Pop Century: Yea or Nay?

Originally posted by DVC-Landbaron
OK!! Mr. Bear!!! You are at the beginning of a journey! And it is filled with awe inspiring concepts and revolutionary philosophies regarding business and life! Oh! How I envy you! I look at you as recommending to you a good book and then wishing, somehow, that I can erase it from my mind, so that I can experience it for the first time all aver again! So!!! Have fun! And enjoy the trip!!

As has been pointed out by almost everyone else – You couldn’t be more wrong!! But after you read a bit of your Disney history you’ll see how far off you really are!!
Sorry, Baron, but I've been on this journey with your before, and I just don't end up at the same destination. Do I have to repeat my Disney credentials again? Repeated visits to Disneyland since 1964, since my grandparents lived in Orange County, CA? Repeated visits to WDW since 1972, since my other grandparents wintered in St. Pete? I've read Married to the Mouse, Vinyl Leaves, Inside the Mouse, among others. I went to the Architecture of Reassurance exhibit at the Cooper-Hewitt Museum. I've chatted with professional colleagues who were involved in running Wide World of Sports and in created the DVC. I've played 3 of WDW's golf courses, done an Illuminations cruise, stayed at the CR, WL, Shades of Green, Coronado, ASSp, PO-FQ (pre FQ), and CBR.

I am an attorney of 17 years experience who works exclusively in commercial real estate. Agree with it or not, I believe mine is as informed an opinion as yours.
 
What is an acceptable amount of profit for Disney to leave on the table ? Not just in the resorts, but at all the profit centers. After they've finished their break-even analysis, where should they set their mark-up ? Should it be what the market will bear ? Or should be some discounted rate that let's everyone share the magic of Poly and the Parks ?
The poly example is what the price would be today had they used the acceptable profit margin of when the resot opened. Somehow, over the years, Disney has felt they had to make more money....a LOT more money. The point is though, that obviously almost every other resot on prop. costs less to maintain, meaning that while it may take the poly 130, it may take the contemp 125...and port orleans 85, etc...

Therfore the idea that Disney did all they could when charging pop century prices is hogwash, the values are off a cliff when in comparison to every other resort there is. Furthermore they get cheaper and cheaper, they aren't anything but cookie cutters pasted on property that are less staffed, and well less everything, but here I am arguinf when I said I wouldn't, I'll just try to address what you said and move on.
As for the magic of the Hyatt vs PC/AS : What floor were you on that allowed you to view the fireworks while laying on your bed ? Would that Hyatt -on property- possibly have ruined a site line ala Swan/Dolphine ? I've stayed on and off property. To me, the magic isn't the resort, but actually being on property, staying in a city that is on vacation. The CM's make the resort what it is moreso then the structure. Maybe I'm just lucky, but I've never had a bad experience with a resort CM but have been irratated at other hotels where the staff seemed totally disinterested in their jobs.
As for your answers ot the hyatt, I don't know what floor, would it have ruined site lines? sure probably, but uhhh....I SAID it wasn't a Disney resort, and I didn't consider it one, I never suggested Disney should do this, only that it was sad that I had more magic there than in a disney one. (and in anyway no sitelines would have been ruined from where the hyatt was built)

The CM's are the same CM's everywhere, they are all not paid what other places pay, like universal, sea world, or to a more extreme, the hyatt. I had spectacular service at the hyatt, spectacular. The same CM's that are at the grand floridian are the same quality CM's at the Pop, therefore I can't see how it is a plus for the pop to be meerly staffed with people making less than 7 an hour. It's like a wal mart, want a job? apply, you won't be put where you are best suited, you'll be thrown in a pool and massed where they need you. With the exception of management and entertainment cm's are cm's.

But I want to go back to my last post that you didn't answer. Is that your answer? Any old building so long as they have CM's is Disney magic for you?
 
***" But I want to go back to my last post that you didn't answer. Is that your answer? Any old building so long as they have CM's is Disney magic for you?"***

I'm not sure what post you're refering to - was it intended for me ? cause I just entered this frey ?

Don't try and twist my words to make it sound as if a Motel 6 would be acceptable as long as the CM's were great. My point was that the magic of staying on property isn't just the brick and mortar - or even the plastic & fiberglass.

As for the Hyatt: You went into detail how the Hyatt to you was more magical then the PC. Well, a Hyatt is an upper end hotel, would your off property stay had the same magic in a Motel 6 ? You were quite happy with your fireworks view, so I'm assuming this isn't a simple 3 story building. I'm sure the people in the Swan find their view of the fireworks magical also.

But now back to the question I asked you : How much profit should Disney leave on the table ?
 
