Pop Century: Yea or Nay?

[YoHo]

since it's number XXX do the little princes show up too?

 

[bretsyboo]

dang it yoho, I edited it while you were typing. Talk about a joke gone bad.

 

[KNWVIKING]

The late Tony Randell was on a talk show years ago and remarked that he was trying to improve his vocabulary by learning one new word a day.

YoHo, was intrinsic your word for today ? Just joking, no offense.

I guess Greg needs the same Newsletter because he posted almost the exact same comment just below mine about the Elements opinion of the Mods.

Anyway, after I figure out what intrinsic means I'll come back and refute your subjective opinion.

 

[YoHo]

in·trin·sic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-trnzk, -sk)
adj.
Of or relating to the essential nature of a thing; inherent.
Anatomy. Situated within or belonging solely to the organ or body part on which it acts. Used of certain nerves and muscles.

And, my opinion is Objective, but I haven't been talking opinion. I've been talking facts.

 

[KNWVIKING]

Okay, tell me the facts. But first, answer me this: Have you ever stayed at AS or PC ? Have first hand knowledge of the theme,the story ?Greg has and he's not backing your team.

Tell me the cost facts. How much do three story high "big wheel" costs ? If the cost of all the plastic & fiberglass elements of the PC theme were added up, how would they compare to the cost of POFQ's theme elements, ( I picked FQ because I've stayed there). Did ME chose the theme as a means to build a cheap resort ? Please tell me the facts.

***"CMs are not intrinsic to a hotel. Being on property, not intrinsic."***

Totally disagree. I don't understand how you believe staff & location aren't ".....essential nature of a thing" .

That's all for tonite, past my bedtime.

 

[Demosthenes]

Originally posted by DVC-Landbaron

NOW! Price it as it would be if they had followed the 1972 pricing…

$125.00 per night!!!

This is hyperbole. It is wildly inaccurate to compare the cost of a hotel room in 1971 and 2004 based solely on inflation. In order to have an accurate comparison of hotel rates it is imperative to compare recreational spending against overall spending in 1971 and 2004.

Based on the 1970 Census, in 1971 average household income was $10,622.00. Average discretionary household spending was $850. Based on the October 1971 Polynesian price, a week's stay at the Polynesian represented 24% of household discretionary spending ($203). Based on the 2000 census, the average family household income was $56,747, and average discretionary household spending was $10,782. Using a rate of $259 a night to represent 2001 Polynesian prices for the same time of year as the opening rate at the Poly, a week's stay at the Poly represented 17% of household discretionary spending ($1,813.00). A stay at the exact same hotel room in 1971 cost more as a percentage of annual household discretionary spending than it did in 2001.

Keep in mind that the often bantered about $29 room rate was a promotional rate that increased to $39 after only 6 months. Despite this, we are still comparing rack rate at a hotel that now routinely discounts 10%-35% off rack rate. When you factor in some of the deals offered today, the percentage rate drops to 12%.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p60-218.pdf
http://www.vought.com/heritage/years/html/h1971.html
http://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/P60-84.pdf
http://allearsnet.com/acc/faq_poly.htm
http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

 

[YoHo]

They are not Situated within or belonging solely to the organ or body part on which it acts.

Cms and location are a part of every aspect of Walt Disney World endeavor. and are therefore, not intrinsic to whether or not a given resort is or isn't Disney Caliber. Clearly a resort that didn't have Disney CMs would be literally not a Disney resort. similarly, a Resort not Within the boundries of WDW cannot be a WDW resort and as AKL shows, view of a park is not intrinsic either.

But tell me, why this obsession with costs?

Last I checked, Walt Disney didn't care about costs, he cared about doing something RIGHT! If he had lived to make a budget resort himself, I'm sure cost--to the guest would be factored in, but cost of the design and construction would probably not have.


So please explain to me how the costs of the thing could possibly matter? Or are you saying that now costs do matter? Convient how costs started to matter at the same time that Disney started blowing its money on crapola like ABC.


For your information, I took one look at the values on the Vacation planner tape the year Sports and music opened. threw up a little in my mouth and started to wonder if maybe Micheal Eisner wasn't a complete moron.


And please stop using the words PC, Fiberglass and theme as if they go together. you're demeaning us all.

Poop has some really big decorations. There are some roadside amusments on old Route 66 that would be impressed and that's about it.

 

[airlarry!]

My Gawd, this is the thread from hell.

I love it. But I'm still too swamped to get to Josh's question (although thank you Mr. Boo for continuing my long-suffeirng quest for answer to The Lowest Bidder--seems only our good friend, and normally wise person, Greg Curling has answered).

But before I nod off, I must applaud Shadowind for giving us the birth of a new vocabulary for these hotels.

We've debated and hated rides like Trike and Prime Evil Whirled....cause they are off-the-shell (yes, it is kind of a code word).

