Pop Century: Yea or Nay?

[YoHo]

I'll just reiterate what Lanbaron said.

THE THEME OF THE CONTEMPORARY RESORT WAS FRICKIN CONTEMPORARY, NOT SOUTHWESTERN!!!!
The Archetecture, furnishings, linens ALL Contemporary styling. Heck given the modern Meterosexual trend and Trading spaces lifestyle, one wonders if the Contemp will receive a surge in popularity. The central concourse isn't called the grand canyon due to a southwest theme, it's becaus eof how big it is. The story then takes on those southwestern sounding names and murals to reinforce the name which was chosen by the shapoe and design of the building.

The THEME is most definatly CONTEMPORARY.



I'd also just like to add a Go Hope GO!!!

 

[ShadowWind]

I promised myself I wasn't going to get back into this, but...

bretsyboo,
It's no longer Walt's company. He's been dead for almost 40 years now and no one that isn't sprinkled with pixie dust would expect a company to follow a ghost that lived in the 1960's to set the ideals and standards for a market that is nowhere near what it was back then. Ron Miller tried this with EPCOT Center. Despite the obvious differences in Walt's idea of a city and the theme park that EPCOT became, Miller tried very, very hard to maintain the legacy and the Imagineers created what I still consider their finest works. But while those attractions might have really enchanted the audience in 1982 because they were new, they had lost their appeal as the market changed by the late 80's. I remember one father who summed up Horizons by saying, "It's better than the outside." World of Motion, one of the most creative of the rides was said by Disney Imagineering in the Test Track book to be a "bad show." Die-Hard fans didn't think so, but Disney can't play to them or they would lose their shirt and so they are forced to play within the rules of budgets and market of today, not in 1971.

I was once a keeper of the flames, quoting Walt out of what I believed he would do or not do. I cared greatly, but it's amazing what being crippled will do to your perspective. I learned that such things weren't important and concerning myself with them, only made the experience less enjoyable. Once I freed myself from that care that the company was going to heck in a handbasket as those seem to think here, I was able to enjoy the ride much more and experience the magic in a wide variety of things. I am still fascinated by the culture Disney has created, and yes, I still am inspired in my work and art by a man who can turn a mouse into a legend. And I am still disappointed when my favorite attraction, restaurant, or whatever is taken away, but I can either whine about how it's so un-Walt like, or I can accept what I can't control and find pleasure in what is there. If I can no longer do so, I will find other places to spend my money. I would certainly miss Disney, but my eyes and wallet are not blinded by pixie dust.

Nuff said...

 

[Demosthenes]

Originally posted by DVC-Landbaron


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

WRONG! It was the proximity to the lone theme park, it was the amenities, and it was the Disney experience. When the CR and Poly opened, THEY WERE NOT CHEAP; THEY WERE EXPENSIVE! As illustrated earlier, a weeklong stay at the Poly at opening day rates cost 24% of the average family’s discretionary spending for the year. In 2000, a weeklong stay at the Poly, at rack rates, represented 20% of the average family’s discretionary income seeBureau of Labor Statistics from 2000. While I would never argue that today's rack rates are cheap, compared to opening day on-site resort costs, today's rack rates are a relative VALUE!

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?

While your argument about value (as specifically relating to the resort hotels) is clearly not true, I fail to find it sad that Disney is willing to discount their rooms. I'm not even talking about the value properties here; the SAME rooms are proportionally cheaper today for the average family than they were in 1971. When Disney discounts the rooms, the relative value, again for emphasis, FOR THE SAME ROOM as 1971, is greater.

 

[Demosthenes]

Originally posted by hopemax

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

You're right. You shouldn't. See above.

 

[Demosthenes]

Originally posted by YoHo
I'll just reiterate what Lanbaron said.

THE THEME OF THE CONTEMPORARY RESORT WAS FRICKIN CONTEMPORARY, NOT SOUTHWESTERN!!!!

...The central concourse isn't called the grand canyon due to a southwest theme, it's becaus eof how big it is. The story then takes on those southwestern sounding names and murals to reinforce the name which was chosen by the shapoe and design of the building.

