The Spirited Sixth Sense ...

[GiveMeTheMusic]

It's got to be staged. No one, no matter how much you like MyMagic, would talk about it that way. So either Disney put them up to it, or they are doing it hoping Disney does something "special" for them (like a free room for the honeymoon).

The article says they work for the company. My guess is that they are involved with implementing MM+.

 

[GiveMeTheMusic]

So @ParentsOf4 If it is a bad trend for Disney, wouldn't they be adjusting their room rates? Or instead of running commericials offering discounts for a 6 week - 8 week period, they would run them again for 4-5 months? From a business perspective their strategy seems to be working. Whether or not it can objectively be seen as a good deal.

I've never been able to quite pinpoint your exact concern. Are you unhappy that they can get away with their strategy? Or do you think it is a bad business move and that they would get more net profit if they lowered the pricepoint and therefore have a bad strategy from a business perspective?

It's not working. Occupancy is down. They're pricing out their market when 5K+ rooms are empty every night, it's simple math.

They won't adjust because they're in CYA mode to try and make up the numbers wherever they can. In the short term this will work, but it's unsustainable.

 

[Gabe1]

The forecasters don't visit the parks, they have no 'feel' for the numbers why should their projections be accurate

And they should be gone. When you are dealing with statistics analysis to create projections. They need to look at the raw numbers of previous special events. They don't need to be in the parks to project or look at previous data.
This event melted down the same way Leap did. Twits.

 

[Goofyernmost]

WDW onsite occupancy has declined from 89% in 2008, to 81% in 2012, to 79% in 2013.

They are building it and, in increasing numbers, people are not coming to WDW's hotels.

A thought strikes me though.. (odd occurrence) wouldn't one have to also know how many new units have been made available and compare it with the number that are empty to really get the picture. Simply saying that onsite room occupancy has declined by 10% only show one part of the picture. What percentage has the number of units increased over that time. If it's less then 10% then the numbers are declining, if it's over 10% then not only have the kept the onsite occupancy as it was, but have increased it (in actual numbers of units occupied) by adding those units.

I don't know if I'm making my thought clear or not so let's do it in simple numbers. Let's say that you have 1000 room available for occupancy and in 2008 they were 89% filled or 890 rooms. If all things remained the same since then in 2013 there were only at 79% filled or 790 rooms. Net 100 room difference.

Since I don't know the amount of rooms added since 2008, I'm just speculating here. But, If they added 20% more rooms then 2008's 89% would amount to 890 rooms filled. If 2013 the number available would now be 1200 rooms available and 2013's 79% would now equal 948 rooms filled. That's actually an increase in numbers. I'm guessing that they have added that many rooms, I do not know, but, in order to tell the complete story, both factors have to be considered. It is a gain of 58 actual rooms sold over 2008. So it's a decline in percentage of available rooms but if factoring in the increased number of rooms available over that time period, it represents and actual increase in physical occupancy, increasing cash flow, etc. I'm sure it's not what Disney wants to see, but, as a thinking person I have to wonder why, if you only have 89% of the rooms you have available rented, what would be the need to put more in there other then anticipated growth in actual numbers, if not percentages.

 

[Funmeister]

A thought strikes me though.. (odd occurrence) wouldn't one have to also know how many new units have been made available and compare it with the number that are empty to really get the picture. Simply saying that onsite room occupancy has declined by 10% only show one part of the picture. What percentage has the number of units increased over that time. If it's less then 10% then the numbers are declining, if it's over 10% then not only have the kept the onsite occupancy as it was, but have increased it (in actual numbers of units occupied) by adding those units.

It does not quite work that way. If they are adding rooms, and those rooms contribute to the vacancy percentage, then those rooms were not justified to be built. Meaning they had no business adding the rooms if the occupancy was so low to begin with. (Low as in under 85%)

 

[Goofyernmost]

Years ago they did not allow it, but somewhere along the line, they changed their policy.

How many years ago was that (since you seem to be much older then me, judging by the picture you once posted as an avatar). There was no problem with it in 1983 that I recall. I didn't bring any in, but I had some friends and neighbors that brought food in. Peanut butter and jelly, if I recall. It served a double purpose since not only did it save them money, but, it served to completely embarrass their kids, which is a thing that every parent strives to accomplish.

 

[GoofGoof]

A thought strikes me though.. (odd occurrence) wouldn't one have to also know how many new units have been made available and compare it with the number that are empty to really get the picture. Simply saying that onsite room occupancy has declined by 10% only show one part of the picture. What percentage has the number of units increased over that time. If it's less then 10% then the numbers are declining, if it's over 10% then not only have the kept the onsite occupancy as it was, but have increased it (in actual numbers of units occupied) by adding those units.

I don't know if I'm making my thought clear or not so let's do it in simple numbers. Let's say that you have 1000 room available for occupancy and in 2008 they were 89% filled or 890 rooms. If all things remained the same since then in 2013 there were only at 79% filled or 790 rooms. Net 100 room difference.

