Is Disney World becoming a shell of its former self?

[manning]

Oh, if only Disney was privately owned by a small group.

 

[peg110]

IMO, this is just a fallacy that some fanatics have convinced themselves to be true.

Disney has never good a good value. In some ways, it's gotten worse but its prices have risen mostly proportional to the Orlando area. The biggest price increases (e.g. annual passes) are largely a derivative of the surge of repeat guests -- just look at how many people on these forums travel to WDW four, five, six times or more per year.

Never did I say it was a good value. Value is based upon what oneself puts on it. If you don't find a value in then you won't spend your money on it. The value can be keeping the family happy. I didn't say it was cheap.

That said, Walt and ROY saw that it was more profitable in the long run to keep the customers happy, where the current regime is more inclined to squeeze it out as much as they can as fast as they can. The first one meant a slower return, but what you lacked in speed, you made up for in the long run.

It's kind of like the stock market. Do you want a big gain all up front now, or are you willing to wait for the longer but bigger gain down the road.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Never did I say it was a good value. Value is based upon what oneself puts on it. If you don't find a value in then you won't spend your money on it. The value can be keeping the family happy. I didn't say it was cheap.

That said, Walt and ROY saw that it was more profitable in the long run to keep the customers happy, where the current regime is more inclined to squeeze it out as much as they can as fast as they can. The first one meant a slower return, but what you lacked in speed, you made up for in the long run.

It's kind of like the stock market. Do you want a big gain all up front now, or are you willing to wait for the longer but bigger gain down the road.

There have been times when (I'm
Only speaking from my knowledge and work experience at WDW) parks were a better value when compared to the outside economy than other times.

I say this often: 98-2000 stands as the "peak" in Orlando. And a big part of that is that it was a great value...

That's cyclical...things would go up, economies would be bad...but then things would level out...prices would stay flat...and your dollar went farther.

That 98-00 period...$44 ish to start tickets that moved to around $48....

Rooms starting at $49 or $59 at all stars...$84 at port Orleans...$109 at wilderness lodge...

Food was better and they had choices of prices amongst sit downs (long gone)

Now look at it?
$125 for Epcot in february? Full one day prices for the first 3 or 4 days of hoppers (more or less)

The absolute cheapest room at wilderness $350? On January 2nd when the place is 75% empty?

$101 at all star and up...$135 and up if You don't want to be looking at the dumpsters behind calypso or ping pong...

Right...discounts...

That's great...but the base prices are moved up like clockwork now...even during the second biggest Financial disaster in world history.

I hope that chef mickeys on free dining was good...cause Ima paying for it now...

Which was the end game from the start. At least since around 2004/2005...anyone a student of history that doesn't believe in coincidence?

Disney parks were never "affordable" to many...I never liked that term because it doesn't apply to anyone equally...

But a comparative "value"...yes...a strong case can be made...not on the current business model though...it's like the bus at the end of Speed.

 

[plwheel]

We should also remember that Disney has parks all over the world and that Universal and Busch Gardens don't. So any investments made have to be spread across their park systems. We live in Virginia and look at Busch Gardens as our spring training grounds for Disney...we go to get excited to go to Disney. I've been to Universal once and found it to be meh. My kids (17 and 15) prefer Disney. There's something about Disney World that makes it magical that other parks can't duplicate. That said, I've had not-so-magical moments at Disney, but the good far outweighs the bad.

As for value and price, I'd rather spend more, have fewer visitors and have a better experience.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Disney only operates WDW, Disneyland, most of eurodisney and parts of the Chinese parks...

So the analogy doesn't quite fit.

Other operators have or have been over seas as well.

 

[LAS2AMS]

Never did I say it was a good value. Value is based upon what oneself puts on it. If you don't find a value in then you won't spend your money on it. The value can be keeping the family happy. I didn't say it was cheap.

