Leadership shuffle at the Walt Disney World Resort hotels

[ford91exploder]

Yeah, noticed that she has a fiscal, not hospitality, background. Surely Disney could find someone with a hospitality background. There are several good hospitality schools in Florida and UCF's partners with Disney. And Crofton is on UCF's Board of Trustees. But then Crofton has an MBA....

Well the neat little touches at AKL will all vanish now that it will be run like a 'Business'

Everything wrong with the hotels could be fixed if they were run by managers who have a hospitality background but we see too many of them who have finance backgrounds instead and the hotels who are being run by Finance types like BLT/Contemporary have the biggest service related issues.

 

[ford91exploder]

You darned sure remember the experience more

For better or worse

 

[StarWarsGirl]

Because it was cheaper that way

Exactly. That is the only reason to do that. But when guests are paying $400+ to stay at these resorts, I think they can afford two managers.

 

[ford91exploder]

Exactly. That is the only reason to do that. But when guests are paying $400+ to stay at these resorts, I think they can afford two managers.

Playing contrarian, Why should TDO fund two managers if people keep staying at the inflated rates, Since people KEEP coming it validates their business strategy. But Disney is so insular they do not see that their occupancy is below that of premium hotels in the Orlando metro area.

Also recall that in Q3 last year there was a call for WDW hotels to reduce expense by 3M that quarter so the hotels would 'make their numbers' this led to insanities like Mizner's no longer serving 'free' nuts to bar patrons.

The only thing which will change Disney's current trajectory is a dropoff in Guests staying on-property.

This news is just BAD no matter how you slice it.

 

[asianway]

Ye


It is nice to see I agree however since HHI is not operated by TDO it still retains much of the quality it has had from the beginning and has the touches expected at a Deluxe property


I might add that Cookies and iced tea/lemonade are standard at any Hilton Garden Inn worldwide.

I'll play contrarian too. If they had free cookies & lemonade at the Polynesian, how many lifestylers would be there daily making it their dinner then going out back to watch the fireworks on the lounge chairs that are supposed to be there as an amenity to the resort guests? After a dip in the pool of course

 

[ford91exploder]

I'll play contrarian too. If they had free cookies & lemonade at the Polynesian, how many lifestylers would be there daily making it their dinner then going out back to watch the fireworks on the lounge chairs that are supposed to be there as an amenity to the resort guests? After a dip in the pool of course

I think that number is best represented by the infinity symbol , Now with the mouse arrest bands you could place the goodies in an area accessible only by current guests

 

[Andrew C]

Well, my family and I used to go almost every year in the 90's regardless if there was anything new or exciting. This was true up until the mid-2000's. We started getting priced out of the Moderates and would go less frequently and instead spent one trip at a Deluxe because we got a discount. We would rather stay off-property than stay at a Value because absolutely none of those properties are appealing to us and would prefer to stay on property. So instead, we just don't go. I'm willing to bet this is true for a lot of people except people who save for years to make it a vacation of a lifetime or for the 1%. I just don't think you get nearly the value for your money anymore as you used to at Disney and I have a feeling under her leadership, its been far more about profits than product. Raising prices in this economy should not be a constant and it should not be taken lightly. Disney doesn't necessarily need to raise prices at the rate that they have in the last 5-10 years, especially not at their resorts. I can go to Hawaii from the east coast and stay at a 4 star hotel for a week for cheaper. Different experience yes, but its still how much money I'm willing to spend on a vacation and what I can get for that money.

I understand from a potential guest perspective what you are saying. But from a hotels & resorts perspective you are making it a bit more complicated than it really is. Basically, hotels can go two ways. They can either obtain growth by focusing on increasing occupancy or by focusing on the rate. If the rate increases for Disney properties are as everyone is suggesting, it seems their main focus is to obtain growth by increasing rate. Of course, they will have daily, weekly, monthly and quarterly reporting that will suggest whether this strategy is working. There is also the risk of losing loyal guests and/or return business or losing too much in occupancy if rates get too high and people do not want to pay it. It is a balancing act, increase the rate enough where you will see substantial growth even if occupancy dips a bit. But, increase the rate too much, and occupancy drops too low and it is no longer profitable to maintain the rates.

Now, whether the value and product is there to charge these prices is another story. That is going to be the perception of potential guests and whether people are willing to continue to pay these prices or not. There are other choices for accommodations at WDW other than Disney properties.

