A question regarding the growth of WDW

[DRDISNEYMD]

I'll bite.

&.the dust, eventually. j/k

Well, I doubt anybody ever accused Eisner of being a Merlin who takes lots of crazy chances, so we're already off the track on that one.

~Eisner has made some poor choices, but the successes have come along fast enough, to forgive those mistakes. For the record, I don't consider DHS & AKL to be mistakes. I love both parks & they have a lot of untapped potential. Walt admits that he has also made mistakes, but he emphasized the success & fixed the failures!

Absolutely. Certainly nobody here has ever said Disney should have stayed as it was when Walt was alive.

~There is an insurmountable amount of cynicism expressed towards almost every creation post Walt. It is so AWESOME to see that you don't share that same sentiment!!

Hmmm. Eisner opened 1/2 day parks and "worked them" only when the public rejected them. He gave the people as little as he thought he could get away with and only gave them more when he had to.

You can applaud that business strategy if you like. Certainly Eisner is/was not alone in that kind of thinking in corporate America. In fact, he's probably part of a significant majority.

But one thing we can't do is apply Walt's philosophy to that strategy. They are polar opposites.

~I don't applaud that kind of business strategy, but I do like to look at the whole picture. There were several other construction projects underway and Eisner probably had to stretch every dollar. I see it as an investment for the future by establishing the framework, knowing beforehand, that you or someone else will eventually work at it until it's done right. I agree that it is terrible to charge full admission for ½ day parks. But, I don't agree that DHS & AK should have never been built.

Thinking of the future is exactly what we are doing. The easy thing to do would be to look at Disney's financial success and say everything is fine and always will be. In fact, the more dismissive posters around here tell us exactly that.

The challenge is to ask if that success is all it could be, and where it will go in the future.

~I don't know about that, they certainly don't embrace anything post Walt. This thread is completely void of enthusiasm for the future, and don't try to express any or else. So, from my perspective it is one & the same!

I don't agree. The point, I thought, was to bring the idea of the "future" forward by having the resort extension of Tomorrowland. A splash of what might have passed for contemporary styling doesn't do anything to forward that story.

Although Top of the World night club might have been contemporary (and TotW was the second occupant of that space, not the original) it didn't speak to the future. Whereas at the Poly, the character dining, entertainment, and other interior aspects all faithfully (and creatively) brought the story forward, that just isn't the case at the Contemporary.

I agree with you that the architecture and the monorail were positively brilliant. I just think that the rest of it came up short. The mural, the some of the desert southwest styling elements were nice enough, but out of place.



Didn't realize I had an agenda. Of course I'm getting older and may have misplaced it--heck, I've needed to order two AARP cards. Please send me your copy.

I also didn't intentionally skip over any of your questions, although given the volume of text i suppose I could have missed it.

Excellent post!!!

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

I don't agree. The point, I thought, was to bring the idea of the "future" forward by having the resort extension of Tomorrowland.

WOW!! You are being MUCH to literal, or purposefully obtuse, I don’t know which. The “A” frame structure, with the monorail running into it served as a nice backdrop for Tomorrowland, which I think you already agreed to (but I’m really not sure anymore, but I suppose I can re-read this whole thread to find it). Anyway, that is as far as it went. The resort was NOT called ‘The Futurist” or “The Tomorrow Resort”. It was call “The Contemporary”!! It’s call “The Contemporary” because it’s supposed to be well… ah… I don’t know… maybe… CONTEMPORARY!! Modern! NOT the future!

A splash of what might have passed for contemporary styling doesn't do anything to forward that story.

Good grief!! A splash!!?? Did you really look at those pictures from 1971, 1972? To me, it looked so dated that I felt I was back there, in that time. The whole place reeked of late ‘60s, early ‘70s. That’s what brought to mind the Nehru Jackets and Leisure Suits. As soon as I saw the pictures my brain made an instant connection to that part of my life. It’s like seeing someone in a t-shirt, a pack of Luckys rolled up in his sleeve and a DA hair cut! BAM!!! Instant 50s!! And the Contemporary pictures hit me with a – BAM!!! Instant 70s!!

Tell me – And here is one of those questions that get lost – What would you consider more than ‘a splash’? What should it have been?