Sure it was. And it was executed precisely. That explains the Grand Canyon Terrace, the Pueblo Room, and the Mesa Grande Lounge. Of course, it doesn't really explain the Fiesta Fun Center, the southwestern themed carpets, the southwestern bedspreads or the southwestern framed posters on the walls in the guest rooms. It almost seems like the storyboard concept lost the plot a little bit there, doesn't it?

The Archetecture, furnishings, linens ALL Contemporary styling. Heck given the modern Meterosexual trend and Trading spaces lifestyle, one wonders if the Contemp will receive a surge in popularity....

...The THEME is most definatly CONTEMPORARY.

Sure...TODAY! I'd say the resort has a cohesive Contemporary theme today; I just don't think that's always been the case.

For the record:

The CR has always been my favorite resort hotel, anywhere in the world.

Because I've stayed at least 1 night in every WDW hotel, I tried POP for 1 night. I wouldn't do it again. I want the amenities of a deluxe resort. It also doesn't have a theme I like. But it does have a theme, and it does offer Disney service and amenities. These resorts are booked solid with people who would be vacationing in Orlando, one way or another; and just like Walt took on projects to "pay the bills" (a direct quote from the Walt Disney Story), the value resorts represent a tremendous opportunity for profit for the resort. As dirty as it may seem, sometimes businesses have to remember that no matter how lofty your dreams or noble your goals, you have to be able to pay the bills. It is unfortunate that this seems to be the only motivating factor for Disney right now, and I certainly don’t think that this has always been the case. And one thing we probably agree on is that if a group of imaginers had approached Walt with a POP concept for a value resort, he likely would have scrapped the design and old them, “We can do better than this.”

 

[KNWVIKING]

Check your mail.

 

[airlarry!]

Shadowwind, excellent post. You seem to be in that gray area many of us find ourselves from time to time, balancing fear for the future with enjoying the present. But if you vacationed with me, you'd find out that there's still a twelve year old little boy inside of me who yells loudly to get on the Indy stunt show, will ride Space mountain three times in a row, stops for every Itsakoodoozle cart he sees, and was pumped when he finally got a picture with Robin Hood at Epcot. A happy guy, enjoying a happy place.

But when I get back, I always wonder what Disney will be like when my kids do the same thing my dad did with me...jaunting across the Gulf South for the family vacation.

The off-the-shelf (OTS) Poop Century gives me pause for Disney's future. It is *not* Picasso, IMO. In fact, do you not agree that "Rembrandt is to Picasso as Polynesian is to Poop Century" kind of breaks down a bit? I know where you were going with this, but it just doesn't fit.

Poop Century is exactly the phrase I borrowed from you. An off the shelf, decorated motel.

Look at how the original resort was built. You had plans for three or four hotels in a cluster around a lake all within sight of the Kingdom. You had a golf resort, whose sole function was to entice those golfing dads and corporate big wigs who might not like Mickey Mouse shaped waffles during their vacation. Notice that when you drive to it, you still see the monorail, the lake, the ferry boats, the castle, and the fireworks. Same thing with the campground.

Remember that Walt wanted 'moderate' style accommodations at his newewst project. But the question that everybody, including our friend Greg, is avoiding is an important one. Forget whether you enjoy saving a buck at the AS or Poop. Forget that the decorations are fun to look at. Forget that your father taught you to hate sit down restaurants as snobbish enclaves.

Ask yourself a question...should a person spending sub $100 be shuttered away from the rest of the Disney experience. People accuse me of being a snob because I frown at the 'theme' of the Poop. Hello! Don't you think The Prince of Central Park was thumbing his nose at you when he relegated us to outlying parcels on 'his' property? You want to talk elitism...try sticking the dirty sweaty masses like me out where you are miles from the Kingdom, and a 20-30 bus ride from Main Street. Prince Michael sure can't have us Wal-Mart shoppers mixing with his Grand Floridian Uptown Socialite Scene. That, my friends, is pure elitism.

Will I stay at Poop? I would have, before I met Baron. Now, I'd rather save up a little longer, to stay at a nicer place. I am not asking anyone else to do anything like that. I'm definitely not telling fine gentlemen who care about Disney like Greg and the Pirate who go all the time to spend more money upgrading their reservation. All I'm asking is that they recognize the difference.