 

[DisneyElephant]

I understand from a potential guest perspective what you are saying. But from a hotels & resorts perspective you are making it a bit more complicated than it really is. Basically, hotels can go two ways. They can either obtain growth by focusing on increasing occupancy or by focusing on the rate. If the rate increases for Disney properties are as everyone is suggesting, it seems their main focus is to obtain growth by increasing rate. Of course, they will have daily, weekly, monthly and quarterly reporting that will suggest whether this strategy is working. There is also the risk of losing loyal guests and/or return business or losing too much in occupancy if rates get too high and people do not want to pay it. It is a balancing act, increase the rate enough where you will see substantial growth even if occupancy dips a bit. But, increase the rate too much, and occupancy drops too low and it is no longer profitable to maintain the rates.

Now, whether the value and product is there to charge these prices is another story. That is going to be the perception of potential guests and whether people are willing to continue to pay these prices or not. There are other choices for accommodations at WDW other than Disney properties.

I think presently, its a mistake for Disney to focus on rate increases for profit returns as opposed to increasing occupancy. Its definitely a balancing act, but creative has to have more of a draw in the future than it does currently (which from what I expect is hopefully in the works, but I think they have to do better than Avatar). I feel like they are a little of out touch with the public charging the rates that they do and it seems like they could care less about losing customers as long as they're catering to the few who can afford to go. Its a mistake.

I also think, Disney has grown their "stay at another hotel, see if we care" attitude rather than making sure the full Disney on-property experience brings them as many potential customers as possible. That's what builds revenue and return customers, not rate hikes. Focusing on merchandising rather than an immersive customer experience and rate hikes is really not the most effective way to go about growth. You let someone go over property, that's lost revenue in on-property dining and merchandise as well. I just think its misguided and out of touch.

 

[Andrew C]

I think presently, its a mistake for Disney to focus on rate increases for profit returns as opposed to increasing occupancy. Its definitely a balancing act, but creative has to have more of a draw in the future than it does currently (which from what I expect is hopefully in the works, but I think they have to do better than Avatar). I feel like they are a little of out touch with the public charging the rates that they do and it seems like they could care less about losing customers as long as they're catering to the few who can afford to go. Its a mistake.

I also think, Disney has grown their "stay at another hotel, see if we care" attitude rather than making sure the full Disney on-property experience brings them as many potential customers as possible. That's what builds revenue and return customers, not rate hikes. Focusing on merchandising rather than an immersive customer experience and rate hikes is really not the most effective way to go about growth. You let someone go over property, that's lost revenue in on-property dining and merchandise as well. I just think its misguided and out of touch.

I definitely understand what you are saying, but I think you are also making a lot of assumptions. For hotels & resorts, if their reporting is indicating their strategy is working as they want it, then there would be no reason to change. You are assuming they are making a mistake by having (what seems to be) a rate strategy instead of an occupancy strategy. But you do not have the revenue management details that they are seeing. Now, that is not to say that their strategy could work short term but hurt them later down the road.

From my experience, the moderate and deluxe resorts have always met or exceeded my expectations when I have stayed. I am, however, less willing to pay for a deluxe resort because I just do not want to spend that kind of money. But I do love the convenience of the deluxe resorts. And I do tend to stay at non-disney properties a lot of time as well.

And the parks themselves...well that is another topic all together.

 

[DisneyElephant]

I definitely understand what you are saying, but I think you are also making a lot of assumptions. For hotels & resorts, if their reporting is indicating their strategy is working as they want it, then there would be no reason to change. You are assuming they are making a mistake by having (what seems to be) a rate strategy instead of an occupancy strategy. But you do not have the revenue management details that they are seeing. Now, that is not to say that their strategy could work short term but hurt them later down the road.

I may not be seeing what they see sure. Its definitely an assumption. But just because I'm assuming doesn't mean that I would be wrong even if I were seeing what they see in the financials. Their strategy is working like the government does. Trying to cater to too tight a niche that is completely unsustainable. I just, as a long-term fan of the corporation, I've been rather disappointed in their investments and practices in the last 10 years. It wouldn't take much to turn things around, it would just take better leadership. The TCM/GMR pairing is a perfect example of the direction they ought to be going. Smart choices. And unfortunately that idea didn't even come from Disney. It came from someone like myself who works for TCM.

From my experience, the moderate and deluxe resorts have always met or exceeded my expectations when I have stayed. I am, however, less willing to pay for a deluxe resort because I just do not want to spend that kind of money. But I do love the convenience of the deluxe resorts. And I do tend to stay at non-disney properties a lot of time as well.