Although Top of the World night club might have been contemporary (and TotW was the second occupant of that space, not the original) it didn't speak to the future.

Again, it wasn’t supposed to speak to the future. It was supposed to be ultra-modern or “contemporary”!!! (and please tell me what was there before "The Top of the World"? I didn't visit there until July of 1972. Was something there before Top of the World?

Whereas at the Poly, the character dining, entertainment, and other interior aspects all faithfully (and creatively) brought the story forward, that just isn't the case at the Contemporary.

My turn to be obtuse. What story? What story does the Poly bring forward from the Theme park? Is there a Polynesian land that I’m unaware of? Can you really stretch the Tiki room as the sole connection to the resort? Maybe, but it’s pretty thin! And an overall Adventureland carry over seems way more than just a stretch!!

The mural, the some of the desert southwest styling elements were nice enough, but out of place.

We we’re just shy of the sixties. This kind of stuff was VERY in!

Didn't realize I had an agenda. Of course I'm getting older and may have misplaced it--heck, I've needed to order two AARP cards. Please send me your copy.

Are you trying to say that you saw the place in person in 1971, or that you were definitely old enough to have done it without being in diapers? Why not just answer – It one of the unanswered I referred to earlier – Did you see it firsthand in 1971?

And the other question that I can think of without re-reading the whole thread is – Did you like the link to the other planned, but never built, resorts? And if you did look at it, what is your reaction to them?

 

[MassJester]

WOW!! You are being MUCH to literal, or purposefully obtuse, I don’t know which. The “A” frame structure, with the monorail running into it served as a nice backdrop for Tomorrowland, which I think you already agreed to (but I’m really not sure anymore, but I suppose I can re-read this whole thread to find it). Anyway, that is as far as it went. The resort was NOT called ‘The Futurist” or “The Tomorrow Resort”. It was call “The Contemporary”!! It’s call “The Contemporary” because it’s supposed to be well… ah… I don’t know… maybe… CONTEMPORARY!! Modern! NOT the future!

No need to be rude.

I did, in fact, agree that I love the architecture in the post directly above. Should be easy to find.

I realize what the resort was called, and I'm saying that theme--such that it is--is a poor extension of the park, and was destined to become poorer with every passing year. Such a decision fails to measure up to the best examples of Disney vision.

Good grief!! A splash!!?? Did you really look at those pictures from 1971, 1972? To me, it looked so dated that I felt I was back there, in that time. The whole place reeked of late ‘60s, early ‘70s. That’s what brought to mind the Nehru Jackets and Leisure Suits. As soon as I saw the pictures my brain made an instant connection to that part of my life. It’s like seeing someone in a t-shirt, a pack of Luckys rolled up in his sleeve and a DA hair cut! BAM!!! Instant 50s!! And the Contemporary pictures hit me with a – BAM!!! Instant 70s!!

Tell me – And here is one of those questions that get lost – What would you consider more than ‘a splash’? What should it have been?

Again, it wasn’t supposed to speak to the future. It was supposed to be ultra-modern or “contemporary”!!! (and please tell me what was there before "The Top of the World"? I didn't visit there until July of 1972. Was something there before Top of the World?

The Mesa Grande Lounge was in place before Top of the World and the Pueblo Room was down on the 4th floor--which later became part of the Chef Mickey's restaurant. This Southwest styling was out of place and didn't speak to either a "Contemporary" or a "future" theme.

My turn to be obtuse. What story? What story does the Poly bring forward from the Theme park? Is there a Polynesian land that I’m unaware of? Can you really stretch the Tiki room as the sole connection to the resort? Maybe, but it’s pretty thin! And an overall Adventureland carry over seems way more than just a stretch!!

I don't agree that it is a stretch, and that's ok, we need not agree.

Are you trying to say that you saw the place in person in 1971, or that you were definitely old enough to have done it without being in diapers? Why not just answer – It one of the unanswered I referred to earlier – Did you see it firsthand in 1971?

And the other question that I can think of without re-reading the whole thread is – Did you like the link to the other planned, but never built, resorts? And if you did look at it, what is your reaction to them?

