Pop Century

[hopemax]

Well, like Disney executives I think sometimes we can't see the forest through the trees, and I felt sorry for poor Eeyore2U who just wanted to know what others felt about a hotel and expected a simple yes or no answer, instead we're on what...page 10?

I guess my post bumped us up to page 11!

 

[YoHo]

Well We aren't on page 20 yet, I'll be darned If I'll let the debate board hogg all that glory.

Onward.


At Least Eeyore2U still follows this. Most would have dumped the thread by now.

 

[YoHo]

I just had to share this little nugget from WDWnut on my latest poll. I think it sums up what some of us have been trying to say

that's what is so great about wdw-CHOICES!

 

[Eeyore2U]

I'm here for the duration. It's nice to see my thread get some steam and have more post than the "kids on leashes" post.

 

[JeffJewell]

Greg...

You make it sound like the presence of the All Stars cheapens your experience at WDW!

...well, it's at least a fuzzy area. I still maintain that there are differences to the experience due to the Values now. I mentioned a couple infrastructure issues in some thread around here recently. Plus, even if I stay at a Deluxe (including the Animal Kingdom Lodge), I have to take a bus to Animal Kingdom; to take part in that area of the world, I have to leave the world for awhile. Perhaps not the fault of the All Stars per se, but another result of that trend or tendency I keep going on about.

And I honestly believe there's a dilution of the brand name as a result of this re-definition of "Disney theming" to a less immersive/story-oriented level, a dilution that will have long term financial consequences.

Disney Institute Resort offerings

A couple folks have mentioned DI and the Golf Resort as pre-Eisner examples of the non-story immersive style theming. Well, DI and the Golf Resort didn't exactly work out the way they originally intended, and have been largely "re-purposed." I believe they are actually good examples of why Disney should avoid the non-story immersive style of theming (even though I personally miss DI day classes).

I really enjoy staying there

That's cool, I honestly never meant to begrudge you that.

YoHo...

we may have different Ideas on what those principles are

... I wouldn't think they should be so different. At the heart of everything was the desire to tell a good story, and the commitment to "plussing" whatever story was being told in whatever medium.

I contend that it is the over-riding tenent of the Disney Franchise to provide the entertainment that people want and to do so on its own terms

I contend that, if it fails to tell a good story, it is ultimately bereft of an integral part of Disney Magic.

their growth would have been stagnant otherwise and THAT would have doomed the company further

They could have provided a lower cost alternative to what know as the Deluxes without sacrificing the cohesive vacation world and story-immersive theming. And again to commoditization: why does Disney have to compete with every possible price point, particularly if it means sacrificing huge hunks of plussing, pieces of what makes the company's products special and different?

thedscoop...

IMHO, DVC broadens access rather than restricts it

...well, what I said was "Disney's short-term focus is going to end up strangling them at some future point," which I believe is true because I believe the financial construct of the DVC pulls much of the cash flow that the resort would normally pull in over 40 years, largely into the next ten or so years. Looks good on the books today, but I think DVC will end up draining the company in the long term. Like I said, no one's going to believe me about this for at least a decade.

I'd be curious how any car twobers or threesers who are also DVC members react to this less humorous quote

Again, I'm not for or against any particular family's vacation plans. I'm steering well clear of that. They can agree or disagree with my assessment of the business decision without needing to defend their participation in DVC.

Jeff

 

[Janet2k]

What’s a girl gotta do to get some service around here? I’m still waiting to see if any of you folks will post a link to some photos of the newly put-out-of-its-misery resort (previously known as the Pop Century Resort). Surely someone around here has a link to where some photos reside? I would love to be able to tell Eeyore2U, the starter of this thread, whether or not I agreed with the “thumb’s down” sign. Oh, woe is me.

 

[dmfuru]

Janet2K

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/media/photo/2001-10/890590.jpg

 

[Janet2k]

Dmfuru, thanks. I saw that one shown with the Orlando article. Do you know of any others? It's really hard for me to get the "full" feel of what the ex-resort was going to look like.

By the way, would anyone mind if I called the ex-resort the "Fizzle" Resort since it's lost its pop?

From the Merriam-Webster dictionary ( http://www.m-w.com/home.htm ):

- - - - - - -
Main Entry: 1fiz·zle
Pronunciation: 'fi-z&l
Function: intransitive verb
Inflected Form(s): fiz·zled; fiz·zling /-z(&-)li[ng]/
Etymology: probably alteration of fist (to break wind)
Date: circa 1841
1 : FIZZ
2 : to fail or end feebly especially after a promising start -- often used with out
- - - - - - -

 

[lrodk]

Since the construction site is closed off we really only have pictures from a distance of some of the buildings. WDWMagic.com has a couple of pics on their site, as well as a publicity photo. here's the link to the site:

http://www.wdwmagic.com/pop_century.htm

 

[d-r]

Originally posted by YoHo
I'll posit again, and maybe this time someone will answer.


