The Spirited 8th Wonder (WDW's Future & You!)

[Crazydisneyfanluke]

I would love to stay on site. My problem is the prices. It's not that I can't afford it, but I appreciate getting value for my money. Disney hasn't been able to make me feel like I am getting value for what they are offering. That was the hotels, but it is also hard to feel that way about the parks too.

I don't know what it will take for them to wake up...but until they do they have lost me. Never been to Disneyland or done a Disney Cruise, I guess it is time to explore more things.

This is how i feel as well. I might go to MNSSHP in Sept, but im wanting to plan a trip to SoCal for next year. WDW isnt worth the money anymore....

 

[sweetpee_1993]

"The cost should be under $50,000 a room."
That would be for a Studio and I assume or $150,000 for a 2 bedroom.
I reckon you are out by a country mile on the costs.

No, $50k per room is a safe number. 2 bedroom conversion definitely well under $100k. Unless they do this in US government style then the sky is the limit as dozens enjoy the gravy train.

 

[ABQ]

Fun fact the Cozy Cone Motel from the movie Cars were based of these.

Edit: They were actually based on the wygwogm motels( similar design as these )

This is what you were referring too, these are in Holbrook, AZ, not far off Rt66. Don't see any way possible they could make anything even remotely similar to this work @ the WL and I pray as was mentioned by others that cooler heads prevail and they come to their senses soon.

 

[Rodan75]

The next DVC resort, well after Disney finishes construction of Disney's Polynesian Village Resort and Villas isn't the FW/RC site (although it still is in long term plans according to someone with knowledge of DVC's future), it also isn't the EPCOT resort (although that too is still in the future plans) and it isn't the Hollywood-themed resort near WWoS (this one is likely as dead as the one they announced for the site that now is Golden Oak and the Four Seasons).

Nope, the next WDW DVC Resort is ... the WL.

Honestly it kinda makes sense for a single sided business perspective, the WL is insanely popular with DVC guests .

 

[sshindel]

So, I have 2 questions that have been coming to mind based on some of the info that has been dropped here by @WDW1974 that maybe some of you fine folks, and perhaps 74 himself, could offer some insight into.

Edit: I think I'll break this up into 2 posts for ease of response

1) Regarding the DVC conversion.
So, in assuming that they have decided to take a percent of an existing deluxe resort and convert this to DVC, that means somewhere, some analytic minded person has had to have crunched some numbers to present to business. If the going assumption was that hotel occupancy is dropping, but the demand for DVC is high enough that it remains a more profitable alternative, then someone had to do the following math comparison.

Option 1: Compute the cost of the conversion, taking into account the potential loss of income of the regular hotel space (given existing occupancy rates and average room rates), the reduce in Mousekeeping wages (since DVC doesn't have daily service), the cost of the actual construction itself, any new staff that will be needed to service DVC members specific (likely a very small number), and any other costs associated with the maintenance and upkeep of DVC rooms as they compare to hotel rooms (is it more, or less?).

Option 2: Given the current occupancy rate compared against competition in the area, model different pricing scenarios. If we reduced the price of our deluxe resorts by 5%, we could realistically expect to pull in X number of new guests, which would calculate out to $Y per year in added revenue. Now run it for 6%, 10%, etc.

So, taking both option 1 and 2 into account, somehow the cost of gut-rehabbing the resorts to switch to a more DVC centric business model made more financial sense.

My questions then: Does this mean that they have little to no confidence in their ability to draw new/more business over an extended period of time by reducing the rates, so much so that they'll swallow a much larger upfront cost of conversion? Has the market already shifted past a point in WDW where they expect that drawing more people to stay at their hotels is now too difficult that the much simpler route of adjusting the pricing model is the less appealing option? Has the competition (both Uni as well as other 3rd party resorts) just outside the gates put too many well-appointed options in the vicinity that they've lost the competitive edge to the point of waving the white flag on it?

 

[sshindel]

Continued
2) @WDW1974 dropped the note about Disney management at the highest levels knowing about Potter 2.0 well before it even broke ground. In my mind that puts it back years ago when it was being blue-skied.

