Californian Elitist
Well-Known Member
I don't think people are actually saying this.
-
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
I don't think people are actually saying this.
TP2000
Well-Known Member
Valid points.
When considering the local market for Disneyland, I think it's fair to say that "local" means anything within a 90 minute freeway drive of Disneyland. And that definitely includes San Diego. I can make it from Anaheim to downtown San Diego in about 80 minutes going with the flow of traffic. I've made it from Disneyland to Palm Springs in the same amount of time.
Including the San Diego metro area in the Disneyland "local" market, you get about 22 Million people living within a 90 minute freeway drive of Disneyland. Plus the 14 Million international tourists who visit SoCal annually, and the tens of millions of domestic tourists who visit annually from other American states.
And there are only 3,000 Disney owned hotel rooms at the Disneyland Resort, in three hotels. And just 50 DVC units (48 two-bedroom villas, 2 grand villas), only found in the new wing of the Grand Californian Hotel. Not sure what that means, but I'm sure it means something.
Hyperbole. I was merely trying to shed some light on why the two places are run so differently, yet operated/overseen by the same company.
Last edited:
Valid points.
When considering the local market for Disneyland, I think it's fair to say that "local" means anything within a 90 minute freeway drive of Disneyland. And that definitely includes San Diego. I can make it from Anaheim to downtown San Diego in about 80 minutes going with the flow of traffic. I've made it from Disneyland to Palm Springs in the same amount of time.
Including the San Diego metro area in the Disneyland "local" market, you get about 22 Million people living within a 90 minute freeway drive of Disneyland. Plus the 14 Million international tourists who visit SoCal annually, and the tens of millions of domestic tourists who visit annually from other American states.
And there are only 3,000 Disney owned hotel rooms at the Disneyland Resort, in three hotels. And just 50 DVC units (48 two-bedroom villas, 2 grand villas), only found in the new wing of the Grand Californian Hotel. Not sure what that means, but I'm sure it means something.
It's a similar situation for every other Disney resort in the world. Only in Orlando are they so dependent on non local tourism, with such a large amount of hotel rooms to fill.
choco choco
Well-Known Member
Valid points.
When considering the local market for Disneyland, I think it's fair to say that "local" means anything within a 90 minute freeway drive of Disneyland. And that definitely includes San Diego. I can make it from Anaheim to downtown San Diego in about 80 minutes going with the flow of traffic. I've made it from Disneyland to Palm Springs in the same amount of time.
Including the San Diego metro area in the Disneyland "local" market, you get about 22 Million people living within a 90 minute freeway drive of Disneyland. Plus the 14 Million international tourists who visit SoCal annually, and the tens of millions of domestic tourists who visit annually from other American states.
And there are only 3,000 Disney owned hotel rooms at the Disneyland Resort, in three hotels. And just 50 DVC units (48 two-bedroom villas, 2 grand villas), only found in the new wing of the Grand Californian Hotel. Not sure what that means, but I'm sure it means something.
If you think about it, some of the numbers are astonishing. There are 1 million annual passholders. You have it at 22 million people living within 90 minutes. That means (assuming they all are within that range) that as you walk around Southern California, roughly 1 out of every 22 people you see will have a Disneyland annual pass. That is astounding business. Some things like the LACMA or the Huntington Gardens or LA Opera should be so lucky to have that loyalty.
Now, if even 1 out of every 10 Annual Passholders decides to go to the park on a particular day (and AP's always treat the two parks as one park because, really, it is), you have maxed out the capacity of the entire resort without fitting a single out-of-towner into it.
I don't really have a point to this post. I've always just been bedazzled by when I stand in Disney somewhere and look around and think "Where do all these people come from" and then do some sort of weird head math to try to quantify it.
I will say I wish Disney did more to help it be more of a locals park. Yes, MORE. Although I constantly argue with myself about what that actually would entail.
Growing up in Florida, my experiences were much more frequent/regular. I was at WDW at least once a year from 1974-1977 and then 2-3 times a year until EPCOT opened. All of those stays but two were off property, btw, and one was in a tent at FW!
But once EPCOT opened came inexpensive APs and my family was hooked. We likely were there every two months for a long weekend with larger vacations when family came to see the Newest Wonder of the World.
There's no doubt that for a good 15 years of early adulthood I was addicted to the place, but then it changed and do did I and ... well, it just won't ever be the same. I fell in love with DL when being a part time local and that has never changed. Just a different vibe entirely.
NeXuS1000
Well-Known Member
Long-time lurker/reader here, and I just have a simple, perhaps stupid, but none the less a honest question:
Why is it that the DVC conversion "dumbs down" the hotels? Reading through a lot of the posts here, I get that there is negativity surrounding the DVC conversions, but I still fail to understand why it actually makes the specific hotels worse to stay at and make the Deluxe resorts less deluxe.