Anyway, like someone said, to each his own, and we can agree to disagree. The moderates are not perfect, but they are much truer to giving the vacationer that fabled Disney experience than the AS and Poop resorts will ever be. And yes, I will be satisfied if you call the newest resort the Poop Century.



P.S., Curling, I will admit to you that the ASMovies, where I have friends who have chosen to stay there just because of the decorations (when choosing of course an OTS resort), is one resort that is chosen, ostensibly for theme. In fact, I've had travel agents tell me that the ASMo is the harder one of the three to book, as it fills up first, with the ASMu, being a little easier to get into.

 

[crusader]

Man,

You go to Disneyworld for a few days and this thread implodes! Obviously none of you were at the Member Homecoming!
Too Bad.

There were so many times I wanted to quote Boo and reply but the topic moved in a direction I really want in on so I'll be brief -

Demosthenes -

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

I have been seething over the rate comparisons from '72 thrown around here absent real census data.

What I want to add is that while the disposable income/spending issue is vital to these stats, why isn't there any mention of the household size?

The average household was much larger 30 yrs ago and had two key issues affecting the affordability of a vacation: meals and beds. They typically needed more than one room and couldn't afford to feed their entire family dining out all the time.

So I say, take those '72 rates and double 'em before you move them forward to today because it took two rooms to fit those families in back then.

That should land us surprise! - exactly where we are. Jeez and I thought economics was a load of B.S.

 

[KNWVIKING]

The Viking rises and wildly applauds Mr.Demosthenes

Bravo!!

Thank you Mr. Demosthenes Very well said indeed!!!Bravo Bravo

 

[KNWVIKING]

$@#@$%, Baron, how'd you do the big red "Bravo"

 

[All Aboard]

Hope, good point about spending. You are right. So, maybe I should have stopped at income. So, assuming the the numbers were right, it would have cost an average family about 2.6% of their annual income to spend a week a the Poly. Now, it would cost about 3.2%. Yes, that's a decrease in affordability.

But, (and I wish I could find AV's post where he said it) pricing is all market driven. Lowering the price at the Poly to $205 - just "because" makes little sense if the market is willing to pay $300.

And, the 1971 comparison takes a logic leap that $39 a night was the "right" price to charge then. Had they opened by charging a nickel a night, would we be arguing that they should be charging $0.75 now?

 

[YoHo]

First, crusader, the Poly and Contemp rooms are bigger then just about every other resort on property, 5 guests per room. doesn't that mitigate the family size issue a little?

secondly, Greg I have to assume that Disney had a profit margin target when they chose those rates.

Further, the rampant discounting needed to keep those rooms filled (supposedly) suggests that $300 a night isn't really what the market will bear. Finally, what the market will bear for the Poly is directly influenced by the lower cost and lower caliber resorts that Disney has since built up. It is not in any way a coincidence that the market will bear rate for the Polynesian took a jump up as the mods and Values were built. What price would the market bear if Disney had 35,000 Poly rooms and no Values or Mods?

 

[raidermatt]

But, (and I wish I could find AV's post where he said it) pricing is all market driven. Lowering the price at the Poly to $205 - just "because" makes little sense if the market is willing to pay $300.

The board finally picks up and now I find myself lacking the time to keep up... ah well.

But on this point, I have to say something.

Its not just "because". Its part of a strategy that accepts a little less margin today in exchange for long term loyalty, and all of the benefits that go along with it. (There's also the point that the resort pricing structure should be considered in the context of the entire WDW structure, but that's opening another can of worms, and there's enough of those open right now...)

The problem of course, is going back to that strategy once you abandon it, as it takes time for the benefits of that strategy to overtake the short term margin sacrifice.

Nonetheless, its a viable business strategy, not a benevolent act.

 

[KNWVIKING]

..... consider yourself SHOT.

 

[SnackyStacky]

Originally posted by crusader
What I want to add is that while the disposable income/spending issue is vital to these stats, why isn't there any mention of the household size?

The average household was much larger 30 yrs ago and had two key issues affecting the affordability of a vacation: meals and beds. They typically needed more than one room and couldn't afford to feed their entire family dining out all the time.