Now, thanks to Shadowwind, we have "Off The Shell Resorts."

Deluxe, Moderate, and Off The Shelf.

I like it.



P.S. Greg Curling, you know I've always read and admire your thoughtful posts, but the Baron has you on this one. Other than the poster whose bad experience at the PO because of disgruntled CMs, no one else has actually spoken up to say that the theme of the Poop and ASmu and ASmo and *** is why they chose to stay there.

Can't we all agree that, perhaps, people may choose one side of the Off the Shelf World or the other because decorat...err...theme, but that in reality, people choose the OTS Hotels because it is a cheap place to get a nice shot of on-site, smiling CM, Disney branded magic?

This comes from a like-minded budget traveller who has done the exact same thing on two separate occasions.

 

[YoHo]

Originally posted by Demosthenes
This is hyperbole. It is wildly inaccurate to compare the cost of a hotel room in 1971 and 2004 based solely on inflation. In order to have an accurate comparison of hotel rates it is imperative to compare recreational spending against overall spending in 1971 and 2004.

Based on the 1970 Census, in 1971 average household income was $10,622.00. Average discretionary household spending was $850. Based on the October 1971 Polynesian price, a week's stay at the Polynesian represented 24% of household discretionary spending ($203). Based on the 2000 census, the average family household income was $56,747, and average discretionary household spending was $10,782. Using a rate of $259 a night to represent 2001 Polynesian prices for the same time of year as the opening rate at the Poly, a week's stay at the Poly represented 17% of household discretionary spending ($1,813.00). A stay at the exact same hotel room in 1971 cost more as a percentage of annual household discretionary spending than it did in 2001.

Keep in mind that the often bantered about $29 room rate was a promotional rate that increased to $39 after only 6 months. Despite this, we are still comparing rack rate at a hotel that now routinely discounts 10%-35% off rack rate. When you factor in some of the deals offered today, the percentage rate drops to 12%.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p60-218.pdf
http://www.vought.com/heritage/years/html/h1971.html
http://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/P60-84.pdf
http://allearsnet.com/acc/faq_poly.htm
http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

One wonders why they need to offer deals today?

 

[Demosthenes]

Originally posted by YoHo
The Moderates from Port Orleans at the top to Caribbean beach have this intrinsic THEME.

There is no theme to the Values, there is no story and don't give me this isoteric it's telling the story of the twentith century bull doots, that's not the way Disney has ever told a story before. Disney Tells stories in a cinematic fashion. Storyboards, scripts. That isn't what the Values do AT ALL.
They are the shyster used carsalesmen of storytelling.

When the Contemporary opened, the theme was, very loosely, southwestern. How did you know? Well, there was a southwestern bedspread in the rooms, a southwestern poster on the wall, a map of the WDW--oh, wait, that's not southwestern. Well, there was a giant southwestern tile mural, some restaurants with southwestern names, but not food, and a giant convention room turned gameroom named the "Fiesta" fun center. I'm sur it was the theming that kept this resort at 98% occupancy for all those years.

I am somewhat confused by the Golf Resort. I guess it had a golf theme. It was understated, but the view left no doubt that you were in a golf resort. They carried the theme to the blank white walls decorated with framed posters of the golf links and...a map of WDW. Still, a stay there undoubtedly transported you to a Golf Resort.

 

[Demosthenes]

Originally posted by YoHo
One wonders why they need to offer deals today?

Who does? Look at the number of hotel rooms in 1971 in and around WDW as compared to today. Disney discounts to attract people away from off-property hotels and into their own rooms. They encourage the LOS pass to keep people on property. I think that is fairly obvious.

 

[Phoebesaturn]

Originally posted by Demosthenes

Based on the 1970 Census, in 1971 average household income was $10,622.00. Average discretionary household spending was $850. Based on the October 1971 Polynesian price, a week's stay at the Polynesian represented 24% of household discretionary spending ($203). Based on the 2000 census, the average family household income was $56,747, and average discretionary household spending was $10,782. Using a rate of $259 a night to represent 2001 Polynesian prices for the same time of year as the opening rate at the Poly, a week's stay at the Poly represented 17% of household discretionary spending ($1,813.00). A stay at the exact same hotel room in 1971 cost more as a percentage of annual household discretionary spending than it did in 2001.

How is "Discretionary spending calculated and by who? What accounts for the "discretionary spending" increasing by more then 10 times compared to overall income incrasing by 5 times between the years ?

