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

[Smiddimizer]

Well, thanks for introducing us to her.

Which brings me back to Tokyo Disneyland. It's against the rules to swim in a Tokyo Disney Resort hotel pool with exposed tattoos. The Japanese feel tattoos denote lower class and suggests a connection to organized crime or prison sentences. It's forbidden to show your tattoos at the pool in Tokyo.

Can you imagine the uproar from all those flabby "hip" Americans with tattoos if WDW tried to implement that policy to keep things classy around the pools?

I think I fall in love with Japan more and more each day

 

[TP2000]

1) How are all Americans with tattoos "flabby"? I happen to have two of them, and I'm definitely not "flabby" by most standards.

I'm sure your tattoos are lovely. And yes, when nearly every minivan driving soccer mom and office cubicle drone in America has one now, they aren't really very hip or rebellious anymore.

But if you ever go to Tokyo Disneyland and spend 60,000 Yen per night to stay at the Tokyo Disneyland Hotel, don't plan on taking a dip in the hotel pool. Exposed tattoos in public aren't allowed by the Oriental Land Company, as they feel it's too lower class for their property. That was my only point.

 

[stlphil]

@ParentsOf4

Wouldn't a more accurate accounting of the DVC cost per night figures look something like this?

Round #s for ease of use, and let's use the Wilderness Lodge. Let's say you paid $150 per point, for 150 points per year, and you bought in 1998. So, gorilla math time..

You paid $22,500 for your point allotment. You get 44 years worth of usage and a total of 6600 points. Each point is worth $3.50 approx. If a studio room is running you an average of 110 points for a week, that leaves you with $385 per week for your points. Right now maintenance there is around $6 per point, so that's $660. Add those two numbers together, and you get $1045 for the week, or $149 per night. So for 2014 a studio room at VWL is running a DVC member $149 per night.

Right now, September 10th-16th at WL is running about $250.

So, yes, there is a difference. But it is not quite as dramatic as you were implying. Unless a member got his/her points for free upfront, I think this is a better comparison then simply using the maintenance fees.

While @ParentsOf4 is correct that the proper way to look at this is from Disney's point of view, even if you take the buyer's point of view your "gorilla math" doesn't really capture things accurately.

Back in 1998 buyers didn't pay $150/point, it was more like $60 or so, or less than $1.50 on a per year basis. So the true total cost is closer to ParentsOf4's original value than your figure of $149.

But even more significant, that buyer back in 1998 can pretty easily sell their points today for more than they originally paid. So at this point, it isn't that unreasonable to just include maintenance in the per night cost.

This is also why those who have decided that DVC is not for them (and it most certainly isn't right for everyone) need not feel sorry for the poor DVC members who are stuck with it as the quality declines, since the current owners are not stuck with anything. They can easily get rid of it if they no longer see the value, and many can even make a profit on the sale.

 

[NeXuS1000]

Funny. DVCers just don't want to stay at DVC resorts. Nope they want to stay at WDW Deluxe Resorts at old value/moderate pricing levels. I can't imagine how that could possibly lead to a lesser, Walmarted product for all, can you?

But this is where the logic breaks for me; I know Disney wants to proclaim that you can stay at Deluxe resorts for value/moderate pricing levels, but is this really the case? Looking at a customer's lifetime DVC cost, versus someone who would go to a Deluxe resort every 4th year, which income stream is better for Disney?

I would theorize that this business model simply makes more sense for Disney since they secure long-term resort customers, which is necessary when it's hard to fill out the 25.000 rooms year round. Yes, it wasn't a problem in the 80's, when a fraction of those rooms existed, but apparently, as you say, it is today. Sure, we could also theorize that they could feel rooms via other means, e.g. lowering rates, but I'm not sure that would be a financially viable decision. Or at least I would argue that someone should do forecast calculations based on those scenarios before bluntly stating that what Disney is doing is outright stupid.

True, but DVC owners only want to pay for maintaining a resort to a point. My SO, 'Angie M.', and I were discussing the WLV redo and how I thought 14 years for the first top to bottom redo was an obscene amount of time. She said she wouldn't want her maintenance fees to go up a dollar or two a point so the resort got a hard goods redo every 5-7 years, which is what I believe they need, especially when running at DVC occupancy levels.

