Disney slowly losing some of what made it special.

[Goofnut1980]

I still have a great time there!

 

[NickMaio]

I still have a great time there!

Me too.
We just came back with first trip with our baby. It was amazing. We did a bit of planning before, fast pases, some meals. Nothing that I would consider draining or stressful.

I have never found a WDW trip to be taxing or too much. Its an amazing escape, we can't wait to start planning our return trip.

 

[Willmark]

I definitely agree, I do think it's sort of one of those circular arguments. The biggest challenge is that there really is no way for those of us that are "late" bloomers to the world to connect with what I call the "magic decades". my first time was back in the 70's and the trip was an unmitigated disaster, lol my family had a horrible time and we thought it was the biggest waste of money but there was only 1 park.
After that I did not return until almost 2000 when I had kids, so I really didn't fall in love with the world until 2000/2001.

I always ask dissatisfied (that might be the best description) customers, how they are going to go forward. The reality is, for whatever reason this is the business model Disney has decided to follow and IMO will be following for the immediate future (let's say the next 10 years) and whether we agree or not the parks seem to be pack. That maybe because of a good economy or because of Disney marketing but they are pack so there is no incentive to change.
So how do you keep justifying spending that type of money on vacation if when you go, all you see is what's wrong with the parks or all you do is compare it to the glory days?

I’m dissatisfied but don’t have the glory days to fall back on as my first trip was 2011.

I may have responded in this very thread about it; type of customer Disney wants, income level etc etc.

In my case December 2018 is our last trip for the foreseeable furure. If enough people like me do the same? That should make Disney pause.

Note: it’s no like I’m rich either that’s not why I’m pointing it out. My point is if middle class/to upper middle class, non AP/DVC guests who pay in cash are considering NOT going? That should make any wise company take note. I’ll see if I can find the post where I outlined my reasoning.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

Wait, now it’s gone downhill since just 2011?

 

[Willmark]

Wait, now it’s gone downhill since just 2011?

Not my point at all. I don’t have a gauge one way or another if it’s gone downhill per se. I only noted my first time there was 2011.

I’m my case the price jumps and lack of return for said price (YMMV) is what is causing us to stop going after this last trip coming up.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

Not my point at all. I don’t have a gauge one way or another if it’s gone downhill per se. I only noted my first time there was 2011.

I’m my case the price jumps and lack of return for said price (YMMV) is what is causing us to stop going after this last trip coming up.

I get the money thing.

We (for now) have special circumstances with a FL Res Weekday AP and Chase points.

 

[larryz]

Wait, now it’s gone downhill since just 2011?

Oh, yes... FP+, for example.

 

[Goofyernmost]

Oh, yes... FP+, for example.

FP+ was merely a modification of an already bad idea being FP itself. It did make it worse in many ways though. It was easier in some ways, but, made the line wait situation an overall disaster.

 

[Raineman]

Most of the opinions voiced in this thread are based on individual perception, not concrete facts, and it doesn't have as much to do with an individual's history at WDW as some think. There are most likely people who first started visiting in the 70s that still visit today, and they still love WDW and feel as if it has not lost anything for them. On the flip side, there are probably people who have only been visiting WDW for 10 years who are not happy with the current state of the resort. People complaining that WDW is too expensive AND that it is too crowded don't seem to understand that to make one aspect better, the other gets worse-make WDW more affordable and the attendance numbers will increase and cause more crowding; jacking up the cost of a WDW trip to a level that most cannot afford will reduce crowd numbers. To the people that complain about the current state of WDW and continue to make regular visits-why? At least the people that complain about WDW and have stopped visiting are putting their money where their mouth is, so to speak, and are doing something that collectively will eventually send a message to Disney that "Unless change is forthcoming, you will never get any of my $ again"-if Disney continues to get hit in the pocketbook, they will be forced to change. Those of us that can acknowledge the negatives, but still feel they are getting value and enjoyment out of WDW, will continue to visit until we reach that point where the value and enjoyment is not there, but it seems as if some people think that we shouldn't be visiting, that it is partially our fault that Disney is not changing things to what they perceive as better.