You say that's a bad thing, and I admit to preferring the vacation world WDW was first buit as, BUT do the Allstars exist as some sort of dumbing down? or do they exist, because the all encompassing vacation world is not what the vast public wanted?

After all, those off-site rooms always filled up before All-stars existed, Disney is simply providing a new albeit less unique vacation expireance. One that many people still want.

Why is it wrong for them to provide this expireance?
Why is indicative of a caste system to provide something people want?

Nothing- I think it is wonderful to allow as many families (of all types) to stay on property as possible. I also think it makes Disney money by offering resorts at different price levels.

Why couldn't they be less disgustingly, offensivly, Ugly?

Because if they were, everyone would pay less to stay there rather than pay more to stay at a deluxe. You get what you pay for, (and so they have to offer something ugly for people who want to pay less)-

DR

 

[d-r]

when I just said "Families of all types" I meant families with young children, families of older children, couples without children, empty nesters, etc. I didn't mean anything about economics.

DR

 

[YoHo]

I agree that transportation really affects the magic, BUT I don't think that needs to relate to the presence of a different TYPE of vacation.

I'll agree also that the Value resorts should have been done differently, but Ultimatly, you can't give them the same exact expireance as the deluxes due to location, size and purpose.

I maintain that the Value resorts are meant to appeal to Different type of vacationer and that they may have been executed poorly, but that there existance is perfectly reasonable. the purpose of their existance is perfectly valid in Disney Terms.

Disney doesn't have to go after every market, but It isn't inherantly undisney to be in this market. It is a different vacation then the original Disney one, that doesn't make it invalide or undisney. WDW is a babe in the Disney woods. A man that would be 100 years old and a 46 year old theme park buisness. are the basis, not a particular style of vacation.

 

[All Aboard]

d-r

You get what you pay for, (and so they have to offer something ugly for people who want to pay less)

I don't see any smilie, so I assume that you seriously believe this.

You have to be joking, right!?!?!?

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

DR Quote:
You get what you pay for, (and so they have to offer something ugly for people who want to pay less)
End quote:

I don't see any smilie, so I assume that you seriously believe this.

You have to be joking, right!?!?!?

I don't know about DR, but I am serious about it. It is just that type of distinction that is needed to justify the cost difference. If the rooms were smaller, the beds doubles instead of queens and no mini-bar included, but it had a table service restaurant and theme was just as rich as the moderates or deluxes, that would not be enough to justify the cost differential between the different classes of resorts. They needed to create a substantial difference, one that was readily apparent, yet somehow stay within a 'Disney' concept.

So what did they do? Easy. They decorated instead of themed and decreed that a food-court was all they'd ever get!! This would insure that there was one heck of a class distinction between the three groups.

Let's face it. Half the talk here is how 'ugly' they are, how un-themed they are and how they have no table service restaurants. If the theme were as rich as even the moderates are and a half way decent restaurant was installed, do you think the moderates would enjoy the success they have. Heck, even I'd stay at the 'economies' in a heartbeat!!

No! He's quite right, you know. They needed to create a difference. And boy-oh-boy, did they do a good job of it. There certainly is one heck of a difference!!

 

[HorizonsFan]

If the theme were as rich as even the moderates are and a half way decent restaurant was installed, do you think the moderates would enjoy the success they have. Heck, even I'd stay at the 'economies' in a heartbeat!!

If the theme were as rich and a restraunt installed, the resort would cost more to maintain and therefore rooms would cost more defeating the purpose of building them in the first place. I know it's hard for you to believe, but some people actually LIKE the All Stars and I'm sure some people will actually LIKE Pop Century. It's a matter of taste. I'm convinced that there aren't any Disney execs snikering behind their hands saying, "Have you SEEN the place we built for the poor people?"

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

If the theme were as rich and a restaurant installed, the resort would cost more to maintain

I absolutely, positively, without-a-doubt, DISAGREE!!! A table service restaurant would be self sustaining or it would close. Period!! And richer theming would cost no more to maintain, but it might (and I stress the word 'might') require a slightly increased capital expenditure. I personally think it would have been worth it just to keep the "Disney Standards" where they should be (theme vs. decorating).

But then, what reason would someone have to spend the extra money to stay in a moderate?
Answer: NONE - Hence the built in difference!!!

I'm convinced that there aren't any Disney execs snickering behind their hands saying, "Have you SEEN the place we built for the poor people?"

Again I disagree! I think they all are!!

 

[YoHo]

Landbaron, you really think that?


That's low, I mean that's an entirely different level of mismanagment and evilness then we've ever attributed to Eisner.

I personally find it hard to believe that anyone involved with that company, EVEN Presslar is that heartless and evil.

Misguided, mistaken, a moron. We can discuss whether those apply, but I will not lend credence nor discuss the notion that any of them ACTIVLY and intentionally tried to "Screw" the poor people

 

[All Aboard]

Dispelling the "intentionally unappealing" theory.