I don't think much funding goes to common area rehabs at all. I do know that every deluxe resort winds up showing much worse wear and tear as soon as DVC becomes part of it. And it never goes back to the way it was before.

Does DVC owners have any say in what they pay in annual fees? Does the DVC owners decide how much of their money go to the common areas (I would think that's something the resort works out as a DVC extension/conversion is done). Do you have examples of that wear and tear that at the same time is not a symbol of bad management, i.e. not happening at non-DVC resorts?

Have you read the 70-plus pages? People, including myself, have explained quite eloquently why this is the case.

Do I need to bring out my 375-pound bimbo wearing underwear and bra into a jacuzzi at the BC with tatts everywhere lighting up her Marlboro's as an example of some (notice I said 'some') of the folks who went from staying at Days Inn to WDW deluxes when timeshare was added.

To be fair, I've just been waiting to drop her (she was very heavy, after all) into the thread at some point.

No, I haven't read every single thread in the past 70 pages I simply don't have the time to do that. Does that mean I can't ask a question?

Besides the elitism going on in that post, I still don't understand why DVC is that much more appealing to lower-income families; isn't the initial upfront cost of membership quite substantial? I mean, you need to find that money somewhere, right?

I would argue that Disney will never tell a DVC guest that they can't do anything, including using racks from dishwashers as hallway rides.

DVC had wonderful African-inspired dishware at DAK Lodge Villas. Guess what? Many guests (again, timeshare mentality of many -NOT ALL!) decided these were so nice and they were 'owners' that they simply walked out with them. Did Disney charge them? Accuse them of theft with police? Of course not. They simply put basic white plates in the units and sold the remainder at Property Control.

Well, that's just plain sad, if true. I mean, DVC owners and hotel guests alike are all bound by rules, and while you never want to come away as offensive, when your name is Disney, this just sounds like a weird way of handling that situation.

But explain to me why Disney treat DVC owners with more care than they would normal resort guests then?

 

[spacemt354]

I'm sure your tattoos are lovely. And yes, when nearly every minivan driving soccer mom and office cubicle drone in America has one now, they aren't really very hip or rebellious anymore.

But if you ever go to Tokyo Disneyland and spend 60,000 Yen per night to stay at the Tokyo Disneyland Hotel, don't plan on taking a dip in the hotel pool. Exposed tattoos in public aren't allowed by the Oriental Land Company, as they feel it's too lower class for their property. That was my only point.

Two different cultures, two different standards.

My gripe with American Disney standards as @cw1982 pointed out is more regarding the lack of dress code in eloquent restaurants and around the parks in general. Does everyone need to be in a shirt/tie/ or dress at all times? Not at all. But the watering holes in the theme parks where kids run around in the sprinklers with no shirts on and in bathing suits is a bit much for me. That's what water parks are for.

More places around property deserve proper etiquette. It saddens me when I see people dining in the yachtsman steakhouse dressed up in suits and skirts, sitting next to others in t-shirts and shorts. The contrast in attire lowers the quality of the restaurant for me.

Personally I think that is a better representation of the decrease in quality and class around WDW. I feel citing tattoos at the pool as a sign of lower class is more of a conceited example.

 

[John]

Two different cultures, two different standards.

My gripe with American Disney standards as @cw1982 pointed out is more regarding the lack of dress code in eloquent restaurants and around the parks in general. Does everyone need to be in a shirt/tie/ or dress at all times? Not at all. But the watering holes in the theme parks where kids run around in the sprinklers with no shirts on and in bathing suits is a bit much for me. That's what water parks are for.

More places around property deserve proper etiquette. It saddens me when I see people dining in the yachtsman steakhouse dressed up in suits and skirts, sitting next to others in t-shirts and shorts. The contrast in attire lowers the quality of the restaurant for me.

Personally I think that is a better representation of the decrease in quality and class around WDW. I feel citing tattoos at the pool as a sign of lower class is more of a conceited example.

