Has DVC Stalled the Parks and Created Complacency in TDO?

[stlbobby]

DHS/MGM- They need to do something. Major. Or stop charging a full day admission to it and halve the price to this park. This park even when it opened was a half day at best. I guess that's why TSM is such a long line. They have to make sure this seems like a full day.

Just because you don't like what is offered it doesn't make DHS a half day park. I always struggle to get through this park in two days. I will refer you to this thread rather than rehash all the salient points made by those posters:

http://forums.wdwmagic.com/threads/am-i-the-only-one-who-loves-hollywood-studios.838913/

 

[awilliams4]

Some Misconceptions.


1) DVC is not a "401(K)" program for Disney - a locked in long term gain. DVC makes NO money off of the yearly dues. They make all of their money off of building and selling resorts. Dues go toward upkeep and the cost of running the DVC - thats it. By law, a timeshare cannot profit off of dues (over the long term). If anything, it is a commitment on Disney's part as well, to keep providing the DVC resport you bought into for the lifetime of your contract. IF they start to slack off, thats what the time share holders meetings are for.

I would suggest that Disney is making a ton of money year to year on MFs and how they are structured.

The front desk at the Contemporary for example (and many other DVC Units that share a Front Desk with a resort) are somewhat paid for by members dues. Say BLT added 40% additional work to the Contemporary Front Desk duties, I doubt Disney added 40% staff. They increased efficientcies, added more workload to their existing staff, etc. Storm Along Bay for example, is no longer paid for by Disney. Owners of BCV now pay for a chunk of it.

I seriously doubt Management Fees that are included within Maintenance Fees are break even.....those fees go to pay salaries to positions that were already there. The Contemporary had one main floor manager (greeter) prior to BLT.........now, they still have one floor manager....and BLT MFs in someway go to pay this position.

DVC is a gold mine for Disney in many ways.

 

[JWG]

Great post and so, so true.

DVCers did NOT keep the lights on in the dark days post-9/11, Floridians (and others from drive-in states) did. Locals especially played a pivotal role. DVC at WDW was about three resorts -- OKW, BW and WLV, I believe ... BCV came a bit after.

But DVC was a tiny piece of the puzzle and its members weren't using points to prevent CBR from being shuttered for a time and PO being closed for over a year.

I hate when folks put untruths out and others choose to believe them ... but I hate ignorance in general.

You don't need to bring me into your demeaning and negative vibe. Check occupancy rates at the DVC resorts versus other hotels late 2001 into 2002 and reveiw the moves that were made related to resorts. Those "locked in" guests who apparently "don't care and come no matter what" were the people in the resorts during that time. And, I bet the spent money outside of the resorts... Were they the only guests, of course not, but they had an impact.

And, having read the commentary our of annual meetings and in other places, they're also some of the pickiest guests, not likely to settle.

 

[awilliams4]

But maintenance costs can change at any time. That means theoretically that Disney can always get more money from DVC members if they choose.

Plus Disney saves money in only having Mousekeeping clean your room every four days. Conversely members aren't paying for Mousekeeping so are they really getting a deal or cost cutting when it comes to that.

Maybe one of the DVC members here can chime in about the maintenance and if I got it correctly.

Maintenance Fees can change at any time but they change based on the increase in costs. Disney Unionized workers may be a raise each year and so a portion of that costs go to owners for those staff that service DVC units. Electricity costs an under budgeted new roof, etc, will raise Maintenance Fees.

Members do pay for Mouse Keeping so not having daily service actually saves members money, not Disney.

We enjoy not having Mouse Keeping ourselves because it creates more of a home away from home feeling. Since we are staying in a big villa, we don't feel pushed out of a squished hotel room and sleep in, eat breakfast, nap, whatever during the day. Whenever I need soap, towels, whatever, I just open my door and look left or right, in the mornings, there is always a cart nearby with anything that I need in it. I return the favor by putting my trash, recyclables in the right place and any dirty towels in the hamper. Of course with the villa, you get your own washer and dryer so you don't even need to go looking for towels if you don't want to.

 

[Kiff]

WDW is far and away better than it was in 1992. It is so much better now than it ever was it is ridiculous to even talk about it as if it were the same entity.

Just because a small group, and yes it is infinitesimally small compared to the number of WDW visitors and fans, of people get together and gripe on the internet reinforcing their own misconceptions does not make it so.

