*Rumor* Extra Magic Hours going away

[doconeill]

I think Eisner gets a bad rap because of his butting heads with Roy Jr but his time was a bit of a resurgence. In addition to the expansions he made service a priority again. It's been since he resigned that growth has ground to a halt and upkeep and service have become theme park level and not Disney level.

I also think Eisner gets a lot of "he was great/he was horrible"...the Roy E issues didn't help. But the eye of the company turned away from the parks for many years after the expansions as the rest of the company struggled and needed propping up - and the money from the parks was the tentpole to keep the others alive.

 

[3DisneyFanz]

What Iger needs, is what Eisner had for a period of time, and that's a Frank Wells type of person.

There's needs to be a little Yin and Yang.

This is very true and there may have been a little Walt and Roy in that relationship.

 

[minnie-apple-mouse]

1) Not a blow to those staying off-site who end up with shortened days when they can't stay longer.
2) I would not mind a return of the paid extra hours.
3) The crowds were kept small and you could fit almost every ride into the time period.
4) Besides, this goes along with the "more revenue" idea of Disney, but charging for what is now called EMH.
5) If they cancel the "free" EMH, look for a "fee based" extra hours program.

Love it.

Problem solved (even for offsite).

 

[nkosiek]

I don't see how EMHs affect off-site visitors. You can pay the extra $10-50 to stay on site and because you did you have access (with a park ticket) to a bit more time. WDW resort guests DO pay for EMHs in the form of higher hotel rates for on-property versus off-property.

 

[peg110]

I don't see how EMHs affect off-site visitors. You can pay the extra $10-50 to stay on site and because you did you have access (with a park ticket) to a bit more time. WDW resort guests DO pay for EMHs in the form of higher hotel rates for on-property versus off-property.

Sort of. I don't believe there is a "Breakdown" in the "Fee" that says $10-$50 is for EMH. Instead you pay a higher price for the overall experience, convenience, etc.. Some use it, some don't. It's sort of like going to the Holiday Inn and getting complimentary coffee. Great if you like coffee, but just because you don't drink coffee, don't expect a lower price.

While EMH is a "PERK", like most perks, they can be added, removed or changed at any time. So you cannot say the higher cost is for EMH. The higher cost is for the overall experience of which you may or may not take advantage of. I kind of look at EMH as a perk for off-site folks too if they use it like I do (to schedule the park visit today for the park that had EMH yesterday).

 

[bellyrunnersix]

Love it.

Problem solved (even for offsite).

Except it solves nothing.

1. Current EMH don't cut the day short for off-site guests. The parks open/close for off-site guests at their normal times and stay open longer for on-site guests who ARE paying a premium to stay on-site.
2-5. All sounds great except they won't restrict the guest levels. Why would they? They currently don't, they simply assume not all the on-site guests want to hang out at the MK until 2 a.m. And if they're looking to maximize profit they'd definitely want as many people paying into it as possible (the reason presumably for cutting "free" EMH would be because it isn't worth it profit-wise).

It doesn't make any sense for them to do it either. What would be the advantage of paying more to stay on-site anymore? Free transportation? More FP+?

If you can save $30-40 a night at an off-site hotel which could then be used to pay for the fee-based EMH (and now on-site guests have to pay for it on top of the higher cost of the on-site resort) it would drive guests from the WDW property.

As a comparison to on-site guests at Value resorts, for a family with a 4 night stay off-site you could end up saving close to $120 or more which you could then turn around and use to buy the same privileges on-site guests used to have but now must pay for too.

Why would anybody stay on-site?

 

[minnie-apple-mouse]

Except it solves nothing.

1. Current EMH don't cut the day short for off-site guests. The parks open/close for off-site guests at their normal times and stay open longer for on-site guests who ARE paying a premium to stay on-site.
2-5. All sounds great except they won't restrict the guest levels. Why would they? They currently don't, they simply assume not all the on-site guests want to hang out at the MK until 2 a.m. And if they're looking to maximize profit they'd definitely want as many people paying into it as possible (the reason presumably for cutting "free" EMH would be because it isn't worth it profit-wise).