Since I don't know the amount of rooms added since 2008, I'm just speculating here. But, If they added 20% more rooms then 2008's 89% would amount to 890 rooms filled. If 2013 the number available would now be 1200 rooms available and 2013's 79% would now equal 948 rooms filled. That's actually an increase in numbers. I'm guessing that they have added that many rooms, I do not know, but, in order to tell the complete story, both factors have to be considered. It is a gain of 58 actual rooms sold over 2008. So it's a decline in percentage of available rooms but if factoring in the increased number of rooms available over that time period, it represents and actual increase in physical occupancy, increasing cash flow, etc. I'm sure it's not was Disney wants to see, but, as a thinking person I have to wonder why, if you only have 89% of the rooms you have available rented, what would be the need to put more in there other then anticipated growth in actual numbers, if not percentages.

All according to touring plans:

2013 30,405 rooms (AoA has 1,981 rooms)
2008 28,424 removing AoA

2013 79% = 24,030 rooms a night
2008 89% = 25,295 rooms a night.

Still a drop off, but not as big.

If you take the 24,030 as a percentage of the pre-AoA rooms available its about 85% so a drop from 89% to 85%.

The real trick is knowing which type of room is not occupied. If you add 2,000 value rooms and have 1,500 less deluxe rooms occupied that makes it worse. The fact that room rates are up significantly since 2008 lead me to believe they are still making more money. The question is how sustainable is this strategy?

 

[flynnibus]

It does not quite work that way. If they are adding rooms, and those rooms contribute to the vacancy percentage, then those rooms were not justified to be built. Meaning they had no business adding the rooms if the occupancy was so low to begin with. (Low as in under 85%)

that's basically what he's saying without being clear about it. Is the vacancy up because of new additions that aren't being filled pulling the number down further... meaning the drop isn't representative across all properties.

 

[Goofyernmost]

It does not quite work that way. If they are adding rooms, and those rooms contribute to the vacancy percentage, then those rooms were not justified to be built. Meaning they had no business adding the rooms if the occupancy was so low to begin with. (Low as in under 85%)

I know...one is target measurement and the other is actual revenue. In actual revenue 79% of 1200 is more then 89% of 1000. Perhaps not enough to justify it, but it does represent an actual increase in overall rooms rented.

 

[ford91exploder]

And they should be gone. When you are dealing with statistics analysis to create projections. They need to look at the raw numbers of previous special events. They don't need to be in the parks to project or look at previous data.
This event melted down the same way Leap did. Twits.

Having done more runs of SPSS Crosstabs, ANOVA, MANOVA in college than I'll ever admit to and clearcutting entire forests to supply the greenbar for the output while doing high energy physics research and then doing more on after college for DHHS and causing widespread deforestation because of that, I filled entire ROOM's with statistical analysis.

You NEED to understand what you are analyzing for - what is statistically significant and what is not some correlations are priceless others useless but which is which is the question - and that is what Disney's analysts are missing.

What I would have given to have MATLAB at the time


Really good analysts/math geeks can figure this out independently but they cost REAL money even in Central FL where most of them are on the Spacecoast and making a minimum of 6 figures. For an almost real world example Charlie Epps on NUMB3RS is an example and I know and work with a few guys like him and they can and DO write their own ticket.

 

[71jason]

What I don't understand, is how a brand can have a 5 star product like the Cruise Line, DisneyLand, Tokyo Disney Sea, Tokyo Disneyland, Shanghai ... and look at the state of the union at WDW and think it's acceptable by comparison.

Not my theory--LazyBoy maybe?--but best explanation I've heard is that cruising, or traveling overseas, is an "acceptable" vacation to the corporate higher-ups. But Orlando theme parks? Those are for the rubes.

 

[GoofGoof]

All according to touring plans:

2013 30,405 rooms (AoA has 1,981 rooms)
2008 28,424 removing AoA

2013 79% = 24,030 rooms a night
2008 89% = 25,295 rooms a night.

Still a drop off, but not as big.

If you take the 24,030 as a percentage of the pre-AoA rooms available its about 85% so a drop from 89% to 85%.

The real trick is knowing which type of room is not occupied. If you add 2,000 value rooms and have 1,500 less deluxe rooms occupied that makes it worse. The fact that room rates are up significantly since 2008 lead me to believe they are still making more money. The question is how sustainable is this strategy?

Sorry to quote myself, but I forgot about BLT and AKV which opened after 2008. VGF isn't in either the 2013 or 2008 numbers. BLT is probably a wash in total rooms since they removed the CR garden wing. AKV adds almost 500 additional rooms which probably only moves the percentage a point or less.

 

[WDW1974]

A Spirited Quickee:

A kind source has told me that we should plan on these 24-hour 'events' to kick off Memorial Day Weekend/Summer annually now.

The only difference may be substance (not that I find much with this event, but I do recognize that many adults will immediately book an airline ticket and hotel for the opportunity to 'meet' a teen wearing a foamhead costume! ... And Disney does do, hence all the free press they get for these 'events'.) as they meld with either the current Parks Promotion or even the summer's movie releases etc ...

But these 24-hour days to start summer are here to stay. While they could 'possibly' be held at non-castle parks that isn't something that has been given a whole lot of thought yet.

