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

[ParentsOf4]

Since @ParentsOf4 and others have given the financial answers to the question, I would like to follow up with I believe to an example of the cosmetic, wal-mart style "dumb down" you get with DVC. Lets compare the original Grand Floridian with its DVC counterpart. Here is a picture of the original Grand Floridian. Its marvelous, exquisite, and extremely detail oriented. It is their "flagship resort", as they like to call it.

Now, lets take a look at the DVC version.

Great write-up but in this case I'd suggest the problem is not about DVC per se.

It's indicative of an organization attempting to squeeze out every last cent, even on a building that's associated with its flagship hotel. This is a Disney management problem.

Respectfully, if the Grand Floridian hotel were built today, it would not look the way it does.

I am reasonably confident that if the Grand Floridian were built today, many corners would have been cut; cuts that would have been unthinkable when the Grand Floridian first opened in 1988.

DVC hasn't cheapened WDW. Disney management has cheapened WDW.

 

[Smiddimizer]

Since @ParentsOf4 and others have given the financial answers to the question, I would like to follow up with I believe to an example of the cosmetic, wal-mart style "dumb down" you get with DVC. Lets compare the original Grand Floridian with its DVC counterpart. Here is a picture of the original Grand Floridian. Its marvelous, exquisite, and extremely detail oriented. It is their "flagship resort", as they like to call it.


View attachment 60210


Now, lets take a look at the DVC version. I have placed arrows in areas that show the extreme LACK of detail when compared to the original GF design. Please keep in mind that this building is an addition to the most expensive and what Disney calls their "flagship resort". Also keep in mind the original was built decades ago when the compnay had less money to work with and technology and materials were not as advanced as today.


View attachment 60211

Lets go from top to bottom. Look at the spires on the DVC building. No windows, no layered roofing effect and much smaller. Also notice the roof is flat on DVC compared to the original which is layered. Now look at the covered windows on the roof (above the rooms) There isnt even a window on the DVC version, theyre not even sunk in and on the original building there is a window (on the roof) above EVERY room, on the DVC, there is just a few, and again, extremely less detailed. Next we move onto the side of buildings, IMO, the worst part. What were they thinking? Look at the sides of the original building, there are top to bottom bay window style towers with windows and coned rooftops. The side of DVC is just flat and white. They didnt even put faux windows in to create a decent look. Just a wall. It makes it look like a slightly upgraded
Red Roof Inn. Also notice the lack of trees. Theres very few compared to the original and the original has much better landscaping all around the resort, not just near the entrance. I will say that the rooms are excellent in both style and design, but that doesnt make up for the wal marting of the outside. Is this seriously the best they could do? Or is it the cheapest they could do while still maintaining somewhat of a resemblance to the original? I feel bad for all the people staying at the Poly who have to look at Disneys flagship pile of hot, steaming pooh (exterior wise).

It's just depressing. Like the bare behind of Everest though, it looks a bit nicer on the opposite side.

 

[roodlesnouter]

I don't think the poster is saying "DVC cheaped out on construction", though they clearly didn't put their all into the design. I think what he was trying to say is that the cheap build and look of the GF DVC wing taints the terrific design of the original Grand Floridian.

If that is the case then my bad and I do apologise.

I see all kinds of cutbacks across site and I think the grand is, well a rather grand example of this. I don't see it as something to lay the feet of DVC but I do think it sums up Disney or TDO as a right bunch of tight assed, penny pinching, pocket lining .....You get my drift.

 

[GoofGoof]

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.