I would agree that it is difficult to compare the WDW of 1992 to the WDW of today since they are very different. I would certainly hesitate to call it "so much better" though. It really depends on what you mean by "better". From your standpoint I would imagine your talking about the resort being "bigger". More parks, hotels, rides and other offerings. From this point of view I would agree for the most part. The MK itself being an exception. After Splash I haven't really seen much to thrill me. In fact removing 20k really made the park take a step back.

I think what you CAN compare is the overall show, upkeep, food options, etc. As an example, you could compare the 1992 BTMR to the newly refurbed and earthquake/falling rock free version. I think most people would take the 1992 version with the main story still intact. Another example would be JII. I think all would agree that the 1992 version would be the better choice. And how about getting a table at a restaurant in world showcase on any given night. Would be nice to do a walkup to a restaurant and actually get in huh?

There are a few examples where improvements have been made. I love the new HM and I'm one of the few who think pooh is a better use of FL space than Toad (although I still think they could of done much more).

That said I am not saying things should revert back to 1992. On the contrary the parks should always be moving forward. While something like Space Mountain may have been smoother in 1992, the overall show would obviously be dated by today's standards. Space should be the showpiece thrill ride for the MK, instead of a rough coaster with limited special effects. But for the purposes of this comparison, if I had to ride a version of Space Mountain it would be the 92 edition. I just can't take the back pain and lets face it, the ride hasn't exactly been kept up to date from a show perspective so the differences are minor.

That is truly the sad part of this whole thing. While WDW may still be top notch for you, when you start comparing apples to apples by breaking things down into their individual components the cracks really do show through. If a majority of attractions or services that existed in 1992 were better than their 2012 counterparts something is seriously wrong. We may have more to do in the parks of 2012 but I would argue that 1992 had more quality over quantity. If they had kept to their own standard we would have both the quantity and quality. A wonderful concept.

 

[googilycub]

I hate when folks put untruths out and others choose to believe them ... but I hate ignorance in general.

If it bothers you do much, you might want to rethink your comment about true 4-5 star resorts not having kitchens. Google Vdara, Cosmopolitain Las Vegas, and the Trump hotel line just to name a few.

 

[flynnibus]

WDW is far and away better than it was in 1992. It is so much better now than it ever was it is ridiculous to even talk about it as if it were the same entity.

That period is used because it predates the stupid changes that happened in the 90s at places like EPCOT... or DHS.. which AREN'T better now then they were back then.

90ish represents when you got most of the expansion - but none of the stupidity and dumbing down that came in the next decade... that we STILL haven't shaken off.

That's why 92ish is far better than it is today. It actually represented the park's earlier identity - not the dumbed down, movie synergy, corner cutting place it became.

 

[Phonedave]

I agree with some of your points, but others I disagree with.

Although DVC may not funnel money away from the parks, it still funnels away resources - like people and decision making. If there are high-level meetings and concentration on DVC (which is obvious at the rate they have been built) - well, those are meetings, brainstorning sessions, reports, and discussions that are not directed at the parks and entertainment. The sudden focus and reliance on DVC has created an unequal balance at the resort. It is obvious that all the effort, concentration, and money (yes, the company is still forking over money to do focus groups, business analysis, paying professionals to handle it all), then all that energy is not going into anything else. After all...there are only so many hours in a day, and only so many people at the top who can give the greenlights.

As far as stepping up their game BECAUSE of DVC? I tend to think the opposite. Those in DVC are locked in, unless they are lucky enough to find someone to buy from them. If Disney announced tomorrow annual passes will be raised to $1,500, and no DVC discount, all perks are wiped out - the vast majority of DVCers will fork it over, because whether they like it or not, they are financially commited already.

If TWDC is like any other company (I assume it is, but I don't work for them) that is not how the business works.

Each business unit is run as a seperate company, and in-company resources are treated as contractor.

Here is an example. My department has an expense budget that we have to fight for each year. We then use that expense budget as necesary. If I feel that systems upgrades are a good invesment I go to our IT department and get an estimate of how much such an upgrade would cost. If I decide I need that upgrade, that portion of my expense budget gets transferred to IT. I don't use up valuable IT resources - they size their department according to their requirments.

There may be one or two key people, such as Joe Rohde being tied up with Aluani, that perform special functions and DVC grabs them, but for the vast majority of action items, there are plenty of resources - or there are always contractors.

Companies do not run by robbing Peter to pay Paul. If DVC is making money and the Parks are loosing money, you do not take money from the DVC to pay for the Parks - that is a quick way to run your company into the ground. You find a way to make the Parks profitable. Unfortunately that seems to have become cut cut cut cut.

