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

[BrerJon]

If we are calling Disney Springs just a shopping mall because it has shops and places to eat then why don't we call Main Street USA or about 90% of World Showcase a shopping mall?

What else new will Disney Springs offer, beside places to shop and eat? What will it give me that I couldn't get from Mall at Millenia?

At least World Showcase and Main Street are heavily themed, with attractions, exhibits, and things that make it enjoyable without spending a dime.

Going back a couple of decades, both those were intricately themed areas with unique shops you can't get anywhere else, transporting you to another time or another country. Main Street especially used to be crammed with unique things, whereas now there's nothing on sale that you can't pick up in World of Disney. So there is a big difference, but not as much as there was.

Nobody is against building shops - much of Diagon Alley is just that - when part of an amazing themed experience, but when that's all there is - and by all accounts Disney Springs is just that - and especially if it's the same stores you can get in any upscale mall - it's hardly imagineering at its finest.

 

[GoofGoof]

For whatever it is worth, which probably is not much, DVC guides and member service providers have referred to SSR as the dark horse and suggest that the completion of Disney Springs will increase booking demand. Perhaps it is a hope, but not one of the main aims of the refurbishment.

One of the selling features of SSR is the short walk or boat ride to DTD. With Disney Springs they are building the bridge to make the walk even easier and they are adding additional dining and entertainment options so it makes sense. I personally think the low resale cost per point and the low fees makes it more appealing than Disney Springs.

I know a surprising number of people who live close enough to hear the fireworks every night and still own DVC. From what I've seen, buying DVC is rarely a practical, numbers-based decision.

I defer to you as the local. I stand corrected. Seems kinda crazy to me to spend that kinda cash for a room right near my house, but to each their own.

 

[SpaceMountain77]

I know a surprising number of people who live close enough to hear the fireworks every night and still own DVC. From what I've seen, buying DVC is rarely a practical, numbers-based decision.

I wholeheartedly agree. Many members likely bought BLT because they fondly recall their childhood monorail rides through CR during the 1970s and 1980s. Moreover, I suspect VGF sales are largely driven by guests and members who always aspired to and dreamed of staying at GF, but could not afford to do so. Removal of the waterfall aside, Polynesian sales will also be driven by nostalgia and the pride of owning a fractional piece of a longhouse.

 

[ABQ]

DVC is not like many (most?) timeshares. Nearly all WDW DVC resorts consistently run at an incredibly high occupancy rate year round, typically around 98%.

It's simple economics.

Doesn't that right there sum up pretty much everything when it comes to WDW converting existing non DVC rooms to DVC and the further incursion of new DVC property of any kind? Like, I assume 95% of the folks on this forum, I wish every penny WDW made was put back into the entire property, parks especially, but general upkeep and improvement of the resorts as well. But honestly, if you had a timeshare system that ran at 98%, and after substantial growth, BLT, VGF and so forth, you'd be a complete fool to not milk that cow like Disney has Frozen.

 

[Nubs70]

Just my take on the existing management philosophy/mass DVC conversion/etc (even current corporate paradigm that can be extrapolated outside of Disney). Here it goes.

Current management lacks personal emotional investment (PEI). PEI is an internal personal commitment to the product as it is perceived by the paying customer. PEI is not fanatical commitment as a cheerleader is to the football team. Currently, I see management practices stockholder equity investment (SEI). SEI is an internal personal commitment to the stockholders by means of stock price. SEI can be summed up as " $/share uber alles".
SEI promotes and rewards short term gains over long term vitality. If one looks at investment in respect to the cash flow statement, it can illustrate the difference between PEI and SEI.

The Cash Flow Statement is comprised of three parts. The parts are as follows:

1. Operating Activities
2. Investing Activities
3. Financing Activities

When building new attractions by investing, this is a negative in the Investing Activities category. Even if the investment is offset or surpassed by increases in Operating and Financing Activities.

• SEI will see negative or reduced Investing Activity as not acceptable as the expense of investment will have a negative effect on the current quarters financial performance.
• PEI will allow for reduced Investing Activity as long as there is a reasonable expectation that there will be an acceptable return in the future.
• SEI will see sale of assets as positive Investment Activity. (Didn't someone just sell land to Compass Rose?).

 

[BrerJon]

I defer to you as the local. I stand corrected. Seems kinda crazy to me to spend that kinda cash for a room right near my house, but to each their own.

Many, many guests love the sense of being owners, of feeling a cut above the 'casual' crowd. I've seen it in the parks, people who proudly announce they own DVC. It's a status thing, they get to feel like VIPs compared to other guests. For many pixie-dusters having a financial stake in WDW gives them a real sense of pride. They live locally because of WDW, but would own DVC wherever they lived.

