Sept. E-nights

[d-r]

Oh yeah, something I forgot to tell y'all. I talked with somebody at Disney the other day and there will be no Sept. e-nights, just the night of joy.

DR

 

[mjstaceyuofm]

Why does this not surprise me.....

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

What is the closing time during Sept.?

 

[WDWHound]

I called Disney to check on this and they confirmed that there will be no e-nights for September. They also said they probably wont offer any in October either becuase of Mickeys Not So Scary nights.

Sigh, first they took away EE and now I can't even buy a few extra hours in the park. I don't care if the place is not crowded, I want to spend more time just being in the parks.

Less hours, costs more, gotta love it.

 

[EUROPA]

and any moment we will see a post from a poster saying how Disney is just reacting to the current climate and they are right to not offer the E-nights , extra hours or EE. In fact if you want to read the post you can lookup just about any post on EE in the past year and you will see his post.


ps..remeber "Disney is the one who has the nubmers" yeah they have the numbers that keep going down.

 

[d-r]

If you are referring to me and if you go back and read those posts carefully Europa you'll see that I've never said what you just said. I've never said that it was "right" or "a good thing" for that matter, I've said I can understand it.

I really continue to be amazed that so many people seem to honestly believe that wdw can maintain operation hours beyond what the attendance levels allow. We would all like the place to open just for our private amusement, but while it may be fantasyland, money doesn't grow on the swiss family robinson's tree.

 

[SnackyStacky]

It is completely corporate greed. E-Ride Nights were created for the off-season. Guests could pay to see the Magic Kingdom at night if they couldn't on a weekend. It was highly unlikely that they'd have E-Nights during peak season.

Look at what has happened. E-Ride Nights only in the peak season.

They decided they can make TONS of money over the summer, and they then took them away from the off-season.

If they were keeping the park open for FREE, I could understand cutting them, but people were PAYING.

 

[Luv2Roam]

I would have been more surprised if they HAD e-nights in Sept or Oct.

 

[EUROPA]

Sorry for being cryptic., but I was not refereing to you. Maybe we won't see that person post on here.

 

[Another Voice]

“I really continue to be amazed that so many people seem to honestly believe that wdw can maintain operation hours beyond what the attendance levels allow.”

Because in reality, attendance is actually higher now than it was when the parks stayed open late. Go back and look at the historical attendance figures for the Magic Kingdom. How come they were able to keep the place open until midnight years ago when there were several million FEWER visitors? And why were the hours cut last year (long before 9/11) when attendance was growing?

People don’t believe Disney’s excuses because they know the excuses are not true. The changes in the parks’ operations have nothing to do with attendance or labor costs or per guest spending. They have everything to do with ABC, Fox Family, GO.com, the stock price, ‘Pearl Harbor’, The Disney Stores and all the other failed efforts the company has bought over the last few years.

Or do you really believe a company that can throw $5.3 billion to show reruns of ‘Big Wolf on Campus’ is too poor to hire someone to run the ‘Carousel of Progress’ for their paying customers?

 

[hopemax]

And to show AV's point. Attendance at the MK was 14.7 million, if attendance is off by 20% the park will still have 11.84 million visitors in 2002. The attendance in the past decade was at it's lowest point at the MK in 1994 with 11.2 million visitors. But yet, (sometimes it's ironic what pops up when you search google for "1994 Disney World surprise mornings") the Magic Kingdom managed to support early entry in October 1994.

 

[MelissathePooh]

I'm not saying that they have made good or bad business decisions or that I like what's happened exactly, but it seems to me that if WDW thought that they would be able to make a profit off EE or E-nights they would be having them? Particularly in the case of "corporate greed" - if it was going to make a profit they would do it.

Melissa

 

[HorizonsFan]

Exactly, Melissa!
If E-Ride nights were profitable, wouldn't Ei$ner want as many as possible?

 

[hopemax]

Well, consider this scenario. (and I'm just pulling numbers out of a hat)

Let's say that it costs the park $10,000 to run early entry for a day. I really can't imagine that the park isn't covering the operations costs. So lets for the moment assume the park is covering operations and pulling in $15,000 during those additional hours with food sales, merchandise sales. The park would be making a profit of $5000.

But, the park could cancel the additional hours thus saving $10,000. A guest who would have spent $100 on pins during the 8-9 AM hours, is probably still going to spend that $100 just later in the day. And a guest that was going grab something to eat at 8:30 will most likely adjust the time and eat at 9:30 or whatever. That $15,000 the park earned during EE time, would still get earned, just at a different time, so quite easily a $5000 profit gets turned into a $15,000 profit. There is justification for cutting something that makes a profit.

But this only works if people are still coming. And in the short-term they will. If you're two weeks away from your departure date, are you going to cancel your trip just because they got rid of EE? Heck no! And some people arrive not knowing about the change, and they certainly aren't going to pack up and go home, they'll spend like they normally do.

But what are the long term effects? I imagine the execs were betting that an hour here or there wouldn't stop that many people from coming to the "best vacation destination in the world." Or that it would take 12 months before the backlash hit, and in 12 months things would be "different," but maybe they were wrong and it hit in 6 months.

 

[SnackyStacky]

Originally posted by MelissathePooh
I'm not saying that they have made good or bad business decisions or that I like what's happened exactly, but it seems to me that if WDW thought that they would be able to make a profit off EE or E-nights they would be having them? Particularly in the case of "corporate greed" - if it was going to make a profit they would do it.

Melissa

That's exactly the point. They ARE having them. Over the summer when MORE people pay to use them because the attendance figures are high.

Yet, the off-season, for which they were intended now has none. Maybe it's just me, but it seems like they're sticking them where they can make the most money, and taking them away from where there's a chance they could lose money.

 

[Another Voice]

Are ‘E-Nights’ Profitable?

Well, that’s an interesting question. Remember the reason they were created in the first place was as an incentive for people to stay at a Disney resort rather than off-property. And that has certainly worked. But the question is, how do you show that effect on the profit & loss statement? You can see what you’re occupancy rate is, you can do surveys, but how do you assign a dollar figure that fits on a PowerPoint slide?

You really can’t and that’s the problem. Say, just for the sake of argument, that you have certain boss that sees the world in terms of plush sold per square foot of retail. How do you explain to him about intangible effects like that? Depending on how much plush-fiber he has stuck in his ears, you really can’t. All this executive sees is a dollar amount of how much it costs and how many dollars are brought in by ticket and merchandise sales.

So guess what happens. The events are cancelled “to save money”. The very next thing that happens – the occupancy rates at the hotels plummet. As the executive hugs his Care Bear he screams for explanations. Again, people try to explain about non-accounting items like “value” and “incentive” and “you’re hacking the place to death”. Sadly, the executive still doesn’t get it. So instead of giving people a reason to stay at a Disney resort instead of the competition (which early entry and E-nights do to great effect), he simply orders a complete resort shut down to save even more money.

 

[manning]

Kind of reminds me of a cartoon floating around our company when we were having cut backs. It shows the board of directors meeting and the CEO announces that just one more 10% cut back should do the trick, and being that they were the only ones left, how were they going to determine who should leave.

 

[raidermatt]

AV makes some very good points, and frankly, they are points that awhile back I didn't completely get with respect to WDW. Actually, more accurately, I should say I understood, but doubted that they really applied in this case. Surely, the intelligent professionals at WDW know their business, and have thoroughly analyzed the long-term impact of their moves, I thought.

However, having watched their moves more closely over the last year or so, and looking at the numbers that have been coming in, its becoming more and more apparent to this outsider that they don't even consider longterm impacts. (Even the optimistic side of me can come up with nothing better than perhaps they try, but are just not very good at accurately assesing them.)

In trying to keep an open mind, I have to at least consider the possibility that the current attendance/revenue woes really are due to the economy and tourism. But the light from that possibility is growing dimmer and dimmer...

 

[MelissathePooh]

Originally posted by SnackyStacky


That's exactly the point. They ARE having them. Over the summer when MORE people pay to use them because the attendance figures are high.

Yet, the off-season, for which they were intended now has none. Maybe it's just me, but it seems like they're sticking them where they can make the most money, and taking them away from where there's a chance they could lose money.

They are a business - they are absolutely using e-nights where a profit is most likely - same would apply to EE. People loved EE because it was so empty - while that was nice for the guest it was costly for WDW.

Again I have never said that I like any of it and I miss e-nights in particular, but from a business point of view I see where they are not having them as often. I would love to have the park open later with fewer people even if I pay more for it, but there is a breaking point where it doesn't make business sense. Would it be good guest relations - sure , but I don't know the profit margins and I don't know the breaking point.

E-nights in particular are a funny bunch in that it really only makes sense to offer them when the MK is open at least as late or later than Epcot/MGM. Depending on attendance this could automatically take away from the pool of on site, park hopper, guests willing to go to and pay extra for MK E-nights.

Melissa

 

[raidermatt]

They are a business - they are absolutely using e-nights where a profit is most likely - same would apply to EE.

The question is, are they ACCURATELY assessing the long-term impact of these moves.

Whether the cut is earlier closing times, EE, or E-Nights, its clear that cutting any of them costs them revenue. The only question for Disney is figuring out how much it will cost not only today, but next year, and even 3-4 years down the road.

Since most WDW visitors don't come more than once a year, and don't follow these developments very closely, they are probably not aware of cuts until they arrive. So the short-term impact to the bottom line is a positive one. Very few cancel, and money is saved.

But will they come back as soon next time? Will they stay as long? Will they stay off-site instead? Disney won't know the definite answer to these questions for as long as 3-4 years after the cut is made.

Earlier closing times have been a gradual trend for about 4 years now. EE has been gone about 9-10 months. Enights have been reduced in slower times for 9-10 months as well.

There's a very real and very serious danger in this whole scenario: WDW makes a few cuts and sees the positive impact to the bottom line, and thinks it can make a few more cuts. Again, a positive impact to the bottom line. This process goes on for 3-4 years, and each cut looks good because the short-term benefit outweighs the long-term loss in revenue.

But at some point, too many cuts have been made. The short-term benefit does NOT outweigh the long-term lost revenue anymore. But since the lost revenue won't be noticed for a few years, Disney thinks everything is hunky dorry, so they cut some more, unknowingly going further under the cost/benefit line.

By the time the revenue hit has been felt, they've gone way below that delicate balance, and will have to live with the negative impact of their decisions for several years, even if they reversed every cut they made. For just as it takes time for the cuts to be felt, it will also take time for adds to be felt.