Last year we had dinner at the Cali grill. I wore a suit and tie the gf wore a very nice dress. They placed us at a table at the table nearest the entrance. It wasn't crowded....I looked around at the guest and it occurred to me why they put us there. It was to say....."see....this is how you are supposed to dress when you come here"

 

[seascape]

I'll go further. There were years when WDW was effectively sold out year round in the 70s and 80s. No, they didn't run at 100% occupancy. But the demand exceeded supply and when you factored in rooms being taken out of service for rehabs, Disney had very little availability around the year. BTW, this info was first told to me by the guy who runs WDW today and was GM of the Grand Flo from 1990-1993.

I also know it from so many disappointing times when my folks were going to take the family to WDW and stay at the Contemporary (my dream hotel as a kid) or the Poly (my second option) and when my Mom would call CRO and be offered the Americana Dutch Inn or an off-property option and this was often months out because WDW would often book up two years in advance for busy periods.

Disney, basically, never had an issue filling rooms before the late 90s. Never.



Funny. DVCers just don't want to stay at DVC resorts. Nope they want to stay at WDW Deluxe Resorts at old value/moderate pricing levels. I can't imagine how that could possibly lead to a lesser, Walmarted product for all, can you?

Converting unused hotel rooms to DVC is the correct move for Disney exactly because the number of unoccupied rooms have reached unacceptable levels.



This really is the absolute natural evolution/next step of all they have been doing for 15 years plus now.

Disney never had a problem filling rooms in the early years but they were not maxing profits. They should have built more rooms. Also where did the money come from to build all the new resorts since the 1990's? DVC profits had to go somewhere? Disney has reinvested. Again you may not like what they spent money on but they have spend on more hotel rooms over the years.

To put all the blame for the parks on DVC and completely ignore what was done with its profits is crazy. You agree Disney has made a fortune in short term profits but refuse to admit any of it was used to pay for anything else. Many posters have said they like CB. Where did the money come from to build it? I don't know for sure but some had to come from DVC profits. Same thing with AoA. This is not a zero sum game. Profits from DVC can and are used elsewhere and it allows for more overall investment than could be dome without it. And again no one has shown or can show Disney is giving up long term profits for the short term profits. They aren't. DVC is as close to free money as anyone can get. They use that money for other investments. Their Dividends are only a small part of their profits. If they were actually just giving all their profits as dividends then you could have a point but they are not. Again too many people here do not understand business and I don't think they need to since this is a theme park board but when business is discussed one must understand companies just can't build thinks without capital. Capital can come from borrowing, reinvesting profits or selling new stock but it has to come from somewhere. Most people don't care where it comes from but stockholders do. For those who care only about the parks this is all irrelevant. For stockholders it does matter. In any case it has nothing to do with the parks. Stockholders want profits and they want smart reinvestmenting. Building a DVC and a resort to rent at the same time where together in one resort as AK or to use the profits from dvc to build cb and aoa is a great idea because most of the costs can be paid for by the DVC profits. Disney did and has reinvested DVC profits in WDW.

 

[TubaGeek]

Last year we had dinner at the Cali grill. I wore a suit and tie the gf wore a very nice dress. They placed us at a table at the table nearest the entrance. It wasn't crowded....I looked around at the guest and it occurred to me why they put us there. It was to say....."see....this is how you are supposed to dress when you come here"

... Or they were following seating rotation...

 

[wm49rs]

Disney never had a problem filling rooms in the early years but they were not maxing profits. They should have built more rooms. Also where did the money come from to build all the new resorts since the 1990's? DVC profits had to go somewhere? Disney has reinvested. Again you may not like what they spent money on but they have spend on more hotel rooms over the years.

To put all the blame for the parks on DVC and completely ignore what was done with its profits is crazy. You agree Disney has made a fortune in short term profits but refuse to admit any of it was used to pay for anything else. Many posters have said they like CB. Where did the money come from to build it? I don't know for sure but some had to come from DVC profits. Same thing with AoA. This is not a zero sum game. Profits from DVC can and are used elsewhere and it allows for more overall investment than could be dome without it. And again no one has shown or can show Disney is giving up long term profits for the short term profits. They aren't. DVC is as close to free money as anyone can get. They use that money for other investments. Their Dividends are only a small part of their profits. If they were actually just giving all their profits as dividends then you could have a point but they are not. Again too many people here do not understand business and I don't think they need to since this is a theme park board but when business is discussed one must understand companies just can't build thinks without capital. Capital can come from borrowing, reinvesting profits or selling new stock but it has to come from somewhere. Most people don't care where it comes from but stockholders do. For those who care only about the parks this is all irrelevant. For stockholders it does matter. In any case it has nothing to do with the parks. Stockholders want profits and they want smart reinvestmenting. Building a DVC and a resort to rent at the same time where together in one resort as AK or to use the profits from dvc to build cb and aoa is a great idea because most of the costs can be paid for by the DVC profits. Disney did and has reinvested DVC profits in WDW.