Also many like to own so that when friends and family visit, they can give/sell them their points, giving them the experience of a Deluxe Resort at a cheap cost.

Is it sensible to buy DVC if you're a local? Nope, but WDW is a place of emotions not sense. Very few DVC purchases are based on sound economic sense; the numbers rarely stack up to make it so.

 

[lazyboy97o]

If we are calling Disney Springs just a shopping mall because it has shops and places to eat then why don't we call Main Street USA or about 90% of World Showcase a shopping mall?

Both of those are supposed to be themed experiences where the architecture, music, merchandise, employee attire, scale, organization, and everything else are guided by the theme. Disney Springs' backstory negates itself as a themed experience, making it themed decor. Anything and everything fits because its setting is contemporary Florida.

 

[Brian Noble]

The Internet has had a tremendous effect on DVC points, making it much easier to assure that very few DVC points are wasted.

DVC is not like many (most?) timeshares. Nearly all WDW DVC resorts consistently run at an incredibly high occupancy rate year round, typically around 98%.

It's simple economics.

For example, a DVC Studio this summer at the VWL costs a DVC member less than $110/night, even less in the offseason. At those kinds of prices, Disney has no problem filling rooms.

At double that price, DVC members have little problem renting their points to third parties, and there are several agencies that broker rentals for owners who don't want the hassle. These agencies constantly seek more points to broker since, in the current environment, demand for DVC rental points exceeds supply.

Any last-minute points (i.e. those that expire in the current month) are quickly sold at $8/point.

DVC rooms are and will continue to maintain high occupancy rates until Disney saturates the market, which simply hasn't happened yet.

Don't be so sure. Tim K. once looked at the 2009 OKW budget. The breakage income to the OKW Association hit the cap (actually, over by $1). That only gives you the lower bound on how much breakage revenue was generated, because everything over the 2.5% of breakage basis can be retained by Disney. And, it's probably a good chunk more, because otherwise there is no reason for CRO/DVCMC to even run the program unless it is profitable to Disney.

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=2057472

 

[SpaceMountain77]

Regarding the original post and, specifically, the announcement of a VWL expansion, I am most interested in knowing the plan for the existing villas. As many of you may know, after nearly 14 years, the villas received a comprehensive hard goods refurbishment in the spring of 2014. While I have not seen the refurbished villas in person, photos and member reviews suggest that the refurbishment was done on the cheap. Moreover, the character and theme, which was previously present, has now been lost.

Given the upgraded design elements incorporated into the VGF and planned PVV, such as vaulted ceilings and marble tile, buyers will expect similar features in the expanded VWL. Unless the expansion is deeded separately with its own point chart, the existing villas would need comparable upgrades. Who would want to stay in a separate building, housing older villas, when one could stay in a newly created villa in the main lodge?

 

[jt04]

Actually, if you go back and look at the wording of the post you quoted, it's quite accurate. Guests will be rewarding Disney Springs by spending lots of money there.

That is because, like DVC's, it is something they enjoy. DVCs sell because some people like them. Or I should say a lot of people like them.

 

[cw1982]

That is because, like DVC's, it is something they enjoy. DVCs sell because some people like them. Or I should say a lot of people like them.

Perhaps, but you're twisting my point.

Either way, Disney isn't "rewarding" guests by giving them more places to shop. Disney is allowing guests to have more opportunities to fork out more money. That's hardly the same thing as a "reward."

 

[jt04]

That is an excuse defending TDO - and Burbank- that management just love.

Springs is a jazzed up shopping mall. Where there used to be a shopping mall. I'm sure it'll be pretty just like my local mega mall, but just like my local mega mall it is just a shopping mall.

This to correct a mistake they made in the first place when they were trying to correct another mistake they made themselves when nothing needed fixing to begin with.

I'm coming 4000 miles. I want to ride exciting new rides and have amazing new experiences.

Shopping malls aren't one of them.

If a mall and Avland is all you have to be excited about then WDW is in worst shape than I thought. With respect.

I can say for a fact that Disney Springs and Pandora are not the final additions to WDW. Just as there will be more resorts and DVC's etc.

Now I know you think land is becoming scarce but in truth it isn't. Plenty of room for expanding all the parks and resorts for decades into the future including land for DVCs that it appears a lot of folks want. A good business will do that. No harm in that. IMO.

 

[GrammieBee]

Excuse my mistake in an earlier post (and I hope you won't mind a little history lesson), but a wigwam is not the same as a teepee. A wigwam can be conical in shape like a teepee, but it is covered with birchbark and is a more permanent structure. A teepee was covered with buffalo hide and could easily be put up and taken down.. Wigwams were used by the Algonquins of the eastern USA.