Nope, Baron, you only perceive that I was ever a "What would Walt do?" person. While I believe in his principles and their outcomes, I have never once stated that I believed his model is the "only" way WDW would or could work today.

I know when you got the feeling that I did. It was during 2001 through part of 2003 when I was griping about what I thought to be very bad business decisions. Amongst them were go.com, Fox Family, Dinorama, the elimination of EE, operating hours reductions, elimination of character meals, staggered operating hours for different lands, the reduction of boat transportation, etc.

All of these were clearly short-sighted, poor business decisions. I have for quite some time believed that Eisner's days should be over. I can see how a reader could associate my views as "WWWD?" But, really, I've always been a sharp pencil guy. But, a long-range thinking sharp pencil guy.

The Value Resorts (as currently conceived and executed) fit my personal model for WDW quite well.
 
dude, you STILL didn't answer my question. I'll quote myself so you can reread it and answer it.
At what point would you go to a Disney hotel and say this is NOT Disney? Perhaps when they go so low, and they will, I can come back here and we can all stand together and shout about the cheapening of a once great product...unless of course any place with the disney name fits your definition.
As for the Hyatt: You went into detail how the Hyatt to you was more magical then the PC. Well, a Hyatt is an upper end hotel, would your off property stay had the same magic in a Motel 6 ? You were quite happy with your fireworks view, so I'm assuming this isn't a simple 3 story building. I'm sure the people in the Swan find their view of the fireworks magical also.
I've said it on the other board so I'll say it here. I had ZERO magic at the pop century that was caused by the pop century (I did say, look at maps at the pop century which gave me magic, but I could do that here...and do, and also the custodians putting the stuffed animals in the wondow was nice) Zero magic, Nooooo magic. Nothing about the pop century did anything for me, in any way, and like I said, I even expected it to! Would a motel 6 be the same? with the exception of stuffed animals in wondows YES! YES for me it would have been the same (only cheaper) It was a motel 6 with animals in some windows! Is that what Disney's aim should be?
But now back to the question I asked you : How much profit should Disney leave on the table ?
None, but that's not the issue is it? I wasn't advocating they slash the poly prices or anywhere else was I? I was pointing out that they could easily build a better resort and still make a profit. Wasn't the argument here that Disney couldn't do any better for the lower income people? Doesn't the fact that the poly, a spectacular hotel, makes a profit at almost the hundred dollar prices of the all stars prove that? And at the same time you can whine whine whine about how they need cheap hotels, but hey, if they have great occupancy rates and they shouldn't leave any profit shouldn't they be raising the prices to maximize their profit?

So you can take one of two roads, but you can't take both. Either Disnery MUST have a cost controlled environment where they provide lodging for those who can't affor the floridian...in which case I'd say the moderates most clearly could do that if Disney wanted them to, and are clearly superior to the values, or you can say that disney should continuie to raise the prices until the market won't hold it anymore which would then negate the values being built for people who couldn't normally afford it to stay on property.

What this most certainly ISN'T is Disney doing everything they can to provide cheap lodging at maximum value for Disney so that they still make a profit and yet lend a helping hand to those that can't afford the other options. 75 dollar hotels are not bad. THESE 75 dollar hotels are bad.
 
While I believe in his principles and their outcomes, I have never once stated that I believed his model is the "only" way WDW would or could work today.

If we define "work" as being financially successful, then I don't think we are really going to get very far. Even with the questionable decisions (AK, PC) and near-disasters (DCA), WDW, and the parks in general are working quite well, financially.

The only real question is whether they can meet their ever-increasing margin targets.

There's plenty of different directions they could go that would work.

That's why we have to look beyond financial success. Its just a minimum requirement of remaining a viable entity.

To Scoop's point, of course its impossible to prove that a different route would yield better long term success, as only real data would prove the point. Since anything that didn't actually happen is a hypothetical, there won't be any real data.

But if we aren't going to consider the possibility that a different route would improve results, there isn't anything to discuss.
 
Financial success is a large part of the definition of "works". But, the financial success only follows the experience and the public's reaction to it. If they've found that the offering is not matched by others and provides a unique and valuable family experience, leaving them with a desire to return to it again, then I'd say it works.

All of the things I listed above do not contribute to this happening. I do think that the value resorts do. They are unique, they are interesting, (to me) they fit in with the flavor of WDW very well, and they are well received (from what I'm told) by the large majority of the guests experiencing them. And (while doing all of this) they offer the opportunity for more guests to experience WDW on-site.
 
If they've found that the offering is not matched by others and provides a unique and valuable family experience, leaving them with a desire to return to it again, then I'd say it works.

But that's the trap many fall into, as we can see on this thread. The public will pay for a lot of things. Using others as a baseline is only going to encourage a lowering of the bar in Disney's case.