I was not there in 1971. I am, like you, in my 50's. However, I'm content to appear younger.

I'm not sure what you are referring to as far as plans. I've seen concept drawings, which I thought were very nice. but beyond that I am unaware of any plans.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

No need to be rude

Sorry!! I was perhaps a little too verbose!! I never meant to be rude? I NEVER mean to rude! Sorry.

I realize what the resort was called, and I'm saying that theme--such that it is--is a poor extension of the park, and was destined to become poorer with every passing year. Such a decision fails to measure up to the best examples of Disney vision.

Oh yeah! I can agree with that, no problem at all. Not the best example of forward thinking. But did you know that the rooms were modular. The concept was as the building aged these modular units could easily be replaced. Ah but! Lousy Florida soil and heartless gravity somehow twisted things a bit out of shape (or something like that, I don't know all the details) and it became impossible for that concept to work.

Now. I said, not the best example of forward thinking. Not that it failed in it's original theme. That of 'modern' and/or 'contemporary'. It was indeed doomed to be outdated rather quickly. Walt always had a hard time with that "tomorrow" theme. Or up-to-date theme. Just look at CoP. Or Tomorrowland itself. But as far as theme of Contemporary, at the time, I thought it was great. It hasn't aged well at all. But as an extension, or at least a backdrop for Tomorrowland - Wonderful. But both our points of view at this point in our conversation is highly subjective.

And again, you didn't answer one of my more interesting questions (at least I thought so). So I'll ask it again:

Tell me  And here is one of those questions that get lost  What would you consider more than a splash of what might have passed for contemporary styling'? What should it have been?

The Mesa Grande Lounge was in place before Top of the World

Thank you. The name sounds familiar, but I would have never guessed it in a million years! Totally forgot about it! It must have changed names rather quickly. I do remember that there was a place, a lounge, right off the elevators and next to The Top Of The World, the name eludes me at the moment, where they served drink named after monorail colors.

I'm not sure what you are referring to as far as plans. I've seen concept drawings, which I thought were very nice. but beyond that I am unaware of any plans.

Up until the time Ei$ner took over they planned several different resorts. Do you remember where The Walt Disney Story was in the MK? I think it is the photo place now, I hardly ever go in there. At any rate, there was a sort of preview center which laid out the 5 and 10 year plan for WDW. It had a HUGE scale model of WDW and all the future plans were on display!! It was GREAT!!

Anyway, I thought you might get a kick out of the resorts that were planned. The Asian Resort, The Venetian Resort, The Persian Resort, Cypress Point Lodge and Wilderness Junction/Buffalo Junction Resort.

I linked you to a site before that had some of their original plans. Here it is again:

http://www.disneydrawingboard.com/WDW/MKArea/MKArea.html

Now that you've seen them, what do you think? To me they all look better than what has been built since. Don't you think so?

And that was part of what this thread was all about. Have they used the land to the very best of their "DISNEY" ability!?


--

 

[MassJester]

Sorry!! I was perhaps a little too verbose!! I never meant to be rude? I NEVER mean to rude! Sorry.

No worries. I get caught in my arguments from time to time (but then what lawyer doesn't?)

Oh yeah! I can agree with that, no problem at all. Not the best example of forward thinking. But did you know that the rooms were modular. The concept was as the building aged these modular units could easily be replaced. Ah but! Lousy Florida soil and heartless gravity somehow twisted things a bit out of shape (or something like that, I don't know all the details) and it became impossible for that concept to work.

Now. I said, not the best example of forward thinking. Not that it failed in it's original theme. That of 'modern' and/or 'contemporary'. It was indeed doomed to be outdated rather quickly. Walt always had a hard time with that "tomorrow" theme. Or up-to-date theme. Just look at CoP. Or Tomorrowland itself. But as far as theme of Contemporary, at the time, I thought it was great. It hasn't aged well at all. But as an extension, or at least a backdrop for Tomorrowland - Wonderful. But both our points of view at this point in our conversation is highly subjective.

And again, you didn't answer one of my more interesting questions (at least I thought so). So I'll ask it again:

Tell me  And here is one of those questions that get lost  What would you consider more than a splash of what might have passed for contemporary styling'? What should it have been?