So I say, take those '72 rates and double 'em before you move them forward to today because it took two rooms to fit those families in back then.

Take that and post it on the resorts board. To all the families with 3 kids, and not just 2. Who now can't stay at any of the budget hotels, or the moderates (with the exception of Riverside, which still charges an extra $15 per night to use the trundle bed) or need to book two rooms. Still the same situation. Disney doesn't make it easy for families of more than 4.

 

[crusader]

Originally posted by YoHo
First, crusader, the Poly and Contemp rooms are bigger then just about every other resort on property, 5 guests per room. doesn't that mitigate the family size issue a little?

Somewhat but a family of 5 is tight in a hotel for a weeklong vacation. This chart says it all to me - (from one of the links Demonstheses provided):

http://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/P60-84.pdf

Look very carefully at the size of the households as sorted by the age of the head of the households on page 17:

particularly:

25-34 vs.
34-44 vs.
45-54

You will see that close to half of the 35-44 yr old couples in 1971 had 3 or more kids on average.

When I first visited Disney in '72 my father was 35 and our family size was 7. We're right in line with the average and probably one of Disney's more targeted demographics at the time, and we could not fit in one room at the Contemporary or the Poly.

The only option for us was the campground because the wilderness homes the treehouses and other LBV accomodations were strategically priced as the equivalent cost of two rooms at one of the Magic Kingdom resorts. In other words, any on-site option beyond camping was far too expensive.

Take that and post it on the resorts board. To all the families with 3 kids, and not just 2. Who now can't stay at any of the budget hotels, or the moderates (with the exception of Riverside, which still charges an extra $15 per night to use the trundle bed) or need to book two rooms. Still the same situation. Disney doesn't make it easy for families of more than 4.

Snacky, I reread this several times and am not real clear on your point. Could you please elaborate?

 

[SnackyStacky]

Originally posted by crusader
Snacky, I reread this several times and am not real clear on your point. Could you please elaborate?

Sure.

You've got 5 people in your family. You have very few budget choices:

1.) Book two rooms at a value

2.) Book one room at Riverside, and pay an extra $15 per night for the trundle bed

3.) Book two moderate rooms

All options still cheaper than a deluxe, but you're still completely negating the "budget" aspect that Disney is marketing. The LOWEST you'll get two rooms for (without talking discounts) is $154.

My point is that just as in '72 - families on a budget still have to double up when it comes to rooms.

ALL the moderates and budgets have space for only 4, with the exception of Riverside. So basically, that $154 rate is what Baron was throwing around as a ball park for a fair Poly price today.

BUT, for $155 a night, these families with more than 4 people aren't getting a Poly-like experience. They're getting the shoddy budget experience.

 

[raidermatt]

Matt..... consider yourself SHOT.

Thank you!

 

[crusader]

My point is that just as in '72 - families on a budget still have to double up when it comes to rooms.

We may not be too far apart on this. I agree. I mentioned the doubling up issue because it was not being reflected in any of the '71 stats being thrown around.

You do need to add a number 4): get a campsite.

The difference today is that camping is no longer the preferred choice for the budget conscious family. The value resorts are.

ALL the moderates and budgets have space for only 4, with the exception of Riverside. So basically, that $154 rate is what Baron was throwing around as a ball park for a fair Poly price today

To which I say no - double it. You need two rooms if the trip is the every few years, 10+ days it used to be.

BUT, for $155 a night, these families with more than 4 people aren't getting a Poly-like experience. They're getting the shoddy budget experience.

Well shoddy is a bit strong but I do get your point. For $155/night you won't get a poly like experience today any more than I got at the campground back in the 70's. We roughed it.

 

[hopemax]

5 people fit in the Deluxe hotel rooms. What I see on page 17 is that 24.8% of families where the head of the household was aged 35-44 would need more than one room (households of 6 or more). 9.6% of families where the head of household was aged 25-34 would need more than one room.

That means 75.2% and 90.4% of familes only needed one room. Is this what you want us to see?

"Size of household" includes the head of household as defined earlier in the document. "All persons living in a residence" Did you perhaps, think it didn't?

A majority of families shouldn't have had to double.