Is it more likely (and I'm honestly asking this) that Disney is operating under the assumption that even with Potter 2.0 added, Universal is not worth competing with OR are they operating under the "A rising tide lifts all boats" model? Are they really thinking they do not need to respond or are they bouyed by the fact that their park attendance and profits are still raising while Uni has been expanding its offerings, so they have no need to respond because while they might be losing a day or two to Universal for a percentage of their guests, the draw of Potter has brought ENOUGH new people to the Orlando area that they are covering (or increasing) their lost profits by people coming to Orlando for Uni and "giving" a day to Disney in return?

Note: I am not trying to turn this into Uni vs. Disney, I'm more interested in the opinion on the thoughts of Disney Management and why they might decide to be so slow to react. Are they truly clueless or are they operating under a set of assumptions that (while they may turn out to be false) lead them to believe that they are actually gaining from Universal's expansion without having to do anything themselves?

 

[awilliams4]

And this is why you are not likely to ever see a full DVC member revolt.

As a DVC member, I get this. I am selfishly excited about the idea of more rooms at the WL. I know it’s a problem. I know it leads to lack of investment in the parks. Logically, I know it’s likely a bad thing for the company. But still, I’ll be happy I have more options, have a blast staying at the added hotels, and then carry a guilt complex about it the rest of the year until my next trip.

I am not sure I see it as a problem. If plenty of investment goes into the resorts, to us that is still WDW investing in our vacation experience. If Disney is having occupancy problems and more DVC helps with that, I don't see it as bad for the company. They are just reacting to the current reality. For all we know, Universal is building into the same problem that Disney is in now and they just haven't learned the lesson that Disney is already learning. Maybe that one time/2 time visitors staying at your on-site hotel room is just not the business of the future for a vacation destination. Creating a product that includes customers that are wanting to come once or more a year for decades on end is the market they are after. Not sure that is a bad business decision. They are just changing the demographic they are focusing on.

 

[xdan0920]

And this is why you are not likely to ever see a full DVC member revolt.

As a DVC member, I get this. I am selfishly excited about the idea of more rooms at the WL. I know it’s a problem. I know it leads to lack of investment in the parks. Logically, I know it’s likely a bad thing for the company. But still, I’ll be happy I have more options, have a blast staying at the added hotels, and then carry a guilt complex about it the rest of the year until my next trip.

Do you typically have any issue getting a room at VWL? Maybe I have just been lucky, I don't know.

 

[Soarin' Over Pgh]

So lets say it hits 2042 ( so I was a little out by three years) and Disney refuses to renew any contract that expires that year. Can they not legally? Or is it more theorised as "well we can still sell it and collect the maintenance so it doesn't cost us a thing"?

A question I've been wondering myself for a while now. So what happens when the current DVC contracts expire? Has anyone put any type of thought into that?

I receive flyers from a community in the NC mountains trying to sell us property there. Here is a picture of one of the amenities they offer. I think it looks great. They did a nice job blending it into the environment. However, I can't picture them being built over the water, as Spirit mentioned.

I just can't see how this would fit on the water and (be fully air conditioned, because, Florida) look attractive. That hammock looks nice, however.



As for DVC, I'm surprised they haven't considered a DVC-only Star Wars themed hotel. If they're not going to do anything with the IP in the parks, they might as well dump it into the cashcow's feed trough, don't you think? And technically... couldn't they get away with a Marvel one as well?

This really is good news (I know, I know) for me. Because I've already decided that the next WDW vacation I take will include renting someones points, and further cuts down on how much I'm giving Disney and also gives me an awesome rate versus Disney rack rates or having to downgrade to a 'cheaper' hotel. That is, if I don't decide on offsite or at Universal, which is also being considered.

 

[DonaldDoleWhip]

WDW is owned by The Walt Disney Company, a US based company that has been highly profitable for the last 20 years or so.

DLP is owned by Euro Disney SCA, a company that has been on the edge of bankruptcy for at least the last 10 years.

While I knew both of those facts already, average resort guests at either destination often don't. Most people view all the Disney destinations as falling under the "Disney" umbrella, and one does a comparatively better job representing the Disney brand (in this case, that's WDW).