So, the billion-plus investment into FP+/MDE came from DVC? Ditto for the FLE? I suppose those new DVC resorts along the monorail line were financed with nothing but pixie dust and love.

But, by 2042 I'm sure Disney will be able to find people to buy into all of those newly-expired contracts. Because they'll have built the fifth gate by then, be so flush with DVC capital that they can purchase the Marvel rights back from Universal, and of course expand the monorail lines....

 

[ParentsOf4]

But this is where the logic breaks for me; I know Disney wants to proclaim that you can stay at Deluxe resorts for value/moderate pricing levels, but is this really the case? Looking at a customer's lifetime DVC cost, versus someone who would go to a Deluxe resort every 4th year, which income stream is better for Disney?

The question is whether it's better to have everyone staying at BWI pay $405/night (that's the '25% off' discount rate) and work the business to keep that hotel occupancy up, or take the easy path and have many staying at BWV for $67/night. Business people should not be afraid to work to drum up business. That's what they are paid to do.

The only thing DVC guarantees is onsite timeshare stays at significantly reduced rates. After the purchase is made, DVC members pay only a fraction of what cash guests pay for comparable rooms.

By their very nature, DVC members are repeat customers. As such, they get bored with WDW offering the same old attractions they used to offer a decade ago. In growing numbers, DVC members have stopped visiting WDW theme parks, which is why Disney took the incredible step of offering a $300 discount on Preferred Annual Passes to DVC members a couple of years ago. (Disney offered another steep discount last year.)

DVC members are experienced WDW vacationers and know how to maximize what they get out of the system. They consume valuable 'free' services such as front desk, concierge, pools, bus transportation, etc. while avoiding many of the items that generate revenue for Disney. They shop offsite for groceries, eat meals in their rooms, buy souvenirs offsite, and often spend their vacation dollars at non-WDW destinations.

I'm a DVC member. Seriously, do I want to ride Peter Pan for the 50th time or drive to Universal and check out all the cool things happening there?

As a DVC member, if I decide I don't want to visit WDW this year, I have no problem renting my points to someone else at a profit because I can undercut WDW prices, stealing valuable hotel revenue directly from Disney.

Over the long run, DVC hurts WDW economically.

I would theorize that this business model simply makes more sense for Disney since they secure long-term resort customers, which is necessary when it's hard to fill out the 25.000 rooms year round. Yes, it wasn't a problem in the 80's, when a fraction of those rooms existed, but apparently, as you say, it is today. Sure, we could also theorize that they could feel rooms via other means, e.g. lowering rates, but I'm not sure that would be a financially viable decision. Or at least I would argue that someone should do forecast calculations based on those scenarios before bluntly stating that what Disney is doing is outright stupid.

As recently as 2008, WDW resorts were running at a 90% occupancy rate. Last year it was at 79%.

There are several factors that have contributed to the decline of WDW hotel attendance even as Disney theme park attendance has risen by 15% over the intervening years: higher rack rates, the addition of the 1984-room Art Of Animation (with its badly priced Family Suites), the opening of WWOHP (which made staying onsite at WDW less advantageous).

However, what has exploded since 2008 is the number of DVC members. SSR, AKV, and BLT all opened with tens-of-millions of DVC points to sell, flooding the market, causing many vacationers to shift from WDW's high margin WDW hotels to lower margin DVC timeshares, resulting in an erosion of hotel stays and lost revenue.

I believe WDW hotel occupancy is about to rebound. WDW has stopped with the insane DVC construction pace and appears to be focusing more on converting excess hotel rooms to DVC. (IMHO, this is the right way to proceed.) We should start to see hotel occupancy climb to match theme park attendance gains. However, over the long-run, DVC has hurt business more than it has helped.