There's a finite number of All Star rooms - 5,760 (or something like that). Once filled, folks don't have a choice but to stay somewhere else (and pay more.) Disney controls the number of guests who pay the Value rates by controlling the number of value rooms, not by making them unappealing.

The size of the room makes the double bed a necessity, and the return on investment makes the size of the room a necessity.

If a full-service restaurant were an automatically self sufficient, every hotel in America would have one, but they do not. I suspect that the resort full-service restaurants don't really do that well. At DxL/Port Orleans they eliminated one. Did they do it in order to cut profits? They must have, because both must have been self sustaining, right? Have you ever been to CBR? Have you seen how few diners there are at the Captains Tavern? Have you seen how few folks dine at the Grand Floridian Cafe?

I would postulate that full service resort dining options that are self sufficient are not the norm, rather that many of them take a hit on their own. Instead, it's that list of amenities that is aided by their existence.

You guys have it backwards. Disney did not make the All Stars unappealing to insure that guests would stay at the Deluxes ... Disney made the All Stars APPEALING to insure that guests would not stay off-site. I can't believe that isn't clear.

 

[daannzzz]

You all seem to be assuming that everyone that stays at the All Stars has to stay there and can not stay anywhere else. I have read right hear on the DIS how many people choose the All Star OR Off Site accomodations so that they have more money for food and souveniers. My impression of the full service restaurants at the Moderates were that they were overpriced and not what I was looking for. I think if they put in one full service "Denny's" style sit down restaurant that it would do well. I am talking No prime rib here. It would be slightly more expensive than the food court and themed...decorated to appropriatly match the All Stars. I did not stay at the All Stars because I couldn't afford any of the other Disney Resorts. I stayed because I wanted to. And I enjoyed it very much. While I don't think they are Beautiful, I certainly don't think they are ugly and I found it quite fun there.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

… Either they've got them or they don't!

Misguided, mistaken, a moron. We can discuss whether those apply, but I will not lend credence nor discuss the notion that any of them ACTIVELY and intentionally tried to "Screw" the poor people

Well!! I seemed to have struck a chord! OK. I'll give you that they don't sit around gleefully thinking how they screwed the populace. Instead consider it 'collateral damage'.

tell me how a table service restaurant would be "self-sustaining" and why its such a big deal after all

I haven't made it a big deal. This thread has. More than a few times this aspect was considered one of the big 'differences' between an economy and a moderate. I will point out again the case of the Caribbean Beach Resort. When it first opened it had no table service restaurant. It was one of the things that clearly marked it as a 'value' resort. Remember, this was the first one that broke the mold of the Poly/Contemporary type resort.

But wait!! What happened next!!?? The All Stars are built and they charge less than the Caribbean!!! This can't be!! What to do??? Around that time what do you think happened to the dining choices at the Caribbean? You guessed it!! A table service restaurant!! What a coincidence!!

You gave a hypothetical and asked:

So what about this realistically hypothetical family?

Well, you missed my point. I firmly belive that there should be one standard for Disney!! Period! Nothing at the bottom end and much more importantly nothing at the top end!! Hard to understand? Not really. I may be terribly naive but I don't think the Poly, in either design or pricing structure, when it first opened, had any peers. There were hotels that had amenities that you couldn't get at the Poly. And there were other hotels/motels that offered much less. What impressed me was that the Disney Standard was applied to everything they did. And at a somewhat reasonable rate. Same could be said of their campgrounds. Probably one of the most expensive campgrounds in existence, but by far the nicest!!

A very radical change in thinking came about with the development of the Caribbean Beach and the Floridian. Here were places that defined the ends of the Disney spectrum. One was almost obscenely opulent. Clear to everyone that walked through the door that it was a 'money' resort. And the 'new' prices reflected that fact. Quite a different feel than the Poly or the Contemporary. And the other was not quite as nice as the original two. Off the monorail run, a little less theme, food courts, long walks to the bus, etc. But, as if to make up for it, was also a bit less expensive. Now to me, they should have stopped there!! But they were not content. They felt they had to grab EVERY market that was out there. And to do that, they had to lower their standards quite a bit.

I think the best way to put it was the JeffJewell did:

They could have provided a lower cost alternative to what know as the Deluxes without sacrificing the cohesive vacation world and story-immersive theming. And again to commoditization: why does Disney have to compete with every possible price point, particularly if it means sacrificing huge hunks of plussing, pieces of what makes the company's products special and different?

I don't think anyone would argue that Disney is one of the most expensive Theme Parks in the world. Yet no one is screaming that a certain segment is excluded from participating because of economic concerns. No one is clamoring for a 'less-themed' theme park, run by Disney, in order to allow a particular demographic to afford a day's pass to a toned down version of 'Disney Magic". Tell me, Scoop (and everyone else). What's the difference?