Grading Walt Disney World Throughout the Decades

[eliza61nyc]

Question. I hear/read a lot on this forums "Walt wanted this" or " would do so and so". Are you guys former employees?

 

[OneofThree]

"Rating" WDW is obviously going to be different for each person. I would rate the 80's as "A", based on the fact that this is when I first experienced the resort, and I much prefer that "iteration", if you will. That said, the late 80's to early 90's was probably when WDW was at its best overall, as I think Eisner really nailed it. I did not prefer it to the early to mid 80's, so this would be a more objective opinion. From there, the place just became a different animal entirely. Absolute concern over revenue per square ft began to take precedence over the overall guest experience.

 

[Starlight67]

But to me the issues with Fastpass+ are a symptom not the cause. Disney has treated the parks the same way that the airlines treated air travel post 9-11 (bear with me). Prior to 9-11 I can quite easily recall half full flights. Now they are overbooked. Disney took the same idea and are "overbooking" the parks. This in turn reflects the idea of this thread of Disney through the Decades.

Really interesting and good point! I had totally forgotten about flying in the pre-9-11 days. I remember one half full flight that I just moved to an empty row and sprawled out across 3 seats. (Didn't get thrown off flight, roughed up or end up on social media for doing so either ;-) ---the flight attendants didn't care one bit if you moved to a more comfortable spot.) Flying today is in stark contrast to those times. Maybe Disney is applying this same overbooking logic. And following suit with upcharging stuff a la checked bags in flight travel.

Regarding your question about why FP+ is getting a bad rap. I think the planning it takes is part of it. (For some of us anyway.) But I really started hating it on my last trip. Fast Passes were all in place, days in each park planned as necessary. Well, I was sick (not a little sick, stuck in the hotel type sick) the first two days of the trip. Can't predict that, but okay, stuff happens. Third day I am better, but now we want to adjust the fast passes so I still get a chance to visit every park and ride some of my favorites. Sure, the ability to change passes in theory is available. In reality not so much. It was really hard to get passes to popular stuff when trying to change so late. (My experience anyway.) What a mess. I know now I should have just left them the way they were. But this is why the liked the old system better. At least then it was a lot easier to switch plans and be able to still get passes.

 

[Willmark]

Really interesting and good point! I had totally forgotten about flying in the pre-9-11 days. I remember one half full flight that I just moved to an empty row and sprawled out across 3 seats. (Didn't get thrown off flight, roughed up or end up on social media for doing so either ;-) ---the flight attendants didn't care one bit if you moved to a more comfortable spot.) Flying today is in stark contrast to those times. Maybe Disney is applying this same overbooking logic. And following suit with upcharging stuff a la checked bags in flight travel.

Regarding your question about why FP+ is getting a bad rap. I think the planning it takes is part of it. (For some of us anyway.) But I really started hating it on my last trip. Fast Passes were all in place, days in each park planned as necessary. Well, I was sick (not a little sick, stuck in the hotel type sick) the first two days of the trip. Can't predict that, but okay, stuff happens. Third day I am better, but now we want to adjust the fast passes so I still get a chance to visit every park and ride some of my favorites. Sure, the ability to change passes in theory is available. In reality not so much. It was really hard to get passes to popular stuff when trying to change so late. (My experience anyway.) What a mess. I know now I should have just left them the way they were. But this is why the liked the old system better. At least then it was a lot easier to switch plans and be able to still get passes.

Sure in an ideal world one could shift fast passes but the reality is the sheer volume is probably the limiting factor.

This is compounded (overall) by the fact of overcrowding so catch 22.

Let’s be honest the parks needed to be expanded 10 years ago. And the updates to say MK? None of what they are doing or have done has really increased capacity.

For the future? Maybe HS goes from a 1/3 day Part now to close to a full day and it might be my favorite. Epcot we know the issues.

Do once the expansions are done has capacity been increased? I’d say not really.

Then tie this back to the premise of the thread: if rate it a C because I haven’t had any really bad experiences not any truly great ones. We go because it’s my wife’s happy place and I like being out of work! Left up to me I’d go elsewhere and that’s the thing that should keep Disney up at night:

Customers with the income level to return time and again questions whether or not they should rather than being a no-brainer.

 

[hsisthebest]

I have a well-earned reputation for charts and decided it was time to create one with my own made-up metric; what I call the "Walt Disney World Historical Grade" chart.