 

[ParentsOf4]

That is just sad on so many levels. Why does Disney seem to be hell bent on getting rid of the people who still understood 'it'? I wonder, have those people ended up where I think they did? Could explain those rumors about a certain third park being of that same quality.

To understand what’s going on at WDW, you have to look at WDW the way those running the organization do, like a value stream mapping exercise.

The goal is to eliminate waste. What does that mean? It means getting rid of anything that doesn’t add value; getting rid of anything that the customer is unwilling to pay for.

So, let’s look at the exterior light bulbs at the Grand Floridian.

For the sake of discussion, let’s assume it costs $0.50 per night per room to keep all the exterior bulbs replaced so that they always are lit. However, I’m in business to make money. If it’s going to cost me $0.50 then I’m going to charge the customer $1 for it.

Is the customer willing to pay an extra $1 per night to make sure all the bulbs are lit?

Maybe. Maybe not. It’s not something I can ask during check-in. “Madam (or Sir) would you like to pay an extra $1 per night so we keep all the exterior bulbs lit?”

At the Grand Floridian’s prices, the question is absurd.

Now let’s approach it from the other direction. The customer already is paying $1 per night to keep those bulbs lit. However, if I stop replacing those bulbs regularly, I can make an extra $0.50 per night per room.

If I stop maintaining them, will the customer notice?

Chances are, only a small percentage will notice. An even smaller percentage will complain. An even smaller percentage will demand to be compensated.

In the end, I’ve saved the company $158,000 per year ($0.50/room-night X 867 rooms X 365 nights/year) by not maintaining those light bulbs.

That’s the kind of thinking currently trendy in the business world.

That kind of thinking always has been trendy in the business world, which is why Walt Disney once said:

Everybody thinks that Disneyland is a goldmine but we have had our problems. You've got to work it and know how to handle it. Even trying to keep that park clean is a tremendous expense. And those sharp-pencil guys tell you, 'Walt, if we cut down on maintenance, we'd save a lot of money.' But I don't believe in that. It's like any other show on the road; it must be kept clean and fresh.​

“The Disney Difference” was about changing that way of thinking. It was about exceeding customer expectations, about taking care of all the little details.

Unfortunately, there’s no one high up the corporate Disney food chain that truly believes in “The Disney Difference” anymore.

 

[seascape]

The question is whether it's better to have everyone staying at BWI pay $405/night (that's the '25% off' discount rate) and work the business to keep that hotel occupancy up, or take the easy path and have many staying at BWV for $67/night. Business people should not be afraid to work to drum up business. That's what they are paid to do.

The only thing DVC guarantees is onsite timeshare stays at significantly reduced rates. After the purchase is made, DVC members pay only a fraction of what cash guests pay for comparable rooms.

By their very nature, DVC members are repeat customers. As such, they get bored with WDW offering the same old attractions they used to offer a decade ago. In growing numbers, DVC members have stopped visiting WDW theme parks, which is why Disney took the incredible step of offering a $300 discount on Preferred Annual Passes to DVC members a couple of years ago. (Disney offered another steep discount last year.)

DVC members are experienced WDW vacationers and know how to maximize what they get out of the system. They consume valuable 'free' services such as front desk, concierge, pools, bus transportation, etc. while avoiding many of the items that generate revenue for Disney. They shop offsite for groceries, eat meals in their rooms, buy souvenirs offsite, and often spend their vacation dollars at non-WDW destinations.

I'm a DVC member. Seriously, do I want to ride Peter Pan for the 50th time or drive to Universal and check out all the cool things happening there?

As a DVC member, if I decide I don't want to visit WDW this year, I have no problem renting my points to someone else at a profit because I can undercut WDW prices, stealing valuable hotel revenue directly from Disney.

Over the long run, DVC hurts WDW economically.

As recently as 2008, WDW resorts were running at a 90% occupancy rate. Last year it was at 79%.

There are several factors that have contributed to the decline of WDW hotel attendance even as Disney theme park attendance has risen by 15% over the intervening years: higher rack rates, the addition of the 1984-room Art Of Animation (with its badly priced Family Suites), the opening of WWOHP (which made staying onsite at WDW less advantageous).