The points on that specific topic I've seen so far in this thread:

1. Services that are typically offered at a deluxe resort will get cut if rooms are converted to DVC. Specific examples were room service and spa services. There has been no impact to this at CR or GF when DVC was added so it seems unlikely.
2. The people who buy into DVC are lower class or less sophisticated than the typical deluxe resort guest. The point was made that people that stayed either off property or in values buy into DVC and there goes the neighborhood. There haven't been any facts shared that support that these people are somehow ruining the deluxe resorts except maybe some anecdotal evidence of kids riding dish washer racks down hallways and damaged carpets at BCV.
3. The resorts are being dumbed down because DVC owners bring bags of groceries (most likely from WalMart) into their rooms. This one is based in truth to an extent. Deluxe resorts typically don't offer rooms with kitchens so its not common to see guests bring in groceries. What I am missing is how it impacts your vacation if someone else brings groceries into their room.

I think the financial impact to Disney long term should be considered an issue. Also, likely increases in deluxe room rates during popular times are an issue for people who want to stay there.

 

[doctornick]

DVC hasn't cheapened WDW. Disney management has cheapened WDW.

Right. DVC is a symptom, not the root of the problem.

I think what @NeXuS1000 asked though is valid. People seem to blame DVC and those that buy into it for WDW's "problems" but it isn't really the root cause. It's not like the company would be investing billions of dollars in the parks to build new attractions if they weren't building DVC.

 

[MerlinTheGoat]

The Grand Floridian DVC building's exterior literally looks half finished, that is my honest impression. Just one glance at the original proper Grand Floridian puts into perspective what a massive step down it is. Besides the immediately obvious basics like what the arrows are point at, the more you stare at it the more details you see missing. It's a real mess.

The sad thing is that a lot of the missing and unthemed parts don't look like they would have cost that much more money to finish correctly (nor does it look like it would be difficult to go back and fix the problems in the future if the company ever were to change their poor attitude towards investing in quality). Nickle and dimed to death is an apt description.

 

[jlsHouston]

Since @ParentsOf4 and others have given the financial answers to the question, I would like to follow up with I believe to an example of the cosmetic, wal-mart style "dumb down" you get with DVC. Lets compare the original Grand Floridian with its DVC counterpart. Here is a picture of the original Grand Floridian. Its marvelous, exquisite, and extremely detail oriented. It is their "flagship resort", as they like to call it.


View attachment 60210


Now, lets take a look at the DVC version. I have placed arrows in areas that show the extreme LACK of detail when compared to the original GF design. Please keep in mind that this building is an addition to the most expensive and what Disney calls their "flagship resort". Also keep in mind the original was built decades ago when the compnay had less money to work with and technology and materials were not as advanced as today.

View attachment 60211

Lets go from top to bottom. Look at the spires on the DVC building. No windows, no layered roofing effect and much smaller. Also notice the roof is flat on DVC compared to the original which is layered. Now look at the covered windows on the roof (above the rooms) There isnt even a window on the DVC version, theyre not even sunk in and on the original building there is a window (on the roof) above EVERY room, on the DVC, there is just a few, and again, extremely less detailed. Next we move onto the side of buildings, IMO, the worst part. What were they thinking? Look at the sides of the original building, there are top to bottom bay window style towers with windows and coned rooftops. The side of DVC is just flat and white. They didnt even put faux windows in to create a decent look. Just a wall. It makes it look like a slightly upgraded
Red Roof Inn. Also notice the lack of trees. Theres very few compared to the original and the original has much better landscaping all around the resort, not just near the entrance. I will say that the rooms are excellent in both style and design, but that doesnt make up for the wal marting of the outside. Is this seriously the best they could do? Or is it the cheapest they could do while still maintaining somewhat of a resemblance to the original? I feel bad for all the people staying at the Poly who have to look at Disneys flagship pile of hot, steaming pooh (exterior wise).

Not to mention I heard the Wedding Pavillion view was kind of destroyed due to where they located the VGF. And I heard the demand on the GF amenities including pools( yes they were expanded and upgraded but not enough apparently for the added patronage) lobby and restaurants. I dunno, I got a pin code and booked GF way back in Feb and I am excited to stay at this property.
But yes the aesthetics are being compromised with recent DVC expansions at the Deluxe Resorts. And that is sad because Eisner put a labor of love in building several of these deluxe properties and making them architecturally unique.

 

[jlsHouston]

If that is the case then my bad and I do apologise.

I see all kinds of cutbacks across site and I think the grand is, well a rather grand example of this. I don't see it as something to lay the feet of DVC but I do think it sums up Disney or TDO as a right bunch of tight assed, penny pinching, pocket lining .....You get my drift.

Yes I think you are describing their current business model in terms I can understand...

 

[NeXuS1000]

Thanks for all the replies!

The GF example is definitely interesting, but as brought up by others, I fail to see how we can determine that DVC caused that lack of quality and finesse. Is DVC also the evil behind Journey into Imagination in its current version?

@ParentsOf4 provided some interesting economic insight, and if that is indeed true, then I definitely don't like it. However, it sounds like DVC makes it cheaper for the customer, but we do agree that on the long-run, a customer is likely to spend more money with DVC, right? I mean, that's the purpose of the system, right?

But of course, I know financial structures well enough to believe that it can be as messed up as you describe, i.e. DVC points purchased now are not providing revenue for the resort when you visit it. On the other hand, I would still be surprised if Disney doesn't keep track of this; if I were to use DVC points to visit the Grand Floridian, wouldn't the DVC organization "pay" GF for this stay? And not the $67 a night, but a higher amount that takes the long-term customer investment into calculation? Because if what you're saying is true, @ParentsOf4, then I don't understand how they created this system to begin with. How on earth would resorts that were used to $400 a night accept a mere $67.

No, something about that calculation sounds fishy to me. And I still don't understand why DVC would have a dumb-down effect in and by itself; isn't the purpose of timeshare to lock down customers for a longer period of time, ensuring continuous streams of revenue, making it easier to deal with financial ups and downs (or, well, downs only)? How would that not benefit the bottom-line of the resort?

So as suggested by others, I think it's more how management spends that money and handles the DVC conversions/expansions.

 

[Fe Maiden]

Since @ParentsOf4 and others have given the financial answers to the question, I would like to follow up with I believe to an example of the cosmetic, wal-mart style "dumb down" you get with DVC. Lets compare the original Grand Floridian with its DVC counterpart. Here is a picture of the original Grand Floridian. Its marvelous, exquisite, and extremely detail oriented. It is their "flagship resort", as they like to call it.


View attachment 60210


Now, lets take a look at the DVC version. I have placed arrows in areas that show the extreme LACK of detail when compared to the original GF design. Please keep in mind that this building is an addition to the most expensive and what Disney calls their "flagship resort". Also keep in mind the original was built decades ago when the compnay had less money to work with and technology and materials were not as advanced as today.


View attachment 60211

Lets go from top to bottom. Look at the spires on the DVC building. No windows, no layered roofing effect and much smaller. Also notice the roof is flat on DVC compared to the original which is layered. Now look at the covered windows on the roof (above the rooms) There isnt even a window on the DVC version, theyre not even sunk in and on the original building there is a window (on the roof) above EVERY room, on the DVC, there is just a few, and again, extremely less detailed. Next we move onto the side of buildings, IMO, the worst part. What were they thinking? Look at the sides of the original building, there are top to bottom bay window style towers with windows and coned rooftops. The side of DVC is just flat and white. They didnt even put faux windows in to create a decent look. Just a wall. It makes it look like a slightly upgraded
Red Roof Inn. Also notice the lack of trees. Theres very few compared to the original and the original has much better landscaping all around the resort, not just near the entrance. I will say that the rooms are excellent in both style and design, but that doesnt make up for the wal marting of the outside. Is this seriously the best they could do? Or is it the cheapest they could do while still maintaining somewhat of a resemblance to the original? I feel bad for all the people staying at the Poly who have to look at Disneys flagship pile of hot, steaming pooh (exterior wise).

This is a great post, and to me sums up everything about modern-day WDW. They don't hit home runs any more, just singles, and doubles (not to mention Buckner-level errors like the Yeti). And that goes for whether we're talking about New Fantasyland or the removal of a menu item. Everything TDO has their hands on just seems off.