Since the Wilderness Lodge was modeled after the great lodges of Glacier and Yellowstone National Parks, teepees used by the northern plains indian tribes, such as the Shoshone, are probably the closest type of Indian dwellings for that area.

They would still look exceedingly stupid stting over the water as they were normaly used in open grassy areas.

 

[Brian Noble]

Don't be so sure. Tim K. once looked at the 2009 OKW budget.

For grins, I just did the same calculation for the 2013 resort budgets. I compared the breakage income received per point with 2.5% of the breakage base: Operating + Reserve - Interest Income - Late fees/member interest.

There was only one resort that didn't reach its 2.5% breakage cap: BCV. And there, it only missed by 5% (0.1117/pt income vs. a cap of 0.1177). Any remaining breakage income at any of the resorts not named Beach Club Villas lines Disney's pockets.

Interestingly, Aulani was 20% over its cap (.222 recvd vs. .1848 cap). I'm not sure why that is so.

http://www.dvcnews.com/index.php/dvc-program/financial/2013-resort-budgets

 

[Funmeister]

Excuse my mistake in an earlier post (and I hope you won't mind a little history lesson), but a wigwam is not the same as a teepee. A wigwam can be conical in shape like a teepee, but it is covered with birchbark and is a more permanent structure. A teepee was covered with buffalo hide and could easily be put up and taken down.. Wigwams were used by the Algonquins of the eastern USA.

Since the Wilderness Lodge was modeled after the great lodges of Glacier and Yellowstone National Parks, teepees used by the northern plains indian tribes, such as the Shoshone, are probably the closest type of Indian housing for that area.

They would still look exceedingly stupid stting over the water as they were normaly used in open grassy areas.

Reminds me of creating Nemo themed rooms in a Caribbean themed resort. Whoops!

 

[Nubs70]

In regards to moderate DVC, why would WDW bother updating, remodeling, or reconfiguring the rooms? WDW could sell 40 year commitments, invest nothing, and unload the maintenance costs all in one shot. It would sell fast to the value resort demographic as WDW could market them as an upgrade to their experience.

 

[Chippy]

So, I can't this be anything but a success short-term or long-term? Certainly guest counts will only continue to climb over time besides the occasional economic contraction.

The global middle class just keeps growing and growing and Orlando will always be a favored destination for many. It is almost impossible to over-build when they have this kind of flexibility with the resorts.

I just do not see the down side. Obviously UCF should be offering a semester on how all this works. Because the more I read the more confusing the complaints seem to me.

If you don't like the plans don't buy them. If you do, then consider it. Let the market decide.

Ultimately, my gripe has more to do with the feeling that Disney no longer values my type of vacationer. Selfish, I know. Kinda like the resort version of 'they're just not into you'.

 

[SpaceMountain77]

In regards to moderate DVC, why would WDW bother updating, remodeling, or reconfiguring the rooms? WDW could sell 40 year commitments, invest nothing, and unload the maintenance costs all in one shot. It would sell fast to the value resort demographic as WDW could market them as an upgrade to their experience.

Ah, but now you are treading in dangerous financial waters. Timeshares are considered luxury spending, available to those with disposable income or willing to spread themselves thin to afford their vacation dreams. Most DVC purchases are financed at a hefty 15.25% interest rate for initial purchases.

Could the value resort demographic afford a luxury purchase and would Disney be willing to take the financial risk? One only needs to look back a few years to find the impact of the recession on timeshares and, specifically, foreclosures.

 

[Funmeister]

I am not sure how...just speculation at this point...but I wonder how WDW Good Neighbor Hotels play into this? Like I said...I am not sure exactly how but they are a nice safety net for when (IF) non-converted rooms sell out and need a place to put people.

 

[TeriofTerror]

I wholeheartedly agree. Many members likely bought BLT because they fondly recall their childhood monorail rides through CR during the 1970s and 1980s. Moreover, I suspect VGF sales are largely driven by guests and members who always aspired to and dreamed of staying at GF, but could not afford to do so. Removal of the waterfall aside, Polynesian sales will also be driven by nostalgia and the pride of owning a fractional piece of a longhouse.

I absolutely agree that these were/are definite motivators for DVC sales at those resorts, plus monorail access. I don't think anyone doubts that Polynesian DVC will sell like hotcakes. But after that, Disney's logic truly escapes me. Why would anyone buy DVC directly from Disney when they could buy at the same resort via the resale market at 1/3 - 1/2 the cost? And spend DVC points at a moderate? Unless the points are significantly lower per night than any current DVC resort, my answer would be a resounding "no".