However, what has exploded since 2008 is the number of DVC members. SSR, AKV, and BLT all opened with tens-of-millions of DVC points to sell, flooding the market, causing many vacationers to shift from WDW's high margin WDW hotels to lower margin DVC timeshares, resulting in an erosion of hotel stays and lost revenue.

I believe WDW hotel attendance is about to rebound. WDW has stopped with the insane DVC construction pace and appears to be focusing more on converting excess hotel rooms to DVC. (IMHO, this is the right way to proceed.) We should start to see hotel occupancy climb to match theme park attendance gains. However, over the long-run, DVC has hurt business more than it has helped.

We agree that hotel occupancy is on the way up. However it was 86% in 2006 and hasn't been at 90 in years. As they built more and more hotels capacity rates went down. That is how it should be. If you are over 85% you do not have enough rooms. Also if you are over 85% you are not charging enough. Then let's talk discounts. Can you tell me anyone who pays full rate anymore? There are so many travel sites on the Internet that the entire hotel pricing structure has changed. Yes Disney is much more expensive than off site but the market pays it so it is a fair rate. The projection on capacity rates are that Disney will be at 86% in 2020 and that is still without a strong economic recovery and was before the proposed conversation of rooms to dvc. Based on that it appears a new resort will be needed around 2021 or they will be short of rooms. If we finally have an economic recovery and the middle class can grow their incomes then Disney will need massive growth.

 

[NeXuS1000]

By their very nature, DVC members are repeat customers. As such, they get bored with WDW offering the same old attractions they used to offer a decade ago. In growing numbers, DVC members have stopped visiting WDW theme parks, which is why Disney took the incredible step of offering a $300 discount on Preferred Annual Passes to DVC members a couple of years ago. (Disney offered another steep discount last year.)

But isn't that a good thing, really? Maybe doesn't realize it now, but if what you say is true and Disney is relying more and more on DVC for WDW, then it would put higher pressure on constant renewals in the parks, or they would start to see their DVC program diminish.

DVC members are experienced WDW vacationers and know how to maximize what they get out of the system. They consume valuable 'free' services such as front desk, concierge, pools, bus transportation, etc. while avoiding many of the items that generate revenue for Disney. They shop offsite for groceries, eat meals in their rooms, buy souvenirs offsite, and often spend their vacation dollars at non-WDW destinations.

First of all, I doubt they get anything for free. Isn't front desk, pool, bus etc. I highly doubt is not payed for through DVC somehow, be it through annual dues or paid by DVC to the resort via their capital. Of course Disney wants it to appear as free benefits, but we both no such a thing as free doesn't exist

Regarding off-site spending; I'm sure Disney is well aware of this and has it as part of the calculations. Disney tracks your activity a whole lot, and it would surprise me if they didn't have exact numbers of DVC average on-site spending. They can build and budget for this.

As a DVC member, if I decide I don't want to visit WDW this year, I have no problem renting my points to someone else at a profit because I can undercut WDW prices, stealing valuable hotel revenue directly from Disney.

Sorry, might just be me not understanding the system correctly, but how does that hurt Disney? You bought something from Disney and now sell it to someone else; Disney still got your money, didn't they?

Over the long run, DVC hurts WDW economically.

I still don't see how. I'm from Denmark, so I can't really visit WDW every year. I've been to Orlando maybe 4 times during my 29 years (with a 5th time next month!), and only the last time did we stay on-site. So that's not a lot of dollars Disney is seeing there. Now, if they could lock me in for a DVC membership, I would not only provide them more money than I otherwise would during those next 29 years, but I would also constantly be thinking Disney when I thought vacation. "Should I go to WDW? Disneyland? Disney Cruise?" etc. And even I spent money off-site and at non-Disney properties, a portion of my vacation money would still be spent with Disney, no doubt about it.

As recently as 2008, WDW resorts were running at a 90% occupancy rate. Last year it was at 79%.

There are several factors that have contributed to the decline of WDW hotel attendance even as Disney theme park attendance has risen by 15% over the intervening years: higher rack rates, the addition of the 1984-room Art Of Animation (with its badly priced Family Suites), the opening of WWOHP (which made staying onsite at WDW less advantageous).