That said, Walt and ROY saw that it was more profitable in the long run to keep the customers happy, where the current regime is more inclined to squeeze it out as much as they can as fast as they can. The first one meant a slower return, but what you lacked in speed, you made up for in the long run.

It's kind of like the stock market. Do you want a big gain all up front now, or are you willing to wait for the longer but bigger gain down the road.

Please clarify your position because I'm confused. In any event, I stick by mine -- since it first opened, WDW has long held a reputation for trying to squeeze every penny it could out of each guest. The Unofficial Guides written in the 1980s and 1990s state such explicitly (while offering tips to avoid the "money mousetrap.") Not to mention oodles of pop culture references, notably several episodes of the Simpsons, including one written in 2001 in which Homer is charged $13 for a churro. Your example - that Disney was once willing to forgo the cost of a dinner, knowing guests would spend it elsewhere + continue to come back - is heavily debatable. Oodles of publications and testimonials written about WDW in the 1980s and 1990s suggest that the service was often substandard, especially if guests sought compensation.

There have been times when (I'm
Only speaking from my knowledge and work experience at WDW) parks were a better value when compared to the outside economy than other times.

I say this often: 98-2000 stands as the "peak" in Orlando. And a big part of that is that it was a great value...

The problem is that Disney's prices have risen proportionally to the market. The Disney-area had long struggled with low hotel rates, but the addition of steep mandatory "resort" and/or parking fees at most properties in recent years has suddenly swelled the cost per stay, making the Disney properties much more competitive. Yes, you'll always pay a premium for a Disney hotel but it's much more tolerable when comparable "deluxe" properties off-site are no longer selling for less than a value resort...

Yes, prices have risen at the parks but so has the attendance. It's all about supply-and-demand, and when attendance at the capacity-restricted parks has increased 40% since the Millennium, hiking the price makes plenty of sense. Like I said, many of the persons complaining about the price hikes are a part of the problem, since they attend Disney multiple times per year. When demand outpaces supply...

And the food I'll disagree with you on. I think that meals at places like Ohana, Whispering Canyon Cafe, etc. are as good as they've ever been. And meals at places like Chief Mickey's as mediocre as ever. What's weak is Disney now packaging a Smucker's "Uncrustable" sandwich, apple slices and bottled water together and selling it as a kid's meal for $9. If you're going to charge Disney prices for a kid's meal, at least make the product unique.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

You seem quite knowledgeable...no doubt.

But you are incorrect - to put it simply - to imply that Disney pricing has been modeled/structured like a intro Econ class at an average college.

That was not the case and it is much more complicated than that.

Your ascertion implies that "anyone with a Brain can figure it out/understand"

It's generated hundreds of billions of dollars now...not nearly that pedestrian. Many things were pushed by different ideas/concepts than supply and demand on the curve.

Here's an easy point where you are missing: parks just before the millenium were actually too large...they had overbuilt and had space to take on extra capacity...so in reality that 40% increase you plot on the Keynesian curve is invalid to support cost relative to limited supply and high demand.

The parks are NOT crowded. Do you what to go right now? I'll take you on a tour focused on logistics and point out things that prove it that might not be too apparent.

 

[LAS2AMS]

You seem quite knowledgeable...no doubt.

But you are incorrect - to put it simply - to imply that Disney pricing has been modeled/structured like a intro Econ class at an average college.

That was not the case and it is much more complicated than that...

I never implied nor intended to imply that Disney's pricing was based on a simple supply & demand model -- of course it's going to be complex, just as it is with any other business. But the concept is simple -- after a massive expansion in the late 1980s via 1990s, Disney kept its capacity stagnant, even while demand swelled. Naturally, prices are going to rise.

A good example is the annual pass: within these forums, people love to complain about the steep increase in price of the AP. But how many AP does Disney have today compared to the 1990s? And how many days is the average AP used today vs. the 1990s? Obviously this information is proprietary, but I'd be willing to bet anything that there's a substantially larger AP base today compared to the 1990s, using their passes a significantly larger number of times. Hence the increase in price.