 

[geekza]

Most of the opinions voiced in this thread are based on individual perception, not concrete facts, and it doesn't have as much to do with an individual's history at WDW as some think. There are most likely people who first started visiting in the 70s that still visit today, and they still love WDW and feel as if it has not lost anything for them. On the flip side, there are probably people who have only been visiting WDW for 10 years who are not happy with the current state of the resort. People complaining that WDW is too expensive AND that it is too crowded don't seem to understand that to make one aspect better, the other gets worse-make WDW more affordable and the attendance numbers will increase and cause more crowding; jacking up the cost of a WDW trip to a level that most cannot afford will reduce crowd numbers. To the people that complain about the current state of WDW and continue to make regular visits-why? At least the people that complain about WDW and have stopped visiting are putting their money where their mouth is, so to speak, and are doing something that collectively will eventually send a message to Disney that "Unless change is forthcoming, you will never get any of my $ again"-if Disney continues to get hit in the pocketbook, they will be forced to change. Those of us that can acknowledge the negatives, but still feel they are getting value and enjoyment out of WDW, will continue to visit until we reach that point where the value and enjoyment is not there, but it seems as if some people think that we shouldn't be visiting, that it is partially our fault that Disney is not changing things to what they perceive as better.

This has been argued ad infinitum in this thread. In the past, Disney made sure that the quality of the experience exceeded expectations. They did this in lots of ways including attention to detail, consistency, offering experiences that may not have generated additional cash flow, but offered variety; making sure attractions were working in top form, creating new attractions that were thematically appropriate and impeccably-designed, etc. These are things that have slipped as the years have gone on. They are now charging and making more money than they ever have, however that money isn't being used to maintain the Disney level of quality that originally set it so far above the competition. All that isn't to say that WDW is a disaster these days. It isn't. It's still a very remarkable place, which is why we still go. With that said, those of us who experienced the level of quality and service provided in the past by Disney, see no reason why this level should not be maintained and complain when we see that it isn't. You don't have to agree, but I have yet to see a compelling argument from those who feel like we should just shut up and accept things as they are as to why we should.

You know, I'm just tired of arguing. I'm giving up on this thread.

 

[eliza61nyc]

This has been argued ad infinitum in this thread. In the past, Disney made sure that the quality of the experience exceeded expectations. They did this in lots of ways including attention to detail, consistency, offering experiences that may not have generated additional cash flow, but offered variety; making sure attractions were working in top form, creating new attractions that were thematically appropriate and impeccably-designed, etc. These are things that have slipped as the years have gone on. They are now charging and making more money than they ever have, however that money isn't being used to maintain the Disney level of quality that originally set it so far above the competition. All that isn't to say that WDW is a disaster these days. It isn't. It's still a very remarkable place, which is why we still go. With that said, those of us who experienced the level of quality and service provided in the past by Disney, see no reason why this level should not be maintained and complain when we see that it isn't. You don't have to agree, but I have yet to see a compelling argument from those who feel like we should just shut up and accept things as they are as to why we should.

You know, I'm just tired of arguing. I'm giving up on this thread.

So the reality is YOU are ACCEPTING things they way there are. Disney doesn't care about your complaints, they care about your money. you are continuing to give it to them so in essence you are saying I'm happy with the way things are.

So let me say that I never want anyone to "shut up" but I do reiterate what I say most of the time, if you go on and trip and come back and your post are all about the negative (I've never seen any happy post from you but I believe you when you say you had a good time. I've seen you say good things about extinct rides but that's about it) it may be time to rethink it.

There are too many things out of my control, cost of gas, my property taxes, college tuition, my lousy raises. My vacations and the value I get for my money are something I can control. Again, the reality is Disney IS NOT going back to that level of quality, as to the reason why it's not, we could discuss that forever but it's not. So what do you do Geekza, continue going and continue complaining??

I wish I had your optimism but after spending my working life with a huge company that is also making money hand over fist and delivering a lousy product, my belief is that the only thing that moves them is the bottom line. Disney has no incentive to change because they are making billions they way it is and the shareholders are happy.

So when folks say "don't go" most of us are not trying to say you should "shut up", we are just saying that we would not continuously drop thousands of dollars on a place that makes us complain as heavily as the people here do. They way I see the next 10 years, the 'originals" will keep going comparing it to days of old and then being bitterly disappointed, then coming here to complain, rinse and repeat.

just my ramblings. everyone is free to spend their money any way they wish.

 

[flynnibus]

People complaining that WDW is too expensive AND that it is too crowded don't seem to understand that to make one aspect better, the other gets worse-make WDW more affordable and the attendance numbers will increase and cause more crowding; jacking up the cost of a WDW trip to a level that most cannot afford will reduce crowd numbers

Except... Disney isn't increasing prices to counter crowds.. it's increasing prices because it can.

Disney didn't treat crowds in the past by increasing prices - it increased capacity. It expanded.

The mindset that Disney is jacking prices to control the flow is naive. They are trying to stay under people's breaking point. Disney is still managing expansion on it's own investment time tables, not just to deal with near term crowding.