However, what has exploded since 2008 is the number of DVC members. SSR, AKV, and BLT all opened with tens-of-millions of DVC points to sell, flooding the market, causing many vacationers to shift from WDW's high margin WDW hotels to lower margin DVC timeshares, resulting in an erosion of hotel stays and lost revenue.

Have you checked if it has improved their overall Resorts business bottom line? TBH, DVC is not for everyone, e.g. someone like me who has to travel very far to get to WDW or DL, and thus there are many years in between my WDW visits. I'm sure it's the same for everyone else in Europe and most other non-US countries visiting WDW. But for those who visit WDW regularly, isn't DVC both a better deal for them and Disney? TBH, most of the DVC members probably wouldn't have visited WDW every year or so with DVC, and as such, DVC ensures a continuous stream of visitors.

I believe WDW hotel attendance is about to rebound. WDW has stopped with the insane DVC construction pace and appears to be focusing more on converting excess hotel rooms to DVC. (IMHO, this is the right way to proceed.) We should start to see hotel occupancy climb to match theme park attendance gains. However, over the long-run, DVC has hurt business more than it has helped.

Well, maybe that's just because they have utilized that opportunity that was there, and now it's starting to stabilize. Again, I certainly hope it doesn't result in overall decreased resort quality and maintenance, but I still believe it's a question of management and how they choose to spend money - that fabled "Disney Difference" you're talking about - than WDW making less money because of that.

I would reeeeally like to see some financial reports that prove that statement.

That kind of thinking always has been trendy in the business world, which is why Walt Disney once said:

Everybody thinks that Disneyland is a goldmine but we have had our problems. You've got to work it and know how to handle it. Even trying to keep that park clean is a tremendous expense. And those sharp-pencil guys tell you, 'Walt, if we cut down on maintenance, we'd save a lot of money.' But I don't believe in that. It's like any other show on the road; it must be kept clean and fresh.​

“The Disney Difference” was about changing that way of thinking. It was about exceeding customer expectations, about taking care of all the little details.

Unfortunately, there’s no one high up the corporate Disney food chain that truly believes in “The Disney Difference” anymore.

Unfortunately, I think you're very spot on here. Maybe not for all parts of the organization, but at least in many areas and especially those areas that sit on and distribute the capital. And it's unfortunately common practice for most business, even though Disney historically have proved that it's not a good way to do things, and recently perhaps Apple is the most shining example of a contrary approach to value-optimization that can be the foundation for the most profitable company in the world.

 

[ParentsOf4]

We agree that hotel occupancy is on the way up. However it was 86% in 2006 and hasn't been at 90 in years.

The following is from The Walt Disney Company's 2008 10K filing:

Generally, TWDC's SEC filings should be considered the most accurate publically available data.

 

[seascape]

The following is from The Walt Disney Company's 2008 10K filing:

View attachment 60297

Generally, TWDC's SEC filings should be considered the most accurate publically available data.

Okay you are right but the numbers reported don't include the rooms being rehabbed. I will give you the 90%. In any case that is why they needed to open AOA. At least we agree the hotel capacity is coming back and that Disney hotels are doing well over all. I also hope we can agree that the cost of staying on property is much higher than off site and could be considered over priced but that adds to the profits. I am looking forward to August 5th.

 

[flynnibus]

The following is from The Walt Disney Company's 2008 10K filing:

View attachment 60297

Generally, TWDC's SEC filings should be considered the most accurate publically available data.

Boulderdash! you should trust horribly sourced, sloppily written Forbes articles above all else! Get with it ParentsOf4!

 

[stlphil]

But isn't that a good thing, really? Maybe doesn't realize it now, but if what you say is true and Disney is relying more and more on DVC for WDW, then it would put higher pressure on constant renewals in the parks, or they would start to see their DVC program diminish.