It doesn't make any sense for them to do it either. What would be the advantage of paying more to stay on-site anymore? Free transportation? More FP+?

If you can save $30-40 a night at an off-site hotel which could then be used to pay for the fee-based EMH (and now on-site guests have to pay for it on top of the higher cost of the on-site resort) it would drive guests from the WDW property.

As a comparison to on-site guests at Value resorts, for a family with a 4 night stay off-site you could end up saving close to $120 or more which you could then turn around and use to buy the same privileges on-site guests used to have but now must pay for too.

Why would anybody stay on-site?

Well if the offsite guests can now participate in EMH-I think it solves something at least.

And if it keeps EMH going-does that solve anything?

Additional FP+ during EMH for onsite guests alone would be a huge advantage IMO. Even with the lower crowds it's nice to have that secured.

But if the choice is no EMH's at all anymore, or a paid one-I would choose the paid one. It would bring guests in later-freeing up space earlier, and bring in guests earlier-freeing up space later.

We will see.

And if you think nobody will stay onsite anymore without EMH? Yea right.

How many guests stay onsite now and never use EMH? If so-why would they ever stay onsite currently?

If your theory was correct-than 100% of onsite guests currently use EMH.

There are even threads on here highly recommending avoiding EMH parks for the best touring results.

 

[HopperFan]

1) Not a blow to those staying off-site who end up with shortened days when they can't stay longer.
2) I would not mind a return of the paid extra hours.
3) The crowds were kept small and you could fit almost every ride into the time period.
4) Besides, this goes along with the "more revenue" idea of Disney, but charging for what is now called EMH.
5) If they cancel the "free" EMH, look for a "fee based" extra hours program.

1) I am there 5-6 weeks a year, at this point probably 50% onsite and 50% offsite. When onsite I use EMH and it's a major part of the plan. When offsite I could care less because I don't see any shortened hours. Hours are about the same on all days but onsite gets a headstart or gets to stay late on some days. If they get rid of EMH it makes no impact to offsite unless they plan to replace it with longer hours for all.

2-5) So you are hoping or have wind of the return of E-Nights? So Disney would take away the Extra Magic Hour Perk it now sells to guests (and many of us think it's a big perk) as included in their room and they will replace it with the ability to pay more to attend an Extra Magic Hour event with only a handful of rides open.... That is almost worse than just getting rid of them altogether.

 

[ChipnDale79]

Sort of. I don't believe there is a "Breakdown" in the "Fee" that says $10-$50 is for EMH. Instead you pay a higher price for the overall experience, convenience, etc.. Some use it, some don't. It's sort of like going to the Holiday Inn and getting complimentary coffee. Great if you like coffee, but just because you don't drink coffee, don't expect a lower price.

While EMH is a "PERK", like most perks, they can be added, removed or changed at any time. So you cannot say the higher cost is for EMH. The higher cost is for the overall experience of which you may or may not take advantage of. I kind of look at EMH as a perk for off-site folks too if they use it like I do (to schedule the park visit today for the park that had EMH yesterday).

The added "perks" is a reason why many pay the higher hotel fee to stay on Disney property vs offsite. I'm willing to pay for that perk, so therefore I'm willing to stay onsite. As a guest that has used EMH many many times, if that perk is taken away from me, that's just another experience taken away from my family while the price probably goes up.

If Disney were struggling and losing money, then I can understand that. When a company is making record profits and offering less and less for their guests while charging more, I do have to scratch my head a little bit.

The 3 major reasons we stay onsite?

1. Extra Magic Hours
2. Transportation
3. The Disney Experience.

Dropping #1 is big deal to us, it decreases the overall value of the cost of our vacation.