As far as DVC members being locked in. Yes, I may have a lower sensitivity to park amdmission increases because of my DVC ownership, but I do have sensitivity. If they raise it enough, or lower their standards I start to book vacations differntly. Instead of maximizing my number of days by using a studio or going on weekdays, I begin to bank points, and then go less often and stay in bigger rooms. Or maybe I go to Vero Beach or Hilton Head. Maybe I save for three years and hit up Hawaii. Trust me, there are many choices. We have a trip booked for the end of the month, and it may be our last for a while - park media is quite expensive already.

-dave

 

[flynnibus]

If TWDC is like any other company (I assume it is, but I don't work for them) that is not how the business works.

Each business unit is run as a seperate company, and in-company resources are treated as contractor.

Here is an example. My department has an expense budget that we have to fight for each year. We then use that expense budget as necesary. If I feel that systems upgrades are a good invesment I go to our IT department and get an estimate of how much such an upgrade would cost. If I decide I need that upgrade, that portion of my expense budget gets transferred to IT. I don't use up valuable IT resources - they size their department according to their requirments.

There may be one or two key people, such as Joe Rohde being tied up with Aluani, that perform special functions and DVC grabs them, but for the vast majority of action items, there are plenty of resources - or there are always contractors.

That is one model - but not the only. It's not uncommon for units to instead operate as profit centers themselves. You have a need, you take it to IT, the IT group has to 'fund' their effort to meet the need, and hence bill you some cost, that is their cost+markup. Peter is making money off Paul's budget. The 'contractor' model.. used even internally.

Others operate with forecasts.. taken from business needs.. fund themselves.. and then digest the workloads taking in priorities. Here, the smaller fish can get screwed because he is constrained by the forecasts and percieved priorities. Simply having money in Peter's budget, doesn't mean Paul necessarily can facilitate it. This is the friendly sibling model. Here you are competing for resources. Doesn't matter how much budget you have, if you rely on another unit to facilitate it without you funding the effort.. you are limited by the other group's capabilities. If you get headcount for 50 new people because you landed a new contract... you typically don't fund your corporate HR and are still limited by their ability to find and process hires.

WDI is a type of resource you can't easily scale up and down because it's not just slave monkey power. They have capacity constraints all up and down the chain that may not scale with your individual project needs. If the model shop can only handle 2 projects at once.. and 4 hit at the same time... they aren't going to double their manpower just for that month to get the models done at their usual rate. So even though WDI may be operating as a contractor to you, until you hit certain economies of scale and time where it's feasible and practical to expand capacity.. you still have great risks of being constrained.

You see it all the time in WDI history when you read about the time when a major park is being developed, and how resources available for other projects are far less than other periods.

Second, about being independent units.. they are.. but when it comes to where they report.. they are one family (Parks&Resorts) and at that level the bosses may be slamming Peter because Paul looks better on the magazine cover. They are independent at the lower levels, but at the level exposed to investors, they are siblings and must work together.

 

[Phonedave]

I would suggest that Disney is making a ton of money year to year on MFs and how they are structured.

The front desk at the Contemporary for example (and many other DVC Units that share a Front Desk with a resort) are somewhat paid for by members dues. Say BLT added 40% additional work to the Contemporary Front Desk duties, I doubt Disney added 40% staff. They increased efficientcies, added more workload to their existing staff, etc. Storm Along Bay for example, is no longer paid for by Disney. Owners of BCV now pay for a chunk of it.

I seriously doubt Management Fees that are included within Maintenance Fees are break even.....those fees go to pay salaries to positions that were already there. The Contemporary had one main floor manager (greeter) prior to BLT.........now, they still have one floor manager....and BLT MFs in someway go to pay this position.

DVC is a gold mine for Disney in many ways.

They have to be very careful about it.

If a company skirts the GAAP and gets smacked for it, thats one thing. But to play fast and loose with GAAP and then be found out you are "overbilling" customers is another - a mess of bad PR.

I am not privy to the external auditor that goes over the DVC books each year, but I know there is one.

The example about the Greeter - sure, that makes sense - if that is how it works. However my guess is charges are performed at much more aggregated level. Front desk services for the Contomorary cost $1M last year. DVC comprised 10% of the guests, so the DVC portion is $100,000

-dave

 

[Phonedave]

That is one model - but not the only. It's not uncommon for units to instead operate as profit centers themselves. You have a need, you take it to IT, the IT group has to 'fund' their effort to meet the need, and hence bill you some cost, that is their cost+markup. Peter is making money off Paul's budget. The 'contractor' model.. used even internally.