Using a scale of 0 to 100, with 100 meaning "absolutely fabulous" and 0 meaning "it's a dump and should be closed", I graded Walt Disney World (WDW) for each year since its opening in 1971. Ultimately I decided to grade WDW against itself, using its peak years as the Gold Standard.

It's an arbitrary chart based on my opinion of the quality and value of WDW over the decades. It's not based on real data. You might very well have a different opinion.

Without further ado, my latest chart:

View attachment 200615


WDW was by no means perfect when it opened in 1971. The Magic Kingdom was a work in progress but still managed to blow the competition out of the water (only Disneyland was better) with an unflinching commitment to making its Guests happy.

Things only got better from there, with classic attractions such as Pirates of the Caribbean (POTC) and Space Mountain opening in the mid-1970s, River Country in 1976, followed by Big Thunder Mountain (BTM) in 1980.

WDW peaked with the opening of Epcot in 1982. Quality remained outstanding while total ticket price decreased. Previously, admission and attraction tickets were sold separately. Concerned about using that pricing scheme at Epcot, Disney leadership created a combined ticket, discontinuing attraction booklets. I recall many being upset about it but as someone who simply wanted to ride attractions all day long, the new tickets were perfect!

That perfection continued for a few years until Michael Eisner became CEO. One of his earliest actions was to increase ticket prices by double-digits. Those upset with the 1982 ticket change were furious with Eisner's massive increases, which continued from 1984 to 1988.

Attitudes greatly improved with the opening of Disney-MGM Studios and Typhoon Lagoon (TL) in 1989. Disney-MGM Studios got off to a rough start; there simply wasn't much to do. However, by the end of the year with the opening of the Indiana Jones Stunt Spectacular and Star Tours, Disney-MGM Studios finally felt like a theme park worthy of the Disney name. Typhoon Lagoon was amazing, unlike any other water park in the World. It made the quaint River Country seem amateurish. By 1990, the anger resulting from the price increases had been largely forgotten. With 3 theme parks, 2 water parks, a shopping district, and a nightclub district, WDW finally felt worthy of a week's vacation.

By the early 1990s, the wood was starting to rot beneath the glittering façade. Disney’s Strategic Planning unit began to micromanage theme park decisions. Gone was the uncompromising commitment to excellence, superseded by a cost-benefit-analysis of every aspect of the resort. Year-by-year, quality slipped, replaced by a "good enough" attitude. Many devoted frontline Cast Members remained but senior management was forced out, supplanted by those "sharp-pencil guys" Walt Disney had warned about decades before. Externally, all was well. Internally, Disney’s Old Guard was fading, never to return.

Still, the 1990s experienced many exciting additions. Splash Mountain (SM) opened in 1992. Arguably WDW's best attraction, Tower of Terror (TOT), opened in 1994, followed by Blizzard Beach (BB) in 1995. To the casual Guest, it was a glorious decade.

Perhaps WDW's last gasp of true greatness occurred with the opening of Disney's Animal Kingdom (DAK) in 1998. It should have been WDW's high-water mark. Instead, DAK opened with too few attractions and struggled with an image problem. (Remember the 2001 "Nahtazu" campaign?) Hardcore Disney fans were disappointed.

The slow decay continued as Eisner was under increasing pressure by Wall Street to improve margin, yet WDW still was an excellent resort, still the best in the World.

The vacation industry took a nosedive after those horrific events of September 11. WDW was not immune. Projects were cancelled, hotels were shuttered, Cast Members were laid off. Operating expenses were slashed and, for many, declining quality became visible for the first time.

After the initial shock, Disney took steps to correct its downturn in business, primarily through deep discounts such as the "Buy Four, Get Three Free" campaign. WDW's affordability improved even as the economy struggled.

WDW experienced another uptick with the introduction of the Magic Your Way (MYW) ticket in 2005 and the opening of Expedition Everest (EE) in 2006. Using an a la cart pricing scheme, the MYW ticket improved WDW's affordability for those seeking an entry-level theme park experience, while EE represented WDW's last great attraction to date.

The late 2000s arguably represent WDW's low point. Even though Strategic Planning had closed shop in 2005, budget cuts continued as corporate Disney increasingly nickel-and-dimed its Guests. Worse, for the first time in its history, capital expenditures were not keeping up with depreciation. The parks were aging yet Disney was deferring basic maintenance. It showed, with each year getting a bit worse than the year before.

Opened in 2012, the New Fantasyland (NFL) represented a change in direction, expanding WDW's most popular land in the World's most popular theme park. Yet ultimately it added only 2 attractions, replacing 2 that had closed. It was a small improvement but with much unrealized potential. NFL could have been so much more. NFL should have been more.

It's difficult to grade WDW since 2012. There have been several modest improvements yet there also have been more cost cutting and price increases, largely cancelling each other out. The net effect is a WDW no longer at its nadir, but not yet on the mend.

That brings us to today. Pandora promises to be WDW’s first major addition since the opening of DAK, with more planned for later this decade. Let's wait for its opening before grading 2017.

And let the debate begin!

Nice Analysis! I always felt that the falling rocks/nets/tarps on Splash Mountain was rock bottom for Disney World. It's definitely not that anymore but is still lacking in many areas while displaying a few bright spots. Man the prices tho...

 

[Dutch Inn '76]

So the rise in price of tickets to WDW has outpaced inflation? Not really. ALL PREMIUM EXPERIENCES have increased in price dramatically over the past 25 years. That means that WDW has kept pace with inflation - maybe even lagged behind. Think about these things: Remember when you could sit behind the plate at a Major-League Baseball game for $15? I do. It wasn't that long ago. Remember when you could see the Rolling Stones for $25? Remember when you could eat at a fine restaurant for <$20? Remember when a Corvette cost $18,000?

A friend of mine payed EIGHTEEN DOLLARS tonight to see Ready Player One. I'll bet that Easter lunch tomorrow will cost me more than $250 for my family of five. I have two tickets for my son and I to see Imagine Dragons that I paid over $240 for. Premium experiences are expensive. Enjoy! Welcome to America.

 

[Willmark]

But thein lies the rub. Cost vs value and thereby premium is the point of this thread. Is it a premium experience anymore?

Each person has to decide that for themselves.

 

[ParentsOf4]

But thein lies the rub. Cost vs value and thereby premium is the point of this thread. Is it a premium experience anymore?

Each person has to decide that for themselves.

The basic argument against this is that Guests are willing to pay these premium prices. Therefore, WDW must be a premium vacation.

There's been a fundamental shift in consumer thinking over the last 30 years.

An older generation, raised with the austerity of the Great Depression and World War II, would never have paid these prices.

The Baby Boomer generation and beyond never faced these challenges. Today, there's a much more prevalent "I've earned this vacation" attitude, resulting in a willingness to pay much higher prices, even if it means going into debt to do so.

Disney is simply taking advantage of this change in consumer attitude.

I do disagree that, relative to income, the price of all premium experiences is higher.

Adjusted for income, most luxury hotels are no more expensive than they were decades ago. (Adjusted for inflation, the lovely Maui hotel my DW and I stayed at for our honeymoon cost less for our 25th anniversary.) The same is true for air travel. (Before about 1980, air travel generally was more expensive than today.) Six Flags and other amusement park tickets cost the same (relative to inflation) as they did decades ago.

Big price increases are seen in concert tickets and sporting events. The thing is, these are vastly superior experiences than they once were.

When I (for example) saw U2 in the 1980s, it was a group of guys up on stage playing their instruments. Nowadays, concerts (and Broadway plays) tend to be much larger productions.

I used to go to Red Sox games when bleacher seats were much less than $5. Interesting thing though, Fenway Park was a dump. The seats were old and dilapidated; you got splinters from them all the time. The walkways were dirty with garbage on the ground. Good luck finding a clean toilet. You ate hot dogs, beer, soda, peanuts, and ice cream bars. That was pretty much it. Players rarely made more than $100k. Except for the superstars, many had to supplement their income with off-season work.

MLB (and all sports) have upped their games by leaps and bounds since then. Even today's minor league parks present a better product than MLB did in the 1970s and before.

What disappoints many of us today is that WDW has gone in the opposite direction, higher prices even as commitment to the customer experience has waned.

I don't mind paying more; I mind paying more for a declining product.

 

[Starlight67]

Just out of curiosity I looked up the price of a one day admission ticket in 1989 (the first year I visited.) It was $29.00 and gas was $1.02 a gallon.

I live in New England and paid $2.56/gallon for gas yesterday. Just interesting.

Remember when you could see the Rolling Stones for $25?

Sure do, saw them in Foxboro, MA for about that much in the mid-80's. What a deal, even then!

 

[Willmark]

I don't mind paying more; I mind paying more for a declining product.

Sure at one point Disney was at a peak and has declined relative to cost as you have ably pointed out.

In general I'm a fairly cost insensitive consumer too, but I think this is the salient point or crux of the argument. I'm willing to bet the people who inhabit this board and contemplate such matters are NOT representative of the Disney going crowd in a general. I may very well be wrong as that is just a educated guess. If I had to guess further, a good chunk of posters here are probably fairly affluent and in the Top 3 quartiles of income at least relative to the average park attendee.

Disney is a cost proposition. And when you hear people on the bus talking about how "they put the whole trip on their credit card and will pay it off over 7 years"??? (true story- heard it on our last trip in May of 2017) Now, whether true or not, the fact that its not my business, it does speak to the overall theme of the thread as well. The factor that may somewhat skew value vs cost and attendance (because that effects both is the realtive ease of credit allowing anyone can go, whether or not they can "afford" it is another question. I point this out not for elitist reasons but to highlight the fact that (largely) money or at least delayed payment of a vacation aren't a limiting factor. Back in the 1970s how many people were going on vacation on a credit card? Some but not many.

As to your other point about the inflationary cost it think its a case of "it depends". While costs may have been lower in general and with gas and the like, not everyone had a job or the purchasing power to attend Disney. It can be argued that back then it could have been done by most anyone when strickly looking at prices, but I'm not so sure. Just because prices were cheaper most people didn't have the discretionary income relative to day

For those who want the TLDR version? Its relative

 

[graphite1326]

We have been going since 1996. My favorite era was the late 1990's and early 2000's. BLSRS was open which in my view was a better ride to what was there. AE was still open (my favorite ride). Test Track was open. Wonders of life was still open. Innoventions actually was kind of interesting. AK although there was not much there had opened. The tickets hadn't skyrocketed yet and crowds were nothing like today. This was the time I think was the best value.

That being said, IN MY OPINION, I still think it's a great value. I live on the east coast and recently took a trip out to a place I always wanted to go; Yellowstone National Park. Airfare was out of sight if you flew to a regional airport close to the park. Get this; I had to get my own luggage and rent a car to get around (the nerve). We stayed in a nice place, but no pool and no buses to the park. Really NO BUSES. We were on our own. The park was always crowed at the places to stop and see and they never had enough parking (and get this; no fast pass). Food you had to find at stops along the way and really not overpriced (ya got me there). And at the end of the day, when you are dog tired you still had to drive back to the resort. I'm really not complaining and we had a great time, but the trip cost more than a trip to WDW. This is just a light hearted and poor attempt at humor to put into perspective what you get with a WDW vacation and if you were to go elsewhere.

 

[John]

PO4 freaking nails it......again

 

[ParentsOf4]

Just out of curiosity I looked up the price of a one day admission ticket in 1989 (the first year I visited.) It was $29.00 ...

This ticket price demonstrates the huge price increases Michael Eisner and Frank Wells implemented after they arrived in 1984.

At the beginning of 1984, a one-day ticket was $17. By 1989, it was $29, a 71% increase in 5 years!

It shows why my score for WDW dropped from '100' in 1984 to '92' by 1988.

The score rebounded after that as Eisner and Wells launched a building frenzy unlike any other in the history of WDW. If Eisner had not spent that decade (Disney-MGM Studios opened in 1989, Disney's Animal Kingdom opened in 1998, with a lot built in between) creating the modern WDW, 2017's score would have been much lower than the '87' I gave it.

 

[John]

To those that say...."you are just a bunch of old people sitting around talking about the "good ol' days" is missing the point. Which is fine, you think its a great value. Good, Great for you. I just wonder if DIsney continues it's current model what will you be saying about the place in 10 years. You might be surprised when they will be calling you....the "old people"

 

[eliza61nyc]

To those that say...."you are just a bunch of old people sitting around talking about the "good ol' days" is missing the point. Which is fine, you think its a great value. Good, Great for you. I just wonder if DIsney continues it's current model what will you be saying about the place in 10 years. You might be surprised when they will be calling you....the "old people"

No they won't be calling me the "old people" because if in 3, 5, 10 years I give Disney an F, guess what I don't give Disney my money. Listen Disney world is not a "necessity ". It does not hold the meaning of life. Thousand uoon thousand of Americans never vacation there and manage to live wonderful lives. I don't sit around moaning that they don't make cars like they use to.
So basically from this thread, folks have been going to Disney for decades, complaining that it's lousy and been going down hill for years and yet still forking over the money.

Lol No I assure you I know for certain I won't be one.

I've got 2 trips schedule for this year if either one of them fails to live up to expectations next year I'll be some where else. You guys do realize planes go a million other places don'tcha?

So here's my take, one has to decide on the here and now if Disney is a good vacation value. they are not going back to some "way back" glory days, IP themed attractions are here for now, lack of imagineers and original attraction looks to me the way the mouseworld wants to roll. crowded parks at least for the immediate future will be the norm.

to keep going expecting the 1990 is the textbook definition of insanity. doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

 

[RandySavage]

This ticket price demonstrates the huge price increases Michael Eisner and Frank Wells implemented after they arrived in 1984.

At the beginning of 1984, a one-day ticket was $17. By 1989, it was $29, a 71% increase in 5 years!

It shows why my score for WDW dropped from '100' in 1984 to '92' by 1988.

The score rebounded after that as Eisner and Wells launched a building frenzy unlike any other in the history of WDW. If Eisner had not spent that decade (Disney-MGM Studios opened in 1989, Disney's Animal Kingdom opened in 1998, with a lot built in between) creating the modern WDW, 2017's score would have been much lower than the '87' I gave it.

Very fun (and accurate) chart. I do think the score in the late 80s should be higher (above 95) because despite the big price increases, there were great additions opening regularly and the value, operational state and company ethos were vastly better than what we've come to know in the Pressler & Beyond era.

 

[Dutch Inn '76]

You guys do realize planes go a million other places don'tcha?

That's. It. I don't understand the serial complainers amongst supposed fans. If it's so bad - quit going! Please! There'll be more room for me - AND The Mouse will probably note your discontent and might change the things you're upset about. ...although I'm generally pleased with the place.

 

[RandySavage]

^What I don't understand is the complaining about the "complainers" in this particular thread.

If this were a trip planning forum or thead entitled "Just Got Back and Had a Blast!", where a bunch of people were getting hyped about upcoming and recent WDW trips, then I could understand and even agree with getting annoyed with the wet blanket sentiments.

But why in the world would you want to stifle discussion about the state of the parks past & present in the general discussion forum on a thread dedicated to one person's reasoned analysis? If you disagree with the assessments, make your case.

***

The "If you don't like, quit going!!" is the equivalent of the "If you don't like Policy/Politician X, Y, Z, then shut up and move to Canada!"

If the medium of theme parks is your entertainment/leisure activity of choice, WDW can (and does, IMO) exist at a level significantly below one's perceived baseline or peak value/quality AND still be the most attractive option on the market.

 

[Starlight67]

If this were a trip planning forum or thead entitled "Just Got Back and Had a Blast!", where a bunch of people were getting hyped about upcoming and recent WDW trips, then I could understand and even agree with getting annoyed with the wet blanket sentiments.

Right! After all, there are plenty of 'Yay! Rah Rah,' Disney cheerleading sites out there. I like this forum, seems to be filled with a lot of articulate folks, who know a lot about Disney and simply enjoy a good discussion. I think you can continue to visit Disney, enjoy it, still think it's in overall good value and ALSO like having a spot to come to discuss some of the 'declining by degrees' you notice. That's why I choose to be on this site rather than some others.

(And I laughed at your point about 'moving to Canada'. Remember all those celebrities who swore they would be moving if the presidential election turned out the way it did? They're still hanging around the USA. )

 

[The Empress Lilly]

Kudos to the above posts. This is not the wedding trip planning forum. This thread is not urinating all over some enthusiastic six year old princess' trip report either.

In general, the frustration is that WDW was built so well that even at sixty or forty percent it is still a great place. A bitter fact. That is why we still go and still complain. Plus, apart from a holiday destination, the place is a wee little dorky hobby to some. (A hobby more fun than polishing some machine every Saturday and more sane than killing small animals for sports)

***

If America elects a president I will live in Europe, I swear!
Been my credo ever since the crooks infested the swamp and I will continue to abide by it.