Ive been counting down our next trip at the end of next month for over a year. We are going with my parents, and my sister and her family, so its a group of 10. They are probably tired of hearing about how much fun we're going to have and everything. However, I recently spent a weekend at the beach and I found myself thinking, "why am i spending so much money at disney, why not just come back here for a week and relax?"

That's exactly what we're doing next year.

 

[HopperFan]

Except it solves nothing.

If you can save $30-40 a night at an off-site hotel which could then be used to pay for the fee-based EMH (and now on-site guests have to pay for it on top of the higher cost of the on-site resort) it would drive guests from the WDW property.

As a comparison to on-site guests at Value resorts, for a family with a 4 night stay off-site you could end up saving close to $120 or more which you could then turn around and use to buy the same privileges on-site guests used to have but now must pay for too.

Why would anybody stay on-site?

Prior to EMH was E-Nights that I think MrScupper is referring to because he said "a return to."

You paid for Extra Magic Hours with a limited capacity and only the big rides were open.

Off-property guest could not purchase this ticket.


Here is a description but note it's also over 10 years ago so adjustments would happen. http://allears.net/tp/etik.htm

 

[minnie-apple-mouse]

1) I am there 5-6 weeks a year, at this point probably 50% onsite and 50% offsite. When onsite I use EMH and it's a major part of the plan. When offsite I could care less because I don't see any shortened hours. Hours are about the same on all days but onsite gets a headstart or gets to stay late on some days. If they get rid of EMH it makes no impact to offsite unless they plan to replace it with longer hours for all.

2-5) So you are hoping or have wind of the return of E-Nights? So Disney would take away the Extra Magic Hour Perk it now sells to guests (and many of us think it's a big perk) as included in their room and they will replace it with the ability to pay more to attend an Extra Magic Hour event with only a handful of rides open.... That is almost worse than just getting rid of them altogether.

Yea but they will lower the price for the onsite rooms, then charge more for EMH.

That way those that don't use EMH but stay onsite-are not being charged for something they don't use. Similar to an airline not charging a buisiness client a bag fee when he only has a brief case.



Actually I do think it should work that way-we just all know they will not lower the price to begin with.

 

[bellyrunnersix]

Well if the offsite guests can now participate in EMH-I think it solves something at least.

And if it keeps EMH going-does that solve anything?

Additional FP+ during EMH for onsite guests alone would be a huge advantage IMO. Even with the lower crowds it's nice to have that secured.

But if the choice is no EMH's at all anymore, or a paid one-I would choose the paid one. It would bring guests in later-freeing up space earlier, and bring in guests earlier-freeing up space later.

We will see.

And if you think nobody will stay onsite anymore without EMH? Yea right.

How many guests stay onsite now and never use EMH? If so-why would they ever stay onsite currently?

If your theory was correct-than 100% of onsite guests currently use EMH.

There are even threads on here highly recommending avoiding EMH parks for the best touring results.

Neither of your first points are problems. You're literally suggesting solutions for problems that don't exist. The cancellation of EMH is an unconfirmed and likely incorrect rumor and if off-site guests want EMH they can simply stay on-site. But let's assume that EMH is being cancelled, you actually want to pay for the privilege that you previously had for "free." It's patently ridiculous and more rahrahing for the current mediocre business model the WDC is engaged in within the parks.

Now if they charged off-site guests for EMH but left the policy the same for on-site it'd make a whole heck of a lot more sense.

You're also assuming anyone is getting any extra FP+s which isn't even a rumor. It's baseless conjecture.

You're assuming that EMH use is a black and white issue. If even 20% of guests currently use EMH and that is one of their main reasons for staying on property (and that's probably being conservative), the resort numbers will dip.

We can talk ALL about how much the "Disney experience" makes that extra $100-500 oh so magical but when people start wondering why they're paying extra for busses that, by your own logic, not 100% of guests use then why? Why would anybody stay on-site anymore?

You could argue the Deluxe resorts are actual resorts but are you really going to argue that a gussied up Motel 8 five minutes closer to the park entrance is going to make families want to blow more money on their trip?