Why is it that the DVC conversion "dumbs down" the hotels? Reading through a lot of the posts here, I get that there is negativity surrounding the DVC conversions, but I still fail to understand why it actually makes the specific hotels worse to stay at and make the Deluxe resorts less deluxe.
TeriofTerror
Well-Known Member
I have to admit, I'm really surprised Disney hasn't been blatantly exploi -- er, I mean utilizing MM+ for this purpose. I figured by now we'd see a resort-centered tiering of FP+ options, e.g., off-site guests still get their three "prior to arrival" FP+s, Values get four, Moderates get five, Deluxe/DVC get six. (Mind you, I'm not necessarily saying Disney should do this, I'm just astounded that they haven't, yet.)
danv3
Well-Known Member
I'm equally astonished. This seems like a relatively easy way to monetize FP+.
Longhairbear
Well-Known Member
As a DVC member, I wonder that also, but..
I consider myself, and my husband as fairly well educated, and worldly. However on one visit to our home base at Wilderness, we discovered that all the wheels on the lower rack of our dishwasher were missing. We called housekeeping, and another new rack was supplied. (We do lots of in villa cooking, elaborate dinners from groceries we buy from Garden Grocer etc. instead of going to the dumbed down menus across WDW. We are also watching our waistlines...) We came back one evening to find a father and son using the lower rack to their dishwasher as a go cart down the hallways of the Wilderness Lodge Villas.
NeXuS1000
Well-Known Member
But does that have anything to do with DVC? Couldn't or wouldn't maintenance issues like that happen anyway?
My question is; why is there, according to a lot of people here, a direct correlation between DVC and lowered resort quality? Does the DVC program provide less incentive for Disney to keep up the hotel standards somehow?
TP2000
Well-Known Member
Very true. WDW is the aberration. It's a one-off and aside from a Castle park it has very little in common with the other Disney properties.
The rest of the Disney properties follow the Anaheim model almost exactly:
- Two parks (or a property designed for two parks eventually, in Hong Kong and Shanghai)
- A small collection of 2 or 3 Disney hotels (except for Paris that built a half dozen hotels and nearly destroyed itself in the process)
- A Downtown Disney shopping/entertainment district connecting the two parks
- On a compact, walkable piece of property on the outskirts of a major and glittering World Capital city (LA, Tokyo, Paris, Hong Kong, Shanghai)
Tokyo and Anaheim do the best at that model, and DCA 2.0 really vaulted Anaheim's property to the top of the list. Paris is still struggling, due to the financial burden of building too many hotels. Hong Kong is really coming along after a slow start, and Shanghai should be impressive on opening day next year.
But WDW? An aberration, and a property that has very little in common with every other Disney theme park property. DVC at WDW doesn't seem to be helping much either.
Longhairbear
Well-Known Member
I can't say, but I don't think it is Disney per say, I think it is the guest living beyond their means, and mindset.
I'd say that Disney gets a huge write off on breakage tax wise, rather than punish the guest to recoup the damages, which is probably more costly, hence the Walmarting of the product.
Last edited:
ParentsOf4
Well-Known Member
One of the theories for the dumbing down caused by DVC is associated with the price paid per night. The clientele willing to pay $300-$600 per night for a Deluxe Resort hotel room has different expectations than the clientele staying at a timeshare, who often pay only a fraction of that price.
For example, during this fall's popular Food & Wine Festival (F&WF), it's possible for DVC members to get a Standard View Studio at the Boardwalk Villas (BWV) for the equivalent of $67/night in DVC points.
A similar room at the Boardwalk Inn (BWI) costs $405/night even with the current 25% off discount.
Since BWV and BWI share common areas, compromises are made between the two sets of clientele, who are paying significantly different per-night rates.
DVC members pay a lot to initially purchase their points but, for the most part, that money does not go back into the hotel. Instead, the costs of operating the hotel primarily are born by annual dues. At $67/night, Disney still makes a profit but to do so, they cut out items that normally would be expected to be there at $405/night.
Hence the entire BWI experience is 'dumbed down' as a result of BWV.
Last edited:
alphac2005
Well-Known Member
It's funny how people like us see right through the absurdity of stores with their endless sales and discounting, yet a company like jcpenney ditched the gimmick sales and coupons, yet their sales tanked. After the upheaval of their CEO, they've brought back the same gimmicks and sales are up. It's unreal. When they stopped the couponing and nonsense, we went there for the first time in ages. Funny enough, many of the prices were actually better than when they ran their promotions and discounts.
My company has been in B2C for a long time and it's amazing to see the psychology of people thinking that they're getting a deal, but in reality, they end up paying what amounts to full retail for the retailer. There is rarely anything that is a true deal for a consumer, it's all smoke and mirrors. I can get a shirt discounted for $8 at Banana Republic that retails for $24, but that shirt only lasts for a few washes before it looks like pure garbage, whereas the same style of shirt used to cost $22 and on sale would be $18 and last for two years. We're all getting a lot less for more in the end.