I would have dumped the southwest themed eateries and entertainment, and although I love the mural--but I would have done something with astroimagery (which was really starting to get spectacular at the time). The character presentations at breakfast have always been off theme too, and I would change that.

Thank you. The name sounds familiar, but I would have never guessed it in a million years! Totally forgot about it! It must have changed names rather quickly. I do remember that there was a place, a lounge, right off the elevators and next to The Top Of The World, the name eludes me at the moment, where they served drink named after monorail colors.

There was the Grand Canyon Lounge and the Gulf Coast Room -- one of those perhaps?

Up until the time Ei$ner took over they planned several different resorts. Do you remember where The Walt Disney Story was in the MK? I think it is the photo place now, I hardly ever go in there. At any rate, there was a sort of preview center which laid out the 5 and 10 year plan for WDW. It had a HUGE scale model of WDW and all the future plans were on display!! It was GREAT!!

Anyway, I thought you might get a kick out of the resorts that were planned. The Asian Resort, The Venetian Resort, The Persian Resort, Cypress Point Lodge and Wilderness Junction/Buffalo Junction Resort.

I linked you to a site before that had some of their original plans. Here it is again:

http://www.disneydrawingboard.com/WDW/MKArea/MKArea.html

Now that you've seen them, what do you think? To me they all look better than what has been built since. Don't you think so?

And that was part of what this thread was all about. Have they used the land to the very best of their "DISNEY" ability!?


--

I have a vague memory of that place--but nothing specific. The link was very interesting though. I was very enamored of the Persian and Asian concepts--although the Venetian one seemed lacking (I'm have been a relatively frequent traveller to Venice and so perhaps my expectations are unfairly high).

As for the Parks living up to their potential, no, I think not. I am not as gloomy about it as some. Walt Disney was a visionary, charismatic and driven leader, and for whatever flaws he or his work product had, he created great pass times. It is unreasonable to expect that he would be replaced by a series of like leaders--simply because history shows us that such leaders stand out as exceptions rather than exist in long lines of other great leaders.

Additionally, it's unclear (to me) that he would have been a good long term steward of his own projects. My understanding of his career is that he liked to move on to the next project, and updating/refurbishing/repurposing (at least insofar as the Disneyland property is concerned) wasn't really a strong suit. I think we could have expected great new benchmarks from Disney had he lived a longer life, but I'm not sure what would have become of the projects he had completed in the past.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

I would have dumped the southwest themed eateries and entertainment, and although I love the mural--but I would have done something with astroimagery (which was really starting to get spectacular at the time).

Wonderful!! I love it, and to tell you the truth I never quite did get the southwest thing, but I have to admit it did strike an emotional chord of being "contemporary" when I first saw it, and it still does, for that time. OR!! And it is a strong possibility that I have such fond memories of that time and place that it 'strikes a chord' with me now, just because it is what it is. Does that make sense.

Anyway, I really LOVE your ideas. To bad they gutted the Imagineering division. There might have been a spot for you!!

The character presentations at breakfast have always been off theme too, and I would change that.

While I love Chef Mickey's when I am with my children (many years ago) and currently with my grandchildren, I don't like it. First: Where it is at (The Contemporary). And second: They have too many character meals already!! It was better off in the Market Place. And the Market Place was better off when it was The Market Place, but that's a topic for another thread!!

There was the Grand Canyon Lounge and the Gulf Coast Room -- one of those perhaps?

No. I don't think they were it. But it'll come to me. I hope!

The link was very interesting though. I was very enamored of the Persian and Asian concepts

Me too!!

although the Venetian one seemed lacking (I'm have been a relatively frequent traveller to Venice and so perhaps my expectations are unfairly high).

Me Too! Although I’ve never been, it is still my least favorite. But!! I personally think, very subjectively, that it would have been MUCH better than any of the other resorts around Epcot, and might have even fit in a little better, given the World Showcase tie-in. Certainly better than ALL north American/eastern seaboard themed resorts. No tie-in for World Showcase there!!

As for the Parks living up to their potential, no, I think not.

Thank you. I quite agree. But it’s not only the parks. It’s the resorts as well. It’s the selling off of the land to make a quarterly Wall Street expectation. Ridiculous!!

It is unreasonable to expect that he would be replaced by a series of like leaders

Yeah! I tend to agree with you again. I gave up that ghost long ago, somewhere when I stopped posting regularly. And while I think it would be virtually impossible with the present Disney company, I still think that if Ei$ner had NOT acquired ABC and ESPN it might have worked. If he would have just been a capable steward of a much smaller Disney (i.e. films and theme parks) a guy like Lassiter could easily have fill Walt shoes. Or at least half of them. And I’d take a half a Walt any day of the week rather than what we have now.

Additionally, it's unclear (to me) that he would have been a good long term steward of his own projects. My understanding of his career is that he liked to move on to the next project, and updating/refurbishing/repurposing (at least insofar as the Disneyland property is concerned) wasn't really a strong suit. I think we could have expected great new benchmarks from Disney had he lived a longer life, but I'm not sure what would have become of the projects he had completed in the past.

I think you may be right. But we wouldn’t see a decline in maintenance like we have in the past. We wouldn’t see the maintenance that does take place performed within the view of the guest. And I really don’t think we’d see the prices skyrocket out of sight. Those things were important to him and he was very anti-business when it came to those issues.

That is why, even though my avatar says, “What Would Walt Do?” I really mean “How would Walt Do It!!??” That’s not as catchy, but it is more accurate to my way of thinking.

 

[MassJester]

While I love Chef Mickey's when I am with my children (many years ago) and currently with my grandchildren, I don't like it. First: Where it is at (The Contemporary). And second: They have too many character meals already!! It was better off in the Market Place. And the Market Place was better off when it was The Market Place, but that's a topic for another thread!!

Interestingly, Chef Mickey's was a "must do" for me, family and friends for years. I can twirl my napkin with the best of them. However, over the past ten years I've gone rarely, and until it came up in conversation here, I never gave it a second thought.

Me Too! Although I’ve never been, it is still my least favorite. But!! I personally think, very subjectively, that it would have been MUCH better than any of the other resorts around Epcot, and might have even fit in a little better, given the World Showcase tie-in. Certainly better than ALL north American/eastern seaboard themed resorts. No tie-in for World Showcase there!!

I'm a big fan of the WL and the VWL. I really enjoy my visits there and think it stands out as an example of the potential of the organization in a post-Walt organization. I'm not as hostile to the GF as some. I find it visually pleasant enough, and enjoy some of the dining (I'm also guilty of using their beach as a mid-day napping spot...)--that said, I've not decided to stay there.

I've stayed in Saratoga twice recently and it really is just a big place with a lot of rooms. Not even a glimpse of story. The dining/retail operation is all mucked up (the very kindest way to put it), and its sole advantage is the dedicated bus line.

OKW is meh. The only thing I remember about POFQ and CB is that I liked the bed spreads.

I fear we may disagree on the Boardwalk resorts--I enjoy them.

Thank you. I quite agree. But it’s not only the parks. It’s the resorts as well. It’s the selling off of the land to make a quarterly Wall Street expectation. Ridiculous!!.

I bristle at the idea of selling off any land. I just can't imagine in the context of any long term view that it makes sense. If were in charge, they'd still be buying property.

That is why, even though my avatar says, “What Would Walt Do?” I really mean “How would Walt Do It!!??” That’s not as catchy, but it is more accurate to my way of thinking.

Either is better than "That'll Do Pig"

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

I'm a big fan of the WL...

I fear we may disagree on the Boardwalk resorts--I enjoy them.

I like WL too. But again I think that Wilderness Junction/Buffalo Junction Resort might have been better.

And as far as the Boardwalk resorts go... I enjoy them too. But I think Disney would have been better served by someone who thought just a little more outside his own personal box. The north eastern part of the good old USA is fine, but how about a Venetian? An Asian? Even a Persian? Or almost anything other than USA!! Come on!! WORLD Showcase!! It almost writes itself. And again, that's what I meant by asking if they utilized their property in the best "Disney" fashion possible. I think there were many missed opportunities.

Either is better than "That'll Do Pig"

Well, I could never use that one!! You can call me a lot of things, but a man of few words is NOT one of them!!!