Others operate with forecasts.. taken from business needs.. fund themselves.. and then digest the workloads taking in priorities. Here, the smaller fish can get screwed because he is constrained by the forecasts and percieved priorities. Simply having money in Peter's budget, doesn't mean Paul necessarily can facilitate it. This is the friendly sibling model. Here you are competing for resources. Doesn't matter how much budget you have, if you rely on another unit to facilitate it without you funding the effort.. you are limited by the other group's capabilities. If you get headcount for 50 new people because you landed a new contract... you typically don't fund your corporate HR and are still limited by their ability to find and process hires.

WDI is a type of resource you can't easily scale up and down because it's not just slave monkey power. They have capacity constraints all up and down the chain that may not scale with your individual project needs. If the model shop can only handle 2 projects at once.. and 4 hit at the same time... they aren't going to double their manpower just for that month to get the models done at their usual rate. So even though WDI may be operating as a contractor to you, until you hit certain economies of scale and time where it's feasible and practical to expand capacity.. you still have great risks of being constrained.

You see it all the time in WDI history when you read about the time when a major park is being developed, and how resources available for other projects are far less than other periods.

Second, about being independent units.. they are.. but when it comes to where they report.. they are one family (Parks&Resorts) and at that level the bosses may be slamming Peter because Paul looks better on the magazine cover. They are independent at the lower levels, but at the level exposed to investors, they are siblings and must work together.

As I said, I am not privy to the inner workings of TWDC - I don't know exactly what model they use. It may be the friendly sibling model, and if that is indeed the case, it can put operational constraints on project.

Yeah, I get that you can't scale up and down WDI at the drop of a hat, but really, the glory days of WDI are over. There was indeed a time when WDi was cutting edge and developed many items in-house, that NOBODY was working on anywhere else. While it is not "money work" it is no longer "exclusive work". Just like at one time Bell Labs used generate Earth shattering products, they too are "nothing special" (on a personal note I think the shuttering or cutting of research wings of compaines is killin inovation in the US). Of course there are people in WDI that are "dipped in the Disney sauce" and know the ins and outs of operating in that environment, but there are also a host of tasks that can also be offloaded to contractor. Flexible workforce has been a mantra in business for quite some time now (again, on a personal note - I don't agree 100% that it is the best thing going)

I do know that on a balance sheet DVC gets rolled into the same line as parks, but when it comes down to internal budgets and such, the differences will out. To a degree it is good that they are together because they both have skin in the same game. One hand washes the other, and both wash the face. But with the money DVC is hauuling in, they are not the reason that the parks are being neglected.

-dave

 

[stlbobby]

I would agree that it is difficult to compare the WDW of 1992 to the WDW of today since they are very different. I would certainly hesitate to call it "so much better" though. It really depends on what you mean by "better". From your standpoint I would imagine your talking about the resort being "bigger". More parks, hotels, rides and other offerings. From this point of view I would agree for the most part. The MK itself being an exception. After Splash I haven't really seen much to thrill me. In fact removing 20k really made the park take a step back.

I think what you CAN compare is the overall show, upkeep, food options, etc. As an example, you could compare the 1992 BTMR to the newly refurbed and earthquake/falling rock free version. I think most people would take the 1992 version with the main story still intact. Another example would be JII. I think all would agree that the 1992 version would be the better choice. And how about getting a table at a restaurant in world showcase on any given night. Would be nice to do a walkup to a restaurant and actually get in huh?

There are a few examples where improvements have been made. I love the new HM and I'm one of the few who think pooh is a better use of FL space than Toad (although I still think they could of done much more).

That said I am not saying things should revert back to 1992. On the contrary the parks should always be moving forward. While something like Space Mountain may have been smoother in 1992, the overall show would obviously be dated by today's standards. Space should be the showpiece thrill ride for the MK, instead of a rough coaster with limited special effects. But for the purposes of this comparison, if I had to ride a version of Space Mountain it would be the 92 edition. I just can't take the back pain and lets face it, the ride hasn't exactly been kept up to date from a show perspective so the differences are minor.

