Noooo...the end of EMH?

[ArwenMarie]

It won't be announced. They just won't include them in the park schedule (like is showing now).

I agree, they definitely won't formally announce something like this. They would have to change their marketing material though if they cut them entirely. Maybe they will just cut them back significantly and therefore still be able to say they have them.

 

[momof2n2]

There's a lot more to Disney resorts than magic hours...enjoy the econo-lodge.

Off site does not equal Econolodge.

 

[itchin2go]

Evening EMH are DH and I's favorite time in the parks, especially in MK. a little harder to manage with a toddler, but when we had family with us the grandparents were generally OK with "watching" a sleeping DD so we could go enjoy evening EMH.

There is nothing like being on a completely empty Main Street USA at 2am. Or just sitting in the HUB enjoying the quiet and the castle view.

That sounds magical in theory, but the only place I want to be at 2 am is in bed ... asleep. We have trouble staying up late enough for fireworks. I hope for your sake that EMH continues, because those sound like lovely vacation memories.

This advice typically applies to morning EMHs, and sometimes to evening EMHs at DHS. But evening EMHs at MK and Epcot can be wonderful things. I, too, typically avoid the a.m. EMH. In part because of the advice to do so, and in part because I would need a divorce lawyer if I tried to get my wife up and at it on vacation just so that I could queue up at 7:00 to ride Space Mountain. To her way of thinking, this is sufficient objective proof necessary to apply for involuntary commitment to a State Hospital. But at night? She takes her leave of us when she is good and ready and my daughter and I close the park(s) down. Our only rule...In bed by 2:00 means no RD the next day. It has to be a day off or a day at World Showcase beginning at 11:00.

Evening EMH were never a possibility for us - just not late night people. Rope drop on the other hand ... no problem.

 

[BuckeyeBama]

Generally, you can throw out most of these calculations as they really don't matter that much to Disney. Disney has "sunk" costs in a few areas, primarily the costs to run and maintain their parks, resorts, and to a lesser degree, restaurants. They want people spending in those 3 places, in that order. Anything that they get beyond that is just gravy.

For #1 and #2, Disney's costs do not change much from one day to the next. If Disney has 1 guest or 100,000 guests on Friday, their operational costs will remain the same. So Disney's priorities are to get people to come to the parks and to get people to sleep in their resorts. While at either, Disney hopes that people will also eat at their restaurants and buy merchandise, but sunk costs in these two areas can largely be deferred with a large Saturday crowd.

Disney can never make up for potential park guests who don't show or empty hotel rooms. That money is pure profit, and is gone forever once the day ends with a vacancy. Understand their cost model and you understand where their priorities lie, and getting people to visit their parks is the only thing higher on their list than filling resort rooms.

 

[Goofy'slady]

I know I'm in the minority when I say this but with many stays onsite I've only taken advantage of EMH once. It was fun but not something we see the need to use often and definitely not a selling point for us to stay on property. For us there are so many other things that keeps us coming back to staying on property. We've stayed off property at some wonderful homes w/pools and such for great prices but nothing beats staying in our Disney bubble.

 

[momof2n2]

There's a lot more to Disney resorts than magic hours...enjoy the econo-lodge.

Like a private pool... a quiet kitchen for morning beverages and books.

You don't HAVE to cook if you stay offsite. I like having a kitchen so I can make my tea in the morning, have a full size fridge for drinks and fruit and maybe make a pizza or something simple like that for a late night snack. I have no desire to cook.

I will say that having a laundry is nice. I can easily wash a load while we watch TV or whatever and then we don't have to lug so much when we travel.

That aside, it would be a shame to lose EMH. We always liked the evening version.

THIS.

I dont think the rules will allow you to name this place but could you possibly PM me for future reference? TIA

I'm the queen (or at least a princess) of off-site if you ever want some suggestions PM me.

More FP's for onsite guests would lead to less availability for offsite guests wouldn't it? Not a good prospect...

They won't consider that until it is too late.

Why the assumption that the offsite family is spending their food and misc spending dollars offsite? We have done offsite at WDW as well as DLR..and are doing offsite again at DLR this year. We still eat meals inside the park (and DLR is a heck of a lot more accessible to offsite than WDW, and we still eat in the parks). We still snack inside the park. The only meal we don't eat in a park is breakfast (unless doing a character meal) - we eat that in our hotel room before leaving for the day (we have cereal/milk etc in the room, no matter where we stay). Where we are sleeping at night plays no part in where we spend those monies.

At WDW, especially, if I were staying somewhere off property, I wouldn't be leaving the parks for lunch and dinner. Too much travel time doing that.

I don't disagree with the premise that the offsite guest is spending less at Disney than the onsite guest, I'm sure that's true. I just don't think it is as extreme as onsite guests get all of their lodging, tickets, food, snacks, etc onsite, and offsite guests are only spending money on tickets onsite.

You've got it pegged for us. We eat lunches and dinners in the park unless there is a character breakfast, then it is all three. I wouldn't buy many souvenirs no matter where I slept.