The GFV is the newest, most glaring example, they could have at least put something on the ends of the building to make it less jarring.

Sadly the GFV resembles the Grand Floridian playset more than the actual GF.

 

[crispy]

I don't think DVC is the issue at all, and it's probably a good thing on a small scale. Every issue that has been brought up is a symptom of a larger issue - management that is more worried about profit and lining their own pockets than long term growth, health, and sustainability of the business that they run. The Grand Floridian DVC doesn't look "dumbed down" because it's DVC - it looks like that because they cheaped out to save a few dollars. BLT DVC isn't falling apart because all the guests are horrible and ill-mannered - it's falling a part because they used cheap materials instead of doing a quality build. Converting deluxe resort rooms into DVC is bad because it's a quick cash grab that is going to lead to future issues because there will be less revenue to work with in the future. Of course, these deluxe rooms aren't being filled to begin with for a simple reason - TDO is intent on offering less and charging more for it. They created these issues and are now looking for a way out of it until they can fly away in their golden parachutes. Unfortunately, the "solution" will only make things worse in the future instead of better.

And that is my cynical take on the matter.

 

[ABQ]

...(not to mention Buckner-level errors like the Yeti)....

You had to go there? Really? I know, a long time ago, but some of us ye olde farts still feel the pain.
Anyway, yes, the GFV looks like a toy.

 

[lazyboy97o]

The Villas at Disney's Grand Floridian look like a case of letting the computer dictate the design.

 

[Fe Maiden]

You had to go there? Really? I know, a long time ago, but some of us ye olde farts still feel the pain.
Anyway, yes, the GFV looks like a toy.

Sorry, I could have gone with Jackie Smith and the Super Bowl but most people wouldn't get that.

 

[ParentsOf4]

Because if what you're saying is true, @ParentsOf4, then I don't understand how they created this system to begin with. How on earth would resorts that were used to $400 a night accept a mere $67.

Because even at DVC's much lower rates, rooms at the BWV are still profitable for Disney.

For what they are, WDW's Deluxe Resort prices are just insane. Heck, go back to the 1970s and Disney used to make a tidy profit when Contemporary and Polynesian Resort rooms sold for today's equivalent of less than $200/night.

Now you have to consider how the decision to add DVC gets made.

Let's say I'm CEO of Disney. My bonus this year is based on profits this year, not 10 or 20 years from now.

Someone comes up to me and says, "I can double this year's profits (and your bonus) by selling the future value we've built into our hotels."

What do you think 9 out of 10 CEOs are going to say?

 

[ABQ]

Because even at DVC's much lower rates, rooms at the BWV are still profitable for Disney.

For what they are, WDW's Deluxe Resort prices are just insane. Heck, go back to the 1970s and Disney used to make a tidy profit when Contemporary and Polynesian Resort rooms sold for today's equivalent of less than $200/night.

Now you have to consider how the decision to add DVC gets made.

Let's say I'm CEO of Disney. My bonus this year is based on profits this year, not 10 or 20 years from now.

Someone comes up to me and says, "I can double this year's profits (and your bonus) by selling the future value we've built into our hotels."

What do you think 9 out of 10 CEOs are going to say?

In that case you really can't blame the CEO for being short sighted, they're in it for the money now. No TWDC CEO thinks they are in it for the long run anyway, I'm sure. In that case, is it the Board of Directors who are to blame? Would not some if not all of these major constructions fall in their hands at some point? Not to the degree that the board could micromanage, but that they could approve or deny a general direction the organization will move with regards to parks and resorts?

 

[wdisney9000]

Great write-up but in this case I'd suggest the problem is not about DVC per se.

It's indicative of an organization attempting to squeeze out every last cent, even on a building that's associated with its flagship hotel. This is a Disney management problem.