That is truly the sad part of this whole thing. While WDW may still be top notch for you, when you start comparing apples to apples by breaking things down into their individual components the cracks really do show through. If a majority of attractions or services that existed in 1992 were better than their 2012 counterparts something is seriously wrong. We may have more to do in the parks of 2012 but I would argue that 1992 had more quality over quantity. If they had kept to their own standard we would have both the quantity and quality. A wonderful concept.

I disagree that we have sacrificed quality for quantity. To take your example Space Mountain, after it's most recent refurb, is way better than it ever was. Space was always a jerky old school roller coaster. I don't believe it is any rougher today than it was in '92. As for JII I don't think the current version is better, but I also don't think it s really worse. I think the quality is actually better now. The classic rides are just as good as ever and the new stuff is outstanding.

This goes back to my original point. the cynical assumption of this thread, and many others, is that WDW is worse and I disagree. I think it is better in both quality and quantity. There are a ton more E-ticket rides, a greater variety of experiences, and a vast array of atmosphere's to enjoy. I think all of those things are imagined and maintained at an extremely high level. It has grown and maintained it's quality. It is also myopic to look at only park expansion as bettering WDW. Everytime a new resort opens a whole new experience is available to guests.

Finally, to say the quality of WDW has plummeted because you can't walk-up and eat at a restaurant is ridiculous for several reasons. First, the restaurants are busy because the parks are busy. If, as you contend, the quality were dropping so drastically, the crowds would not continue to grow. Second, if overcrowded restaurants is really a quality problem and you are going to blame TDO, then you should applaud the creation of DVC resorts, because all of the new DVC resorts add a restaurant or two and the DVC expansions are often connected to restaurant refub and expansion of the existing resort. DVC is the best way to alleviate restaurant overcrowding. Thirdly, the restaurant situation isn't as bad as people make it out to be. There are always walk-up tables, they may not be exactly where you want to eat, but there are great places to eat with open tables every night at WDW.

 

[Kiff]

I disagree that we have sacrificed quality for quantity. To take your example Space Mountain, after it's most recent refurb, is way better than it ever was. Space was always a jerky old school roller coaster. I don't believe it is any rougher today than it was in '92. As for JII I don't think the current version is better, but I also don't think it s really worse. I think the quality is actually better now. The classic rides are just as good as ever and the new stuff is outstanding.

This goes back to my original point. the cynical assumption of this thread, and many others, is that WDW is worse and I disagree. I think it is better in both quality and quantity. There are a ton more E-ticket rides, a greater variety of experiences, and a vast array of atmosphere's to enjoy. I think all of those things are imagined and maintained at an extremely high level. It has grown and maintained it's quality. It is also myopic to look at only park expansion as bettering WDW. Everytime a new resort opens a whole new experience is available to guests.

Finally, to say the quality of WDW has plummeted because you can't walk-up and eat at a restaurant is ridiculous for several reasons. First, the restaurants are busy because the parks are busy. If, as you contend, the quality were dropping so drastically, the crowds would not continue to grow. Second, if overcrowded restaurants is really a quality problem and you are going to blame TDO, then you should applaud the creation of DVC resorts, because all of the new DVC resorts add a restaurant or two and the DVC expansions are often connected to restaurant refub and expansion of the existing resort. DVC is the best way to alleviate restaurant overcrowding. Thirdly, the restaurant situation isn't as bad as people make it out to be. There are always walk-up tables, they may not be exactly where you want to eat, but there are great places to eat with open tables every night at WDW.

I guess agree to disagree on Space. I may be getting cynical in my old age, but man a ride down SM really does tax me. Perhaps things like ride changes is a bad comparison since someone may see a classic while others will see an old hunk of junk. Upkeep I think should be universal between us all. Something like the maintenance issues on Dinosaur or EE is easily recognized and I would think that would put a dent in your "maintained at an extremely high level" comment. Shouldn't Disney quality dictate that these issues should be addressed in a timely manner? Other small show items like the burning shack on TSI and numerous water effects being switched off around the MK should fall into this category. These may be small when looked at individually but they sure add up once you start counting. The Grand Floridian with half it's bulbs burned out may not cause you to cancel your next vacation but surely you can't prefer it that way. I see no harm in calling a spade a spade and discussing these items here. Even if Disney was doing a great job with WDW (which is an opinion we obviously differ on) I think all can agree that there are things Disney can do better. Why not call them on it and try and make the resort a better place?

To go slightly back on topic, I think DVC may be a contributing factor to the current state of WDW but I have the feeling that without it TDO would still be surviving on the legacy as opposed to any new park spending.