First of all, I doubt they get anything for free. Isn't front desk, pool, bus etc. I highly doubt is not payed for through DVC somehow, be it through annual dues or paid by DVC to the resort via their capital. Of course Disney wants it to appear as free benefits, but we both no such a thing as free doesn't exist

Regarding off-site spending; I'm sure Disney is well aware of this and has it as part of the calculations. Disney tracks your activity a whole lot, and it would surprise me if they didn't have exact numbers of DVC average on-site spending. They can build and budget for this.



Sorry, might just be me not understanding the system correctly, but how does that hurt Disney? You bought something from Disney and now sell it to someone else; Disney still got your money, didn't they?



I still don't see how. I'm from Denmark, so I can't really visit WDW every year. I've been to Orlando maybe 4 times during my 29 years (with a 5th time next month!), and only the last time did we stay on-site. So that's not a lot of dollars Disney is seeing there. Now, if they could lock me in for a DVC membership, I would not only provide them more money than I otherwise would during those next 29 years, but I would also constantly be thinking Disney when I thought vacation. "Should I go to WDW? Disneyland? Disney Cruise?" etc. And even I spent money off-site and at non-Disney properties, a portion of my vacation money would still be spent with Disney, no doubt about it.



Have you checked if it has improved their overall Resorts business bottom line? TBH, DVC is not for everyone, e.g. someone like me who has to travel very far to get to WDW or DL, and thus there are many years in between my WDW visits. I'm sure it's the same for everyone else in Europe and most other non-US countries visiting WDW. But for those who visit WDW regularly, isn't DVC both a better deal for them and Disney? TBH, most of the DVC members probably wouldn't have visited WDW every year or so with DVC, and as such, DVC ensures a continuous stream of visitors.



Well, maybe that's just because they have utilized that opportunity that was there, and now it's starting to stabilize. Again, I certainly hope it doesn't result in overall decreased resort quality and maintenance, but I still believe it's a question of management and how they choose to spend money - that fabled "Disney Difference" you're talking about - than WDW making less money because of that.

I would reeeeally like to see some financial reports that prove that statement.



Unfortunately, I think you're very spot on here. Maybe not for all parts of the organization, but at least in many areas and especially those areas that sit on and distribute the capital. And it's unfortunately common practice for most business, even though Disney historically have proved that it's not a good way to do things, and recently perhaps Apple is the most shining example of a contrary approach to value-optimization that can be the foundation for the most profitable company in the world.

It's funny but you "might" not be as unlikely a candidate for DVC as you think.

With 5 visits in 30 years you have averaged going every 6 years. But what if you were simply to double that rate to once every 3 years? I know nothing of your personal situation, but perhaps you are now at an age where that would make sense financially and match your interests.

Well you might be able to find a small resale contract of around 30 points for say $80 per point, or only $2400 to buy in, which is a pretty low barrier to admission relative to the typical costs of WDW vacations. With banking and borrowing these points you have 90 total points to use for a once-every-three-year vacation, which is more than enough for an entire September week in a Standard BWV studio. And your maintenance costs for those points will be well under $100 per night as @ParentsOf4 has pointed out, yet you are staying in a Deluxe (albeit declining) resort right in the middle of the action.

My purpose with this example is not to shill for DVC, just to show that the conclusions to be drawn about the effects of DVC aren't so simple and straightforward.

 

[bhg469]

Boulderdash! you should trust horribly sourced, sloppily written Forbes articles above all else! Get with it ParentsOf4!

I know the post was sarcastic but did you mean to intentionally misspell balderdash? If so, that's extra funny! If not... we all make mistakes

 

[RSoxNo1]

I would argue that Disney will never tell a DVC guest that they can't do anything, including using racks from dishwashers as hallway rides.

DVC had wonderful African-inspired dishware at DAK Lodge Villas. Guess what? Many guests (again, timeshare mentality of many -NOT ALL!) decided these were so nice and they were 'owners' that they simply walked out with them. Did Disney charge them? Accuse them of theft with police? Of course not. They simply put basic white plates in the units and sold the remainder at Property Control.

Missed opportunity: Sell them, give people an option to purchase them and many people that can afford DVC will do the right thing.

 

[flynnibus]

I know the post was sarcastic but did you mean to intentionally misspell balderdash? If so, that's extra funny! If not... we all make mistakes

Sorry, it's my pinball influence showing through. Reference: http://ipdb.org/machine.cgi?id=2768