WDW does take care of its hotels for the most part - I don't think maintenance is WDW's weakness when management chooses to exert effort (and they often do, since each hotel receives room updates every 5-7 years, pool refurbs, and exterior work). Rather, the criticism should be focused on this overarching strategy that insists on adding a DVC wing and water play area wherever they could possibly fit, as well as the poor maintenance that the parks have received. Carousel of Progress, Peter Pan's Flight, Imagination, Universe of Energy; clearly maintenance is a different story once we start considering WDW's attractions.

I don't think we should give them credit for doing things they should be doing anyway. Especially when it seems they only do the absolute minimum at that.

My feeling about WDW's hotel maintenance is that they neither deserve praise nor criticism for it. They do it, and sometimes they do it better than the other Disney destinations worldwide. (Having stayed in typical Wilderness Lodge and Grand Californian rooms, for example, I'd say WL's are nicer after their 2012 refurb.) Yes, WDW sometimes drops the ball, such as the new room designs at GF and Boardwalk Inn (so much blander), but taking care of the resorts hasn't been their major problem. It's the parks that need attention (COP might be the in-park equivalent of a rotting hotel), as well as this DVC-based strategy that keeps leeching off the existing resorts.

 

[Sabriel]

True Spirited Tale: in 1997 I spent six nights at Coronado Springs on an AP rate with a sibling. We were going to drive home that night but after a long day at EPCOT, neither one of us felt like doing the 3 1/2 trek down the Turnpike (it's not a fun drive!) We went back to CSR and explained the situation ... we had to get two managers (one who wasn't on-site) who somehow reopened our folio and simply added a night (albeit in a different room) at the same $84 rate we had paid for the other nights. It literally took 70 minutes when the resort was a quarter empty and all rooms were in service.

I don't know if it's an issue specific to booking from the front desk, but I was successfully able to extend my stay by calling from my room on more than one occasion, and at least one of those times, it was the morning I was due to check out. Of course, that was years ago, I wouldn't dream of doing it now in the era of MM+ and MDE.

 

[Lucky]

Now maybe i'm missing something, but I just don't see how this will make your future stays at the WL less than prior ones. Just because rooms have been converted to DVC doesn't mean you can't still pay with cash and the rooms are going to be upgraded! How is that a bad thing? And as @ParentsOf4 has pointed out multiple times, renting points can find you extreme steals.

It's true that DVC and non-DVC are not entirely different markets. Converting rooms to DVC doesn't have the same impact on non-DVC availability and prices as eliminating rooms (e.g. razing buildings and not replacing them) would.

But they're not perfect substitutes either. There will be some impact on non-DVC availability and pricing.

 

[Gomer]

Do you typically have any issue getting a room at VWL? Maybe I have just been lucky, I don't know.

I have. I've only been successful at the 7 month mark once out of 3 tries. And that time, I ended up having to split my stay due to lack of availability for the entire week. Maybe I just have bad luck.

 

[Lee]

@WDW1974 So the those beautiful plans for the WL/RC DVC that leaked out a few months ago... the ones that almost made me think the WDC, in 2014, could still do "wow me" architecture... Those are dead?

Sigh. This is the worst kind of abusive relationship.

If I may...
Those plans aren't dead, they are just on hold for now.

 

[flynnibus]

DVC does offer room service and you can still go to the spa, same as the hotels. I don't see why that would change.

If your rooms have kitchens in them... What do you think your attach rate is for room service vs a room without a kitchenette? If only a fraction of your rooms use a service vs the economies of scale you gain when every room is the same, you will be less inclined to invest or expand that service. You also gloss over the different customer demographic,etc. the point being when you make a hotel's customer base smaller, you typically hurt the hotel.

Never mind the whole story of a captive audience vs having to compete on the open market.

Dvc robs peter to pay Paul.... And reducing the number of people staying as a nightly resort will stunt its efforts to compete as a world class hotel and resort.

 

[PREMiERdrum]

If I may...
Those plans aren't dead, they are just on hold for now.

Like most good plans from these folks... they stay on the shelf.

Thanks for the answer!

Harumpf.

 

[baymenxpac]

They can't. And that's the problem.