Sometime in the 2002/2003 timeframe I had a brief discussion with a DVC owner about what the coming expansion of the program would mean for WDW. At the time we thought it might create a group of guests similar to Disneyland local AP holders. A group that required Disney to constantly update their product. How wrong I was....

 

[flynnibus]

I disagree that we have sacrificed quality for quantity. To take your example Space Mountain, after it's most recent refurb, is way better than it ever was. Space was always a jerky old school roller coaster. I don't believe it is any rougher today than it was in '92. As for JII I don't think the current version is better, but I also don't think it s really worse. I think the quality is actually better now. The classic rides are just as good as ever and the new stuff is outstanding.

It's obvious you don't have sufficient reference points to compare if you are going to say things like Imagination pavilion is not worse than the original.. and classic rides are as good as ever. EPCOT and DHS alone are screaming in your face over how far things have plummeted.

You really should invest some time and watch videos from Jeff Lange and Martin's (free online - http://www.martinsvids.net/ ). Virtually every attraction in FutureWorld is a neutered version of it's past. DHS.. great movie ride.. the hat... the backlot... all pathetic compared to where they used to be.

Then we can get on about changes to characters... Diamond horse shoe... parades... lack of upkeep of show effects, etc.

You seem pleased about some of the large additions.. yes, those are nice - but when one talks about show quality, park identities, cohesion, cleaning, and much much more... it's the pits. No one in their right mind would look at the Futureworld of EPCOT today and say overall it's better than 92ish unless you are just a ride hopping teenager.

This goes back to my original point. the cynical assumption of this thread, and many others, is that WDW is worse and I disagree. I think it is better in both quality and quantity.

I think you should do a bit more research and learn what the park actually was like.

It is also myopic to look at only park expansion as bettering WDW

Then why do you put so much weight into new attractions as the reason why the park is demonstratably better in your eyes while the very principles that Disney established it's greatness on falter?

Finally, to say the quality of WDW has plummeted because you can't walk-up and eat at a restaurant is ridiculous for several reasons. First, the restaurants are busy because the parks are busy. If, as you contend, the quality were dropping so drastically, the crowds would not continue to grow.

It's amazing what happens when you give people something for 'free'.... The resturant crowding isn't happening at the same pace as the park attendance growth.. so it's not just 'the parks are busy'.

Second, if overcrowded restaurants is really a quality problem and you are going to blame TDO, then you should applaud the creation of DVC resorts, because all of the new DVC resorts add a restaurant or two and the DVC expansions are often connected to restaurant refub and expansion of the existing resort. DVC is the best way to alleviate restaurant overcrowding

Excuse me while I clean my drink off my monitor.. as I just spit my drink out after reading that.

 

[stlbobby]

It's obvious you don't have sufficient reference points to compare if you are going to say things like Imagination pavilion is not worse than the original.. and classic rides are as good as ever. EPCOT and DHS alone are screaming in your face over how far things have plummeted.

You really should invest some time and watch videos from Jeff Lange and Martin's (free online - http://www.martinsvids.net/ ). Virtually every attraction in FutureWorld is a neutered version of it's past. DHS.. great movie ride.. the hat... the backlot... all pathetic compared to where they used to be.

Then we can get on about changes to characters... Diamond horse shoe... parades... lack of upkeep of show effects, etc.

You seem pleased about some of the large additions.. yes, those are nice - but when one talks about show quality, park identities, cohesion, cleaning, and much much more... it's the pits. No one in their right mind would look at the Futureworld of EPCOT today and say overall it's better than 92ish unless you are just a ride hopping teenager.



I think you should do a bit more research and learn what the park actually was like.



Then why do you put so much weight into new attractions as the reason why the park is demonstratably better in your eyes while the very principles that Disney established it's greatness on falter?



It's amazing what happens when you give people something for 'free'.... The resturant crowding isn't happening at the same pace as the park attendance growth.. so it's not just 'the parks are busy'.



Excuse me while I clean my drink off my monitor.. as I just spit my drink out after reading that.

I do not appreciate your tone or personal attacks. I do not need perspective or information. I have been a regular guest at WDW since the late 80's. I have had as many as four vacations in a 12 month period. The longest I have gone without going to a park was just over 15 months, I was in Iraq protecting your right of free speech so you could use that right to attack me on the internet.