 

[hopemax]

Demosthenes, Perhaps you would like to know where Baron got that $125 number. I had prices from 1972 (rate card), 1982 (Birnbaum Guide), 1989 (rate card), and since this was done in 2003, 2003 prices (Disney.com). I found a reference to the "CPI: lodging away from home including hotels and motels" back to 1967. I then proceeded to take the 1972 numbers adjusted them both by the standard CPI and the industry specific factor and compared them to what the actual hotel prices were in 1982, 1989 and 2003. As you can see, the actual 1982 rates were either the same or LOWER than adjusting the 1972 rates for industry specifc inflation. The must have been one hellavu long "introductory" rate. If they did infact raise the rate to $39, the 1982 rates would have to be considered even a bigger bargain.

Baron is incorrect to keep shouting the $125 number. He should be shouting $205 a night! However, do not miss the bigger picture. What is the cheapest published rate for the Polynesian today? It's certainly not $205, is it.

The rates were $29, $36, or $44 in 1972

Just CPI 1982: $67, $83, $102

Adjusted to 1982, industry specific: $76, $95, $116

Actual 1982: $75, $85, $95

------------
1989 CPI: $86, $107, $131

1989 industry: $112, $139, $170

Actual 1989 regular season (room categories had changed): Parking $175, Garden $190, Pool or Water $205, Marina $215, Lagoon (concierge) $235

--------
2003 CPI: $128, $158, $194

2003 industry: $204, $253, $309

Actual 2003 regular season: Garden $344, Lagoon $430, Garden concierge $440, Lagoon concierge $525

*************
Next thing, awhile back someone asked about comparing the rates to something other than inflation. So I dug around the Bureau of Labor Statistics, found the average wage for 4 industries which I consider typical within an average family and calculated how many hours a person would have to work to afford a room in 1982 vs. 2003. Here's what I came up with:

Ave hourly wage in 1982 / 2002 / In 1982 hours worked to afford $75-$95 rate at Poly / In 2002,hours worked to afford regular season rack rate at Poly ( $334-$420)

Construction: $11.32 / $18.81 / 6.6-8.4 hours/ 17.8-22.3 hours
Manufacturing: $8.49 / $15.55 / 8.8-11.5 / 21.5 - 27
Retail: $6.46 / $11.83 / 11.6-14.7 / 28.2-35.5
Education/Health Services: $7.19 / $15.52 / 10.4-13.2 / 21.5-27.1

 

[All Aboard]

Thanks Demosthenes for that analysis. On the way home yesterday, I was thinking of doing the same thing. You took it a step farther, I was going to just compare the rates v. average household income, but taking it to discretionary was the appropriate metric in this case. CPI doesn't provide information on affordability.

"It's certainly not $205" Hope, I've never paid a penny more than that. $179 the last time I stayed there.

 

[All Aboard]

Do you think that they really CHOOSE the poodle skirt because they find it intriguing?

I surely know that a lot of folks CHOOSE ASMOV because they find Andy's Room, Buzz and Woodie appealing.

 

[hopemax]

What percentage of people actively seeking a room at the Polynesian are aware of the discounts?

Book through the website, you get the published price. Book through the travel company and just ask for a room, you get the published price. Book through a travel agent, you get the published price, maybe 10% AAA discount. Does 10% off the published price = $205?

Just because *you* get the discount does not make it the reality for the majority of travelers to the WDW resort. You get all over our case for not using the appropriate inflationary statistic. Prove to me why I should compare a published rate from one era to a non-published rate from a different era? How is that going to give a fair comparison? I'd like someone to prove to me that the majority of people booking a WDW hotel are booking at the cheapest available rate.

And once someone is able to do that, I'll ask they why do they publish the other rates in the first place! Why let all those people who pick up a WDW travel company brochure from a travel agents desk, look at the numbers and say, "Whoa, I didn't realize it was so expensive," and don't book a trip. Is that the best way to run a business? Don't you lose potential new customers that way?

 

[ShadowWind]

I said that DINORAMA and McDonalds were off the shelf. I didn't extend that to the value resorts. So please don't give me credit for something I didn't say, because it's certainly not my take on things. I don't consider any of the value resorts to be off the shelf, IE a motel 6. If you do, it's your perogative I guess.

This discussion reminds me of the one we have in the art world where Picasso's work is often scorned as being unworthy. Many people will tell you that it downright sucks. A few don't realize that Picasso could paint masterpieces, but chose to be different. I hate his style personally, but I respect his ability as an artist whether he could paint as a master or not. The same holds true here. Pop Century is a new departure of style for Disney. It's obviously not your cup of tea and that's fine, but whether it's worthy or not is up to the patron, not to the self-appointed keepers of the flame.

Again, Pop Century has a story. Contemporary, IMO, does not. The southwestern theme is in stark contrast to the futuristic hotel it's supposed to be. It's own decor contradicts itself. Pop Century doesn't try to be anything but what it represents, which is the gaudy pop culture of America. On story alone, there is not much difference between the two, except PC is gaudy, so it must be bad. Just like Picasso, who you either like or find to be an eyesore.

I'm out of this discussion, because basically you all aren't happy unless everyone calls it Poop Century and says it sucks and that Walt would have turned over in his grave. Maybe he would, maybe he wouldn't. Eisner is in charge and Disney is not the same company it was in 1971. The entire spectrum of the industry has changed. Back then, Disney was the only real game in town. I liked Pop Century. I can't put my finger on what made it Disney as specifically as you like. I just thought it was and I know many others that do. I will stay there again and if that means that it supports Eisner's plan, well then so be it. I'm not interested in what Walt would have done or not done. I'm interested in what makes for a good vacation and as far as I'm concerned, PC and even AS does just that for the price point. As I said before, if it's not your cup of tea, there are other hotels for you to stay at.

 

[bretsyboo]

funny, I'd say the contemporary is more like picasso, both works of genius you don't like

oh, and here is the thing:

"I'm not interested in what Walt would have done or not done."

yeah, well I guess there you have it. If you don't care what walt would have done, then you don't really care what disney does. Afterall if they build a park you don't like, you can go to another park, you can go to another hotel, ride, store, yadayadyayada. Disney has inspired something in me, and I'm not one to want to see something I idolize disappoint me, so I care about anything it does

It's walt's company, he built it, he created it, and things out of respect for him should be done in his way. If walt decorated his apartment, and then rented it out to Eisner he would be pissed and I would pissed for him if shag carpet was installed.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

In order to have an accurate comparison of hotel rates it is imperative to compare recreational spending against overall spending in 1971 and 2004.

WRONG!! That would suppose that Disney used or at least modeled the original structure (and the subsequent ten odd years afterwards) off the industry standard. And as we all know that is simply not true!!

Now if you want to talk about the current regime and inflation then I would have to agree with you. They are corporate robots, devoid of original thought, and HAVE to follow the industry standard, because by themselves they don’t know what to do!

But the original pricing structure that was kept in place for ten years or so (until Ei$ner got hold of it) was specifically NOT aligned with any standard except the Disney Standard!

And by the link you provided:

What cost $28.00 in 1972 would cost $119.64 in 2002.


What cost $430.00 in 2002 would cost $100.63 in 1972.

And Hope is right, even by the industry standard the current regime is raping the Disney experience, but she would stop there. I wouldn’t. I’d go all the way back to the time when people really believed in the “What Would Walt Want” thinking. And those men in charge at the time, after careful consideration, chose to ignore the ‘industry’ and instead price it the Disney way. And it worked pretty well, didn’t it?

Keep in mind that the often bantered about $29 room rate was a promotional rate that increased to $39 after only 6 months.

Well now! That’s just simply wrong! Or at least that’s what I’ve been led to believe! Can you back it up? Can you refute Hope’s numbers? Please do so!

Despite this, we are still comparing rack rate at a hotel that now routinely discounts 10%-35% off rack rate.

How sad that they not only have to follow the hotel industry standard, but they also seem to follow the ‘used car salesmen’ philosophy with this nonsense!

There used to be a glorious time, even before you were born, that such a slimy practice wasn’t needed! Indeed – the price was the price – ALL YEAR AROUND!!

When the Contemporary opened, the theme was, very loosely, southwestern.

You’ve got to be kidding?

I'm sur it was the theming that kept this resort at 98% occupancy for all those years.

Probably the only thing you and I agree on. No it was not the “southwestern theme”!! It wasn’t even the true theme of being… come one now… all together so he’ll know next time… that’s right… Contemporary!!

IT WAS THE PRICE!!!! – in conjunction with the Disney experience!! Pretty simple when you get right down to it, isn’t it?

Disney discounts to attract people away from off-property hotels and into their own rooms. They encourage the LOS pass to keep people on property. I think that is fairly obvious.

Again, how sad! They used to do that with creativity, ‘the Disney experience’ and the obscenely low relative prices! It created an overwhelming VALUE!!

Today they need cheap gimmicks and ‘blue-light’ specials. I find that sad, don’t you?

 

[hopemax]

On the way home yesterday, I was thinking of doing the same thing. You took it a step farther, I was going to just compare the rates v. average household income, but taking it to discretionary was the appropriate metric in this case. CPI doesn't provide information on affordability.

But Greg, he didn't look at discretiony INCOME he looked at discretionary SPENDING Looking at discretionary spending doesn't provide information on affordability either. It includes monies spent on items the households couldn't necessarily afford, correct?

In 1971, very few people had a credit card, so in that case discretionary spending and discretionary income were probably very similar numbers. I don't think that is the case today, and I'm extremely hesitant to use a recent discretionary spending number as proof of affordability. 43% of Americans are spending more money than they earn in a year. That's why I went to a number of hours someone has to work strategy.

Tell me why I should accept discretionary income and spending as the same thing?