 

[flynnibus]

They way I see the next 10 years, the 'originals" will keep going comparing it to days of old and then being bitterly disappointed, then coming here to complain, rinse and repeat.

This is a dismissal that assumes things are the same and it's just individuals cycling. But the facts are the products and strategies are NOT the same. Disney went through very distinct different periods.. From the era that expanded WDW to EPCOT and more.. through Eisner's expansion of the early 90s... to the 'gap' period under Pressler/Harris.. to the Collapse and ripples that 9/11 brought through the early 2000s... to the 'coast' period in the later 200x years.. to the start of the 'refresh' period that started with DCA v2.... to the 'upsell' period we have been going through now where everything is being added as paid options.

WDW has been around for well over 40 years, but the Disney product and experience is not a constant. Disney's approach to the product and customer has gone through many cycles. Just because not all consumers are aware of the grander changes happening over time, doesn't mean they don't exist or have no impact.

So much of the Disney aurora is a built-in expectation ... not necessarily one they've recently earned.

 

[eliza61nyc]

This is a dismissal that assumes things are the same and it's just individuals cycling. But the facts are the products and strategies are NOT the same. Disney went through very distinct different periods.. From the era that expanded WDW to EPCOT and more.. through Eisner's expansion of the early 90s... to the 'gap' period under Pressler/Harris.. to the Collapse and ripples that 9/11 brought through the early 2000s... to the 'coast' period in the later 200x years.. to the start of the 'refresh' period that started with DCA v2.... to the 'upsell' period we have been going through now where everything is being added as paid options.

WDW has been around for well over 40 years, but the Disney product and experience is not a constant. Disney's approach to the product and customer has gone through many cycles. Just because not all consumers are aware of the grander changes happening over time, doesn't mean they don't exist or have no impact.

So much of the Disney aurora is a built-in expectation ... not necessarily one they've recently earned.

I like your optimism. I don't share it but I like it. I know things do not stay the same, lol that's pretty evident from the grumbling we hear here daily. I believe every one of your (general your, not you specific) stories of grander times and better ideas.
What I don't agree on is the management going back to that style, sure 40 years from now I know it will totally be different, lol I'll be well on my way to 100 so it won't make a fig of difference to me.

And actually I've said the exact opposite as far as individuals. Most folks here have not cycled. You (again general use) are stuck on "when it was 1980 and 1990" it was so much more. The constant refrain is "Disney could do so much better because they did in the past" and Disney has changed, so I would say that the individual is not cycling or at least not accepting.
to paraphrase a well used business statement, "past performance is not a guarantee of future results". IMO what Disney USED to do is exactly that, what they "used" to do. it has no bearing whatsoever in what they are doing know.

not really sure what effect consumer awareness has on stuff. I've found that consumers are weird animals.

 

[eliza61nyc]

lol, I've always wondered who actually is a "fanboy".
The person who supposedly defends the mouse world and goes continually or the person who complains about it and goes continually?

it's all good, I do enjoy talking about the mouseworld

 

[flynnibus]

And actually I've said the exact opposite as far as individuals. Most folks here have not cycled. You (again general use) are stuck on "when it was 1980 and 1990" it was so much more

You suggested this was a behavior that would just repeat itself.. as the next cycle of customers go through their lifecycle and then come back 10yrs later and grump.

I'm pointing out that there are very different periods in the parks. And that's a good reason why someone who just started going in the mid 2000s would have lots of reasons to be happy now vs then. But at the same time, someone who is comparing 1993 vs 2004 would also have a lot of reasons to be upset about 2004. The truth is, that period was a dull, lower period for the parks. So your frame of reference and expectation is very important in how your views and expectations are shaped.

The constant refrain is "Disney could do so much better because they did in the past" and Disney has changed, so I would say that the individual is not cycling or at least not accepting.

You can say the individual is not changing... but you also have to accept that what they are comparing has infact changed. Many do not.. instead dismissing the person's view as warped or whitewashing.. "everything is great, your memory is just wrong..." etc

IMO what Disney USED to do is exactly that, what they "used" to do. it has no bearing whatsoever in what they are doing know.

I agree - which is why I don't give them credit for stuff they aren't anymore. But many people can't separate from what they are TOLD Disney is... vs what Disney really is.

They still ride on the coat tails of their predecessors... while thumbing their nose at the philosophies that built the empire they inherited.

 

[Raineman]

Except... Disney isn't increasing prices to counter crowds.. it's increasing prices because it can.