As far as the parks' capacity, if Disney had kept its price hikes nominal and in-line with inflation, where would attendance levels be at today? That said, 5-day and longer passes are comparable to their late 1990s counterparts in price, adjusted for inflation, although they no longer include park hopping (and no expiration date). But I imagine the crux of Disney visitors purchase these passes, so they're not really paying more.

 

[peg110]

Please clarify your position because I'm confused. In any event, I stick by mine -- since it first opened, WDW has long held a reputation for trying to squeeze every penny it could out of each guest. The Unofficial Guides written in the 1980s and 1990s state such explicitly (while offering tips to avoid the "money mousetrap.") Not to mention oodles of pop culture references, notably several episodes of the Simpsons, including one written in 2001 in which Homer is charged $13 for a churro. Your example - that Disney was once willing to forgo the cost of a dinner, knowing guests would spend it elsewhere + continue to come back - is heavily debatable. Oodles of publications and testimonials written about WDW in the 1980s and 1990s suggest that the service was often substandard, especially if guests sought compensation.

To "Clarify" my position, and to quote a cliche', "You can get more bees from Honey, than you can from Vinegar". By this I mean that Walt/Roy, while still wanting to be (very) profitable, realized that you can do so much better by giving the customers a GREAT experience. Providing quality and courtesy. It seems, however, that the current management still wants high profit but the concerns about the guests and how they are treated are less of a focus. As others mentioned, the food quality seems to suffer or even be "Bland" across the various restaurants. Most quick serve restaurants seem to give you the same Chicken sandwich, Hamburger or chicken fingers with only a minor twist on it to fit the "Theme." There is certainly nothing Stellar about the burgers (or other sandwiches). If as many people on these boards have complained about the food, had complained to Disney Management, then in Walt/Roy's time, a change would have been made, today, not so much.

The problem is, is that people still keep coming, and as along as they do, will be little change. It's all about supply and demand. There is a demand for WDW and they know it, so there is nothing that they will do until they (management) see a threat to that.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

To "Clarify" my position, and to quote a cliche', "You can get more bees from Honey, than you can from Vinegar". By this I mean that Walt/Roy, while still wanting to be (very) profitable, realized that you can do so much better by giving the customers a GREAT experience. Providing quality and courtesy. It seems, however, that the current management still wants high profit but the concerns about the guests and how they are treated are less of a focus. As others mentioned, the food quality seems to suffer or even be "Bland" across the various restaurants. Most quick serve restaurants seem to give you the same Chicken sandwich, Hamburger or chicken fingers with only a minor twist on it to fit the "Theme." There is certainly nothing Stellar about the burgers (or other sandwiches). If as many people on these boards have complained about the food, had complained to Disney Management, then in Walt/Roy's time, a change would have been made, today, not so much.

The problem is, is that people still keep coming, and as along as they do, will be little change. It's all about supply and demand. There is a demand for WDW and they know it, so there is nothing that they will do until they (management) see a threat to that.

And even Michael Eisner still operated for a large amount of his tenure under the quality wins out principle. The evidence Is everywhere in WDW...they overbuilt things that cost long term money that they absolutely did not need to build for the Bottomline.

Good examples are the boardwalk promenade and stormalong bay...those could have been constructed much more cheaply with fewer labor requirements...but they said "well, why not?" And did it anyway.

What current management is missing...because they are stock slaves and do nothing but stare at the micro curve...is a little bit of pride/swagger...

Neither Burbank nor WDI has the "we'll show you" instinct anymore. Disney needs that...definitely balanced with strong business acumen and decision making...but they need it.

Now it's much more of a "what's the minimum it will take?" It erodes the longterm business. Make no mistake. That's why quarterlies are wrong. But if it can't be summarized in 50 words on yahoo...they can't comprehend it.

Bob Iger is an IP corporate raider...buying new material...exploiting it heavily quickly, slashing divisions or "consolidation" anytime things aren't perfect...that's gordon gecko type stuff. How soon we forget...