I think the way Disney does fast pass is fair and the right say to do it. If they were ever to eliminate the 3 fast passes for everyone I would complain about that just like I do about universal giving unlimited front of line passes to people that stay in their deluxe resorts. People staying on property get extended hours as do Universal guests and that is fair but anything more is wrong.
I think there is a huge misunderstanding of timeshares in general. The top hotel companies offer timeshares and target them to top income earners. Even the FS offers timeshares. Timeshares are very expensive and the upfront profits are over 100%. To put that in perspective one week of points at the Boardwalk in September takes only 87 point for a standard views unit. But if Disney were to sell a new resort even with those point which are very low for the overall resort it would cost $13,920 to buy and that is the lowest weeks. At Christmas it would take 169 points or $27,040. How much does it cost to build and furnish a room?
Now who can afford to pay these prices? Not the poor. The middle class? Not really. The medium family income in the U.S. is in the 40's. Like it or not only the top third of the income earners can afford to take a Disney Vacation every few years. The rich are the people who can afford yearly vacations to WDW. Now if you live in or near Orlando it's different but those who stay on property every year are not poor or middle class. And I am getting sick and tired of reading about the Walmarting of WDW. The richest people I every know whose families founded Harford Ct. and the U.S. insurance industry along with Stanley tools shopped at Walmart. The very rich and old money buy smart not paying outrageous prices and they don't show off and drive Bentley's. Go to Marthas Vineyard and Nantucket. You will see the rich eat at restaurants like the Home Port. Go out for Ice cream at Mad Marthas and stand in line like everyone else. They shop at the same stores and eat at restaurants that are reasonably priced but offer great food. Only the top 1% who have new money live obscene lifestyle. I can tell you that I know of some people in the top 1% who would never stay on property in anything other than a Disney Value resort. They don't throw money away. Maybe that's why I am not in the very top but then I do what I want with my money and I love the Disney DVC's. Look around DVC owners are not rift raft or poor. They are upper middle class and if you don't like them there is something wrong with you not them.
crispy
Well-Known Member
To be fair - not only did JC Penny change their pricing structure, they also changed the type of clothing they were selling to attract a younger, hipper clientele, and that was a failure. Their current shopping base didn't want that type of clothing and trendy, hip people aren't necessarily shopping at JCP. We have a stand alone store that opened up in our area a couple of years. A lot of the merchandise they have offered in the last couple of years was just downright ugly, and they couldn't sell no matter how they priced it. (Now, I will go put on my jorts and go sit in the corner).
I also think it's the idea of perceived value. If someone buys an $8 shirt, they perceive that it's a cheaply made and not very valuable. If someone buys the same shirt that was once priced at $40, but they pay $8 for it, they feel that they are getting a better quality product that is actually worth $40. It's no longer a cheap piece of crap shirt - it's a nicely made shirt that was discounted for whatever reason. Of course, being the savvy shopper that I am, I buy most of my clothes at Goodwill and bypass the middleman. I have a wardrobe full of awesome clothes for next to nothing.
I think the bigger lesson is to know your core audience and know who spends money. It was a good idea for JCP to go after the younger dollars, but they alienated their current customer base in the process. I think this is exactly what is happening at WDW. They are going after the big spenders (Brazilian tourists, the one-timers who blow a huge wad of money) while alienating their bread and butter who may not spend as much but who provided a consistent revenue stream - the DVCers who are loyal who may not spend as much, they AP holders, the families who visit every year but may not necessarily stay deluxe, etc.
Last edited:
ABQ
Well-Known Member
On the topic of how the DVC presence theoretically dumbs down a resort itself. I don't buy it. I've been a guest of a DVC member many times, one who I'd say is not in the program because they were duped into spending their last pennies and are upside down in a mortgage, but because they liked WDW so much and were paying out the nose each year to visit, so figured they'd maximize their money spent on the visit and find it a worthy investment. In the past they've paid for Grand Plan packages, so the DVC cost was reasonable. I think that with or without the DVC present in any resort, deluxe or otherwise, you'd still have people staying in a deluxe resort who normally may not be able to afford it. Even before all the free meal discounts and other sales, there have been people staying in those resort through cast member discounts, comps due other unforeseen events at other resorts where people were relocated from value X to deluxe Y, etc... It just sounds to me that so many assume that every knucklehead that wears pajamas out and about town each day is able to buy into DVC when it's just not the truth. Those same folks are just as likely to drop the 400+ per day for a room at the BWI during F&W if they have the credit available at any given moment. It may make it possible for a small percentage of people that otherwise wouldn't own DVC, but not 50%+ of all DVC owners. I have ZERO stats to back up that claim, but I don't think anyone has another to refute it either.
Last edited:
scout68
Well-Known Member
Sorry about that. We are were in early testing for "The Wilderness Lodge Dishwasher Dash".
Look for a soft opening somewhere in early 2019. (we thought we would follow the WDW construction model).
Needless to say a need to upgrade the conveyance system was discovered.
This will most certainly be a tier 1 attraction.
Last edited: