*Rumor* Extra Magic Hours going away

[rteetz]

But it seems based on the same statement that someone happened to notice. Still not sure it relates at all.



Right...but I've heard from several travel agents who say they have not received anything and cannot access past December on the travel agent calendar online either. Haven't heard from one that can corroborate yet. So far there is only that one source.

The Hilton news came out a couple months ago and wasn't necessarily related.

I'm just reporting what was said again it's a rumor nothing official. Based on what sources have said as well. Disney doesn't really like EMH all that much from an operational stand point.

 

[3DisneyFanz]

The Hilton news came out a couple months ago and wasn't necessarily related.

I'm just reporting what was said again it's a rumor nothing official. Based on what sources have said as well. Disney doesn't really like EMH all that much from an operational stand point.

I know it was a problem when guests were moving around while they were still doing routine maintenance but since they don't really worry about maintenance anymore it must strictly be the cost issue as it relates to the number of guests.

 

[Jing]

You may have actually answered why they would want to eliminate EMHs. They will want everyone heading over to DTD/Disney Springs at the end of the day and not staying late in the parks and then right back to their resort rooms.

This is where I went too. Reminds me of the Vegas tactic of closing the pools at 6 to get you in the casino earlyand keep you there all night.

 

[doconeill]

OK, I've seen the calendar that seems to have everyone's nickers twisted. It normally does list EMH hours. No EMH hours are listed. But I also recall in the past that this has happened before with the January calendar...and I think we've gone through this same discussion...

 

[superrach]

EMH for late night at MK is my favorite time of every trip!
Maybe from now on if we keep predicting EMH's demise every year like DAD did with free dining then it will certainly NOT go away!

 

[Magic Fanatic]

Iger.

He doesn't care what the consumer wants, he cares only about the money in their pockets and the amount of credit available on their credit card.

He does not care about making Walt Disney World a better place for his consumers.

Every time I see the word "guest enhancement" in a disney press release it turns my stomach. Most of the time its a way of dressing up a statement to say they are cutting back on something or closing something.

Iger is lazy, instead of trying to make the parks better than they are now and spreading the crowds around to all 4 parks, and adding even more guests with new rides and attractions, he just cuts products and charges more to his current consumers. He's trying to get every last cent out of his consumers.

Short term I see this working, but long term, the current business strategy in FL stinks like a big pile of crap.

He's been fantastic for The Walt Disney Company as a whole, but for WDW, he's horrible.

I don't expect it to get any better when Skaggs takes over either.

When I see the name Bob Iger, I do not think of imagination, I think of Wall Street greed.

These type posts make me laugh out loud. In all the years I have been active on the website, it never ceases to amaze me how many people will criticize Iger (or Eisner before him) as horrible CEO and then compare them to Walt Disney (who by the way, has been dead for 49 years). Here are a few things that were clear to me when I visited 3 weeks ago for 8 days;
1. Parks were full and would be full with or without EMH.
2. Magic Bands work. I don't like having to preplan my vacation, but they do work.
3. Disney is expensive, but until there is a drop in attendance prices will continue to rise.
4. Disney is not a greedy company, they are a public ally traded company striving to gain the biggest return for share holders.

 

[ChipnDale79]

These type posts make me laugh out loud. In all the years I have been active on the website, it never ceases to amaze me how many people will criticize Iger (or Eisner before him) as horrible CEO and then compare them to Walt Disney (who by the way, has been dead for 49 years). Here are a few things that were clear to me when I visited 3 weeks ago for 8 days;
1. Parks were full and would be full with or without EMH.
2. Magic Bands work. I don't like having to preplan my vacation, but they do work.
3. Disney is expensive, but until there is a drop in attendance prices will continue to rise.
4. Disney is not a greedy company, they are a public ally traded company striving to gain the biggest return for share holders.

Good for you, I'm glad they make you laugh.

I think Iger has been wonderful for everything else but Walt Disney World. Sure the parks are crowded, things are expensive, and life is all great at WDW. Short term things are fantastic.

But when you pull the curtain back and look at 3 of the parks, things aren't all that great. Prices continue to rise at the same time they lessen the customer experience. It's not as magical as it used to be.

Don't for a second think that Walt was pure imagination and wasn't after making money either though, he wanted to make as much as he could. The difference is, there was a balance between making money and imagination.

For years Disney was the company to look to for Customer Service. For years other companies sent their employees to Disney to learn the culture.

IMO, that perception has changed, its no longer a company that's about imagination, its a company about the bottom dollar.

They no longer care about how much fun their guests are having, they care about trying to get ever last penny out of them.

 

[3DisneyFanz]

These type posts make me laugh out loud. In all the years I have been active on the website, it never ceases to amaze me how many people will criticize Iger (or Eisner before him) as horrible CEO and then compare them to Walt Disney (who by the way, has been dead for 49 years). Here are a few things that were clear to me when I visited 3 weeks ago for 8 days;
1. Parks were full and would be full with or without EMH.
2. Magic Bands work. I don't like having to preplan my vacation, but they do work.
3. Disney is expensive, but until there is a drop in attendance prices will continue to rise.
4. Disney is not a greedy company, they are a public ally traded company striving to gain the biggest return for share holders.

Just because someone has passed doesn't mean you ignore their contributions and model are null and void.

The thing others (including Eisner at times) is that happy employees and happy guests lead to bigger profits.

Profit and customer/employee experience do not have to be mutually exclusive.

 

[peg110]

Disney is not a greedy company, they are a public ally traded company striving to gain the biggest return for share holders.

This was my thought too. It seems that ALL CEO's are classed as "Greedy" but really, isn't that the mark of a good CEO (or any business for that matter)? They are trying to get the biggest bang for their buck while giving you what you (hopefuly) feel is the biggest bang for the buck.

If customers don't like it, they will change it. The way that a business knows if this is the case is to see what happens to the profits. This generally is not done in a day or two, but over months and even years. If someone has an idea on how to make it better and it seems plausible, then they will evaluate it. If it seems to make sense, then they may implement it. If it works, then they will keep it. If it doesn't then they will drop it. If they don't, they will go out of business.

Like it or not, WDW is a BUSINESS. Their business is to entertain the public and make a profit. Profit is all that money left over after Expenses. If they can't cover their expenses with a project/effort, then they won't do it. It's not entirely about giving the customer what they want. It's about being able to give the customer what they want, at a price they are willing to pay that will allow the Business to pay expenses and make a profit. Obviously more is better. Sometimes the keep a "Losing" Project around because it helps another "Winning" project.

So where does EMH fall? I don't know. If it sticks around, GREAT, I will plan accordingly. If it does stick around.... Well, I will plan accordingly. I like the EMH not because I go to them, but because I go to those parks the day AFTER of EMH (unless they happen to have it 2 days in a row at the same park)

 

[doconeill]

Publicly held corporate culture has changed in the last few decades. Walt Disney would have extreme difficulties doing what he did in the 50s and 60s in today's corporate culture. He even had difficulties back then.

Iger gets a lot of crap, but we've gotten a lot more in expansion in WDW under his watch than we had in years. And Parks&Resorts are only _part_ of the business he has to deal with.

 

[ChipnDale79]

Like it or not, WDW is a BUSINESS. Their business is to entertain the public and make a profit. Profit is all that money left over after Expenses. If they can't cover their expenses with a project/effort, then they won't do it. It's not entirely about giving the customer what they want. It's about being able to give the customer what they want, at a price they are willing to pay that will allow the Business to pay expenses and make a profit. Obviously more is better. Sometimes the keep a "Losing" Project around because it helps another "Winning" project.

I really don't think anyone here needs a lesson on what profits are and how they work. I don't think people are asking for anything free, I think what we have is a product like WDW that's very expensive. It isn't a product that you pay $5 for, the consumer in this case are literally spending thousands of dollars for the product (a WDW vacation). The earnings report comes out and usually gets posted here on The Dis and people see how much profit is actually made, and how much disney is cutting back on things while increasing prices. The excuse is always "they've got to cover their expenses", they are covering their expenses, and trust me, I don't want Disney losing money because I don't want it going away. But these moves arent made to cover expesnes that are already being covered, they are made to make more and more profit, but at what cost? I'm a little understanding as to why some people get upset with the direction things are going.

Yes WDW is a business, but a good business doesn't always try to bleed their consumer of all of their expendable income. At the end of the day, that theory may be good for the short term, but long term it can do some serious damage do your business. How many people on here believe Disney is going after the one time visitors vs the returning ones? Sure, one timers probably spend more, but they aren't coming back. Compared to some people on here the money my family has spent at WDW over the last 7 years is probably nothing, but my wife and I believe we've probably spent north of $25k at WDW in the last 7 years.

As to your comment on a losing project, I think disney probably has/had a lot of losing projects, however those were made up for time and time again with winning projects, but they were/are also the things that make disney, well disney. It's the extra mile that Disney goes over other theme parks that make us go back time and time again.

 

[wareagle57]

I really don't think anyone here needs a lesson on what profits are and how they work. I don't think people are asking for anything free, I think what we have is a product like WDW that's very expensive. It isn't a product that you pay $5 for, the consumer in this case are literally spending thousands of dollars for the product (a WDW vacation). The earnings report comes out and usually gets posted here on The Dis and people see how much profit is actually made, and how much disney is cutting back on things while increasing prices. The excuse is always "they've got to cover their expenses", they are covering their expenses, and trust me, I don't want Disney losing money because I don't want it going away. But these moves arent made to cover expesnes that are already being covered, they are made to make more and more profit, but at what cost? I'm a little understanding as to why some people get upset with the direction things are going.

Yes WDW is a business, but a good business doesn't always try to bleed their consumer of all of their expendable income. At the end of the day, that theory may be good for the short term, but long term it can do some serious damage do your business. How many people on here believe Disney is going after the one time visitors vs the returning ones? Sure, one timers probably spend more, but they aren't coming back. Compared to some people on here the money my family has spent at WDW over the last 7 years is probably nothing, but my wife and I believe we've probably spent north of $25k at WDW in the last 7 years.

