Disney After Hours

[Jon84]

As someone who was lucky enough to be Pixie Dusted entry to one of these, I have to admit it was amazing being able to walk onto everything, meet characters with only waiting in the hold room, take stunning photographs, shop without squeezing through crowds. On Standard EMH it is no where near as quiet as this.

Having said that, I'd never pay for it unless I was on a very short trip and wouldn't be back for years.

and I believe the numbers are quite solid in recent years -- down eighty last quarter -- just going vaguely from memory.

It's certainly varying by resort, Beach Club was at 100% the other week, we managed to move there from the Poly, but our friends could not get a room of any type.

 

[JimmyV]

I'd much rather have a monetary discount than an extra hour of EMH, or a game of duck duck goose with Peter Pan. Those things are not worth paying rack rate IMO. Without actual discounts I would not be staying on site.

All fair points. But there are a lot of people paying rack rate who get neither a discount nor any special perks beyond what is currently offered, and those perks are less than in the past. That is all I am saying. If people want to contend that the perks provided in the past were too generous, and the cut back perks now provided strike just the right balance, that is fine. I don't see it that way. MickeyMinnieMom got to enjoy a really neat party "for free" (which was really included in the price of the room.) She enjoyed the party, and wishes that they still did things like that, to the point where she would now pay for the privilege. And my view is that things were better back in the day when those events were provided as part of the rate you paid for your room. I hardly think that that is a controversial viewpoint.

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

MickeyMinnieMom got to enjoy a really neat party "for free" (which was really included in the price of the room.) She enjoyed the party, and wishes that they still did things like that, to the point where she would now pay for the privilege. And my view is that things were better back in the day when those events were provided as part of the rate you paid for your room. I hardly think that that is a controversial viewpoint.

Not controversial at all!!! Everyone would love it if prices stayed static and perks never decreased!!! Not too realistic, though.

And listen to what you typed above... I enjoyed it for "free" back when hotel prices were lower... now the prices are higher, AND I would pay for that party... ...

Let's just posit for a moment that I am not alone in that (solid occupancy rates and multiple successful upcharge events suggest that is at least possible)... wouldn't Disney be INSANE if they didn't try charging for some of these events??

Just a theory.

 

[JimmyV]

Do you actually have occupancy stats over time exhibiting a trend to say this as though it is meaningful?

• 2007 - 89%
• 2008 - 89%
• 2009 - 87%
• 2010 - 82%
• 2011 - 82%
• 2012 - 81%
• 2013 - 79%

Percentages climbed in 2014 and 2015, largely on the heels of discounts and promotions.

 

[JimmyV]

And listen to what you typed above... I enjoyed it for "free" back when hotel prices were lower... now the prices are higher

??? Doesn't it stand to reason that if you pay more, you should get more? You just said that you are paying more and getting less. I don't think it should work like that.

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

• 2007 - 89%
• 2008 - 89%
• 2009 - 87%
• 2010 - 82%
• 2011 - 82%
• 2012 - 81%
• 2013 - 79%

Percentages climbed in 2014 and 2015, largely on the heels of discounts and promotions.

Can you plug in 2014 and 2015?

There were discounts in other years as well. You don't have enough data on that to assume the magnitude of discount impact on occupancy.

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

??? Doesn't it stand to reason that if you pay more, you should get more? You just said that you are paying more and getting less. I don't think it should work like that.

Look -- prices go up over time. My perceived value of my vacation has not changed. MANY things go into that perceived value. And I'll tell you again: NOT GETTING THAT EMH EVENT FOR FREE DOES NOT IMPACT MY PERCEPTION OF VALUE OR DECISION TO STAY ONSITE ONE BIT.

 

[JimmyV]

I believe that 2014 was back to 89%. Don't have 2015 exactly, but it was a few percentage points lower than 2014.

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

I believe that 2014 was back to 89%. Don't have 2015 exactly, but it was a few percentage points lower than 2014.

Ok... with that bit of data hard to draw solid conclusions.

Downward trend... There are macro events (like sluggish economy), their strategic decision to INCREASE hotel stock (which would impact %capacity as they work up to filling), other micro issues (discounts or not, perks, etc.).

Looks like a rebounding beginning in 2014, likely due in part to price increases, tourism rebounding further, etc.

This little bit of data doesn't tell me they had better start adding more perks to keep their hotel customers.


We can FEEL like they should... we can be UPSET that we're not getting what we used to in the way of perks... but these data don't suggest a widespread problem for Disney and their occupancy.

I have to log off and go analyze trend data on a NPO I'm Treasurer for... budget season... Au revoir for now!

 

[JimmyV]

We can FEEL like they should... we can be UPSET that we're not getting what we used to in the way of perks...

I think that was all that I was trying to portray. If it didn't come off that way, it was supposed to. Disney can do a better job of providing greater value for the price people pay for on site rooms. It used to, and if it tried, it could do it again. That was all that I was saying. Its failure to do so will not cause the hotels to crumble. But we hold Disney to a higher standard. And when we see a new event tank with a $149 price point for on site guests, it is pretty easy to conclude that there was a "fix" here that it simply missed.

 

[Hikergirl]

All fair points. But there are a lot of people paying rack rate who get neither a discount nor any special perks beyond what is currently offered, and those perks are less than in the past. That is all I am saying. If people want to contend that the perks provided in the past were too generous, and the cut back perks now provided strike just the right balance, that is fine. I don't see it that way. MickeyMinnieMom got to enjoy a really neat party "for free" (which was really included in the price of the room.) She enjoyed the party, and wishes that they still did things like that, to the point where she would now pay for the privilege. And my view is that things were better back in the day when those events were provided as part of the rate you paid for your room. I hardly think that that is a controversial viewpoint.

You said more perks = greater occupancy, that is what I was disputing. I'm okay with the perks I get now with a discount. I don't need more perks and less discounts to make things better. I'm also sure I'm not the only one who feels that way. Its not controversial at all, its just that some people don't agree with your blanket statements.

 

[AngiTN]

Ok, I gotta ask, are there posts missing? Because much of this conversation isn't making sense. The responses seem to be responses to something that isn't here. Or I'm being particularly dense this Monday morning (a strong possibility for sure)

 

[JimmyV]

You said more perks = greater occupancy, that is what I was disputing.

To be fair, that statement isn't really disputable. It may not equate to a greater chance of you being an occupant. But over the course of 30,000 rooms, looking big picture, it cannot be debated that more perks = greater occupancy. Just ask any travel agent tasked with booking rooms for clients when Free Dining is announced. The 4 hour "on hold" time proves that point. Maybe you weren't persuaded to book because of that extra perk. But lots of people were. We are all guilty of "not me, therefore no one" thinking every now and again. But when looking at 30,000 rooms, the view has to be expanded considerably. More perks = greater occupancy as long as the perk(s) are material to some slice of the population. For DAH, they only needed to convince 3000 or so people to attend and couldn't. Adding the "perk" of a half price ticket would have likely fulfilled that goal. See HopperFan's experience. In this particular instance, that perk would not have filled more rooms. But it would have filled the hard ticket event at extra revenue, which is just as good.

 

[hiroMYhero]

The OP's question has been answered and the "friendly" discussion, by many of the same posters, can continue here:
Disney World Buries Its Controversial $149 After Hours Experiment