As for the touring plans and suggestions, I personally love EMH and use them routinely. Unless I'm the luckiest duck on Earth, I go at great times of the year, or the blanket suggestion to avoid EMH parks at all costs is simply simplistic and isn't always right (what a surprise that'd be) the EMH parks are never much worse than usual. Most parks during EMH are significantly calmer and emptier than during the day, I'm not sure why this advice is so common but it's certainly not always right.

Off-property guest could not purchase this ticket.

The first point seems to lament that off-site guests can't stay "the whole day" which suggests to me that a new E-Nights set up should include those guests. Could be reading it wrong but that's how it came off to me.

If they run it like other hard ticket events, I see no reason for them to restrict access though. Why bother? When people are waiting in three hours of traffic to stand in an hour long line to meet one villain at HS, why would they ever consider restricting a new E-Nights?

 

[rteetz]

Len Testa got an official confirmation from disney that the parks will EMH in 2016 but no schedule has been put out yet.

 

[mickeyfanachey1999]

We always stay onsite but the only EMH we ever use are the MK PM EMH. There is something so special about keeping the kids out later than we should let them stay and riding SM and BTMRR after 1 am. Then walking down Mainstreet with a Mickey head ice cream bar for a midnight snack.

 

[minnie-apple-mouse]

Neither of your first points are problems. You're literally suggesting solutions for problems that don't exist.

It's a rumors board-suggestions were for if the rumor on the rumor board came to pass.

The cancellation of EMH is an unconfirmed and likely incorrect rumor and if off-site guests want EMH they can simply stay on-site.

Exactly, another rumor.

But let's assume that EMH is being cancelled,

You mean like I did?

you actually want to pay for the privilege that you previously had for "free." It's patently ridiculous and more rahrahing for the current mediocre business model the WDC is engaged in within the parks.

Umm I didn't say I "want to pay" for it. I said folks that want EMH can pay for it if they want it-esp compared to it going away.

Now if they charged off-site guests for EMH but left the policy the same for on-site it'd make a whole heck of a lot more sense.

"assuming" they do leave it as is-agreed, which isn't even a rumor. It's baseless conjecture.

You're also assuming anyone is getting any extra FP+s which isn't even a rumor. It's baseless conjecture.

It's a rumors board-suggestions were for if the rumor on the rumor board came to pass.

You're assuming that EMH use is a black and white issue. If even 20% of guests currently use EMH and that is one of their main reasons for staying on property (and that's probably being conservative), the resort numbers will dip.

Disagree completely. Depnds on the "onsite" guest price, package offered and amount (if any) of additional FP+ offered to them. Resort numbers could just as easily spike.

We can talk ALL about how much the "Disney experience" makes that extra $100-500 oh so magical but when people start wondering why they're paying extra for busses that, by your own logic, not 100% of guests use then why? Why would anybody stay on-site anymore?

So again-you are assuming the only reason to stay onsite is EMH. I disagree-especially if it were offered anyway even at an extra expense and included FP+ selections.

You could argue the Deluxe resorts are actual resorts but are you really going to argue that a gussied up Motel 8 five minutes closer to the park entrance is going to make families want to blow more money on their trip?

Where did I mention deluxe? But those resorts are pretty full-wonder why? Why would they pay so much more when Value has the same EMH?

As for the touring plans and suggestions, I personally love EMH and use them routinely. Unless I'm the luckiest duck on Earth, I go at great times of the year, or the blanket suggestion to avoid EMH parks at all costs is simply simplistic and isn't always right (what a surprise that'd be) the EMH parks are never much worse than usual. Most parks during EMH are significantly calmer and emptier than during the day, I'm not sure why this advice is so common but it's certainly not always right.

Never said "always" right-but it is a big strategy for many onsite guests, and yet they stay onsite oddly enough.

 

[peg110]

The added "perks" is a reason why many pay the higher hotel fee to stay on Disney property vs offsite. I'm willing to pay for that perk, so therefore I'm willing to stay onsite. As a guest that has used EMH many many times, if that perk is taken away from me, that's just another experience taken away from my family while the price probably goes up.