Respectfully, if the Grand Floridian hotel were built today, it would not look the way it does.

I am reasonably confident that if the Grand Floridian were built today, many corners would have been cut; cuts that would have been unthinkable when the Grand Floridian first opened in 1988.

DVC hasn't cheapened WDW. Disney management has cheapened WDW.

I completely agree. I did not intend for my post to put blame solely on DVC. The cheap management issues are carried over into DVC now which is a big contributing factor to the cheapness and dumbing down of Deluxe resorts. Combine that with financial aspects you have previously mention and its just a big, hot mess.

Another example I wanted to make lends some credence to your previous comment about guests who pay $450 a night vs DVC guests who pay as low as $67 a night. The difference in room design is the issue (furniture, color, accessories). We stayed at BCV in January. We have stayed in regular BC rooms a few times and the difference is like night and day. The non DVC rooms have such a clean refreshing vibe and color scheme. The flat screen is actually mounted to the wall with a decorative paneling around it. The colors match throughout the room. The beds have soft, clean, white sheets with nice bed runners as an accent and the furniture is modern and subtle.

The DVC rooms are all over the place in color and design. Flat screen is not mounted, furniture feels extremely dated and the room (at least the one we had) was very worn overall. Marks on wall, dirty grout in bathroom floor, nicks on furniture. (granted, this can happen in any room). We enjoyed our stay and Im not complaining about our room, just saying that it paled in comparison to the feel of the regular resort room. We do enjoy the larger foyer and kitchen nook area with coffee maker, fridge, and storage.

I know Beach Club rooms were refurbed not too long ago so that is the main reason why they are nicer than DVC rooms, but with all the money DVC gets in dues and upfront, why not refurb them to be slightly better? Is it because it is a way to give the guest paying $450 a night a better room/experience than the DVC guest paying far less per night?

 

[NeXuS1000]

Because even at DVC's much lower rates, rooms at the BWV are still profitable for Disney.

For what they are, WDW's Deluxe Resort prices are just insane. Heck, go back to the 1970s and Disney used to make a tidy profit when Contemporary and Polynesian Resort rooms sold for today's equivalent of less than $200/night.

Now you have to consider how the decision to add DVC gets made.

Let's say I'm CEO of Disney. My bonus this year is based on profits this year, not 10 or 20 years from now.

Someone comes up to me and says, "I can double this year's profits (and your bonus) by selling the future value we've built into our hotels."

What do you think 9 out of 10 CEOs are going to say?

Yeah, I understand how it works, and I know that most, or close to all, public companies today operate in this fashion. None the less, stockholders are still critical on how money is made and can definitely punish obvious lack of foresight; a company they see will experience downturn within the coming years can definitely be punished by the stock market today.

If the calculation is as obvious as you're stating it, I find it hard to believe that no one has done anything to prevent it, as you're basically saying it's a financial nightmare once Disney have sold out of their DVC points.

 

[ParentsOf4]

In that case you really can't blame the CEO for being short sighted, they're in it for the money now. No TWDC CEO thinks they are in it for the long run anyway, I'm sure. In that case, is it the Board of Directors who are to blame? Would not some if not all of these major constructions fall in their hands at some point? Not to the degree that the board could micromanage, but that they could approve or deny a general direction the organization will move with regards to parks and resorts?

Yeah, I understand how it works, and I know that most, or close to all, public companies today operate in this fashion. None the less, stockholders are still critical on how money is made and can definitely punish obvious lack of foresight; a company they see will experience downturn within the coming years can definitely be punished by the stock market today.
If the calculation is as obvious as you're stating it, I find it hard to believe that no one has done anything to prevent it, as you're basically saying it's a financial nightmare once Disney have sold out of their DVC points.

I cannot respond to either of your posts without veering far from the topic of WDW.

Suffice to say, those who make the decisions do what they do usually because it's in their own best interests. This often is not the same thing as what's in the long-term best interest of WDW or its customers.

 

[xdan0920]

@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.