lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Hell, Florida sunshine comes with sticky humidity. The Caruso Affiliated properties that have been roundly ignored also include sunshine, and without much of the humidity.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
The Spirited 8th Wonder (WDW's Future & You!)
- Thread starter WDW1974
- Start date
BrerJon
Well-Known Member
The OP was referring to Pleasure Island, which originally was a ticketed, gated park with some of Imagineering's finest work - a dance club with a rotating floor, the Adventurer's Club with some of Disney's best themed live entertainment and effects, a comedy club, a roller skating palace, great restaurants and shops that sold things you couldn't get anywhere else in the world (not even anywhere else on Disney property)... oh, and fireworks every night.
Pleasure Island, when it was a ticketed park, was brilliant. After opening it up, then letting it decline, Disney shut it suddenly in 2008 and let the land stay stagnant until Disney Springs was announced. If it wasn't for the Brazilians, I suspect we'd still be waiting for the first shovel of dirt to be moved.
Last edited:
dhall
Well-Known Member
If they're is the only thing you build, sure, capacity is the limiting factor. I think it makes sense, though, to use systems like this to flesh out an area
cw1982
Well-Known Member
Exactly. For those who keep asking why we should care, the fact that Disney is choosing to spend more on the short-term rather than adding in long-term plusses that would benefit the parks makes it pretty evident what the priorities are at TDO. That's why we, even those of us who don't own dvc, should care.
DonaldDoleWhip
Well-Known Member
Speaking as someone who just acquired DVC points, I can say Disney Springs certainly increases the appeal of staying at Saratoga Springs...but only to an extent. The resort is still plagued by its sprawling layout (a problem if you don't have a car), less immersive theme, and generic condo vibe. Being adjacent to a deluxe resort would always be my preference, which is why it makes perfect sense that the next project is a WL cannibalization instead of a new standalone property.
Nubs70
Well-Known Member
So one could sum up the forecasted DVC move is to extract future revenue by pulling forward value into present value?Since Iger took charge, there has been one resort opened: AOA. I believe you and I previously discussed why this happened, at least partially because it was a half-completed facility in need of serious work to prevent further decay.
DVCs? I think one of the primary topics of this thread is to lament Disney's obsession with DVCs in recent years, whose "investments" are tied directly to immediately recoverable revenue. Ditto with shops & restaurants, such as Disney Springs.
Beyond that, the small improvements you mention also happened under previous Disney management, often with little fanfare because they were considered basic maintenance of the facility.
There's a reason I wrote "(vs. required FF&E and capital maintenance)" in my previous post.
Really, the money returned back into the theme parks for true improvements has been minimal.
AEfx
Well-Known Member
I won't contribute further to to the derailment of this thread - my only comment is this is probably the most depressing thread I have read on these forums, ever - because the fact that the only thing of substance to discuss about "the future" are these faux-timeshares which really have no ownership value whatsoever (it's really just a recurring club - if it's going to get taken away from you, even if it's a few decades away, you don't own it), and after reading this I am even more depressed about the future of WDW than I was to begin with.
tirian
Well-Known Member
Did you ever notice the exact same people show up every time to talk about completely unrelated topics?
It almost makes me think they're paid off.
tirian
Well-Known Member
Here's the bottom line: the DVC wouldn't matter if Disney continued to invest in WDW with attractions, maintenance, and entertainment on the level of what they did 20 years ago. If Disney would simply do incredible things because they can instead of reducing everything to a bottom line, Uni wouldn't be a major competitor.
It's obvious that Disney has forgotten it's an entertainment company. Wall Street has ruined the TDO mindset.
I do enjoy my time at WDW. But it used to be so much more impressive.
It's obvious that Disney has forgotten it's an entertainment company. Wall Street has ruined the TDO mindset.
I do enjoy my time at WDW. But it used to be so much more impressive.
GoofGoof
Premium Member
Well said. I think it's not necessarily DVC that people are against, but more the idea that it is the only thing they seem to do a lot of and quickly.
ParentsOf4
Well-Known Member
IMHO, what you write applies to DVC in general.
IMHO, the conversion of WL hotel rooms to DVC (i.e. what started this thread) equally has to do with repurposing unused capacity in order to make it productive.
Once we move past the notion that Disney intends to do nothing to actually fill those empty hotel rooms with cash customers, converting the hotel rooms to DVC is exactly the right move to make.
WL runs at roughly 75% occupancy throughout the year, including rooms offered at discounted rates. Assuming half the rooms are converted to DVC, demand at current prices will exceed supply, allowing Disney to offer fewer discounts for the Wilderness Lodge. With fewer rooms available to cash customers, the hotel portion of the WL will run at a higher occupancy rate and at a higher Per Room Guest Spending (PRGS). Total revenue from the remaining hotel rooms will decline but revenue per available room (RevPAR) will increase, making the remaining hotel rooms better revenue generators on a per-square-foot basis.
Meanwhile the half of the rooms converted to DVC, rather than run at an equivalent of a 50% occupancy rate (again, assuming occupancy was at 75% before the conversion), will run at well over 95% as DVC units.
Although the half of these rooms that were occupied will generate less revenue on a per-square-foot basis, the other half (i.e. the empty rooms) will generate significantly more. Even better, unlike regular hotel rooms, DVC units are counted as two-bedroom equivalents, again improving PRGS. (Essentially, 3 'old' hotel rooms will be counted as 1 DVC unit.)