You, just like all of the other gripers on this forum and around the internet continue to confuse your personal opinion of things with facts. JII is not empirically worse. I like it better because I never like the Dreamfinder character, but I am smart enough to realize that is my opinion of two versions of the ride not a triumph on TDO's part, just as you disliking the new version does not constitute a failure. You will easily find dozens of people to defend you position on both JII and WDW in this echo chamber, but as I have said you are in the sad small minority. More and more people go to the parks all the time and more and more people enjoy their vacations. The vast majority love the newer aspects, meet and greets, interactivity, etc., and just because you and few vocal naysayers stomp you feet and hold your breath doesn't make your opinions facts.

DVC isn't destroying WDW because WDW is bigger and better than ever.

 

[stlbobby]

I guess agree to disagree on Space. I may be getting cynical in my old age, but man a ride down SM really does tax me. Perhaps things like ride changes is a bad comparison since someone may see a classic while others will see an old hunk of junk. Upkeep I think should be universal between us all. Something like the maintenance issues on Dinosaur or EE is easily recognized and I would think that would put a dent in your "maintained at an extremely high level" comment. Shouldn't Disney quality dictate that these issues should be addressed in a timely manner? Other small show items like the burning shack on TSI and numerous water effects being switched off around the MK should fall into this category. These may be small when looked at individually but they sure add up once you start counting. The Grand Floridian with half it's bulbs burned out may not cause you to cancel your next vacation but surely you can't prefer it that way. I see no harm in calling a spade a spade and discussing these items here. Even if Disney was doing a great job with WDW (which is an opinion we obviously differ on) I think all can agree that there are things Disney can do better. Why not call them on it and try and make the resort a better place?

To go slightly back on topic, I think DVC may be a contributing factor to the current state of WDW but I have the feeling that without it TDO would still be surviving on the legacy as opposed to any new park spending.

Sometime in the 2002/2003 timeframe I had a brief discussion with a DVC owner about what the coming expansion of the program would mean for WDW. At the time we thought it might create a group of guests similar to Disneyland local AP holders. A group that required Disney to constantly update their product. How wrong I was....

Again I disagree. I do not think maintenance is any worse than it ever was. I always saw small things that did not work here and there. Still the parks are amazingly clean the gardens are well tended, and the vast majority of the attractions work without a hitch. When I have noticed things in the past they are almost always repaired by next visit. I will admit Splash seems in need of some love right now, but I expect a big refurb in the offing and it will restored, just like things went in 1993 or 2003.

If it seems things are worse now than in the past I submit it is for a couple of reasons that have nothing to do with DVC and little to do with TDO. First, you are noticing more because as you and others visit repeatedly you are more aware of certain details. In the past if a particular effect was down a casual visitor most likely didn't even know. Now you are missing something you know should be there, and with familiarity a bit of the awe has subsided so you can see deficiencies you would have missed in the past.

Second, you are now involved in this, and possibly other, Disney communities, and even if you try and avoid it you are inundated with every minor hic-cup. So you see the issues. You are more apt to look for broken effects. I do it unconsciously and I really make an effort to stay out of the gripe threads.

Third, you may see more things down because there are more things to see. I guarantee the number of effects and displays at WDW has increased by at least a factor of ten, if not 100, in the last twenty years. So in the past if one out of every 100 things had an issue you saw maybe a handful, but now when you visit if that same ratio is maintained you are seeing dozens of more things out of place.

Finally, if maintenance is an issue, which I am not saying it is, but if it is, isn't much more likely that just the scope of the undertaking is so much bigger now that is the issue not DVC. Just ten years ago there were really slow seasons where the parks closed early and maintenance had many hours to make repairs. Now there is no slow season and during the busy season MK can run 20 hours a day. Additionally there is exponentially more to attend to. More gardens, more effects, more shows, more rides, more rooms, more restaurants, more buses, more boats, more shops. I think the shear size and the much higher attendance are much larger contributing factors than DVC.

 

[JWG]

I do not appreciate your tone or personal attacks. I do not need perspective or information. I have been a regular guest at WDW since the late 80's. I have had as many as four vacations in a 12 month period. The longest I have gone without going to a park was just over 15 months, I was in Iraq protecting your right of free speech so you could use that right to attack me on the internet.

You, just like all of the other gripers on this forum and around the internet continue to confuse your personal opinion of things with facts. JII is not empirically worse. I like it better because I never like the Dreamfinder character, but I am smart enough to realize that is my opinion of two versions of the ride not a triumph on TDO's part, just as you disliking the new version does not constitute a failure. You will easily find dozens of people to defend you position on both JII and WDW in this echo chamber, but as I have said you are in the sad small minority. More and more people go to the parks all the time and more and more people enjoy their vacations. The vast majority love the newer aspects, meet and greets, interactivity, etc., and just because you and few vocal naysayers stomp you feet and hold your breath doesn't make your opinions facts.