 

[pilferk]

[/COLOR][/B]
~Again, by your logic, I cant begin construction on my apartment complex, until I have secured a tenant to lease every single unit, *beforehand*. And, then my tenants will not be allowed to move in their apartments until they have completely furnished them! I think I've got it.

Actually..not at all. I clearly laid out my logic and did not take it to the extreme you suggest. That was largely the point. Your bad analogy uses the logic, above. Maybe you should re-read what I clearly laid out:

This is more akin to building an apartment building. You put up some walls. But you leave out doors, plumbing, electricity, fixtures, windows, carpet/flooring...basically, you've assembled something you can roughly call an apartment building.

And you start renting out units, with promises that you will, eventually, someday expand. And you know it will be an inconvenience to your tenants when you do...but them's the brakes. Oh, and you're charging the EXACT SAME rent that you charge in your luxury highrises a couple blocks away.

So, yeah....I don't think that's such a great move.

Nowhere did I say anything about furniture or ensuring every unit had a tenant prior to renting. And it's not even a logical stretch to infer it from what I did write.

To summarize: I do think, before you rent the apartments, they should have things like electricity, heat, plumbing and finished flooring of some type. They should be finished mostly finished to the point they resemble apartments. Much like the apartments you're charging the same price for, up the street.

I think before you open a "theme park" it should probably have more than 2 attractions in it.

[/COLOR][/B]~I dont agree that Disney's brand was harmed by DHS & AK. Both parks have experienced consistent, steady growth in attendance every year. Patrons having fun vacations, has every bit of relevance! Disney is selling memories & magical experiences at the parks.

Consistent steady growth from underwhelming (and FAR below their two big brothers) numbers.

Was there brand harmed? Arguable. But it certainly wasn't built, either. Neither were categoric successes.

DCA and Disneylandaris, though....those hurt the brand.

~Again, you really keep dancing around substance and what it consists of. I think in many instances substance is subjective. Ill use Magical Express for example. I love this service; I exit the plane and walk right on a motor coach, check in at the resort, visit a park, DTD and/or dinner. When I return to my room, my luggage is there waiting for me! For some guests substance just means clean and safe parks; or good dining experiences; the deluxe resorts; or the rides and fastpass; or park transportation; or all of the above (and more).

I agree, to SOME extent what makes up substance might be subjective.

But a complete lack of substance isn't a subjective judgement.

I would also argue that the parks were cleaner before the early 90's and the food was definitely better prior to DDP.

How much, above, was added or got better under Eisner? ME (which, to be clear, wasn't about guest experience...it was about keeping your $$ on Disney property any way they could) and Fastpass, maybe?

~I understand the pricing structure. I know they are four separate gates. There is nothing wrong with this. My experiences are not diminished just because they happened to be at DHS or AK. I dont compartmentalize my memories and experiences based on the park. I dont ride ToT and then think, that was fun but since DHS opened back in 1989 with only two rides, it will never be as fun as it should to be.

But we're talking about history and what Eisner has done. Again, you need to separate "my fun trip" with looking at what was actually done in the parks. They're two very different discussions.

Even in that vein, after you rode TOT, and finished up with DHS around 1:30....you've never thought "Hmmm, now what do I do today?" If not, I'd suggest you're in the minority.

~Iger is a media mogul, no doubt. But theme parks and resorts were neglected for too long, until their recent knee jerk reaction to Harry Potter!

Under both regimes.

~Well, the values existed long before the Nick hotel and imitation is the sincerest form of flattery!< j/k> I will agree that Disney did not have to go the way of motels for the values and moderates. But, the public responded in a huge way! The values are extremely popular. Whenever I check in for ME, the deluxe line is always empty and for buses that share more than half of the bus is for value and mod guests! You dont like them, but many people love them. Why is your preference more important than theirs???

You're missing the point. Their preference isn't relevant...because they're choosing the choice they have. Ask those same guests if they'd prefer a deeper themed resort with other plusses compared to the existing values...for the same price.

What do you think the most common answer is going to be?

~In your opinion, how did Disney continue to strengthen their brand and build fierce loyalty with inferior products that lack substance?

Exemplary and creative marketing. Playing against people's sentiments.