 

[Funmeister]

A Spirited Quickee:

A kind source has told me that we should plan on these 24-hour 'events' to kick off Memorial Day Weekend/Summer annually now.

The only difference may be substance (not that I find much with this event, but I do recognize that many adults will immediately book an airline ticket and hotel for the opportunity to 'meet' a teen wearing a foamhead costume! ... And Disney does do, hence all the free press they get for these 'events'.) as they meld with either the current Parks Promotion or even the summer's movie releases etc ...

But these 24-hour days to start summer are here to stay. While they could 'possibly' be held at non-castle parks that isn't something that has been given a whole lot of thought yet.

Have to admit it is a great marketing ploy. After speaking to numerous people who went last year they said it was great. By the end of the conversation they were saying they were really ready to go around 3am. I asked why they stayed and they replied that they almost felt like they had to stay because it was 24 hours. (Not "felt like they had to stay" against their will but merely because it was a 24 hour event.)

 

[lebeau]

Have to admit it is a great marketing ploy. After speaking to numerous people who went last year they said it was great. By the end of the conversation they were saying they were really ready to go around 3am. I asked why they stayed and they replied that they almost felt like they had to stay because it was 24 hours. (Not "felt like they had to stay" against their will but merely because it was a 24 hour event.)

Like everything else, the first one will be cool and Disney will chip away at it every year until it is no longer worth the money. But the dusters won't notice and it will continue to grow in popularity.

 

[Funmeister]

Like everything else, the first one will be cool and Disney will chip away at it every year until it is no longer worth the money. But the dusters won't notice and it will continue to grow in popularity.

It really isn't worth it now. You are correct though that they will overplay it. Kind of like other hard ticket events. Pirates & Princesses comes to mind.

 

[flynnibus]

But these 24-hour days to start summer are here to stay. While they could 'possibly' be held at non-castle parks that isn't something that has been given a whole lot of thought yet.

"who wants to be a millionaire" anyone???

Diluting the exclusivity of the concept will only sink it.

I'm just surprised they didn't turn it into a hard-ticket to try to offset the higher costs.

I see this whole thing sinking fast...

 

[alphac2005]

Having lived just outside the 'D' my entire life, and spending much of my career working around or alongside the Automotive Industry, you hit the nail on the head. The main issue with GM (and Chrysler and to a lesser extent FMC) was that they lost touch with what the consumers wanted ... and not only that, but they were cannibalising themselves within their own brand's ... 4 or in some cases as many as 6 of the same vehicle's, with different nameplates, all with poor quality, and bad mileage specs, and all upwards of $30 to $40K.

Disney, primarily in terms of Orlando, to me, has lost touch with it's consumer, and much like the Auto Industry has the mentality, (and it's a very troubling mentality), that they can simply increase the prices, while continuing to dilute the product, because they think the have a commodity people can't live without.

What I don't understand, is how a brand can have a 5 star product like the Cruise Line, DisneyLand, Tokyo Disney Sea, Tokyo Disneyland, Shanghai ... and look at the state of the union at WDW and think it's acceptable by comparison.

Disney World will always be my favorite, having visited the park since the late 70's, my wife and I are DVC members, but I won't say that I am thrilled with the current direction, policies, and what has become a spreadsheet managment style within WDW.

Walt Disney World is trying to charge us like a Cadillac Cimarron while at heart is giving us a terribly built vehicle that was a Chevrolet Cavalier. You can throw the Caddy badge on it, but it doesn't make it a Cadillac. They can plaster magic this and that everywhere, but it simply isn't what it was.

 

[flynnibus]

I asked why they stayed and they replied that they almost felt like they had to stay because it was 24 hours. (Not "felt like they had to stay" against their will but merely because it was a 24 hour event.)

Yeah, but by staying did Disney make enough off them for that extra time (past 3am) to offset the higher costs?
Did they buy 1 day tickets or were they APs, CMs, etc. In short: Did Disney actually gain anything from them staying vs going home at 3am?

It's a novel concept that you can use and write off the cost... but once it loses it's novelty (by running it all the time) the crowds (and revenue) also fall off.

They kill the golden goose.

 

[Rasvar]

All according to touring plans:

2013 30,405 rooms (AoA has 1,981 rooms)
2008 28,424 removing AoA

2013 79% = 24,030 rooms a night
2008 89% = 25,295 rooms a night.

Still a drop off, but not as big.

If you take the 24,030 as a percentage of the pre-AoA rooms available its about 85% so a drop from 89% to 85%.

The real trick is knowing which type of room is not occupied. If you add 2,000 value rooms and have 1,500 less deluxe rooms occupied that makes it worse. The fact that room rates are up significantly since 2008 lead me to believe they are still making more money. The question is how sustainable is this strategy?

I think room type is important. Disney has cannibalized a lot of mid level occupancy with the moderate resorts, IMO. It gets difficult to justify the price difference between the two. The seem to have to force sales for the moderate resorts more than others lately. Only reason I stayed at Coronado Springs the last time I went was the price was only a few dollars more than the value. Place was practically empty when i was there but the value are always packed.