DVC isn't destroying WDW because WDW is bigger and better than ever.

While I disagree on Imagination (and I somehow managed to miss v2 and only know v1 and v3) and feel the fact that on Epcot's busiest days, it still enjoys a 10 minute max line suggests most would agree - I do appreciate your opinions on the parks. I've always felt that Disney will never live up to any standard because we all have fond memories of what things were and that opinion distorts over time. I remember, for instance, the steps up to the Mexico pavilion being like two stories way back - somehow they've shrunk.

Many people prefer Irons version of SSE, I perfer Kronkite (I'm a bit older than the average internet geek). I could go on and on.

The reality is, WDW is still leaps ahead of the average Six Flags (though at the price difference you'd expect so). But, they're also behind their brother and sister parks around the globe which is disappointing. I haven't been to DL since 1996, I'd love to get back to get a personal comparison of Anaheim to Orlando.

And I don't think any of this is the fault of DVC.

 

[stlbobby]

I want to relate a quick story about the amazing job TDO does keeping the magic alive at WDW. I was staying at SS in December 2010 when an unexpected freeze descended. Literally thousands of plants died overnight. I was amazed when I went for my early morning run to see the armies of cast members replanting gardens in SS, Downtown, and on the golf course. They had truckloads of replacement plants ready to go and in the ground just after sunrise.

By the time my family and I were catching the bus for rope drop the resort had essentially been restored. When we got to the parks we saw a handful of gardeners toiling away, but by lunch there was no evidence of the previous night's devastation. To this day it is hard for me to comprehend the logistical nightmare that must have been and how seamlessly it was executed.

That is what I think of when I think of WDW service, maintenance, and magic. Sure I'm sniffing the pixie dust; because I see it happen all the time. It is why I go back.

 

[stlbobby]

While I disagree on Imagination (and I somehow managed to miss v2 and only know v1 and v3) and feel the fact that on Epcot's busiest days, it still enjoys a 10 minute max line suggests most would agree - I do appreciate your opinions on the parks. I've always felt that Disney will never live up to any standard because we all have fond memories of what things were and that opinion distorts over time. I remember, for instance, the steps up to the Mexico pavilion being like two stories way back - somehow they've shrunk.

Many people prefer Irons version of SSE, I perfer Kronkite (I'm a bit older than the average internet geek). I could go on and on.

The reality is, WDW is still leaps ahead of the average Six Flags (though at the price difference you'd expect so). But, they're also behind their brother and sister parks around the globe which is disappointing. I haven't been to DL since 1996, I'd love to get back to get a personal comparison of Anaheim to Orlando.

And I don't think any of this is the fault of DVC.

I prefer Kronkite too, but what I realize, and believe from your tone, you do to, is that just because I liked it better doesn't mean the change is a TDO failure. I even think I might have grown to hate the Kronkite version had it lingered to this day. And while I'm not wild about the descent of SSE as it is. I can separate my opinion from an indictment of TDO.

 

[stlbobby]

Another major aspect of the evolution of WDW that is overlooked by the naysayers, generally because they don't personally like the new stuff, is all the parks offer a much wider variety of experiences now than in the past. When MK opened, and for years afterward, it was basically just dark rides, roller coasters, midway rides, and shows. Now there is all of that plus meet 'n greets, immersive 3D movies, fairytale makeovers, interactive arcade rides, interactive character academy shows, and interactive real time animation shows. There is a much greater variety of things for guests to do. Guests with a wide array of tastes can all find something they love.

The gripers look at all that variety and say, "Things are worse, because there is less of what I like," or "TDO spent money on something and I hate it. They are failures." But everyone has to remember just because something doesn't appeal to you doesn't mean it is a failure because there is a segment of the WDW population that likes it, or maybe even loves it.

I was walking into future world one day the family in front of me had several excited little boys and one of them pleaded with his mother to go see, "the ride where Stitch does hot dog farts." All of the other boys chimed-in in agreement. Now I know SGE is one of the most maligned attractions, and I wouldn't say it is anywhere near the top of my list, but clearly there is an audience for "Stitch hot dog farts." It's a big place let everyone have there experience.