From 1991-2000, DVC amounted to four resorts, two of which were not even at WDW, one not even in the state of Florida. Since then ... well, take a look. I know DVCers hate this, but the increase in their ranks has come right along with the Walmarting of WDW and the parks getting stale and neglected. I wish the DVC rank and file started a campaign to bring change to WDW. I'd certainly help them. But I get the feeling that even those unhappy, the ones who stay at WDW but visit UNI instead, just are apathetic about things.

just want to chime in on this: not me.

i agree that DVC expansion has made WDW increasingly walmarted, and believe it should have largely stayed at OKW. i can't even believe when people tell me they're buying GF or BLT points. WHY?!?!

if you want to help organize and army of DVCers fighting for a better WDW, count me in as a top lieutenant!

 

[Gomer]

I am not sure I see it as a problem. If plenty of investment goes into the resorts, to us that is still WDW investing in our vacation experience. If Disney is having occupancy problems and more DVC helps with that, I don't see it as bad for the company. They are just reacting to the current reality. For all we know, Universal is building into the same problem that Disney is in now and they just haven't learned the lesson that Disney is already learning. Maybe that one time/2 time visitors staying at your on-site hotel room is just not the business of the future for a vacation destination. Creating a product that includes customers that are wanting to come once or more a year for decades on end is the market they are after. Not sure that is a bad business decision. They are just changing the demographic they are focusing on.

Someone with more info on this than I would probably be able to answer better. But at least to me, as investment has increased in DVC (something I do appreciate and enjoy) it seems to have had an inversely proportional effect on in park investments. DVC is a captive audience in Disney’s eyes, so I fear that they don’t see as much of a need to draw people to the parks knowing they have us “no matter what”.

I put that “no matter what” in quotes because I know there are some who will say that DVC may draw them to Orlando but not necessarily to Disney Parks, but with AP discounts, proximity complacency, and the whole rental car/DME factor, I’m not sure if the percentage of people doing that has been enough to worry Disney yet.

Now, I whole heartedly agree that to families and those not looking for true deluxe resort accommodations, DVC is a great plus when looking purely at the hotel stay. I have no need for turn down service, I like buying my lunch meat and milk in the hotel store, and the level of dining in the DVC hotels is sufficient for me. ( If I want true fine dining, my family vacation to Disney world isn’t usually where I’ll do it. I live near NYC and have access plenty of that the rest of the year) But, I also understand that my needs and preferences are not the only way people use Disney hotels. I love what DVC hotels offer, but that doesn’t mean it needs to be the only way they offer it. I would have been fine if the Poly, Contemporary, and GF stayed deluxe and never went DVC. People should have the option of true deluxe accommodation in WDW if they want it. I don’t need my way to overtake all hotels.

 

[DonaldDoleWhip]

I understand not wanting to give them credit for what they "should" be doing, but at the same time, I don't see what's so wrong in giving them their credit when they do maintain things and when they do things that they "should" be doing. Efforts need to be appreciated, regardless (IMO) even if you don't think it's that important. If that were me, even doing a tedious job every day, I still want to be appreciated and thanked.

The everyone gets a trophy strategy

No. Not the everyone gets a trophy strategy.

I'm with you, @Kman101, but for slightly different reasons. It's not about giving them credit for minuscule accomplishments, but rather placing the criticism where it's deserved. WDW has always done a consistent job maintaining and updating the resorts. Even in the "dark ages" of recent management, they've still continued refurbing rooms, working on each resort's pool, and maintaining public areas. They even undertook a large project about 4-5 years ago to add marble flooring to Grand Floridian's lobby - not needed, but a very nice touch in retrospect.

So I don't see a reason to be mad at WDW for doing what they should be doing anyway, because they are doing it (in this one case). We aren't always happy about the changes at certain resorts (just like DL fans weren't happy to see the waterfalls at the Disneyland Hotel go), but WDW hasn't been slacking here. Instead, the criticism belongs on the lack of park maintenance, as well as this growing strategy that pushes DVC wherever it could possibly fit, without regard for the surroundings. These are the actual problems right now.

 

[danlb_2000]

DVC profits go back into DVC, not the parks....

If all the DVC profits go back into DVC, what business/shareholder value does Disney get from DVC?