membership

Now, we have hit an admittedly dry spell here in the states....I will say that there has been some crappy decisions lately

Gee, these are the same comments the guys in my car are making??

Yes, Disney has been thru many cycles in the past. Management could always about-face at any time. However, while bad decisions have haunted them in the past the underlying Disney culture was still very strong. This time it seems many of the changes may be chipping away at this foundation. I’m afraid by the time someone wants to take the car out of the garage it won’t run anywhere near like it use to.

 

[JeffJewell]

Scoop

You’ve got me a little confused about car membership

Tread lightly, my brother. Chad's more than willing to throw down if he thinks you're trying to disqualify his car selection.

Are we saying this is what off-site is for and we totally ignore this business because to try to service it will only drag down the brand?

I believe that's precisely what we _should_ say.

The Ferrari brand does not offer cars at price points to compete with the Yugo brand. It's not their business, not part of their philosophy, and would ultimately damage the "Ferrari = high performance" equation they worked so hard to develop.

There's nothing wrong with making money, but I believe it is a mistake to sacrifice the core ideals of your business in order to make that money.

They want minimal theming at less-than-Disney pricing? Let them eat Six Flags.

Jeff

 

[KirstenB]

Let them eat Six Flags----good one Jeff, love it!!!

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

First to my good friend, Peter Crook! You say:

It'd be nice for Disney to consider quality above all else and it'd be nice for them to do the right thing rather than just the profitable thing.

Why are they mutually exclusive? Walt didn't think so. And he proved it!

But as I can't see that ever happening in this lifetime

Me too. And isn't that a sad? It is to me.

I choose to continue to enjoy WDW while it still creates the magic I've always known.

I also choose to enjoy WDW. But Captain (Peter), it is not, "the magic I've always known". And you know it. You admit it. You can see hope. You can see a lot of residual magic. But it's not the same. You have said so yourself. Remember?

It'd be nice for Disney to consider quality above all else and it'd be nice for them to do the right thing rather than just the profitable thing.

Have I misunderstood? Or are we on the same page on most of these issues. Actually, the only difference I see is that you see hope and I do not. Not as long as Ei$ner is at the helm at least. That's really not so much of a difference as I see it.

Now, Mr. Scoop!

Disney was at the magical top of the mountain when Walt was around... then Uncle Walt passed and we got some seriously crappy Herbie/Witch Mountain flicks, some crappy Garden Wings, and some other junk in Tomorrowland... then Ron and Card were deposed and we saw a renaissance of animation and park attractions

WOW!! That's a heck of a paragraph! It covers thirty years in one sentence!! Let's take a closer look at it.

Disney was at the magical top of the mountain when Walt was around

OK!! The first part and we find that we are in lockstep!! Here's to hoping it will continue!!

then Uncle Walt passed and we got some seriously crappy Herbie/Witch Mountain flicks

Well!! We're still together, but the overall tone has changed somewhat. But I can't argue with the substance of the phrase. Next:

some crappy Garden Wings, and some other junk in Tomorrowland

HOLD THE PHONE!!! TIME OUT!!! Illegal procedure!! Or in lawyer jargon - Your Honor!! I OBJECT!!!

Now I will grant you that the Garden wings are a bit drab. And they never (even in Walt's time) knew what to do with the Tomorrowland concept. But counselor! You neglected some key evidence in your summation of that critical time in the company's history. By mentioning the ONLY two negatives you can possibly think of (parks related) and conveniently ignoring all the WONDERFUL magic that the company did create in that same time period, you are coming close to prejudicing the jury!!! As much as I hate lists I feel I have to mention some of the good.
1- WDW in total!!
2- EPCOT!!!

Enough said? I think that's a pretty good batting average.

then Ron and Card were deposed and we saw a renaissance of animation and park attractions

Back together again. But the story doesn't end there.

and I can't believe any of us can look at WDW and say the potential is gone

Well believe it. I say it! Loud and clear! Under Ei$ner the potential IS lost.

just imagine what a decent capital outlay could turn AK into...just imagine what some well thought out updating could do to Future World and Tommorrowland...just imagine the possibilities...just imagine....

On what do you base this? On the turn around of the Disney Stores? On the elimination of Beastly Kingdom? On DCA? On the closing of the Moderates? On the shorter hours? On the ride elimination? On the elimination of EE? On Dinorama? On which sterling move do you base this flight of fancy? Or is that all it is. A flight of fancy.

If you do not believe that it could happen under Eisner then remember, he too will one day pass from this mortal plain...(not soon enough for some of you ).

Well, you got that one right!!!



OK! After writing the above, I checked the thread to see if anything was new. And lo and behold Mr. Scoop chimed in with this little ditty:

I hardly buy the idea that, if subjected to the same microscope as Disney is today via vastly increased access and coverage, that the Disney of the 1970s would be touted as that with a firm foundation...c'mon...the company was almost bankrupted in the late 1970s with much of the creative pushed aside...

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

My goodness Scoop! When are you going to stop spreading this propaganda!!?? (he said tongue firmly in cheek)

Disney was NOT near bankruptcy!!! In fact their separate parts were much sought after commodities that made them ripe for the picking. A state of dormancy with creativity pushed aside?!? Debatable. Was EPCOT devoid of creativity? Was the building of that park something that a company in a dormant state would do? In both imagination and scope?

And yes! Please! Start a new thread about comparing the present company with the one from the seventies! I would LOVE to tackle that one!!!!

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Sorry about the two in a row, but....

OH JEFF!!! Perfect!! Simply perfect!!

The Ferrari brand does not offer cars at price points to compete with the Yugo brand. It's not their business, not part of their philosophy, and would ultimately damage the "Ferrari = high performance" equation they worked so hard to develop.

Captain, Scoop!!! Do you get it now??

 

[airlarry!]

Jeff J:

I get the feeling that at JJ World, there would be no CBR nor DxL nor CSR. (No AS is a no-brainer).

I just don't go that far. I don't see a problem with a resort that costs less but still delivers the same, admittedly subjective, magic. AV said it best...when you walk around DxL, you are transported to Ol' Man Island and there's a hint of Splash Mountain as you walk around. I don't get that from AS or, egads no, from the PC concept.