Disney didn't treat crowds in the past by increasing prices - it increased capacity. It expanded.

The mindset that Disney is jacking prices to control the flow is naive. They are trying to stay under people's breaking point. Disney is still managing expansion on it's own investment time tables, not just to deal with near term crowding.

I’m not under the illusion that Disney increases pricing to control crowd levels. But, there has to be a point where the price level is at a point where it is past enough people’s breaking point to cause a decrease in attendance, and some of the people crying about crowded parks would not be able to enjoy the resulting lower crowds as they are among the outpriced group. That’s the gist of what I was trying to say.

 

[englanddg]

You make some really great points. If I may clarify?

I would agree with you IF putting in values took away something from Deluxes. so let's say we go with the premise of "upper class". How is having "lower class" accommodations taking anything away from those who stay in the Deluxes??

"Campy", marked by large statues, gimmicks, etc.

These hotels and other attractions (such as "buy Disney Merchandise Cheap! places" littered the areas around Disney (still there, but not so much anymore). Once you got onto property, all that ceased.

And, this was prior to Swolphin. Yes, for the stays available in the area at the time, the Grand Floridian, and the Contemporary, were considered "classy". The next closest or a middle / upper middle class family in that era would have been the Kissimee TravelLodge (which had a wave pool, iirc), maybe the Sheraton...and a few others.

You have to remember, this was the era...

Classy? how was staying at the Grand Floridian prior Classy? I thought it was always about location as most folks recognize that Disney Deluxes are not on par as the hotel industry 5 stars. It never was on the level of say a 4 seasons.

This was not the case when the Grand Floridian, the Poly or the Contemporary opened. For how far they have come...this was the Contemporary general area...

Not a big ol' mickey shaped shop.

And, Disney knew this, and marketed as such.

Notice, if you zoom in on that....not one mention of "proximity".

People who stay in deluxes don't even see the value resorts. Disney didn't go lower class, they realized the fact that not everyone can drop 400 bucks a night to stay at the Poly or the Grand Floridian, they recognized their is an entire segment in the population that is not upper middle class and wealthy and offered them the option of getting some of the benefits of staying onsite.

Not...quite. Disney realized (through the success of CBR, which was opened around this time, actually) that there was greater value in bringing "lower income/lower class" guests onto property and keeping them there, instead of them leaving the property each evening to go back to their Motel 6, Holiday Inn and Travel Lodge, and partake in other Orlando offerings.

This was the plan, and the plan worked. They tried three tactics.

1 was to expand their top of the line "deluxe" offerings with the poshest hotel they ever created (and at the time, arguably the poshest in the state at the time). A LOT of money was spent in design and theme to sell that. And, it opened at about $175 a night.

$175 a night, in 1989.

2 was the "upper moderate" of the Swolphin, with the theory being a lower room cost and decreased operation costs (because that was farmed out to the operators) would work.

3 was the first "value" (now called Moderate) which was CBR. And, that was $65 a night, when it opened in 1988 (same year as Grand Floridian), but was more in line with what off property hotels were charging. Still not in line with the cheaper motels, but...that came later.

If ya wanna see, page 2.

http://www.disneypix.com/Multimedia/PDFFiles/1988VacationInformationGuide.pdf

Ironically most of the people I know who stay in the values don't do it because it's cheap and can well afford the deluxes. Most of the people I know who do it do so because 1) They don't spend a lot of time at the resort, staying at the parks all day so just want a place to sleep and shower or 2) are avid travelers and simply refuse to pay 5 star prices for location since most feel that the deluxes are not really luxury hotels at all

I would agree with that. I'm in the latter. I have stayed at the deluxes, and found them lacking. I prefer the values or the moderates.

But, you have to remember the marketing game. A lot of Deluxes, now, are filled with DVC. They couldn't sell the rooms for the rates (to pay for the hotel development), so they sold them as timeshares.

LOL, Wow reminds me of the Titanic. why not just put the folks in steerage while we're at it.

That wasn't my point.

I totally admit, I do not get the connection of building the values and a decline in quality.

The connection is fairly simple. And, I mentioned it. In the 70s and 80s, Disney (and more specifically, staying on property) was not something the "average family" did. You didn't "fly into Orlando, hop the Magical Express, and ride it to your -insert class- resort and then hit the parks.

All that started to change in the 90s, then the park recession hit post 9/11, and picked back up again in the past few years. You bring more of the traditional offsite visitors onsite, and they bring what they want with them (fast food, convenience stores, urbanization)...much like you saw in Kissimmee leading up to when Disney decided to embrace it.