If Disney were struggling and losing money, then I can understand that. When a company is making record profits and offering less and less for their guests while charging more, I do have to scratch my head a little bit.

The 3 major reasons we stay onsite?

1. Extra Magic Hours
2. Transportation
3. The Disney Experience.

Dropping #1 is big deal to us, it decreases the overall value of the cost of our vacation.

Ive been counting down our next trip at the end of next month for over a year. We are going with my parents, and my sister and her family, so its a group of 10. They are probably tired of hearing about how much fun we're going to have and everything. However, I recently spent a weekend at the beach and I found myself thinking, "why am i spending so much money at disney, why not just come back here for a week and relax?"

That's exactly what we're doing next year.

And this is exactly what will need to happen. Only when enough people don't see the value in it any more will it invoke a response from corporate management. Right now, however, they are profitable. That's what the company needs to be. While part of Disney's draw that makes them profitable is the overall "Magic", if they can make record profits and spend less money (meaning even higher record profits) then that is what they will do.

To put it in other terms. Will you go to the gas station convenient store to buy your eggs, bread and milk for $18.00 or will you go to the local grocery store and get the same eggs, bread and milk for $10.00? The value for most is to go to the local grocery store. Would you want to get the SAME VALUE for more money? Probably not. So why would you expect Disney to spend more money and get the same value (or for them profit)

Now, in that same scenario, if you don't have a car and the grocery store is 2 miles away and the Convenient store gas station is down the block, you will go there. So they, the convenient store, stays in business because there is a market for it and it's being met. Could the convenient store charge less and be profitable? Sure, but they don't need to. Because there is a market. So as long as Disney has the market, they will continue.

I am not saying I like it, but I definitely understand it. That doesn't mean that Iger is greedy, it doesn't mean "Disney" (as a corporation) is greedy, what it means is that the "Share Holders" are Greedy. That is what shareholders want. and that's who companies strive to make happy. The customer's happiness is just a means to the end.

 

[Fantasia79]

From an operational stand point Disney doesn't like EMH. Keeping things running longer is more expensive.

Totally can see this, though, I wonder during peak season if it puts guests on the park longer, and spending money longer, etc. I think the on-site resort perk of it isn't 100% of the reason people book an on-site resort, but I think it makes them see it as more of a value in their room purchase. Just speculation of course.

 

[peg110]

Totally can see this, though, I wonder during peak season if it puts guests on the park longer, and spending money longer, etc. I think the on-site resort perk of it isn't 100% of the reason people book an on-site resort, but I think it makes them see it as more of a value in their room purchase. Just speculation of course.

Exactly. It may be a usable perk for some. For us, We could care less about it (except as noted previously for scheduling)

Just like continental breakfast at hotels or complimentary internet. If you use it, it's great. If you don't... who cares. I think that is why this thread has gotten so polarized. Some use it and love it others don't. (I suppose it's obvious which camp I belong to.)

 

[skier_pete]

Len Testa got an official confirmation from disney that the parks will EMH in 2016 but no schedule has been put out yet.

I don't normally say I told you guys...but geez the reaction here was getting out of hand for a non-issue.

 

[Fantasia79]

Exactly. It may be a usable perk for some. For us, We could care less about it (except as noted previously for scheduling)

Just like continental breakfast at hotels or complimentary internet. If you use it, it's great. If you don't... who cares. I think that is why this thread has gotten so polarized. Some use it and love it others don't. (I suppose it's obvious which camp I belong to.)

Totally!!! We've all heard people say EMH is a reason not to stay off-site, and it's usually the first reason along with parking fees. The amount of dissuaded visitors is debatable and hard to track with certainty. If asked, anyone would probably say not to take it away (just like anything that's free).

Sounds like it's back for 2016; just got caught up reading. Probably a decade until I'll be in the park after midnight now that I have a newborn anyway!