We've seen it in other areas of Disney's business. The resorts did not magically escape.

All of the things I listed above do not contribute to this happening. I do think that the value resorts do. They are unique, they are interesting, (to me) they fit in with the flavor of WDW very well, and they are well received (from what I'm told) by the large majority of the guests experiencing them. And (while doing all of this) they offer the opportunity for more guests to experience WDW on-site.
I can't really disagree with anything you said here, other than possibly the "flavor" point.

But even if all of it is 100% true, if we want to hold to the true Disney strategic vision, that's still not enough.

Enough to succeed as a business? Sure.

Enough to truly be considered "Disney", and I think , gain even greater success as a business? Nope.
 
Let's see if I can answer Bret's question.... how low is too low ?

Well, when there is mildew in the showers at Poly, Poly stops being Disney. When the carpets are thread bare at CR, bed springs poke you in the ribs at GF, you talk through a speaker hole mounted in bullet proof glass in order to check in at PO, it stops being Disney.

But I don't think that's what you're asking.
 
the speaking through the glass was close, I'm not talking about things like mildew I'm saying more of the initial plannings, you don't plan to have mildew in your bathrooms, you do build glass to speak through. I'm looking for something like Pop century minus, or motel 6 plus, or heck, motel 6 minus...

but like you said, you probably already knew that.

I'm not just looking for you to answer viking, I'm looking for any and all supporters of pop century, I'm also just looking for answers, not a fight. If I wanted to fight, I'd just do it on the merits of pop century, but I am looking for where everyones line is, how close we are too it, and how low disney can go and still be considered acceptable disney quality. my only response beyond clarification would be a thank you (if I wasn't too lazy to type that)
 
how close we are too it,

Umm, that would be "to" with one O, not two. Too, means in addition to, also. You want "to".

Maybe you should have gotten one of those degrees in spelling. Because good spelling is necEssary for good journalism.
 
OK! One person at a time, this time!!

First, Mr. Bear:
Do I have to repeat my Disney credentials again?
Sorry. I had indeed forgotten. But, I do admit to being a little bewildered. I mean, you say…

Repeated visits to WDW since 1972,
... And at the same time you make such seemingly uniformed and outrageous statements as:
Again, no Imagineer has the ability to magically alter the economics of the motel business.
It’s strange that you say you are frequent visitor since ’72, yet you conveniently forgot the way Disney simply threw out the “standard business model” when they built and priced the original three resorts. (Heck! They even threw away the model for a standard campground at the time!) And if you recall, they were booked solid for years in advance! Worked pretty well as I recall.
Oh, please. Disney charged what the market would bear then, just as they do now. If it was so cheap to stay on Disney property back then, just why was 192 loaded with Econolodges?
I think others have shown you the error of your ways. But it’s this type statement that had me wondering about your “credentials”. Surely you had to remember what it was like when the place opened and how the other resorts and hotels grew because Disney did not! How could you forget something like that!!!???
What, does Disney live in some magical vacuum where they can just randomly set prices for their resorts?
Again!! This type of statement goes counter to someone who ‘LIVED’ the Disney experience in 1972!!! Remember!!?? They did EXACTLY that!!
The pricing is dictated by supply (including off-site competitors) and demand. They couldn't have raised the prices for the "deluxe" resorts unless the market allowed it.
Of course they ‘couldn’t have’!! That’s not the point! Disney used to give a ‘value’ for EVERYTHING they did!! Does that mean it was cheap? NO! Does that mean it was inexpensive? NO!!! Does that mean that they always charged the top of what the market could bear? NO!! And this last was what created the “VALUE’!! How could you forget that, if you lived it back in ’72?
So you think that people that spend $109 a night don't deserve MORE than the people who spend $59?
Sounds as though you’re advocating magic (or Disney experience) as a commodity. Quite frankly I never saw that back in ’72. Did I miss something?
but there is simply no way that the costs of building and outfitting PC are even roughly equivalent to building a new deluxe.
I think Mr. Boo handled that one pretty well!! Don’t you?
 
Too, means in addition to, also.
I'd think you would have proof read before insulting me. I'm sorry let me rephrase that. I'd think a smart person would have proof read. With you I knew I would find an error. It is almost as though you think messing up in one of your posts is always necIssary.
 
I'd think a smart person would have proof read.

All right Scoop, I get it. I'm stupid, and a whiner. You are a lot like Derek.

JERKFACE!
 

GET A DISNEY VACATION QUOTE

Dreams Unlimited Travel is committed to providing you with the very best vacation planning experience possible. Our Vacation Planners are experts and will share their honest advice to help you have a magical vacation.

Let us help you with your next Disney Vacation!











facebook twitter
Top