Simultaneously, Disney will be able to sell the resulting DVC points to extract equity from those converted rooms. The conversion to DVC units might cost roughly $20M but Disney will be able to sell well over 1 million points at ~$150/point, probably realizing something north of $200M in sales, a tidy little profit.
If Disney intended to adapt Universal's strategy and make their theme parks more appealing, they'd want to add hotel room capacity, like Universal. By repurposing these rooms, Disney is signaling that they have no intention of following in Universal's footsteps.
Sue_Vongello
Well-Known Member
We are seriously too close to the higher ups monetizing restroom usage ...
I guess none of them have not spent enough time in some of those foreign countries that have establishments that charge you to use the restroom ...
Oh shoot ... Did I just give them an idea?
"This is even cheaper than building DVC resorts! And everyone has to use the bathroom! Bonuses for everyone!"
I guess none of them have not spent enough time in some of those foreign countries that have establishments that charge you to use the restroom ...
Oh shoot ... Did I just give them an idea?
"This is even cheaper than building DVC resorts! And everyone has to use the bathroom! Bonuses for everyone!"
John
Well-Known Member
IMHO, what you write applies to DVC in general.
IMHO, the conversion of WL hotel rooms to DVC (i.e. what started this thread) equally has to do with repurposing unused capacity in order to make it productive.
Once we move past the notion that Disney intends to do nothing to actually fill those empty hotel rooms with cash customers, converting the hotel rooms to DVC is exactly the right move to make.
WL runs at roughly 75% occupancy throughout the year, including rooms offered at discounted rates. Assuming half the rooms are converted to DVC, demand at current prices will exceed supply, allowing Disney to offer fewer discounts for the Wilderness Lodge. With fewer rooms available to cash customers, the hotel portion of the WL will run at a higher occupancy rate and at a higher Per Room Guest Spending (PRGS). Total revenue from the remaining hotel rooms will decline but revenue per available room (RevPAR) will increase, making the remaining hotel rooms better revenue generators on a per-square-foot basis.
Meanwhile the half of the rooms converted to DVC, rather than run at an equivalent of a 50% occupancy rate (again, assuming occupancy was at 75% before the conversion), will run at well over 95% as DVC units.
Although the half of these rooms that were occupied will generate less revenue on a per-square-foot basis, the other half (i.e. the empty rooms) will generate significantly more. Even better, unlike regular hotel rooms, DVC units are counted as two-bedroom equivalents, again improving PRGS. (Essentially, 3 'old' hotel rooms will be counted as 1 DVC unit.)
Simultaneously, Disney will be able to sell the resulting DVC points to extract equity from those converted rooms. The conversion to DVC units might cost roughly $20M but Disney will be able to sell well over 1 million points at ~$150/point, probably realizing something north of $200M in sales, a tidy little profit.
If Disney intended to adapt Universal's strategy and make their theme parks more appealing, they'd want to add hotel room capacity, like Universal. By repurposing these rooms, Disney is signaling that they have no intention of following in Universal's footsteps.
But doesn't this also cut out a certain segment of guest who rely on discounted rooms? Now I guess they could drop down to a Mod...but I would think there was a trickle down theory at play? Don't get me wrong, I don't think TDO cares one bit about that group. I think it is spot on that the next shoe to drop will to be to DVC'ize the Mods. A natural progression. Wouldn't surprise me at all if they went as far as doing a value DVC as well.....Looking at you AOA.
Based on limited availability, it may cut out another segment of guests as well. Those who would like to stay on property and visit regularly but who are unwilling to enter into a 30 year relationship with TDO for what amounts to 14 days vacation a year max. I can't see locking in like that. I am hearing it is a win win but I can't stop thinking that the odds always favor the house in these things. Even if it's just that they allow things to get a bit shabby to keep things profitable.
Nemo14
Well-Known Member
Given the potential loss of rooms to the general public, is it safe to assume then that "incentives" like free dining and 30% off rack rates will no longer be necessary to fill up rooms, or will they continue this charade just with a very limited number of applicable rooms?
Last edited:
DonaldDoleWhip
Well-Known Member
This is just my opinion, but I think it would be foolish to continue offering those "incentives" for the cannibalized resorts when so few rooms will be included anyway. That would seriously frustrate me if I were trying to book a room at a certain resort (say, WL), the website says it's included, and I can't find anything with a discount.
So I assume the options are to keep the discounts and exclude more resorts (such as with VGF and AoA's Mermaid rooms right now), or cut down on discounts entirely. In fact, Iger said years ago that he wanted to reduce discounting in the future, and this seems to be an easy solution.
Cesar R M
Well-Known Member
yeah I just eyerolled and decided for the first time ever.. to use the ignore feature.
hang on.. are you really implying I AM the one ruining the thread "for the rest" ?
If they make it affordable, I don't think I mind the idea of DVC at the mods or even the values. If it would allow people who can't afford deluxe DVC prices to join the club and be able to visit more, I think that's great for the guest AND Disney. It's the "make it affordable" part they don't do so well.
A separate point I'd like to make (because It's what happened to me) is that once you go "deluxe", you never (want) to go back. Is there not any way they could lure people into trying deluxe resorts without dangling DVC in front of them? Of course more affordable prices are the obvious answer, but why are they soooooo against lowering prices? I get that they need to constantly increase the bottom line, but is 'raise the price' the only way they know how? Would having to hire more mouse keeping and other staff to clean and maintain the extra rooms being used really cost that much? What am I missing?
PhotoDave219
Well-Known Member
Just hit "report" and move on....