 

[LAS2AMS]

To "Clarify" my position, and to quote a cliche', "You can get more bees from Honey, than you can from Vinegar". By this I mean that Walt/Roy, while still wanting to be (very) profitable, realized that you can do so much better by giving the customers a GREAT experience. Providing quality and courtesy. It seems, however, that the current management still wants high profit but the concerns about the guests and how they are treated are less of a focus. As others mentioned, the food quality seems to suffer or even be "Bland" across the various restaurants. Most quick serve restaurants seem to give you the same Chicken sandwich, Hamburger or chicken fingers with only a minor twist on it to fit the "Theme." There is certainly nothing Stellar about the burgers (or other sandwiches). If as many people on these boards have complained about the food, had complained to Disney Management, then in Walt/Roy's time, a change would have been made, today, not so much.

The problem is, is that people still keep coming, and as along as they do, will be little change. It's all about supply and demand. There is a demand for WDW and they know it, so there is nothing that they will do until they (management) see a threat to that.

Maybe, but Walt/Roy have been completely irrelevant toward Disney for decades and few of its modern guests experienced Disney under their leadership. WDW didn't flourish until the Eisner era...

The lion's share of posters insisting that WDW isn't the same as it use to be are comparing status quo to 10-20 years ago, hence my comments.

 

[LAS2AMS]

And even Michael Eisner still operated for a large amount of his tenure under the quality wins out principle. The evidence Is everywhere in WDW...they overbuilt things that cost long term money that they absolutely did not need to build for the Bottomline.

Good examples are the boardwalk promenade and stormalong bay...those could have been constructed much more cheaply with fewer labor requirements...but they said "well, why not?" And did it anyway.

What current management is missing...because they are stock slaves and do nothing but stare at the micro curve...is a little bit of pride/swagger...

The Disney building boom ended under the Eisner era, when River Country was shuttered after lackluster attendance in spite of $10 promotional tickets (the park was likely unprofitable in its final years), the All Star Resorts were dumped on Priceline's oblique service for $25/night, after 4PM tickets to EPCOT given away to corporate guests, etc. How soon we forgot .

 

[lockedoutlogic]

The Disney building boom ended under the Eisner era, when River Country was shuttered after lackluster attendance in spite of $10 promotional tickets (the park was likely unprofitable in its final years), the All Star Resorts were dumped on Priceline's oblique service for $25/night, after 4PM tickets to EPCOT given away to corporate guests, etc. How soon we forgot .

You are stating the results without the frame of reference there though...

Eisner was no saint...but to rate only at his lowest point is unfair.

WDW frankly stunk for the first 3 years of the Epcot era...lagging attendance and the company almost be raided/broken up...but that doesn't mean they never should have opened it.

The problem now is complacency...that is the Iger tenure...the period of "lay low". They have snapped out of it a little...but if people would swallow their gigantic pricing leaps more willingly (they're not...which is what's behind the DVC conversion)...and if Comcast wasn't so ornery...we still would see WDW identical to what it was in 2007. No doubt. It's just a chip in the stock market poker game.

 

[LAS2AMS]

You are stating the results without the frame of reference there though...

Eisner was no saint...but to rate only at his lowest point is unfair.

WDW frankly stunk for the first 3 years of the Epcot era...lagging attendance and the company almost be raided/broken up...but that doesn't mean they never should have opened it.

The problem now is complacency...that is the Iger tenure...the period of "lay low". They have snapped out of it a little...but if people would swallow their gigantic pricing leaps more willingly (they're not...which is what's behind the DVC conversion)...and if Comcast wasn't so ornery...we still would see WDW identical to what it was in 2007. No doubt. It's just a chip in the stock market poker game.

Eisner's lowest point? In the late 1990s/early 2000s there were concerns that WDW was over expanding, and those concerns were realized during the tourism downturn that followed 9/11. Even during the "boom" period that proceeded the Great Recession, WDW offered a plethora of promotions (hotel and hotel + ticket) to attract guests.