Do realize that many offsite are saving money on their hotels so they can spend their money on Disney restaurants, Disney goods to take home and Disney extras. We spend more money at Disney when we stay offsite. I don't run back offsite to eat meals and I hate eating all QS dining so we mostly do a meal each day TS. I may eat a late dinner on the way out from a early closing park and it is not unusual at all for me when staying onsite to get in my car and drive off for some Chickfila or good pizza. It's really hard to lump all offsite into the same spending pattern. While we do know that onsite guests without cars are eating onsite.

The numbers that JimmyV posted are actually very low for us as offsite guests.

My family of 7 last trip spent just shy of $1,600 on food on our last five-park-day trip. We also did some hotel based meals (Chef Mickey, WCC) on non-park days.

 

[Angel Ariel]

That sounds magical in theory, but the only place I want to be at 2 am is in bed ... asleep. We have trouble staying up late enough for fireworks. I hope for your sake that EMH continues, because those sound like lovely vacation memories.

lol, I can understand that . We're all night owls a bit..even DD. EVen at almost 3 y/o, she likes to sleep late in the mornings no matter when she goes to bed (for ex, this morning she woke up at 9am) - so RD is harder for us than staying out late is. I admit I have a bit on insomnia, so that doesn't help my nights...and if I'm going to be awake anyway, there's no place I'd rather be than in MK

 

[gdrj]

Will be interesting to see what happens.

All kinds of possibilities.
1- they keep them as is
2- they end them completely
3-they modify and reduce
4- they tie it to the potential tiered ticket pricing structure they recently surveyed, only avail during peak season---for an additional price, along with this you get add'l FP.

Have never really done the early EMH's but I can understand how valuable that can be with little kids. We have done the evening EMH, the elimination for us would impact our vacation probably 1 night.

 

[2DisPrincesses]

While the on-site guest is more profitable, it isn't nearly a 10-to-1 ratio. Consider the following common example comparing two families of 4 staying for 5 days.

Hotel: =$160 per night on site versus $0. (Remember that the vast majority of Disney rooms do not rent out for $300 per night, and taxes and fees are not revenue for Disney. They go to "the man", not "the mouse").

Park Passes: (5 Day Non-Hopper with 3 "Disney Adults" and one "Disney Child" = $1,240 for both on site and off site.

Breakfast: On site family mixes in some sit-down meals with some quick service meals = average of $50 per day, or $250. Off site family eats exclusively off site, (an assumption that may not be true, and if not, shaves the difference down further still) = $0.

Lunch: Both on site and off site eat on property and mix in some sit down meals with quick service = average of $70 per day, or $350.

Dinner: On site family eats all 5 dinners on site at an average cost of $140 per meal = $700. Off site eats 3 dinners on property at the same daily average = $420.

Mousellaneous: Both families buy Mickey Bars, popcorn, Mouse Ears, T-Shirts in similar volume, but we will give the advantage to the on-site guests for no apparent reason. (Maybe they buy resort-themed shirts or shot glasses). On-site = $40 per day, or $200. Off site = $25 per day, or $125.

Grand totals:
On-site = $800 hotel + $1,240 passes + $250 Breakfast + $350 Lunch + $700 Dinner + $200 Mousellaneous =$3540. (Or $885 per person)

In order to hit the 10-to-1 ratio, the off-site family would have to spend $354, or $88 per person. That won't even get you in the parks. Instead, their expenses would be: $0 Hotel + $1,240 passes + $0 Breakfast + $350 Lunch + $420 Dinner + $125 Mousellaneous = $2,135. (Or $533 per person).

So over the course of 5 days, the on-site guest is worth $350 more per person. Or $70 per day. It is significant, but not ginormous.

I would argue that a family staying off-site is more likely to spend a day or two at another or a couple of other Theme Parks making the numbers much different.

 

[ArwenMarie]

You don't need to know the numbers to know which customer brings more profit on average (there will always be outliers). Just look at the FP booking windows.

 

[JimmyV]

I would argue that a family staying off-site is more likely to spend a day or two at another or a couple of other Theme Parks making the numbers much different.

It doesn't work that way. If the offsite family uses days 6 and 7 to go to Universal, and the onsite family uses days 6 and 7 to stay at WDW, that doesn't mean that WDW has four fewer guests on days 6 and 7 (because the offsite family went elsewhere). Instead, the offsite family is simply supplanted by another offsite family. Stated another way, where does Disney reap the greater benefit...from an onsite family who buys 8 day passes, or from two off site families who each stay 4 days? Given the way ticket prices work, Disney does better selling two different offsite families 4 day passes than it does selling one offsite family 8 day passes. The "they will go to other parks" argument only works if that results in a net decrease in attendance, which we know, it doesn't. Leaving hotel revenue out of the equation (because the offsite families don't contribute to that revenue stream), Disney would like nothing more than to have offsite families buy one day passes and then spend the rest of their vacation at other parks. Provided, of course, that they still get 100,000 offsite guests per day. As long as 100,000 offsite people turn the turnstiles, Disney has no interest in whether they stay for 3 days, 5 days, or 10 days. And it can easily be argued that Disney prefers the shorter stays. More ticket revenue, and a higher likelihood that the family stays in the park all day, eating all their meals and buying all their souvenirs on site.