You bring in Timeshare people, and you see a whole different level of behavior than you do without them (ask anyone on Amelia Island, or any N. Florida Border Island who has lived there more than 30 years...before timeshares became a "thing").

Disney used to market itself, prior to the experiments around 1990, as a premier resort destination. The park was a draw, but it wasn't THE draw. The resorts offered a level of immersion, experience and luxury, and charged accordingly (with rates being higher, as a percentage of household income, than today).

That level of luxury, general experience, etc, has been moved to DCL. You don't get it at WDW anymore. You stay in Contemporary, it's not a resort, it's a zoo filled with an all you can eat buffet (one of the most popular) and shops crammed into every corner. Gone is the class, gone is the art, gone is the "soft touch" that existed before.

Now, here's where I think you misread me. I don't care. I stay at values, and enjoy them. Pop is one of my favorite resorts.

But, as I noted, there is a "change". The experience is not the same.

And, my point is, that's ok. But, it doesn't mean it hasn't changed.

 

[disney4life2008]

Miyuki retired and went freelance.

Honestly, that was the old epcot or world showcase. The new world showcase is about buying expensive questionable food and getting drunk. Soon with more ip related rides.

 

[eliza61nyc]

You make some really great points. If I may clarify?



"Campy", marked by large statues, gimmicks, etc.

These hotels and other attractions (such as "buy Disney Merchandise Cheap! places" littered the areas around Disney (still there, but not so much anymore). Once you got onto property, all that ceased.

And, this was prior to Swolphin. Yes, for the stays available in the area at the time, the Grand Floridian, and the Contemporary, were considered "classy". The next closest or a middle / upper middle class family in that era would have been the Kissimee TravelLodge (which had a wave pool, iirc), maybe the Sheraton...and a few others.

You have to remember, this was the era...

This was not the case when the Grand Floridian, the Poly or the Contemporary opened. For how far they have come...this was the Contemporary general area...

Not a big ol' mickey shaped shop.

And, Disney knew this, and marketed as such.

Notice, if you zoom in on that....not one mention of "proximity".



Not...quite. Disney realized (through the success of CBR, which was opened around this time, actually) that there was greater value in bringing "lower income/lower class" guests onto property and keeping them there, instead of them leaving the property each evening to go back to their Motel 6, Holiday Inn and Travel Lodge, and partake in other Orlando offerings.

This was the plan, and the plan worked. They tried three tactics.

1 was to expand their top of the line "deluxe" offerings with the poshest hotel they ever created (and at the time, arguably the poshest in the state at the time). A LOT of money was spent in design and theme to sell that. And, it opened at about $175 a night.

$175 a night, in 1989.

2 was the "upper moderate" of the Swolphin, with the theory being a lower room cost and decreased operation costs (because that was farmed out to the operators) would work.

3 was the first "value" (now called Moderate) which was CBR. And, that was $65 a night, when it opened in 1988 (same year as Grand Floridian), but was more in line with what off property hotels were charging. Still not in line with the cheaper motels, but...that came later.

If ya wanna see, page 2.

http://www.disneypix.com/Multimedia/PDFFiles/1988VacationInformationGuide.pdf



I

That wasn't my point.



The connection is fairly simple. And, I mentioned it. In the 70s and 80s, Disney (and more specifically, staying on property) was not something the "average family" did. You didn't "fly into Orlando, hop the Magical Express, and ride it to your -insert class- resort and then hit the parks.

Now, here's where I think you misread me. I don't care. I stay at values, and enjoy them. Pop is one of my favorite resorts.

But, as I noted, there is a "change". The experience is not the same.

And, my point is, that's ok. But, it doesn't mean it hasn't changed.

Absolutely, agree. what I don't agree and maybe I miss interpreted your original post is that change=decrease in quality. Personally I much like the current version of the Contemperory than the one that you pictured.
That is the problem with 95% of these arguments. basically it isn't a decrease in quality, the problem is people prefer the old version of Disney.

IMO the fact that the average family couldn't afford to stay on site is not a good thing, the reality is when I was a kid flying was godawful expensive and traveling was not as easy.

That's what I don't get, folks here relive the "glory" days of Disney like they were great, lol it reminds me of people who fantasize the 50's and 60's and want to return to a much "simpler" time. basically all it's saying is that those times were good for them.

the thread is title Disney is losing what made it special. the real title should be, "I like Disney back in the pre iger days". because imo the reality is, it's not losing anything folks just don't like the changes.


Edited to add: i did not get to disney until 2000 so i don't have the history unfortunately.