And have we forgotten about the Disneyland expansion? Yes, it beautified Anaheim but the point was to generate huge profits for Disney by turning Disneyland into a regional vacation destination. Eisner cut the budget for the project, built a half-**** park, then sharply raised prices across the board. Of course, attendance to Disneyland Park dropped, Disney spent years playing damage control (and giving away many free passes) and ultimately spent more money to correct the park than they would've to have built it "properly" in the first place.

So let's not ignore reality.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Eisner's lowest point? In the late 1990s/early 2000s there were concerns that WDW was over expanding, and those concerns were realized during the tourism downturn that followed 9/11. Even during the "boom" period that proceeded the Great Recession, WDW offered a plethora of promotions (hotel and hotel + ticket) to attract guests.

And have we forgotten about the Disneyland expansion? Yes, it beautified Anaheim but the point was to generate huge profits for Disney by turning Disneyland into a regional vacation destination. Eisner cut the budget for the project, built a half-**** park, then sharply raised prices across the board. Of course, attendance to Disneyland Park dropped, Disney spent years playing damage control (and giving away many free passes) and ultimately spent more money to correct the park than they would've to have built it "properly" in the first place.

So let's not ignore reality.

You're not an Eisner fan...I get it.

But you are cherry picking the argument. You're actually not criticizing him enough in some ways...it wasn't a 9/11 thing...it was more the fallout from the tech crash and a marketing approach that went off the rails. The crash was begun in early 2001. But that's another topic.

Would you rather "over expansion"? Or nothing for 10 years.

Cause that's pretty much a tale of two decades in Florida.

Disneyland's fix was admirable...but let me ask you this: if Eisner hadn't opened the bad park...would Iger have constructed the second one?

No...because he is relativley gutless In the domestic market.

Just like the Pixar purchase...it was on a platter. New conquering hero. No fault of his but not some grand vision.

If Comcast hadnt decided to go full bore into parks 10 year ago (a move I guarantee Disney thought they wouldn't make)...then we don't see too much going on in Orlando either.

It's easy to "live in the moment" as you seem content to...the truth is in the past and the future when we are talking parks.

 

[rteetz]

You're not an Eisner fan...I get it.

But you are cherry picking the argument. You're actually not criticizing him enough in some ways...it wasn't a 9/11 thing...it was more the fallout from the tech crash and a marketing approach that went off the rails. The crash was begun in early 2001. But that's another topic.

Would you rather "over expansion"? Or nothing for 10 years.

Cause that's pretty much a tale of two decades in Florida.

Disneyland's fix was admirable...but let me ask you this: if Eisner hadn't opened the bad park...would Iger have constructed the second one?

No...because he is relativley gutless In the domestic market.

Just like the Pixar purchase...it was on a platter. New conquering hero. No fault of his but not some grand vision.

If Comcast hadnt decided to go full bore into parks 10 year ago (a move I guarantee Disney thought they wouldn't make)...then we don't see too much going on in Orlando either.

It's easy to "live in the moment" as you seem content to...the truth is in the past and the future when we are talking parks.

I actually fully agree with you for once.

 

[jkh36619]

I'm confused about this whole thread. Isn't Disney a for profit company??

 

[LAS2AMS]

You're not an Eisner fan...I get it.

But you are cherry picking the argument. You're actually not criticizing him enough in some ways...it wasn't a 9/11 thing...it was more the fallout from the tech crash and a marketing approach that went off the rails. The crash was begun in early 2001. But that's another topic.
...

I have nothing but respect for Eisner. It's just that I'm living in reality instead of Fantasyland .