Offering just enough quality to get by.


And now, back to my hidey hole til tomorrow.

 

[YoHo]

On the contemporary.

I hear a lot of personal dislike for the theme versus any kind of issue with the actual execution. That's OK, you don't have to like everything Disney does.

HOWEVER, The Contemporary Resort as constructed absolutely positively embodied Contemporary Architecture and Design circa the 1970s. The southwest theme was very contemporary. The decor was spot on.

And for the record, Character Breakfasts and dance shows aren't a requirement for a Disney resort. If that' what people take as a requirement for Disney Deluxe accommodations in the year 2013, well then that just goes to show how much Eisner ruined the brand.

The original resorts and the original planned resorts intrinsically understood that not every vacationer who scrimped and saved for years for their Disney World vacation was interested in the same exact experience. Some may prefer to have a contemporary lounge feeling for an after dinner drink while the kids are at the pool. Other a Golf retreat and others to relax among buddist temples and lotus blossoms. With the convenient monorail available to get you to the other locales.


In the year 2013, most people's idea of contemporary and mid century modern is walking through Ikea.

And Disney hasn't bothered to keep the Contemporary even up to an Ikea level of Design, because they think their guests are too dumb to get it.

Alas.

 

[DRDISNEYMD]

Actually..not at all. I clearly laid out my logic and did not take it to the extreme you suggest. That was largely the point. Your bad analogy uses the logic, above. Maybe you should re-read what I clearly laid out:

~There is nothing wrong with the analogy, it's perfect and applicable to both parks and resorts. I read your post, the scenario you provided is simply too extreme & too irrational to take into consideration. So, I added some modifications that were linear in approach to how parks & resorts operate. No one, not even Disney will do what you wrote above. My analogy is realistic -- your analogy is something that no one can identify with, it simply isn't done.

Nowhere did I say anything about furniture or ensuring every unit had a tenant prior to renting. And it's not even a logical stretch to infer it from what I did write.

To summarize: I do think, before you rent the apartments, they should have things like electricity, heat, plumbing and finished flooring of some type. They should be finished mostly finished to the point they resemble apartments. Much like the apartments you're charging the same price for, up the street.

I think before you open a "theme park" it should probably have more than 2 attractions in it.

I totally agree that Disney should not charge full day rates for half day parks. So, I think we agree on that. And, Disney offers structured prices to include all parks, that’s not so bad.

~Now, I posted this earlier, but it applies here as well.

~Scenario: You have to find a new place to live and there are only two available options.

~Option 1: is a huge, super affordable, well-appointed apartment in an isolated non-gated community - the grounds are not maintained, and there is no pool or workout facility. The majority of the surrounding area is oppressive, full of blight, visible trash strewn about, no mass transit, notable crime rate, no nearby dining, entertainment, or shopping areas.

~Option 2: is a small unfurnished apartment in a gated community, with full 24 hour onsite staff. There are wonderful themed pools, a large workout facility, golf course, boardwalk, world class entertainment, an endless array of dining choices, several mass transit options. The community is vibrant, clean, safe & thriving.

~What would you choose? Option 1 well-appointed huge apartment or Option 2 world class exclusive community (both options assume the same expense)?

Consistent steady growth from underwhelming (and FAR below their two big brothers) numbers.

Was there brand harmed? Arguable. But it certainly wasn't built, either. Neither were categoric successes.

DCA and Disneylandaris, though....those hurt the brand.

~DCA is not hurting the brand now! This is what I mean by, *potential* finally realized. DHS and AK will eventually get there. This is my park ranking order MK - AK - DHS - Epcot. I’m curious to know what’s yours?

I agree, to SOME extent what makes up substance might be subjective.

But a complete lack of substance isn't a subjective judgement.

I would also argue that the parks were cleaner before the early 90's and the food was definitely better prior to DDP.

How much, above, was added or got better under Eisner? ME (which, to be clear, wasn't about guest experience...it was about keeping your $$ on Disney property any way they could) and Fastpass, maybe?

~I used to *love* the dining plan. Disney seized a great opportunity when implementing the dining plan, in part, because the meal vouchers had gotten out of hand on the secondary market! I would argue that it wasn’t the dining plan that ruined food quality but *free* dining! The dining plan did not become popular until *free* dining. I totally agree about ME – I love it and hate it at the same time!