 

[2DisPrincesses]

It doesn't work that way. If the offsite family uses days 6 and 7 to go to Universal, and the onsite family uses days 6 and 7 to stay at WDW, that doesn't mean that WDW has four fewer guests on days 6 and 7 (because the offsite family went elsewhere). Instead, the offsite family is simply supplanted by another offsite family. Stated another way, where does Disney reap the greater benefit...from an onsite family who buys 8 day passes, or from two off site families who each stay 4 days? Given the way ticket prices work, Disney does better selling two different offsite families 4 day passes than it does selling one offsite family 8 day passes. The "they will go to other parks" argument only works if that results in a net decrease in attendance, which we know, it doesn't.

Yes, but in your example, you were comparing two families staying an equal number of nights. All I'm saying is that the off-site family in your example is more likely to spend money elsewhere than the family staying on-property.

 

[JimmyV]

Yes, but in your example, you were comparing two families staying an equal number of nights. All I'm saying is that the off-site family in your example is more likely to spend money elsewhere than the family staying on-property.

Yes. And I am doing an "apples to apples" comparison as to their 5 days. What happens on days 6-10 is irrelevant. The offsite family can go wherever they want at the end of their 5 days. As long as some other family fills their space. It only makes a difference if the offsite family is not replaced by another family and Disney loses attendance.

 

[eyehartdisney]

It doesn't work that way. If the offsite family uses days 6 and 7 to go to Universal, and the onsite family uses days 6 and 7 to stay at WDW, that doesn't mean that WDW has four fewer guests on days 6 and 7 (because the offsite family went elsewhere). Instead, the offsite family is simply supplanted by another offsite family. Stated another way, where does Disney reap the greater benefit...from an onsite family who buys 8 day passes, or from two off site families who each stay 4 days? Given the way ticket prices work, Disney does better selling two different offsite families 4 day passes than it does selling one offsite family 8 day passes. The "they will go to other parks" argument only works if that results in a net decrease in attendance, which we know, it doesn't. Leaving hotel revenue out of the equation (because the offsite families don't contribute to that revenue stream), Disney would like nothing more than to have offsite families buy one day passes and then spend the rest of their vacation at other parks. Provided, of course, that they still get 100,000 offsite guests per day. As long as 100,000 offsite people turn the turnstiles, Disney has no interest in whether they stay for 3 days, 5 days, or 10 days. And it can easily be argued that Disney prefers the shorter stays. More ticket revenue, and a higher likelihood that the family stays in the park all day, eating all their meals and buying all their souvenirs on site.

I don't know what kind of fuzzy math you're doing, but that "spare" offsite family was going to come to disney regardless of what the original offsite family was doing... offsite families don't coordinate their travel. It would absolutely benefit disney to convince that offsite family to stay two extra days. It's the same motivation behind upselling things.

 

[2DisPrincesses]

I do get what you're saying, all I'm saying is a family staying off-site is more likely to spend money elsewhere....

 

[momof2n2]

Yes, but in your example, you were comparing two families staying an equal number of nights. All I'm saying is that the off-site family in your example is more likely to spend money elsewhere than the family staying on-property.

Yes. And I am doing an "apples to apples" comparison as to their 5 days. What happens on days 6-10 is irrelevant. The offsite family can go wherever they want at the end of their 5 days. As long as some other family fills their space. It only makes a difference if the offsite family is not replaced by another family and Disney loses attendance.

And not everyone with 7 night stay onsite will buy 7 or 8 day tix. They could buy 5 day tix.

 

[momof2n2]

I do get what you're saying, all I'm saying is a family staying off-site is more likely to spend money elsewhere....

But not necessarily less at WDW than onsite family?

 

[JimmyV]

I don't know what kind of fuzzy math you're doing, but that "spare" offsite family was going to come to disney regardless of what the original offsite family was doing... offsite families don't coordinate their travel. It would absolutely benefit disney to convince that offsite family to stay two extra days. It's the same motivation behind upselling things.

Not when the price of extending their ticket is about $9 per day. Disney does better when they leave and get replaced by new guests. The "spare" family may, or may not have come anyway. It all depends on space availability. Perhaps they need the first family to check out of Marriott World and head to Daytona in order to free up space at the hotel. It isn't true that there is simply an infinite number of families who can go to WDW on any given day. The crowd numbers simply don't support that. If that were the case, then the parks would reach capacity all the time.

 

[JanaDee]

I do get what you're saying, all I'm saying is a family staying off-site is more likely to spend money elsewhere....

That is something I definitely agree with.

 

[2DisPrincesses]

But not necessarily less at WDW than onsite family?

I think they might. If, for example, we were going to stay 5 nights at WDW, we would probably do 5 days at Disney. If we stayed 5 nights in a condo off-site, we might only do 3 days at Disney and 2 days somewhere else.