I love the Moderates, but I feel like they're very stale at this point. I've stayed at every single one at some point. The Values, I just don't like the look of them or the themeing at all. I never have. It felt cheap and even for a lower end hotel, Disney can do better with the architecture and ideas for those resorts rather than replicating the same hotel with a different theme (i.e. sports, animation, popc). Granted, the Moderates were that, just cut and paste versions of the same hotel, but the themeing was done for each way more intelligently. I feel like there's more of a variety of architecture and style with the Deluxes. Less thought is put in to the lower end resorts. Just because they're supposed to be less expensive properties doesn't mean less thought should go into planning. That's all I'm saying. They could do with a new Moderate or just something fresh for those hotels. I'm sure something is in the long term plans, it would have to be. But attention is obviously and should be to the parks themselves first and foremost. Staying on property in my opinion is a priority, but with the rates and options off property, it becomes harder and harder to justify an on property stay financially. I haven't stayed off-property in years primarily because of the difference in transportation reliability and ease.

 

[PhotoDave219]

All I've heard was that some of the shuffling was done to clean up a mess or two.

 

[PhotoDave219]

I haven't stayed off-property in years primarily because of the difference in transportation reliability and ease.

Well that's you. I like getting from my hotel to my destination in 10 minutes or less, which is something the buses cannot provide me.

 

[DisneyElephant]

Well that's you. I like getting from my hotel to my destination in 10 minutes or less, which is something the buses cannot provide me.

For me its a vacation. Stressing about time in that way seems pointless and counter-intuitive to my general enjoyment. I also don't want to worry about parking or any of that. Though I'm willing to bet off-property transportation has improved in the last 10 years. But to me, the Disney on-property experience is part of the whole vacation unless I'm going to dinner or another location, like Universal.

 

[DisneyElephant]

Also, I really appreciate that it was designed that way. Its smart and it works for me. I just wish they could maintain that and keep up with quality more than they have. But you could really say that across the board with Disney.

 

[CaptainShortty]

I met Kim Marinaccio when I worked at DAK Lodge during my CP. From my short interaction, she was a lovely lady who seemed to genuinely care about the resort.

I've met her a few times through my roles at Disney (I was a CP in the DAK Pack too!). She's a wonderful lady and really cares about the resort and its heritage and the CMs that help bring it to life. I think she'll do a fabulous job at whatever Resort she is at.

 

[englanddg]

Does this mean we can no longer blame Meg?

 

[TP2000]

I met Kim Marinaccio when I worked at DAK Lodge during my CP. From my short interaction, she was a lovely lady who seemed to genuinely care about the resort.

I'm sure she's a lovely woman, but... Most people who get to any lower level executive rank in the 21st century are able to do chatty yet brief meet-n-greets and smiley "Hi there!" interactions with entry-level employees. It's kind of a prerequisite for that type of exec role, like being able to read a ballroom speech off a script-reader or pretending to be interested as you dine graciously with a cheesy local politician and his dull wife.

There are very, very few companies left who allow boorish or impolite people to rise into the lower executive ranks.

 

[DisneyElephant]

There are very, very few companies left who allow boorish or impolite people to rise into the lower executive ranks.

There are many boorish and impolite people in the lower executive ranks in a great many companies. Its just that fewer people see just how they actually behave. I despise phony kindness and generosity of spirit. I can spot it a mile away, and I think most intelligent people can so I will take CaptainShortty's word that's its probably genuine. Kind of a pointless reply from me, but I'm terribly bored.

 

[tikiman]

I'll play contrarian too. If they had free cookies & lemonade at the Polynesian, how many lifestylers would be there daily making it their dinner then going out back to watch the fireworks on the lounge chairs that are supposed to be there as an amenity to the resort guests? After a dip in the pool of course

That will be difficult to do now with the pool and chairs behind a fenced off area they can't access.

 

[DC0703]

Yet, people still pay these prices (including myself a time or two) so it makes sense to continue to charge these prices until their reporting indicates otherwise. If their indicators tell them they are playing a dangerous game, and they choose to ignore this, they may pay for it in the end.

The problem is that (correct me if I'm wrong) the occupancy has been on the decline. But instead of lowering prices to bring it back up, they are converting more rooms to DVC to make the books look better.

Sadly, I believe we live in a time when most companies will not lower prices unless it is literally their only option left.