As to your comment on a losing project, I think disney probably has/had a lot of losing projects, however those were made up for time and time again with winning projects, but they were/are also the things that make disney, well disney. It's the extra mile that Disney goes over other theme parks that make us go back time and time again.

This is it exactly. At a certain point you have decide how much the trade off in quality vs extra profit is worth. And they have decided that it is worth it to drop in quality significantly, for a small return. You can't tell me that with attendance at an all time high, that Disney wouldn't still be making bigger profits than they did 10 years ago if they hadn't closed the things they closed, taken away they things they've taken away, and even built a new park and multiple new E-ticket rides for every park. But now the mentality is that each one of those things makes them a liiiiittle more money. And people are coming anyway. So why not leave areas vacant? Why not cut perks and little touches of magic. No one is complaining with their wallet.

I am honestly fine with raising prices. But what I'm not fine with is them being satisfied with the state of the parks and not using that extra money to actually make WDW a special place that people will always want to come back to. It's not there yet, but I am just worried it is truly going to turn into just another theme park that survives on the "everyone has to take their kids to WDW at least once."

 

[ChipnDale79]

This is it exactly. At a certain point you have decide how much the trade off in quality vs extra profit is worth. And they have decided that it is worth it to drop in quality significantly, for a small return. You can't tell me that with attendance at an all time high, that Disney wouldn't still be making bigger profits than they did 10 if they hadn't closed the things they closed, taken away they things they've taken away, and even built a new park and multiple new E-ticket rides for every park. But now the mentality is that each one of those things makes them a liiiiittle more money. And people are coming anyway. So why not leave areas vacant? Why not cut perks and little touches of magic. No one is complaining with their wallet.

I am honestly fine with raising prices. But what I'm not fine with is them being satisfied with the state of the parks and not using that extra money to actually make WDW a special place that people will always want to come back to. It's not there yet, but I am just worried it is truly going to turn into just another theme park that survives on the "everyone has to take their kids to WDW at least once."

For the record, I'm also fine with small increases every year, but I would also like to see more growth in attractions and rides as well.

I'm not ok with price increases and cuts on attractions and rides.

 

[rteetz]

Publicly held corporate culture has changed in the last few decades. Walt Disney would have extreme difficulties doing what he did in the 50s and 60s in today's corporate culture. He even had difficulties back then.

Iger gets a lot of crap, but we've gotten a lot more in expansion in WDW under his watch than we had in years. And Parks&Resorts are only _part_ of the business he has to deal with.

Well under Eisner we saw the most expansion of WDW ever. DHS, AK, numerous resorts, two water parks, golf courses, mini golf courses, DVC, etc. I really don't think if Eisner wouldn't have built DHS, or AK they wouldn't be here today. I just don't see Iger building a new park in WDW. That's too much risk for him that's why you keep seeing DVC because that's a sure profit for them right now.

 

[3DisneyFanz]

I've always felt the comments about appealing to the stockholders in terms of Disney to be rather comical. I don't read a lot of stock items but I do occasionally keep up with things and have never once seen an analyst or investment pierce say to buy Disney. I'd suspect a large number of people here are stock holders and that their primary base for holders are the board members and their customers so ultimately you're serving both parties.

 

[doconeill]

Well under Eisner we saw the most expansion of WDW ever. DHS, AK, numerous resorts, two water parks, golf courses, mini golf courses, DVC, etc. I really don't think if Eisner wouldn't have built DHS, or AK they wouldn't be here today. I just don't see Iger building a new park in WDW. That's too much risk for him that's why you keep seeing DVC because that's a sure profit for them right now.

But there was a LONG time where they only new things were DVC resorts, and that was very separate from Eisner to start. In general, Eisner didn't think DVC would fly, but he let Jim Lewis give it a try, and was surprised by the results.

I don't see ANYONE building a new park at WDW for the foreseeable future. It's a HUGE capital cost and then operational costs for likely very little gain currently, as it would mostly dilute the existing level of guests, vs. a massive increase in guests. It would be a long term investment, for sure...but they have to be sure the need is there. There are still opportunities within the existing parks for expansion before having to pull the big trigger.

Bit of a chicken and egg problem though. If you continue to build resorts so that you'd have enough guests to warrant a new park, where are all those guests going to go if the existing parks are already full?

 

[3DisneyFanz]

Well under Eisner we saw the most expansion of WDW ever. DHS, AK, numerous resorts, two water parks, golf courses, mini golf courses, DVC, etc. I really don't think if Eisner wouldn't have built DHS, or AK they wouldn't be here today. I just don't see Iger building a new park in WDW. That's too much risk for him that's why you keep seeing DVC because that's a sure profit for them right now.

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.

 

[TheRustyScupper]

If true, huge blow. It is for us the #1 perk of staying onsite . . .

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.

 

[TheRustyScupper]

Evening EMHs are the absolute best time to be in MK or DHS

Tough to do if staying off-site, or are in Orlando on business and in a hotel.

 

[ChipnDale79]

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.

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.