But we're talking about history and what Eisner has done. Again, you need to separate "my fun trip" with looking at what was actually done in the parks. They're two very different discussions.

Even in that vein, after you rode TOT, and finished up with DHS around 1:30....you've never thought "Hmmm, now what do I do today?" If not, I'd suggest you're in the minority.

~No, not at all. DHS is just fabulous at night, it just oozes that 50’s glamour. We arrive at DHS in the morning and leave midday and return after dinner. But, I think we could spend the whole day there. I understand where you’re coming from, and for many people it is a half day park.

~I don’t think Eisner “ruined” Disney, he made some poor choices, but also placed the company in a better position to rectify those mistakes. I found a record of Eisner's performance, any mistake he made can be forgiven 100 times over!

<1984 2004 Percent change>

• Disney's Revenues $1.5 billion $30.8 billion +2,000
• Disney's Income $294 million $4.49 billion +1,600
• Disney's Tax-Free Cash Flow $100 million $2.9 billion +2,900
• Stock Price (adjusted for splits) $1.33 $28.40 +2,100
• Market Value $1.9 billion $57.4 billion +3,000
• Disney's Enterprise Value $2.8 billion $69 billion +3,200
  (market value plus debt minus cash)

Under both regimes.

~I disagree. Eisner answered Universal in a huge way. Iger answered back with story time & frozen apple juice. j/k I like Iger, I’m just patiently waiting for Disney’s real answer to Harry Potter.

You're missing the point. Their preference isn't relevant...because they're choosing the choice they have. Ask those same guests if they'd prefer a deeper themed resort with other plusses compared to the existing values...for the same price.

What do you think the most common answer is going to be?

~This is great, pilferk! I agree but I don’t know about the “same” price, it doesn't seem practical. How would Disney be able to do this??? Look at the values and all they offer -- food courts -- arcade -- several themed pools – gift shop. Most motels and even some hotels don’t provide these features. I’ve seen the values offer rooms for as low as 40 dollars a night in the past.

Exemplary and creative marketing. Playing against people's sentiments.

Offering just enough quality to get by.


And now, back to my hidey hole til tomorrow.

~I agree with this. Disney exercised sheer genius, when they placed emphasis on strengthening media, too bad for theme parks and resorts, though.

 

[YoHo]

Well Landbaron, it looks like we killed the thread.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

We always do!! But 20 pages ain't bad for the first serious one in ten years or so!!

I have other ideas percolating!! Maybe we can get Mr. Kidds involved!! I LOVE talking about resorts!!

 

[crusader]

WOW!!!

What have you guys been up to? Has anyone's perspective changed?

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Has anyone's perspective changed?

No.

 

[crusader]

That's what I miss the most.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Mr. Crusader,

I seem to remember some great debates with you. Tell me. Has your perspective changed?


--

 

[crusader]

My perspective? What a loaded question. which is why I asked it. You turned the table. Clever.

the simple answer is "not necessarily".

the broader answer is "that depends".

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

the simple answer is "not necessarily".

the broader answer is "that depends".

Well, I assume you've read this thread, or at least skimmed it enough to know what the main topics were. Where do you fall on the issue?

Has Disney used it's Land Resources to the best of their "Disney" ability? Or have they wasted their potential and squandered away this valuable asset?

The ball, as they say, is in your court, Mr. Crusader!





YoHo!! We may get another page or two yet! Guess who came late to the party!!

--

 

[crusader]

I've scanned thru the pages. Same points from years ago. Very poignant and very well versed. It was good read.

Sure, things can always be improved. Did they utilze their land assets to the fullest potential? Of course not.

I never fell in line with all the criticism of the company a decade ago because I happen to believe the most valuable asset Disney has is an intangible barely mentioned by any of you: TIME

And while they do manage to waste and squander that VALUABLE ASSET as we all do, they have equally weathered it, preserved it and sustained it. For that reason alone they have earned my utmost respect.

I'm glad to see you all back. The Co. needs to revamp a few areas. This forum was always great in bringing that to light.