Disney has a history of trying to gouge its guest out of every penny it can -- that's supported by oodles of publications written in the '80s and '90s warning guests of "the mouse trap," as well as an endless supply of pop culture references mocking it. Yes, Eisner was a visionary, but he expanded WDW and DL primarily in pursuit of profits. By the end of Eisner's reign, WDW was stuck with a glut of capacity, driven by its newest theme park, which was largely considered a bust (discussed extensively on these forums in the early 2000s) and had failed to give the overall boost in attendance that had been expected.

Reality is that most of the deeply discounted room rates & vacation packages that many of us enjoyed in the 2000s were a derivative of Disney needing to fill capacity, not its generosity. As attendance swells, Disney has choreographed controlled, planned expansion of its hotel inventory and park capacity, which has long been its goal. No doubt the recent, unprecedented price hikes were planned to cool demand -- but allegedly the market response was softer than anticipated. If that's true, we can look for some strong promotions in the coming months.

Ultimately, the comparisons people are making surprise me on here. For example, nationally, the cost of lodging has far outpaced inflation the past two decades, so why expect anything different at Disney? And the emphasis on timeshares also follows the national (well, North American) trend.

 

[rteetz]

I'm confused about this whole thread. Isn't Disney a for profit company??

Yes they are but Disney at one point cared a lot more about the consumer rather than the stock price.

 

[DiannaVM]

I have nothing but respect for Eisner. It's just that I'm living in reality instead of Fantasyland .

Disney has a history of trying to gouge its guest out of every penny it can -- that's supported by oodles of publications written in the '80s and '90s warning guests of "the mouse trap," as well as an endless supply of pop culture references mocking it. Yes, Eisner was a visionary, but he expanded WDW and DL primarily in pursuit of profits. By the end of Eisner's reign, WDW was stuck with a glut of capacity, driven by its newest theme park, which was largely considered a bust (discussed extensively on these forums in the early 2000s) and had failed to give the overall boost in attendance that had been expected.

Reality is that most of the deeply discounted room rates & vacation packages that many of us enjoyed in the 2000s were a derivative of Disney needing to fill capacity, not its generosity. As attendance swells, Disney has choreographed controlled, planned expansion of its hotel inventory and park capacity, which has long been its goal. No doubt the recent, unprecedented price hikes were planned to cool demand -- but allegedly the market response was softer than anticipated. If that's true, we can look for some strong promotions in the coming months.

Ultimately, the comparisons people are making surprise me on here. For example, nationally, the cost of lodging has far outpaced inflation the past two decades, so why expect anything different at Disney? And the emphasis on timeshares also follows the national (well, North American) trend.

I fully agree with all of this. I can say that personally, for my family, the only thing that would turn us away from Disney would be when the day comes that we can't afford a Disney vacation, plain and simple. To put it into perspective, my first time staying at a WDW Resort was about 5 or 6 years ago at POP. At that time we were able to book 5 nights, paying roughly about $76 per night. That was cheaper or about the same price as most middle tier resorts/hotels in the Orlando area then! Certainly cheaper than the last resort we had stayed at a few years before (a resort that had NOTHING on POP btw). The value for us kicked in when we realized we got free transportation around the Disney property, making the need to rent a car unnecessary.

Now we are going back in October, staying at POP again and this time we are paying over $100 per night. Could we find cheaper lodging? Of course we could! Do we want to? Well it is still worth the convenience of not needing to rent transportation or pay taxis to get around. Of course, some of the value was taken away by the price increase with getting (virtually) nothing in return, but we still find a Disney vacation worthwhile (as well as thousands of other people worldwide). Maybe my view is a little jaded because my country is an expensive country to live in, so some of the Disney prices don't phase me much, but I am of the view that everything comes with a price and you can either take it or leave it. Complaining about price hikes or "decreased value" doesn't do a thing when you are the little man. Unless they see some exuberant loses in DVC members, Annual Passholders or even day to day park guests, it is not going to bother them one bit what a long-time customer has to say. And as others have said before, its not just about that park entrance. Where they really make their money is merchandising and if the amount a of bags an average family walks out of the park with is any indication, they are still making a killing.